FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS
STRATEGIC DEMOGRAPHICS INTERNATIONAL
OTTAWA-CARLETON BOARD OF TRADE
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
CONTENTS
Friday 8 November 1996
Fewer Politicians Act, 1996, Bill 81, Mr David Johnson / Loi de 1996 réduisant le nombre de députés, projet de loi 81, M. David Johnson
Strategic Demographics International
Ms Krystyna Rudko
Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade
Mr Willy Bagnell
Mr Alex Cullen
Ms Abigail Pollonetsky
Mr Brian Coburn
County of Glengarry
Mr George Currier
Mr Jean-Marc Lefebvre
Mr Trevor Tolley
Mrs Kate Thorne
Mr Kenneth Vowles
Mr George Stairs
Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Mr Alvin Runnalls
Mr Gordon Garlough
Mr Réjean Pommainville
Mr Chris Bowes
Mrs Marianne Wilkinson
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président: Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
*Mr JackCarroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Mr HarryDanford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
*Mr BernardGrandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
Mr ErnieHardeman (Oxford PC)
*Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
*Mr BartMaves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mrs SandraPupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
*Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
*Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)
*Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr JohnBaird (Nepean PC) for Mr Hardeman
Mr SteveGilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC) for Mr Flaherty
Mr JohnHastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC) for Mr Tascona
Mrs MargaretMarland (Mississauga South / -Sud PC) for Mr Danford
Mr RichardPatten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L) for Mrs Pupatello
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr HowardHampton (Rainy River ND)
Mr Jean-MarcLalonde (Prescott-Russell L)
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Mr Avrum Fenson, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
G-2383
The committee met at 0915 in the Delta Ottawa Hotel, Ottawa.
FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS
Consideration of Bill 81, An Act to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Assembly by making the number and boundaries of provincial electoral districts identical to those of their federal counterparts and to make consequential amendments to statutes concerning electoral representation / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à réduire le nombre des députés à l'Assemblée législative en rendant identiques le nombre et les limites des circonscriptions électorales provinciales et fédérales et à apporter des modifications corrélatives à des lois concernant la représentation électorale.
STRATEGIC DEMOGRAPHICS INTERNATIONAL
The Chair (Mr Jack Carroll): Good morning, everyone. I think we will get started. It's great to be here in Ottawa this morning to discuss Bill 81.
Our first presenter this morning, representing Strategic Demographics International, is Krystyna Rudko, the president. Good morning and welcome to our committee. You have 20 minutes. Should you allow some time for questions in that 20 minutes, we would begin the questioning with the Liberals and split the time up evenly. The floor is yours.
Ms Krystyna Rudko: Terrific. Thank you very much, Mr Chair, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. I will be speaking for about eight or nine minutes and I welcome questions. Also, please feel free to interrupt if you have a question while I'm testifying.
On June 8, 1995, Ontario voters sent a clear message to their political leaders: They wanted change. They wanted a new way of governance in Ontario and they wanted their province back. On June 8, 1995, Ontario voters elected a Progressive Conservative government and gave it a clear mandate to put things right.
The Mike Harris government set out a clear plan of action for Ontario, including the promise to reduce the size and cost of government. They promised to redefine the Ontario Legislature and reduce the number of elected members. To make things simple and cost-effective, they proposed to align the provincial electoral boundaries to the federal ones, reducing the number of MPPs from 130 to 103.
On October 1, 1996, the government introduced Bill 81, An Act to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Assembly by making the number and boundaries of provincial electoral districts identical to those of their federal counterparts. This plan effectively redraws the electoral and also the demographic map of Ontario. Under this configuration, electoral districts would be significantly bigger, comprising an average population of 97,912 people. With larger populations, demographic makeup becomes vital to understanding the new electoral districts.
Because of its size and importance, Ontario is usually the first to feel the effects of social and economic shifts. Each of these shifts is rooted in demography, and no other province in the country is affected by demographic change to the same degree as Ontario. Within the province, it is individual communities that are the first to feel the effects of the winds of change.
Demographic change is one of the major factors producing the mismatch between our current realities and our current programs and policies. These policies come from different demographic times. Important challenges and opportunities face all Ontarians as we begin to feel the effects of shifting demographic trends, trends that will define the Ontario of the 21st century, its citizens, its institutions and its markets. Only by understanding them can we design our services, products and policies to effectively meet the needs of our citizens. Demographic forces touch people's everyday lives as citizens, as members of the labour force, as consumers of policies, as taxpayers and indeed as voters.
Whether it be population size and growth rate, changes in family and household structures, aging of the population, immigration and ethnic diversity or shifts in labour market participation and economic wellbeing, all are extremely important to the overall interests of Ontario. All of these demographic variables are present in varying degrees in each of the communities which would make up the 103 new electoral districts.
The challenge to government as it reduces its electoral landscape and redraws it is to recognize that social and economic shifts accompany these new geographic boundaries. Demographic redistribution changes the makeup of communities: their age structures, household compositions, ethnic makeup, income averages and poverty levels. Inherent in such a dramatic alteration of demographic characteristics is the potential to miss the shifting social and economic indicators vital to responsible decision-making.
The benefit of Bill 81 is a clearer picture of the unique needs of communities. It informs the policy formulation process and provides a quantitative base for designing programs aimed at assisting certain segments of society. On the administrative side, aligning provincial boundaries with federal ones reduces the cost of governing and takes advantage of permanent voters' lists currently being contemplated by the federal government, allowing legislators more effective communication with their constituents. Bill 81 places greater emphasis on MPPs and strengthens their role in the political process.
The challenge to communities is to move quickly to embrace new members, to gain an understanding of their circumstances, to recognize evolving priorities and to act to bring the best interests of their communities before their legislative representatives.
The opportunity to citizens can best be defined by the old adage "There is strength in numbers." Reinforced with a substantially higher population base, communities gain a more powerful voice and a greater potential to influence public policy. Realigning provincial boundaries to match federal boundaries removes the confusion that often exists among voters with regard to which riding they live in for which election. Indeed, Bill 81 possesses a serendipitous incentive for greater voter participation. Finally, reducing the size and cost of government is a key part of building an attractive climate for investment and growth in our province. Such a climate creates jobs, reduces the deficit and increases the wellbeing of each and every taxpayer.
Isaac Asimov wrote: "It is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be...." Demography studies change. Demography makes change easier to predict, easier to understand and easier to plan for.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about four minutes per caucus for questions, beginning with the official opposition.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Thank you for your presentation. I think all the members sitting around this table agree that we needed a realignment of our districts or ridings, and you're absolutely right, we were told before June 8 that it would happen.
My problem with the present model, if I can call it a model, is that the fact that the federal government is using this model doesn't necessarily mean it's perfect. I'm not going to talk about numbers -- 103 or 110 or 120. I would have preferred a model made for Ontario and not a model made or dictated by the federal government.
Now, I want to go to page 2 of your presentation. You say, "Aligning provincial boundaries with federal ones reduces the cost of governing and takes advantage of permanent voters' lists" -- and I agree with you -- "currently being contemplated by the federal government, allowing legislators more effective communication with their constituents." How can we improve communications when some ridings are increasing their population or their voters' list by 20,000? How can we improve communications when we only have one constituency office to serve 75,000 or 95,000 people?
Ms Rudko: If I may just refer to the statement I made in my speech, what I was referring to is the fact that permanent voters' lists allow members of the Legislative Assembly, MPPs, to have immediately or within very short periods of time the most up-to-date, accurate lists of people as they move around, whether it be the province or from riding to riding or from outside the country. Basically what this does is allow members the opportunity to make contact immediately with the new constituents who have moved into their ridings, to establish some kind of relationship with them and to make sure that the needs they may have would be addressed in the future.
Mr Grandmaître: How do you do it? That's my question.
Ms Rudko: There are a variety of forms of doing it. It can be done either through personal contact, contact via some kind of newsletter or contact via attending community events, making sure the office is represented at various things that happen around the riding. Not all 97,000 or 98,000 people at any given time require the assistance of their MPP. Therefore, it's a better use of time.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): When you compare other provinces, Ontario will have the least amount of provincial legislation. I don't know whether you'd agree or not, but the nature of the issues that MPPs tend to deal with are more specific to family conditions and individuals' daily lives, so it's not unusual to receive 100 to 140 phone calls in your office in one day.
On a personal basis, I don't mind. In Ottawa Centre, this riding here, there'll be an expansion, an increase of about 18,000 people. That's fine. I would hope we'd have some semblance of the same kind of resources to deal with, because I think communications will be more difficult. The federal MPs have an unlimited amount of resources. MPPs have been cut back and have now a very specific amount of money to deal with communications, which essentially means that MPPs -- all parties -- don't have the kind of householders they had before. Instead of putting out two or three, now maybe there is one or a little bit of communication to targeted groups. So on the communication front --
The Chair: Mr Patten, unfortunately the question's a little too long.
Mr Patten: All right. Thank you.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mrs Rudko, how do you figure that reducing the number of politicians by 27 gives you what the population wants, and that is, in your words, it will give you the province back? How does that give you the province back?
Ms Rudko: It refers to the strength in numbers. As you increase the various electoral districts in terms of numbers, what you do is you put together a larger group of like-minded individuals, and in fact those communities then grow in number. The various interest groups within those communities grow in number and it gives them a stronger voice in terms of the issues they want to present to their legislative representatives.
Mr Marchese: I appreciate the argument. I'm just not sure that simply reducing the number and increasing the population for those members is going to give them more power or you more power actually. The real power is in cabinet and the real power is in the Premier's office. That's really where it has always been, and I'm not sure that by eliminating 27 politicians you're going to have more power back. Effectively you'll elect governments, and cabinet, through the Premier's office, rules the way things will be governed and the way we will be governed. That is essentially what will happen, so we're going to have a problem here.
You reduce the number of people; services will increase for us. Now it may or may not matter to you, but we in our offices have a hell of a time dealing with people's problems and trying to respond as efficiently as we can, and having people complaining that we're not responding fast enough. This will add to that. You may or may not be aware of that, but that's a reality.
The second reality, particularly in the north, is that some of these ridings are going to be extremely huge, bigger than some countries in Europe or countries in other parts of the world. You may or may not care about that. I'm not sure whether you reflected on that, but it's going to cause some problems, not just in terms of responding to people's ability to deliver quickly on their problems but to get to the various people in that huge constituency in the north. How do you respond to that?
Ms Rudko: If you take a look at the numbers of the federal redistributed electoral boundaries as they will be in effect after January 8, you will notice that for the northern districts the numbers are much lower than they are for metropolitan areas. For example, Algoma -- it just happens to be the first one on the list -- has a population base of 76,000 people versus Ottawa West or Ottawa Centre, which is upwards of 107,000 or 108,000 people. So Elections Canada did take into consideration the issue of the north and the geography of the north.
0930
Mr Marchese: Well, I don't think it does. I think we've got a big problem. One of the points my colleague made is that the federal politicians have almost unlimited power to distribute flyers in their ridings. We have been cut back by this government in terms of our ability to be able to communicate. For me in my riding it's anywhere up to $45,000 or $50,000 that I use to be able to communicate with my constituents in various languages -- Chinese, Portuguese in particular and Italian -- where there are problems with literacy. They have unlimited powers to distribute to their ridings in terms of communicating at least on that level. We have been severely cut back. We're going to have bigger ridings with limited budgets. Do you worry about that? Yes or no?
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Thank you for your presentation. Certainly the points you make I believe are most important and extremely valid. Yesterday at the hearings -- and we'll hear them again today, so I thought I would get it out bright and early this morning -- it was said we were interfering with the democratic process by what we're doing. Any thoughts on that? The democratic process being -- now I'm trying to put you on the spot -- the fact that people won't have, I guess is what they were trying to indicate, as many people to vote for. That's the only way I can see it. But I just wondered whether you felt that what we were doing interfered in any way with what you and I recognize as the democratic process in this province.
Ms Rudko: First of all, I'm a demographer not a political scientist, but if you take a look at it from a demographic perspective, I don't see any interference whatsoever in the democratic process. On the contrary, I see, to bring it up again, strength in numbers. What this does is arm individual MPPs with a greater resource in terms of their own constituents and the situations and circumstances their constituents find themselves in. It gives them a greater tool to effectively represent these constituencies in the legislative House.
For example, taking a look at single parents or perhaps some kind of problems within families and households, if a group of people form a community group of single parents, suddenly if the riding becomes a lot bigger or the community becomes a lot bigger, that group also has a lot more people within it, again giving them a greater voice in trying to push policies or make their voice heard before the Legislative Assembly.
Mr Stewart: I appreciate that and I think you're bang on the money. We hear so much from the past governments that the backbenchers never get a chance to have anything to say because the government of the particular day has such a large majority, and that's been quite prevalent in the last number of years. To me, with fewer politicians, yes, we've now got the opportunity to represent the constituents and their views much more effectively than if you're with a great many people. So I agree with you.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Mr Marchese has pointed out some challenges that are faced in different ridings. In the north there's the physical space, the ridings tend to be larger; in the south, in the more urban areas, Mr Gilchrist's riding of Scarborough East, for instance, they have nine predominant languages, they have ethnic diversity. He has pointed that out in his own riding. So there are challenges for each riding in each area of the province. I wonder, as a demographer, do you think the north has that type of ethnic diversity?
Ms Rudko: No, in fact Canada is unique in that most of the ethnic diversity -- the new immigrants coming to the country settle in the south. They settle in Toronto, in Vancouver, in Montreal, and now to some degree in Ottawa. There's an interesting little comparison I like to use. There are more people of foreign-born heritage living in Ottawa-Hull than in all of eastern Canada, if you remove Montreal from the equation. The same stands true, of course, for Ontario when you take a look at the south versus the rural northern areas. That is always going to be an issue.
Merging some of these communities and redrawing the electoral map makes it easier to communicate with people in various languages, because you're not diffusing those communities into so many, in fact you're bringing them together, and you're allowing the communication -- instead of having to do three, as you said, householders by three different members, you can now put it all together into one. So it becomes a much more --
Mr Grandmaître: Where do you get the budget?
Ms Rudko: I'm not here to discuss the budget issue; I'm here to suggest that it becomes easier and more effective to communicate.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Rudko. We appreciate your presentation this morning.
OTTAWA-CARLETON BOARD OF TRADE
The Chair: Our next presenter is Willy Bagnell, president of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade. I would like to remind the members again that the presenters come to us voluntarily, in their own time, and I believe they would appreciate if we would listen to what they have to say rather than have side conversations going on constantly. Good morning, sir. Welcome to our committee. The floor is yours.
Mr Willy Bagnell: I would like to welcome you all this morning to Ottawa, the capital of Canada. The board of trade, after very short debate on this issue, actually, the other morning, is very supportive of the legislation to reduce the number of elected officials in Ontario and link them inextricably to the riding situation that has been developed for the federal ridings.
We believe at the outset the worst thing that can happen with this is it will serve to clearly communicate what the ridings and the elected officials do on the same level to the public, thereby lessening the confusion that exists today in Ontario. Quite frankly, a lot of other provinces could take this idea as a leadership move from the Ontario government.
We further believe that this fiscal responsibility that the government is demonstrating today is long overdue. We have talked for many, many years about reducing the number of elected officials across our country to more match the demographics and the geographics of our country, and this is the first step that a major government has taken in a long, long time to do this.
We believe that $11 million in saving is not something to be sneezed at and is on the way to a balanced budget, which every major chamber of commerce and board of trade in this province has called for our government to do since 1983.
I think the other side of this question is that the people who are out there who are voting in the elections, whether they be provincial or federal, will now be able to understand that everything is basically the same. If the riding ends on Carling Avenue here in Ottawa or starts on Bank Street, it's the same. There's no longer the need to be confused about names of wards or this, that and the other thing; it's the same. This will serve to increase the number of people getting involved in the democratic process and not diminish it because of confusion.
Finally, I believe very much that the cost structures that are involved in reducing these ridings can further be enhanced and further reductions be looked at if we look at the cost of various office budgets, but I'm sure that's a topic the government will look at some time down the road. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We've got about five minutes per caucus for questions, beginning with Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: The focus of your argument is confusion, that this will help a lot of the electorate deal with the confusion they seem to be facing during election periods. Do you really believe that's the big problem people out there have, that they're confused about provincial and federal boundaries and that they've been clamouring for years to simply straighten out those boundaries so that once and for all they're less confused and they'll be happy therefore? Is that the argument we're making?
Mr Bagnell: You characterize the thrust of this as being the major part of the problem, not me. I put forward three arguments that support this legislation. Confusion is part of the issue. I think it helps to eliminate the confusion and whenever you help to eliminate confusion in the democratic process, you better serve the constituents that you are elected, sir, to represent.
0940
Mr Marchese: The two points I got from your presentation are the confusion part and the saving of $11 million, which I'm going to get to. Frankly, I don't believe I have ever encountered in my years of politics, as a trustee for eight years and now as an MPP for two terms, where people have really said to me: "Our problem with this whole political process is boundaries. We're confused between provincial and federal." I have never encountered that, so it is new to me that we'd make an argument around this as a way of solving that problem.
On the second point, the $11 million in saving, do you believe in referendums?
Mr Bagnell: My personal opinions are not what's in question here, sir. I believe in the democratic process as does every chamber of commerce and board of trade in this province.
Mr Marchese: Okay. This government believes in referendums and there is a white paper that speaks to it. We don't know whether they'll pass it or not. If they have referendums on many issues, each referendum will cost $25 million. They happen to think this is great. I don't happen to think that enhances democracy as I see it. But every time they would do a referendum in this province, it would cost approximately $25 million. So if they were to do that, in terms of the saving you have in eliminating 27 MPPs versus having a referendum --
Mr Bagnell: Not to diminish your argument, Mr Marchese, but if cows had wings we'd all have to wear cowboy hats. The fact of the matter is I never read in this legislation anything about $25 million. I read they're going to reduce the number of elected officials.
Mr Marchese: That's fine, okay, I understand.
You make the argument that there's $11 million in saving. We make the argument, as MPPs, that we are going to have a problem in terms of our ability to service people. In some cases it'll be easier than in others. Some will have more of a burden than others in terms of their ability to respond to the problems that people tend to come to us with. It'll slow down that process, because with a limited staff there's only so much you can do.
In the north, as I argued with the previous speaker, it'll become more complicated, because their ridings will become even more huge. More than federal MPs, I think, we deal with a lot more practical, day-to-day things that people need a response to, so they will have a greater load in the north, where their ridings will be greater than some other countries in the world. In terms of servicing those communities, I think it's going to be tough. Is that a concern to you?
Mr Bagnell: I can't speak for northern Ontario, because our constituency is Ottawa-Carleton. I can tell you that the premise that because you have less money to spend you have less opportunity to communicate is false. There are thousands of cases in the private sector where budgets have been slashed, reduced, staff has been eliminated and their productivity has gone up. General Motors in the United States has laid off over 500,000 people in the last 10 years, but they're selling more cars today than they were two years ago. Their output is greater, their communication capacity is greater as a result of that because they made their operation more efficient.
Mr Marchese: So do you believe, as the private sector does, that we MPPs can produce a lot more by cutting a lot more in our ability to communicate not just in terms of newsletters but by increasing the population that we have to serve, that somehow by having less we are able to produce more for them? Is that the argument you're making?
Mr Bagnell: I can't make that blanket statement, because it's too broad-based.
Mr Marchese: You were making the other statement as it relates to the private sector, but in relation to this you can't make any blanket statement?
Mr Bagnell: That's right. There are all kinds of examples in the private sector where reductions of overhead and cost and budgets have forced situations to occur where productivity has increased. We've been going through that in the private sector since 1991, when the economy took a substantial downturn.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Thank you for coming today and making your comments about reduction of confusion and increased efficiency.
I'd like to pursue the increased efficiency argument, because the opposition tend to argue that you can't do as good a job when you have more people to serve. Do you think that part of the problem probably stems from the way the bureaucracy conducts business that makes it so difficult to get things done in terms of giving help to constituents for whatever minor, major or intermediate matter would be dealt with?
Mr Bagnell: I think it may be part of the problem. My exposure to the provincial bureaucracy has been for the most part a very positive experience in dealing with people in the Ministry of Transportation, predominantly over the last couple of months on the 416 issue and signage issues. I've had a tremendous amount of cooperation from them and the leadership that we've seen has been very good. That being said, I can't say I've had the same experience at regional and local government levels, where we spend probably 75% of our time.
Mr Hastings: In terms of your thinking, from members of the board of trade of Ottawa, has the argument ever come up that with the introduction of this legislation we are in effect reducing the disproportionate representative nature of government in terms of the numbers going up to about 103,000 to 112,000? If you look at other electoral maps across Canada, critics argue that the Klein government has made rural seats more valuable in terms of the vote than the citizens in an urban riding -- Edmonton or Calgary. I'm wondering how you see this particular legislation applying to this urban area. Will this make the vote more valuable relative to, say, northern Ontario in an election?
Mr Bagnell: I don't believe so. I believe a fundamental principle of democracy is not representation by neighbourhood but representation by the individual who votes. The vote is not something to be taken for granted. It's a privilege of democracy. We should fight like hell to maintain that privilege. Whether you have 103,000 people in your riding or 120,000 is not the issue; it's the quality of the person you elect that's the issue and how that individual represents the interests of their constituents. In the case of Ottawa-Carleton, I believe very strongly that we've had a tradition of excellent representation and that will continue because our people here will not allow substandard elected officials to go to Queen's Park.
Mr Maves: A couple of things. The first one is your statement about confusion of the electorate and I'm surprised at Mr Marchese, as a veteran member, not realizing the confusion that is out there. In my riding, the riding of Niagara Falls, I have a major street at the south end of the city, McLeod Road. A few streets underneath it to the south are not in my riding. They're in Niagara Falls but they're part of the Fort Erie riding, and then the riding boundary comes down, loops underneath and comes back up in the village of Chippawa. Great deal of confusion, all kinds of people during an election saying: "I don't understand why I'm not voting for a member for Niagara Falls and I'm voting for a member for Fort Erie." So I have to tell you that you're right on the money about confusion.
The other thing, someone from Ottawa would have a better appreciation, I think, than the members opposite about what federal members do. I worked as a legislative assistant for a federal member before I became a provincial member and we heard this argument yesterday that what we do is so much more significant in the lives of individual people than what federal members do. So I wrote down some things that I used to do with my federal member. We dealt with things like child pornography, dangerous offenders, young offenders, passports, visas, landed status, citizenship applications, immigration applications, disability, CPP, old age security, guaranteed income supplement. We talked about policing issues, RCMP, CSIS, clemency and parole and so on and so forth. I could go on and on. I've got pages of things we used to do. Can you tell me which one of those is not significant in the lives of people?
Mr Bagnell: Do I look stupid to you? They're all significant.
Mr Maves: You would also, therefore, have seen, from being in Ottawa, how much federal members do.
Mr Bagnell: I deal predominantly with business leaders and company owners and entrepreneurs in Ottawa-Carleton and the fact is that the first issue, the snap question that comes off their tongue, in terms of what they would most like to talk to their federal official about is income tax.
Mr Maves: I didn't get to it. It's further down the list, but it's huge, you're right.
Mr Bagnell: Because the amount of taxes that we pay in our country is -- as you probably know, we're in the top three in the G-7 and that is a concern for every working Canadian.
Mr Maves: Being someone from Ottawa, your focus is perhaps Ottawa, you see the amount of work that's on an MP's plate then, and it's no more or less, I would say, than what's on an MPP's plate.
Mr Bagnell: You're an elected official and your jurisdiction is the province of Ontario. I don't see either as more important than each other. I see them both as equally important to governing our country and representing the best interests of the population, which is what you do as an elected official.
0950
Mr Patten: Good morning, Mr Bagnell. How are you? I appreciate it's the board of trade of the Ottawa-Carleton area and I know many of your board members. I think your organization does a good job of staying on top of the economic issues. One of the things, Willy, that I haven't heard many witnesses talk about is the quality of representation. While I would agree that it depends on who you elect, it's going to be probably the chief determinant of that. All things being equal, I find it hard to appreciate that you take one riding in northern Ontario that has a distance between Windsor and Quebec City -- Rainy River -- and you're representing 19,000 and another one that represents 112,000 or 123,000 -- what's Palladini's?
Interjection: It's 129,000.
Mr Patten: So there's a difference and maybe an acknowledgement you trade off size of population with size geographically. But I don't know how some of those northern members are going to be able to do their job and stay within their budget, I really don't. If they make any serious attempt at all to travel around their own riding to be able to just meet with them two or three times a year, I just can't understand that. Given the same resources, then you'd have I think a chance at doing that, but I suspect we won't have the same resources as MPs have and that gives, I think, whether the person is an excellent representative or not, a handicap in being able to truly represent people. On the representational side, what's your comment on that?
Mr Bagnell: I have long been not a believer in a situation that's going to please everybody. There's not a situation in business where every customer is happy every day and that's a fact of life. That being said, I'm sure that the present structures that exist within Queen's Park and the tremendous attributes that the opposition have will make the case known and ultimately the public will decide.
I can't comment on representation in the north and whether it's going to be better or worse, but I can tell you that I'm sure the president of the northern Ontario chambers of commerce would be more than happy to respond to that. I don't speak for businesses anywhere outside of Ottawa-Carleton, outside of our membership. I don't really know whether that's a fair situation but I know that reduction of MPs and the saving of $11 million is a good thing for this province and the balancing off against the federal ridings is an even better thing. So now we know that when we elect someone in the riding of XYZ in Ottawa-Carleton, you are the person that's elected there, this is the person that's elected federally and they both come from the same area, full stop, and there's absolutely no room for confusion or margin of error.
Mr Patten: You spoke about the percentage. It's interesting to look at comparisons with other provinces. Ontario already had the lowest ratio of MPPs to MPs in beginning to look at this exercise. It now will by far have the lowest amount. It seems to me, for example, Alberta, which is often used as a model, and Mr Harris refers to what happens there very often, they'll have 26 MPs and 83 MPPs, better than three times the number; BC, 32 MPs, 75 MPPs; Manitoba, 14 MPs, 57 MPPs. My point is that -- I'm not proposing that we go to that extent, of course -- we will be at the very bottom in terms of consideration. Are all of those provinces out of step? Is there not some reason that we're not looking at or considering, when they think that the provincial representation is important enough to have a discrepancy between the number of MPs and MPPs?
Mr Bagnell: Leadership is a funny thing.
Mr Patten: It can be a funny thing.
Mr Bagnell: Sometimes you get dragged into the game, and you remember in your football days, Richard, as I do that sometimes the coach throws you in in the fourth quarter and says, "Get out there and make it happen." Sometimes leadership is where you have to get out in front of the pack and the fact of the matter is that just because something's done in Alberta -- I don't necessarily agree with what Ralph Klein has done in Alberta and I believe that Ontario has to take a leadership role as the economic heart of our country. The numbers prove that. We represent about 35% of the population and in round figures 50% of the business. So what we're doing in this province today specific to this issue has met, I think, with a great deal of approval, at least from my membership.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Bagnell. We appreciate your input here this morning.
ALEX CULLEN
The Chair: Our next presenter is Alex Cullen, a regional councillor. Good morning, Mr Cullen, and welcome to our committee. The floor is yours, sir.
Mr Alex Cullen: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. My name is Alex Cullen. I'm a member of regional council here in Ottawa-Carleton, representing a ward in the west end of the region overlapping with the city of Ottawa and the city of Nepean.
I'm here to talk to you about Bill 81, the purpose of which is of course to realign the provincial riding boundaries with the federal riding boundaries. I want to tell you that I first heard this notion back at the Royal York Hotel in 1994 when Mike Harris, the then leader of the third party in the Legislature, was addressing the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. At the end of his discussion -- of course it was the lead-up to the upcoming provincial election -- he commented on the Common Sense Revolution promise to reduce the number of MPPs to the same level as the federal and that the next time he came to the AMO conference he hoped to see one quarter less municipalities. That was the end note of his presentation to us and I'm must say, as we stood up to applaud, some more enthusiastically than others, there was a buzz in the room, "What was he talking about reducing the number of municipalities?"
The revolution is in place and I presume it's ticking along. We are a little bit interested in what is happening with municipalities, especially with the range of cuts that have come down from the provincial government. There are 850 municipalities in Ontario and if you were to reduce that by a third, you'd come down to less than 600. We watch with interest what's happening in Metro Toronto. We've been told time and time again by the minister, "Reorganize, restructure, figure it out yourselves; if you don't, we will." We want to know what plan B is. We don't know if there is a plan B.
In my previous existence I was a school board trustee from 1982 to 1988 with the Ottawa Board of Education and I learned from that experience that indeed there had been a significant downsizing, restructuring of school boards that happened some 15 years ago. There were over 2,000 school boards. There was a time when every municipality had its own elementary panel and its own collegiate or secondary panel and the separate panel and so you had literally thousands of school boards. That was reduced by the Conservative government of that day to approximately 180 school boards. Today we have 170. I can speak to the issue of amalgamating school boards. That is a very topical issue here in Ottawa-Carleton where we have six school boards, where people feel there are far too many and wish to reduce that to an Ottawa-Carleton public, an Ottawa-Carleton separate and, of course, a French-language school board.
I do want to note, though, there's a big difference between what is being proposed by the province with respect to school boards and with respect to MPPs and MPs. It comes back to an issue I'm going to touch on, which is the notion of administrative efficiency and political accountability, that if you create administrative units that are far too large you lose something in terms of political accountability. I'll come back to that in a moment.
My own experience dealing with electoral reform dates back over a dozen years. When I got elected school board trustee, they elected six from one half of the city and six from the other half of the city. You'd have over 40 people running. My name was C; I got on. As a result, I was able to use provisions under the Municipal Act to generate a petition to restructure the Ottawa Board of Education to a more local representative basis and that's where I first learned the rules of electoral distribution, because of course there was opposition and we went to the Ontario Municipal Board. We won. We had done our homework and we began the restructuring of the school board to make it more politically accountable, so we had areas where people were elected from that area and were accountable to that area. The notion of size of the area was very important. You start from the basis of one person, one vote, but you do of course allow for adjustments up or down to the extent of 25%, to take into account communities of interest and geography. That was a lesson I learned in that particular aspect. When the Peterson government changed the electoral basis of trustees from assessment to population -- I was a trustee -- I was worth millions in assessment, but then after that I was only worth thousands of voters. Then the school board moved to one trustee per ward and that's the way the system has continued today.
Just a couple of years ago we went through regional reform. At that point I was a member of the city of Ottawa council and we watched with great interest the notion of a directly elected regional council and the electoral consequences as a result. We had to deal with maps and we had to deal with the notion of one person, one vote and how much you adjust up and down and how much you recognize communities of interest and geography.
I must tell you that here in Ottawa-Carleton we are very happy with a directly elected regional council. You have to have a regional government in this community simply for the diversity of services that must be provided. However, now that level of government is directly accountable to its electorate for its $1-billion budget that it provides.
That walked me into the federal redistribution that went on just a couple of years go, when Parliament was going through its regular examination of federal ridings. They came to this town and they were looking at different maps, and I went to them and said: "Look, your maps are going to divide communities of interest. You should take into account the recent effort that happened at regional government, and you should recognize the communities of interest that we've identified and have adjusted for through this very participatory process." I'm pleased to say that they did. Certainly the riding that I live in, which is Ottawa West, takes up my new regional ward plus the ward immediately to the south of me.
1000
But I think the issue that comes back is: What are the principles you're dealing with here? The reason I draw this to your attention is that your bill abdicates your responsibility to do that. Your bill gives over to another level of government the control, the power and the principles by which redistribution is going to occur. I'm not going to argue about downsizing politicians. We're so -- I don't know what the word is -- cannibalistic. Politicians are not held in high regard, and people talk about less politicians. Certainly when we went through regional reform we didn't create any more politicians. I'm a little interested because 20 years ago we had more politicians. But people seem to be satisfied with that if we are going to go back to that kind of scenario.
I am concerned about administrative size and political accountability, because with my experience in the OBE, how could you, as a trustee responsible for seven wards, half the city, go out and see every school? It was impossible. How could your electorate get hold of you and hold you accountable? It was impossible. It was through the people's efforts there, the community's efforts there, that we changed to a more local representative system.
You are moving to a larger system here. You have to think in terms of political accountability and administration. But I make the point to you that you should be masters of your own fate, your own control.
We know the federal system is driven by Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island has a constitutional guarantee for four seats. So you take the population of Prince Edward Island, you divide it by four, and you're off and running. Then you make the adjustments according to communities of interest and geography.
Well, in geography, and the point was raised earlier when I came in, you have to think in terms of the administration of the geography in trying to accomplish your responsibilities. I would say to you that too large an area makes it very, very difficult to discharge your responsibilities and to be held accountable for those responsibilities. I draw, as I said, on my own experience as trustee for half the city of Ottawa, 150,000 people in my half, and trying to represent them on the Ottawa Board of Education. That's why we moved to something more local, smaller, more controllable, more accountable to the electorate.
I would have to say to you that perhaps your objective to have the number of MPPs reduced may or may not be a good idea. Quite frankly, I want to make sure that the public has as much voice in the running of the Legislature as possible, so I am not convinced about the downsizing argument, although I know it's very politically popular. Certainly if we're talking about regional reform here, the notion of one-tier government, people are thinking of removing more politicians. But I am looking at administrative units that are politically accountable, administratively efficient and whose control lies within the very body that you're electing representatives to.
I believe the provincial Legislature should continue to be in control of setting the boundaries and the numbers of representatives to it. By hitching your wagon to federal redistribution, you put yourself on to another set of principles that you do not have direct control over and standards you do not have direct control over. Quite frankly, I don't think the provincial ridings of the provincial Legislature in Ontario should be dictated by the size of Prince Edward Island. Those are my comments to you, and I welcome any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cullen. We have three minutes per caucus left, Mr Baird followed by Mrs Marland, Mr Maves and Mr Hastings, so you can decide how much time you want to take.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate the time you took to come in and talk to us. Do you support Bill 81? As constituted, would you support it?
Mr Cullen: As I said, my concern is the notion of giving over responsibility or giving over the notion of local control to the federal government. I have a problem with that. Bills can be amended.
Mr Baird: But as constituted, if this bill were to go through as is, could I tell people that Alex Cullen supports it or is opposed to it?
Mr Cullen: I'm opposed to it. You can say that, John.
Mr Baird: You have an interesting background with the regional council when regional council was reformed, when your ward would have almost doubled in size.
Mr Cullen: That's right.
Mr Baird: How have you found that? Are you able to do just as good a job representing the folks that you do? You're certainly very hardworking.
Mr Cullen: Two things happened with that. In my original ward, I sat on both city council and regional council. I had a smaller ward, but I had two councils and two budgets and two levels of government to deal with. With direct election, I lost those city responsibilities. I became focused only at the regional level. The ward got larger, but my responsibilities changed. I'm no longer responsible for Stop signs, for dogs in the park, for parks themselves, for city streets. So, even though the ward got larger, my responsibilities were more defined. It was at the regional level; I lost the city responsibilities. Most people remember the city responsibilities.
Mr Baird: You recall we were at a town hall meeting in Bayshore discussing tenant issues, where a concerned resident got up and said: "Listen, you're cutting everyone else, you're cutting this and you're cutting that. When are you going to start cutting yourselves?" How important do you think leadership by example is; before we ask others in the public sector to reduce costs, that it's important we try to lead by example, to say, "Yes, we can try to do more with less," and "Yes, we're going to show that we're so committed to deficit reduction and we're so committed to cutting the burden on working families we'll reduce our own numbers"?
Mr Cullen: I believe the best example you could set would be, I suppose, to reduce your own office budgets, to reduce your own salaries. That would be saving costs.
Mr Baird: So 10.5% rather than the 20%.
Mr Cullen: I don't think that reducing the number of areas is necessarily a cost saving, because I look to the ability to hold politicians accountable, and the larger the area, the harder it is to do so, particularly when the ability to set those boundaries is set by criteria set outside of Ontario. Quite frankly, why should PEI set the size of the riding here in Ontario? That's what it is. That's what you guys have done.
Mr Baird: Under the Constitution, it's actually Quebec that is guaranteed 75 seats. So it's all apportioned from there.
Mr Grandmaître: Let's talk about regional government. Maybe I should talk about eastern Ontario, Alex. As you know, eastern Ontario has been claiming for the last 75 years that Queen's Park is not very interested in eastern Ontario or it's simply interested in Metro. Right now we're talking about a megacity of 2.3 million people in the Metro area, and your turn will come.
Mr Cullen: I'm told we're fourth on the list.
Mr Grandmaître: Well, I don't know if you're third or fourth.
Mr Cullen: Hamilton-Wentworth is second, and Sudbury is third.
Mr Grandmaître: While you were discussing this with Mr Baird, I'm glad that you didn't blame the former minister for this reorganization of regional government in Ottawa-Carleton. I'm pleased about that.
Mr Cullen: No, it was needed.
Mr Grandmaître: Let's talk about our loss in eastern Ontario. As you know, we'll be losing five MPPs in eastern Ontario, 24% of our representation. Imagine how we felt before; imagine how we will feel tomorrow when this bill is in place, because this government is determined, they will put it in place. I want to remind you that your regional government is next. Who knows? You might not be around very long.
1010
Mr Cullen: One of the largest complaints we heard during the regional reorganization process -- and I'm a supporter of the reform that we went through. I think direct election is important for accountability. But the debate is not finished and the whole issue of one tier -- the concern is the loss of community voice through a much larger administrative entity. This is a big country and it has to look at the most effective way of allowing for popular representation in the House of Commons. But I'm a little concerned when one province decides that it has to accept the federal standard and we end up losing community voices. By the loss of those seats, you lose community voices. If Hawkesbury has to be joined in with Ottawa or if --
Mr Baird: That's with Ottawa now.
Mr Cullen: That may be a stretch, but pick a smaller community. If Carleton Place or even Kanata has to be drawn in with Ottawa, then the majority will of course prevails, but it is clear that voice is going to be drowned out by the larger voices elsewhere. Then how do we ensure that those community voices are heard? That's why the smaller, more politically accountable units have their value. I'm not saying it's a blank cheque. You have to balance all these things. There are values to this, but I think what should be driving the Legislature is what is the best means of political accountability, because through political accountability you control spending, you control politicians' behaviour, you make sure government carries out the mandate, the wishes of the people. That's one of the things I think this committee and this Legislature should be concerned about.
Mr Marchese: Mr Cullen, just some quick things. I think you're quite correct. I don't believe Quebec has any guarantee of seats. During the constitutional discussions Quebec was very worried about its diminishing numbers and was talking about guaranteeing a certain number of seats so that it wouldn't fall below, I believe, 75 or 77.
Mr Cullen: That's right.
Mr Marchese: But there is no other guarantee in the Constitution that speaks to that.
I happen to agree literally with most of what you have said. I know the board of trade doesn't agree with you either, but I understand that. I want to make the point about the redistribution and aligning ourselves with the federal government as being a profound mistake. The argument the board of trade has made and Mr Maves makes is that there is confusion and we're going to clear that up. I didn't argue that there isn't confusion and that some people would prefer that there be less confusion -- I agree -- but I didn't think that solves the political questions around this redistribution matter. But they made it appear, both the board of trade and Mr Maves, that somehow there is a great deal of confusion and we're going to solve it now with this. That's not really the real issue. As you talked about, we're talking about accountability and whether or not we're able to service our communities effectively.
Do you believe, Mr Cullen, that this government has made a mistake in terms of how it has decided to come to the conclusion about how to redistribute and how to eliminate seats without going through the usual process that we've gone through since 1962 of having a commission decide this?
Mr Cullen: It's very important for people to participate in the process by which they determine their boundaries. We do it at the municipal level. We did it at the school board level. You do it at the municipal level. The redistribution commissions by holding those hearings, by discovering what communities of interest are, because communities do change, by hearing the concerns of people who may live in Rainy River and how the heck do they get down to wherever they get down to, to talk to their MPP where their constituency office is, all these issues have to be heard and weighed and balanced. Unfortunately, by tying your wagon to a federal process, you are allowing federal initiatives or federal principles that have been decided by people in the Maritimes and Quebec and BC and the Prairies to determine the definition of community of interest and geography. I don't think that's right. I think we have a community here in Ontario that is diverse and whose voices should be heard in the Legislature.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cullen. We appreciate your input this morning.
We have a 20-minute break now so we have a couple of housekeeping issues we'd like to clear up. Since we last stopped the discussions on the requests, we've now had four requests from MPPs to have status in front of the committee, one being Peter North, who does not belong to any particular caucus, and three Liberal requests.
Mr Patten: Power of one.
Interjection.
The Chair: Sorry. We're now up to five, four written and one verbal request. I had put forward the suggestion that as a compromise we could allow caucuses to use their assigned time slots to slot in their people if they chose to do that. So that we can move this discussion on, I'd like to start by asking, do we have unanimous consent for that particular proposal?
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): No.
The Chair: In the absence of that then, I would like to have someone put a motion on the floor that we could debate --
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Mr Chairman, which proposal?
The Chair: The proposal that the caucuses use their assigned spots to schedule any MPPs they want to make a presentation in front of the committee.
Mr Marchese: Are you proposing that motion for someone to move?
The Chair: No. I'm asking, is there unanimous consent for that particular approach? In the absence of unanimous consent, I would entertain a motion to deal with the issue.
Mrs Marland: Can I speak to this?
The Chair: I'm asking for unanimous consent. If we don't have it, then fine, we'll entertain a motion. Do we have unanimous consent?
Mrs Marland: No.
The Chair: We don't have unanimous consent. In the absence of unanimous consent, so that we can put some structure on the discussion, I would entertain a motion to deal with the issue.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, can you clarify something for me? To understand this clearly, other than Mr North, who sits as an independent member, you have had requests from sitting members of the official opposition party, not the NDP.
The Chair: We've had three requests from Liberal members. We've had written requests. We have a written request from Peter North and we've had an oral request from Mr Hampton to have status in front of this committee at some place in its public hearings.
Mrs Marland: From Mr Hampton?
The Chair: An oral request from Mr Hampton, yes. So that's the status. To deal with the issue, because we have a difference of opinion, I would like someone to put forward a motion so that at least we have something to debate so we can put some structure on the discussion.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chair, if we couldn't get -- I know you're looking for a motion --
Mr Sergio: Open it for discussion.
Mr Grandmaître: -- opening for a discussion. If we're not going to get consent around the table, let's deal with how we're going to arrive at a compromise.
The Chair: I would like to open it for discussion by having something specific. We discussed this for about 20 minutes before; we made no progress. Let's put some structure on it by somebody putting forward a motion so we know what we're debating.
Mr Marchese: Fair enough. I move that we allow any member of the Legislature who wishes to appear before this committee to do so.
Mrs Marland: I'll speak to that.
The Chair: We now have a motion on the floor. Mr Sergio was the first one and then Ms Marland.
1020
Mr Sergio: Yesterday when the requests were brought to the attention of the committee, we couldn't have the agreement of the government side allowing sitting members to make a presentation, and that's fine. I think we understood the mood of those members. Then you said perhaps we can solve the situation since each party has an allocation of time, whatever, a 25% allocation of time. I thought that was a fair suggestion, that was a good recommendation. As you can see, we have a lot of openings here. Since each party is allocated a block of time, I wonder if that can be placed on the floor and allow each party to decide if it wants to split its allocated time among some sitting members, if it so wishes, or give it to individual members of the public or groups. I think that would be fair for a number of reasons.
As you can see, the requests we have come from northern Ontario, areas where, as I said yesterday, the needs of the people are much different from those of the people in Metropolitan Toronto. Because of the area they represent, I think it would be very fair for the local representative to speak on behalf of those people who are in secluded, far-to-reach places.
The other item that we have here to deal with, the Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty --
The Chair: We'll deal with that as a separate issue.
Mr Sergio: Yes. In cases like that, people have to come 300, 400 miles to make a presentation. Wouldn't it be better that we hear from somebody, some sitting member, anyone who could speak for people from a remote area? I would really put that to the members on the other side. At least give us the opportunity to allocate our own time to whomever we wish.
If the argument should prevail that a sitting member has the opportunity to come and debate it at the committee level or in the House, let me say that often our own time is being limited as to the amount of debate, to the point that members are not allowed to have that opportunity. Having said that, I really hope that the members will take the opportunity and allow the parties to allocate their time as they wish.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, this kind of request has seldom come up in the last three parliaments, and when it has -- and I'm speaking from dealing with it as an opposition member when it has come up -- I have accepted the argument of the government of that term, both the Liberal and the NDP government. I've accepted the argument because I understood the argument to be fair. I'm going to place the same argument that was given when I was in opposition for 10 years, and I think it's the only position we can take on this matter.
I would make an exception for Mr North, but speaking schedules for sitting members are set within each caucus by the government House leader, the whip and sometimes by the leader. I find this particular situation that we're in today quite unusual, especially when we have a request from the leader of the New Democratic Party, who has more power than anyone to decide when he can speak in the House. I'm not in a position to check Hansard so I'm not sure whether he spoke at second reading to Bill 81. However, the other person who is making the request, Mr Brown, has spoken to Bill 81 in the chamber.
I see us discussing what could be a very dangerous precedent here, because as elected representatives of our ridings, the process for us is not the committee process; it's in the chamber, it's in the House. The committee process is to travel in some cases. In not all cases do committees travel, but the point of travelling is to hear from the public; it's for input from the public, not from members who are sitting in Queen's Park all the time. I didn't come to Ottawa today to hear my colleagues in the House, especially someone who is a leader, who can decide at any time on any reading whether he speaks to the matter. If the leader of the NDP caucus hasn't spoken on second reading, he will have his opportunity as leader of that party to speak at third reading.
Apart from the dangerous precedent, I think it's absolutely contrary to the purpose of committees and committee hearings. Every time the opposition asks for public hearings, that's exactly what it is: It's to hear from the public. This kind of request, in my opinion, is absurd and not the purpose for which committee hearings are held. When we get into clause-by-clause, if they still have some comments, they can put those on the record.
Certainly we've heard this morning, from the questions from both the opposition parties -- and in fairness to them, I would do the same thing if I were in opposition. When you're asking questions you're in a position where you're stating your opinion as well, so I find it amazing to have this request. As I say, the only exception I would make is Mr North, who does not have the advantage of --
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): He spoke to the bill in the House.
Mrs Marland: If he's already spoken to the bill, then it doesn't even apply. I was going to say he doesn't have the advantage of going through a whip or a House leader, as he does with a party. I think that's sufficient on the subject.
The Chair: We have several people here who want to speak to this. I would ask that you keep your comments rather concise so that we don't spend the whole day debating this particular issue.
Mr Stewart: I will be concise because much of what I said has been said by Mrs Marland, but I think we're missing the point. It was always my understanding that these were classed as public hearings, and I think we should be out to listen to the public. We are going to the north, so we will hear the public who live in the north.
What this will become, if the MPPs are allowed to do this, will be another indication of grandstanding. I can tell you, there's not one politician who doesn't just thrive on that sort of thing, and I think it takes it away from the people who want to come out and genuinely give their input on this sort of thing. I definitely will be voting against it.
The other point that I think we're missing and the public keeps telling us about is that we politicians tend to not listen to the people. That's what these hearings are about, and I suggest that we listen to the people and let them have their say.
Mr Baird: Very briefly, I respect this is a fair issue for discussion; it's not a black or white issue. I do feel, though, that these are public hearings. We have first, second and third readings in the House where members have a significant opportunity to contribute as well through their caucuses. I agree with the member for Mississauga South that members have the opportunity to speak in the House; these hearings are the public's opportunity.
I would also note that opposition parties right now -- and I think there's some argument that this is not unreasonable -- get two thirds of the time in the Legislative Assembly, that 16 members get one third of the time and 82 government members get one third of the time. I can only speak for one eighty-secondth of one third of the House time, whereas some members opposite can speak for one sixteenth of one third of the time in the House.
Interjection.
Mr Baird: I'm not arguing. That's the way it is and I wouldn't argue against that. I think there is a strong case to be made that this is both fair and reasonable. I guess the point is now that, as a government member, two thirds of opposition time isn't enough, and I would argue if you look at most bills it would be significantly more, probably approaching 80%. Certainly on Bill 49, 92% of the time on third reading was given to the opposition. I just think it's important that we respect that privilege that's accorded to opposition members in the House and not extend that even further.
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): First of all, let me deal with the precedent issue. Mrs Marland usually has a good memory and I trust she will remember that when there was a similar controversial issue -- controversial because it touched different communities in different ways; I'm talking here about the debates around Sunday shopping in the late 1980s -- MPPs appeared before the committee to talk about how Sunday shopping might potentially affect their communities. In fact, as we travelled the province, a number of MPPs appeared before the committee to talk about the various religious views within their communities, the traditions of their communities etc. So if you're worried about setting a precedent here, I think the facts speak the other way, that when you talk about how a specific piece of legislation might work changes in particular regions or communities, the precedent is that MPPs have appeared before committees like this before to talk about those issues.
1030
I would argue that's exactly the situation here. In these public hearings we're not so much carrying on the kind of debate we would have in the Legislature; what we're talking about are some fundamentals of the operations of democracy and representation in different parts of the province. I would say to you that's exactly the kind of role a constituency representative is expected to fulfil. I have two roles, one in the Legislature and one in a constituency, and they're quite different roles. I suspect that all of us recognize they're quite different roles.
I may debate all kinds of points in the Legislature without advocating, necessarily, on behalf of my constituents or without coming to the point under debate from the particular perspective of some of my constituents, but this bill and all that flows from it touches a number of people in different parts of the province in quite different ways. I can tell you, as somebody who comes from northern Ontario, that there will be all kinds of people who will not be able to attend these hearings when they move to Dryden in the northwest. There will be first nations that simply will not be able to afford to lease a float plane and fly out. There will be all kinds of other rural communities that are at least three hours away from where the hearings are going to be held. They're within the region but they're three hours away in terms of driving. They won't be able to be heard.
I'm saying to you that if you're going to make such fundamental changes in representation and in the way democracy operates in terms of communities, and communities and interest, and who has access to representation and who doesn't, I think it's incumbent on us to hear people who can speak about how this is going to impact on different communities in different regions of the province. In my part of the province this is going to create a constituency that is larger than 45 of the 50 states in the United States. It's going to create a constituency that is 1.4 times larger than the British Isles. It's going to create a constituency that is as large --
Mrs Marland: Is that population or geographic miles?
Mr Hampton: We're talking geographically. It's going to be geographically as large as the country of Sweden. Many of the communities are simply not accessible by highways. For example, there are 50 first nations and only about 15 of those are accessible by highway. You cannot get into or out of many of them during various times of the year, depending on when freeze-up or breakup is. Many of them are not always served by consistent telephone or telecommunications.
It seems to me that if you want to look at precedent, look at the Sunday shopping hearings, which happened in the late 1980s, that clearly established that MPPs appeared before the committee to talk about how the proposed legislation would impact on their region, on their community.
Second, if you think about the nature of this bill, what it's about -- representation, communities of interest, how people are represented, if they are represented -- it seems to me that MPPs, in their role as spokespersons for their constituencies, for their communities, ought properly to be allowed to appear to explain the impacts of this legislation and to explain who will be left out, who will be counted and what the eventual outcome of this legislation may well be.
This is not an opportunity to debate before the committee what might be debated in the Legislature. It's an opportunity to talk about, "This is how this legislation will potentially impact upon different regions, different communities across the province." I would argue that it would be quite proper in these circumstances for MPPs to appear. Not to allow MPPs to appear, it seems to me, loses for the benefit of the committee a lot of information, a lot of evidence we ought properly to consider.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hampton. Our next presenter is here. We have about three minutes before she is due to present. So we'll hear from as many people as we can, and at some point in time we have to come to a vote on this.
Mr Maves: I was against this yesterday. I'm even more opposed to it now. Mr Hampton not only spoke to it in the House, as did Mr Miclash, who is another person who will want to speak to it, and Mr North -- they spoke to it in the House -- Mr Hampton just spoke to it again and he'll speak to it all day. These are some of the things he just said now he would say in his presentation, so now there's even less of a reason to have him on the list to speak.
One of the things Mr Hampton said was that this bill touches people in many different ways. I would suggest that every bill we do in the Legislature touches people in different ways, but when we have public hearings we don't put all our members on there, because they are just that: They're public hearings.
Last, because I'm trying to move along and let someone else speak, at the end of yesterday I asked a member of the public how he felt about MPPs taking up time and speaking during committee. He was appalled and offended by it, and I think most members of the public would be, so I'll maintain my position against the motion.
Mr Hastings: To speak directly to Mr Hampton's point about using a precedent in terms of having the representative of a riding make a presentation, there are more appropriate ways of going about that. I suggest that the way to handle this kind of thing in the future is to have a fundamental reordering of the standing orders of the Legislature. Then you might be able to accommodate that particular set of circumstances.
A second way you might be able to do it, in a re-examination of this, is that if you even extended your thinking to looking at having fellow MPPs make a presentation, then it ought to be on a particular day set aside for that purpose, not for interfering with the public coming to make their views known.
I can't believe that one would think we're so isolated that you can't use basic telephone if it's getting down to that, or passenger pigeon if you want to get to the point of absurdity, for dealing with isolated communities. I know that information technology can be harnessed to deal with this. I think it is stretching it a little too much. The whole point of creating a precedent on the Sunday shopping is that while it may have been done at that time, now is the time to take a look at the whole way in which we do business through committees, and that's a reordering of the standing orders, not this piecemeal thing. Then they can use this precedent for the next thing which is fundamental and basic.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I stated yesterday that I was opposed to this. I have not changed my opinion. Like Mr Maves, I'm even more convinced that we should not allow this to happen. I think it is an open forum for the public. We're here to listen to them. I don't need to listen to Mr Hampton or Mr Marchese or the other honourable members again on public hearings because we listen to them in the House. I've heard Mr Hampton's debate this morning, and it's no different than what I'll hear in the House.
Maybe there was a precedent set earlier. I don't know. I wasn't here in that last Legislature; I'm only here for this Legislature. I think it's a dangerous precedent that we could be setting and I think there is a possibility that we could be displacing members of the public on public hearings. I'm totally opposed to it, so I'll stay that way.
The Chair: We will continue the discussion when we break for lunch. There are three more people on the speaking list: Mr Gilchrist, Mr Marchese and Mr Grandmaître. That will have allowed everybody except Mr Sergio to make a comment. At the end of that we will have a vote.
1040
ABIGAIL POLLONETSKY
The Chair: Our next presenter is Abigail Pollonetsky. Good morning. Welcome to our committee. The floor is yours.
Ms Abigail Pollonetsky: Thank you for inviting members of the public to make presentations on this extremely important bill. I just want to start by saying I'm a little bit at a disadvantage because my husband locked the keys in the car, so I don't have my purse, so take me as I am, with very few notes.
I am here because I am a concerned member of the public. I am a homeowner in Ottawa-Carleton. I am a very active member of my community. I'm also a woman with a disability, as you can probably tell from my cane. These things are not irrelevant to some of the points I'd like to make. I hope these are in order. If people have questions of me, as well as my having questions of you, I would be very happy to entertain them.
I am afraid of the notion of a smaller Legislature. I have to say that up front and straight away. As much as you gentlemen and women know each other and interact with each other in the House on a daily basis, it's not a point that necessarily reaches out to the general public. We don't know the ins and outs unless we're glued to the parliamentary channel, which I suspect is not in the top 10 of the ratings. So it's very important for us members of the public to have a chance --
Mr Stewart: How do you know that?
Ms Pollonetsky: I am right, except that there are some political junkies like me, and I do flip, but with the clicker I can go right past you men and women, and I do. At the same time, all levity aside -- and I probably don't have a lot in common with everybody at this table or in the House -- I don't want to see your roles diminished in Parliament. I think it is vitally important that we maintain a level of representation for all people in this province, and in this country as a matter of fact.
I don't think I am in a minority. I am going to say it straight out and I would like this on the record. I have trust and faith in politicians. That is why I live in a democracy. That is why I, becoming increasingly less able physically, put a lot of trust in the men and women who are elected to speak for me and for other taxpayers and for other members of the community.
Taking the Legislature down any more would mean fewer access points for people. With all due respect to the honourable member who talked about communication, I would like to point out that voice mail may be the wave of the future, but it doesn't necessarily result in better access to government.
I have a standing request by voice mail, snail mail, to get a replacement for a birth certificate for my 16-year-old son, who is naturally anxious to have it replaced since he put it in the washing machine, because he wants to get his licence. As a matter of fact, it doesn't disturb me very much that it's taking a long time to get the replacement for his birth certificate. As a mother of a 16-year-old-boy -- I'm sure there are some other parents of teenagers here -- it doesn't necessarily give my comfort level much security to know that he will eventually, when that licence comes -- now, this sounds irrelevant, but it isn't. What it points to is that with fewer resources being allocated to people in government, with layoffs, which I also have a very big problem with, it means fewer people are there to respond to requests from ordinary citizens dealing with things that could be as minor as a delayed birth certificate being replaced, but could be very major.
The relevance, as far as this bill is concerned, is that in the long range it will mean fewer representatives will be available for me to have any access point to, and that scares me. As a woman with a disability, as I pointed out, it scares me to have any diminishing of access points for me. These are some of the reasons I am opposed to this bill.
Another thing that strikes me, and I don't know if it has struck people on this committee this week in particular, with the American elections that have just taken place: With larger constituencies and fewer representatives, it would be more expensive for a person to run for office. I think this is part of an Americanization which, I would suggest, is not necessarily what people in Ontario really want. We are very fortunate in this province. Any man or woman who chooses to stand for office, who has the qualifications and the interest and the backing of his or her party, is in general able to. With larger constituencies, with larger districts, it will mean that perforce only people with access to increased funds -- not only, but in general it would be harder for a person to stand for office unless he or she had means of his or her own. That speaks to me of Americanization, which I don't think is something we're in favour of in the main, in the first place. In the second place, it's again lack of accessibility and lack of entrance into a system that's very important to all of us.
I'll just finish by repeating the sentiment, possibly unpopular at the moment, that I believe people who run and stand for office are extremely laudable, honourable people who are doing a job that probably should be paid a lot more, to be a representative of constituents. It's something that I believe we should take a stand to make sure continues rather than diminishes. Thanks.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We've got about four minutes per caucus for questions, beginning with Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you for those compliments. I'll take this salary increase and I'm sure my friends across will second the motion.
We are elected to serve, and I think this model will not improve the services that are supposed to be provided to our constituents. By increasing the number of people to serve and not increasing my constituency staff, I think people are penalized. I know exactly what you mean when you talk about voice mail and 1-800 numbers. They are very, very popular, but you never get to talk to a human being. We're supposed to serve the public. We're supposed to be -- well, not the government the closest to our people. I think municipal government is much closer.
I think with this model, the federal model, it is a disservice to our population not only in Ottawa-Carleton, because we're not dearly affected in Ottawa-Carleton; we're losing one riding, Ottawa-Rideau, if I'm not mistaken. But for the rest of this province, especially in northern Ontario, I think it's a disservice. I'm glad you brought these very valid points to the attention of the government. Let's hope they will realize that we are important representatives and you are important people in Ontario and you deserve better services.
Ms Pollonetsky: Thank you.
Mr Sergio: Just a quick question. Of course there are some savings, according to the government. It could be $1 million; it could be $11 million. We haven't seen any figures. Nobody has seen any figures. Perhaps not even the members of the government have seen any figures whatsoever. But if there are some savings, do you think we should compromise democracy, if you will, and effective representation for the sake of a few savings?
Ms Pollonetsky: Absolutely not. I think, looking at figures that aren't -- we don't know what those figures are. What we do see as members of the public is that we're not getting our phone calls returned, we're not getting our appointments made because of this hypothetical saving in cutbacks. I don't believe in slash and burn. I think every person who isn't there in the office answering a phone, working on a case, is a person who's either unemployed and on UI or on welfare. I think the taxpayer base is something the government should be much more concerned about, and in order to make the taxpayer base healthy, more people have to be working. It's sort of a no-brainer.
1050
Mr Marchese: Thank you, Ms Pollonetsky, for your presentation. You mention one thing that is different from what we're heard so far, and that is that it's likely to make it more expensive for people to run because the bigger the riding, the bigger the allocation and the bigger the need to be able to put up the money to run a good campaign. So it'll make it tougher for some who will have a harder time raising the money than others. I want to thank you for that point.
The other point was raised by my colleague here to the right: Is the $11-million saving, assuming that's the case, worth it in terms of democracy? You answered that. Partly what they also argue is that it will be less confusing. The board of trade made that argument too, by the way, and they make this argument all the time, that it will be less confusing to have one single boundary, federal and provincial. But is that too another good argument to make as to why we might want to reduce seats by 27? They argue that it's less confusing, therefore it's good. I argue that if that's the basis of the argument we make, it's pretty weak in terms of why we would eliminate 27 seats. Do you agree or disagree with those positions?
Ms Pollonetsky: Given that my position from the start has been that I am opposed to making the House smaller and the number of representatives smaller, it would stand to reason that I don't necessarily buy that as an argument, that it would make it less confusing. From what I understand from one of the regional politicians in Ottawa-Carleton, it would mean that a riding would stretch all the way from Kanata to Perth, I believe it is. It just doesn't make any sense logically because the constituencies are so incredibly different and so diverse. So on that ground I don't think it makes a lot of sense.
Mr Marchese: One of the problems that I believe this government has made is to decide -- the decision came by the cabinet, I suspect, from the Premier's office: "We're just going to get rid of 27 seats." Traditionally in the past, since 1962, we've had a different process. We've had commissions decide what was a fair way to either make redistributions or eliminate seats or increase them. It was, I believe, a more objective way to deal with that issue than to have the government decide: "We're just going to lead here. We're going to cut seats." Do you believe that's a good process they have engaged in?
Ms Pollonetsky: Oh, absolutely not. I have to say, with all due respect to members of the government, that I see a lot of willy-nilly pronouncements being made: "We'll cut this and it'll do that. We'll cut that, it'll do this." It's not necessarily something that is of benefit to the citizens of Ontario and it's not a process that I am in favour of, just making a pronouncement.
Mr Marchese: They also argue that by cutting, of course, we'll make it more efficient. I hear them saying this all the time. "We're going to do more with less. We're going to be more efficient, make things more effective." Do you really think by reducing 27 seats that somehow we can do a more effective job of representing a bigger population both in my downtown riding of Toronto and in the north -- Kenora, let's say?
Ms Pollonetsky: I think the points I made in my initial presentation speak to that. I don't believe it would make for a more effective, efficient governance from Queen's Park. At the risk of sounding like a Pollyanna, I really believe that members of provincial legislatures and members of the federal Parliament do a very good job. Having fewer people doing that job is not logical. How can fewer people provide more service? It doesn't make sense.
Mr Hastings: Ms Pollonetsky, thank you for coming in today. I am intrigued by your argument that by lessening your numerical benchmark, it diminishes democracy. Could we conclude logically then that with the new federal riding boundaries for Canada as a whole -- it will go to about 295. Would you argue then and say that the federal Parliament will be more democratic than the provincial parliaments or the Ontario Parliament simply because it will have more members?
Ms Pollonetsky: That's an interesting question. At the same time you're talking about what the changes are to the federal Parliament, the only thing I can say to that is that Ontario, as the largest province in population in this country and a very diverse population at that -- one of the honourable members mentioned that municipal government is the level that citizens are closest to. I would like to see the provincial government also being a level that people feel comfortable --
Mr Hastings: Yes, but on the democracy level, you'd say the federal Parliament by its sheer numbers would be more democratic than the provincial Legislature at 130 or even 103, on a logical basis. Increased numbers of politicians means more democracy, greater accessibility etc?
Ms Pollonetsky: It can. Certainly if there's adequate funding at the levels, that would mean the constituencies are adequately and properly staffed.
Mr Hastings: I have to deal with a number of constituent concerns, like all our colleagues here. You would see no linkage between the inability, the almost indifferent response of bureaucracy itself, whether it's the WCB or MTO or family benefits, to deal with the issues.
If you just have more people, more reps -- I have three people in my office and volunteers, so if I had eight people in my office, I'd get faster responses basically, regardless of the number of politicians. You would argue that the more staff you have, the greater responses you'll get back from the bureaucracy. I find it completely the opposite, whatever the level of government. The nature of bureaucracy itself inhibits customer response in most instances, because it's not interested. "I'll get to it when I get to it." There's no urgency.
Ms Pollonetsky: I choose not to think of myself as a customer.
Mr Hastings: You don't.
Ms Pollonetsky: I choose to think of myself as a citizen who has legitimate concerns in whatever areas they are. I am not a customer. I am not buying something. I have a Parliament that represents me and makes intelligent, informed decisions on behalf of me and what I vote for and what I stand for.
Mr Hastings: Well, I am thankful for your viewpoint.
Mrs Ross: Ms Pollonetsky, you are active in your community, you say, and no doubt you've contacted your local MPP. Have you been served through his constituency assistants or do you always speak directly to your representative?
Ms Pollonetsky: It's interesting. Yes, it's a male representative whom I deal with. I have not dealt directly with my elected representative very often. I have been well served by working through the constituency office when it's questions that are of concern. As I mentioned, there are some things that I would rather not have dealt with right away, like my son's birth certificate.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Pollonetsky. Be assured, as somebody who has had three children go through that driver's licence process, you will survive it eventually.
Ms Pollonetsky: And I will get the birth certificate replaced?
The Chair: Unfortunately, you will get the birth certificate, yes.
Mr Marchese: Call an MPP's office.
Ms Pollonetsky: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We do appreciate your input here this morning.
BRIAN COBURN
The Chair: Our next presenter is Brian Coburn, who is the mayor of Cumberland. Good morning, Mr Coburn, and welcome to our committee. The floor is yours, sir.
Mr Brian Coburn: Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to address the committee.
Some of you may not know that the municipality of Cumberland is within the region of Ottawa-Carleton. At present, our MPP is Jean-Marc Lalonde. All of Cumberland is lumped into Prescott-Russell, which is an area outside of the region. We have some similarities but they are gradually disappearing because we're being assimilated into the larger urban core.
The federal boundaries create some confusion. I've got Don Boudria on one side in the middle of the municipality. He's our rep on one side, and on the other side, in the larger urban sector, is Eugène Bellemare. If you're going to follow the federal boundaries, you're going to add to the confusion in our community.
I checked this morning with Mr Bellemare's office. With the realignment of the federal boundaries, the population that he is looking after goes from about 100,000 down to about 80,000. The balance of Cumberland, which Mr Boudria represents, if you added it into the provincial boundary, is about another 12,000 people. I don't think that's an onerous load to put on a provincial representative. For the sake of continuity, consistency and likeness of issues, I would ask that the committee consider not following the federal boundary there and including Cumberland into that riding, which is all within Ottawa-Carleton. It is not a significant increase in population as well and it's all confined within about I guess a 10-mile radius, the area that's outside of the one federal riding. I should have brought a map. Maybe it would have been a little clearer.
1100
Mr Patten: We have a flip chart for you.
Mr Coburn: Have you? I can go into that too if you like. I think the point here, given the movement of responsibilities down to the lower-tier level and the confusion, is that all of this is an attempt to avoid confusion or make it simpler for people to get answers. I don't think in this case the federal ridings do make it simpler. It should have included all of Cumberland into one riding, either one boundary or the other. That's basically my concern.
I do support the reduction in members at Queen's Park and I do support a lot of the initiatives that are taking place. It puts the responsibilities back to the lower tier, and that's where they should be.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Coburn. We've got five minutes or so for questions, beginning with the New Democrats.
Mr Marchese: Mr Coburn, we had Mr Cullen here and he made some very good points about redistribution and aligning ourselves with the federal boundaries. He used the word "abdication" of our own responsibilities, simply to say: "The federal government has done this. Why don't we simply adopt their boundaries? It's a lot easier." But it doesn't take into account what you just said.
What you just said is, "Please, in my case, don't do what you're about to do in terms of making the boundary contiguous with the federal one, but change it so as to fit the needs of that particular community." I'm not sure we could do that and make exceptions as we go along. If we're to take their line, we should simply go with one model because it's a lot easier.
But you raise a good problem and a good point: How do we take into account our own needs, which may be provincial, which may reflect municipal problems as well? Isn't that a particular problem? Are you not arguing that we should do our own redistribution as is fitting of our own needs and areas rather than adopting a federal model of boundaries that may not reflect what you have just raised?
Mr Coburn: I guess where I'm coming from is that the one-shoe-fits-all theory doesn't always apply.
Mr Marchese: I agree.
Mr Coburn: Reducing the number of politicians, number one, I do support that. I don't know, I haven't studied this boundary issue, but possibly in 95% of the cases the boundaries do work. But I am saying to have some common sense when it comes to alignment in respect of jurisdictions. The region of Ottawa-Carleton and its governance is somewhat different than Prescott-Russell, which is a county structure and which is changing drastically as well.
Mr Marchese: Mr Coburn, I'm agreeing with that and I'm suggesting to you that there will be other ridings that would come and make a similar case. Then this government has a problem, because if it makes one exception, it will have to make many, because many will argue, like you, "We are unique here." I know you generalize and say 90% are likely to fit in that model, but I'm not entirely sure.
Anyway, you make the point that you agree with the reduction of politicians.
Mr Coburn: I guess the point I'm making is that the feds aren't right on this one.
Mr Marchese: I understand. I'm arguing the provincial Tories aren't right on this one either. They've changed the process here. From 1962 onwards, we've had commissions dealing with this issue to remove it from the political arm, where they decide they're going to take leadership and just chop out politicians because the people out there like it, as opposed to a commission that says: "We're not sure we're just going to be bullied by a public that says they want to eliminate politicians. We're going to look at this a little more reasonably, possibly intelligently, but removed from the political kind of influence." That's what we've done since 1962. I happen to think that's a good process. They've changed that.
Do you believe we should now be going to a model that says, "Whoever's in power is simply going to do it by fiat and that's the way it's going to be"? Is that what you are agreeing to or proposing perhaps?
Mr Coburn: I've been kicking around politics for about 16 years, with a little bit of success. I believe that on election day, if I'm the guy elected, I'm there to make decisions and boogie along.
Mr Marchese: Well, they're sure boogieing, I can tell you that. Mr Hastings boogies every day in the House.
I have a problem with that, I really do, because I believe there are many times when, yes, you have the majority as a government, or you as a mayor, to be able to make some decisions, but there are times when you have to remove yourselves from how things are done so as to at least give the appearance that there's a process here, a democratic one and an objective one, where people are actually commenting in a way that is removed from the rest of us. I think that's a very useful process, by the way.
Do you really believe that if we get rid of 27 politicians, somehow we're going to be more efficient in our ability to do our job both in the north where geographic distances are enormous and in the south where we have a variety of different communities that make it very hard from time to time for us to be able to service them as we would like? Do you believe we can do it more efficiently?
Mr Coburn: It's a little more complicated than that or a little more extended than that. There's a whole mindset that has to be changed in our public. You've stuck your hand out for the last 20 years and somebody's put something in it. That mindset has to change. We can't continue to be able to satisfy everybody's need. That's the perception that's held today in the public, that we as politicians go through a process and there are some very lengthy processes now that involve the public extensively. That process, in its efforts to serve and be fair and open, also leaves the public with the belief that each and every one of them will be satisfied when it's over. It's not happening. It can't happen.
I've had the experience of going through a few of them over the years. Make no mistake: Our public in Cumberland is not left with the perception that everybody's going to be happy. We'll make the decision that we think best serves our community. That's all I'm appealing for here: a decision that will probably best serve, in my view, future decisions at the political level and ease of access into the upper tiers.
Mr Stewart: Just a couple of questions. You were talking about the confusion if the boundaries stay with the federal reps. Is the confusion that your provincial person now is part of Cumberland and Prescott-Russell or is the confusion because you've got two federal members representing the town, or whatever it is, of Cumberland? Is that the confusion?
Mr Coburn: The confusion is because, yes, at the federal level there are two. Who do you call? If one is in the limelight this week in the press and it says he's representing Cumberland, then people think he represents all of Cumberland. If you use that same line, then I've got two provincial representatives representing Cumberland. It will create similar confusion.
Mr Stewart: But if they do go to the federal ridings, if we follow the same federal ridings which we're proposing, could that not possibly cut down the confusion? Then they know that those two gentlemen or whatever, those areas represent both federal and provincial boundaries. Do you think it could help? Because now you're doing three, and you could be two. I guess that's what I'm saying.
Mr Coburn: Well, there's lots of confusion in society today.
Mr Stewart: There is indeed.
Mr Coburn: You can rationalize anything. I just think it's much simpler if I've got one phone number on the wall, as a resident, one provincial.
Mr Stewart: I've no problem agreeing with you. I guess I'm a bit of an old politician too in the municipal end.
Back about three years ago when the federal commission was going around with a proposal of making some changes in the federal boundaries, I assume you probably made a proposal then on this issue.
Mr Coburn: No.
Mr Stewart: Did anybody make that comment to them that they should look at that particular area then?
Mr Coburn: I believe it was made to them, yes. I'm up to my ass in alligators in a whole bunch of other things, so --
Mr Stewart: You didn't need that.
Mr Coburn: No.
Mr Stewart: I just wondered, because they did go around. I made a presentation to them myself on an area. I just wondered whether it had been done and what their thoughts were on it.
Mr Coburn: I believe it was made, but I didn't.
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Coburn, it's good to see you again. We appreciate your coming forward here. Mr Stewart just asked the first part of the question I was going to ask about whether or not representations had been made to the federal commission. You're undoubtedly familiar with the process they go through.
I know the comments made by Mr Marchese would suggest that he wanted another commission, an exact duplicate commission, because presumably the federal non-partisan boundary commission -- these weren't MPs, these were people appointed -- takes into account geography, population, ethnic diversity, natural barriers, whether there are rivers and islands involved and that sort of thing.
Were there hearings in Ottawa, or at least to the best of your knowledge were there people in this region who gave that kind of input to the federal boundary commission? If you don't know that, do you have any reason to believe that they did not balance all of those factors and would have come to exactly the same conclusion that a group of provincially appointed people would have done if they had asked the same questions?
1110
Mr Coburn: I don't know, because everybody -- I guess you have your beliefs for different things. I'm strictly looking at governmental boundaries. That's all I'm looking at.
Mr Gilchrist: And that's all they looked at when they crafted them. But would a provincial group of appointees get the same answer if they had come to talk to you? If the feds talked to you or the provincial people talked, would they get the same answer from you?
Mr Coburn: Yes.
Mr Gilchrist: Okay. So presumably they would have crafted the boundary the same way, based on the input from all the people. Would you agree with that?
Mr Coburn: I don't know because I don't know if everybody would argue from the same point. You know, members of your public don't see things -- you wake up in the morning and you see it differently this morning than you did yesterday morning. When you're in the business of politics and you get the complaints coming at you, there are some similarities in the complaints. The public doesn't generally recognize those similarities, and for various reasons. I don't know if I can make a broad-blanket statement that the public in this Cumberland-Gloucester riding would agree.
Mr Gilchrist: Fair enough.
Mr Grandmaître: Good morning, Brian. I understand exactly what you mean with two federal members and one MPP, and maybe two MPPs, because Mr Morin is very close to your riding. But I think the biggest problem is that we have to satisfy so many mayors. In my own riding, I have to satisfy three mayors and a regional chair. How can I satisfy three mayors and a regional chair? Brian, you're talking about less confusion. I want to suggest to you a way that would resolve this confusion. Let's have one-tier government in Ottawa-Carleton, and that would resolve the confusion, right? You're in favour of one-tier government?
Mr Coburn: I'm in favour of one level of government.
Mr Grandmaître: You're in favour of one-tier government?
Mr Coburn: But your interpretation of one-tier may not be quite the same as mine.
Mr Grandmaître: Well, can I take 30 seconds of your time? Tell me what your definition of one-tier government is all about.
Mr Coburn: One level of government. I believe --
Mr Grandmaître: With how many municipalities?
Mr Coburn: You could have one; you could have three. But it all --
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you.
Mr Coburn: Okay. You wanted me to tell you about it and then you cut me off.
Mr Grandmaître: No, no. I'm sorry. I didn't cut you off. I wanted to pass on. Carry on then. I'm sorry. I wouldn't insult a mayor for all the money in the world.
Mr Coburn: I don't take it as an insult at all. I think what the public is saying is, "My God, I don't know who to call." I get the calls.
Mr Grandmaître: I know.
Mr Coburn: I'm the guy who's the closest to the people in Cumberland, as are a lot of the other mayors in respect to municipalities. I get the calls. There is confusion. They're not willing to listen. Their day is full. It's hustle and bustle getting from one end of the day to the other. They say to me: "Hey, Coburn, I don't give a damn who's picking up the garbage. I send my taxes to you, so I only want to talk to you."
There are a lot of these things that don't have to be handled by politicians. They can be handled by commissions and things. To figure out the size of a water-sewer pipe, you don't need a politician to do that. You can have a master plan of the region. That can be handled by commissions. You don't need politicians to do everything.
You're all in the political business. Is it not important that when a resident calls you, you're the guy -- "guy" is politically correct, by the way; they told me that the other day -- who cuts the red tape? By God, I'm not going to leave the running of my community or the province to bureaucrats. We'll sink the ship in record-breaking time. That's the biggest part of my job day in and day out, and that's what makes it so interesting, that diversification from one end of the day to the other. It may be dogs today; it may be a row with the neighbour tomorrow. It could be just an accident on the corner.
Mr Grandmaître: Brian, you just made a very, very important comment. Politicians are supposed to get our people through red tape. If that's one of our responsibilities, having fewer politicians will not decrease the red tape. Right?
Mr Coburn: You know, for some people it takes an hour to do a job and for some of them it takes them a whole damn day.
Mr Grandmaître: If you oppose it.
Mr Coburn: There are some good politicians and there are some duds. The public, in my estimation, sometimes is misguided when they --
Interjection.
Mr Coburn: Either that or -- I don't know. I don't know how you get better politicians. But you know, some people are very dedicated and interested in really doing a good job. There are others who tend to float through and just hit the crests.
Mr Grandmaître: Right. Thank you.
Mr Hampton: Is there any time remaining?
The Chair: Mr Patten, did you have a question?
Mr Patten: Go ahead. I'll pass.
Mr Hampton: I've been listening to your comments and I want to ask your views on this. What I see happening with the Harris government is that you're seeing the creation of larger Toronto-centred bureaucrats. You're actually seeing services and offices being pulled out of communities and centralized in Toronto. I think what's being created here is a larger, nameless, faceless bureaucracy and that there will be fewer elected people to hold it accountable, to ask the tough questions, fewer people to be able to say: "No, you're not going to do that. You're not going to affect people in my part of the province this way." That's my sense of it. You're going to see a more centralized, more remote, faceless, nameless bureaucracy and you're going to have fewer elected people there to ask the questions to hold it accountable. I just wonder what your response to that is.
Mr Coburn: I think, Mr Hampton, some of the observations I've made and what I get from some of my residents when they watch Queen's Park in action is more to the point of: "Why can't people agree on something that's good instead of taking party lines? Because that's your job."
Mr Sergio: You're taking the fun away.
Mr Coburn: I don't limit that to Queen's Park. You can look at the playpen up here on the Hill -- same thing. Everybody is posturing, trying to score political points, and the public now is becoming a little more astute, and I don't think those tactics are scoring as many points any more. They're saying: "My God, will you just get on with it so that it'll help me get from one end of the day to the other. When I call, cut the crap and give me the answer." It doesn't always have to be the answer you expect to hear. It has to be the right answer.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Coburn. We appreciate your coming today and giving us your input.
1120
COUNTY OF GLENGARRY
The Chair: Our next presenters are George Currier, the reeve of Maxville, and Jean-Marc Lefebvre, Basil Dawley and Wyman Barton. Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to our committee. The floor is yours.
Mr George Currier: Good morning. I'm George Currier from the village of Maxville. Our submission today is from Glengarry county, where Glengarry county will be separated with the new boundary changes. We're strictly against it and we hope the committee here will really listen to what we have to say and use good judgement. On my left is Jean-Marc Lefebvre from Alexandria; next to him is Wyman Barton, deputy reeve of Winchester township; and to my right is Basil Dawley. Our presentation will be made by Jean-Marc Lefebvre.
Mr Jean-Marc Lefebvre: I would say at the outset that George has been past warden for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and is current reeve of Glengarry. He's been there as reeve for as long as I can remember. Basil Dawley's foray into politics started in 1946, with the municipal election in Winchester. Wyman is also involved in the municipal field. I have an interest in it simply as a pleasure. I have never been elected, so I do not have the pleasure of having the support of anyone other than myself.
I would like to address the issue by referring to various documents, including Bill 81 itself. I would like particularly to deal with subsection 2(1) of the schedule to the Representation Act. I would also like to refer to the Twenty-first Annual Report of the Commission on Election Finances and will be extrapolating some figures from that report for the year 1995.
At the outset I'd like to say that the situation for Glengarry is somewhat unique. To that extent we feel that the province of Ontario should deal with us in a special manner. The provincial boundaries for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry should not be changed to remove Glengarry from the historic union of the united counties for several reasons. The present union of Glengarry with Stormont and Dundas, as it is today, serves to represent the people and interests of Glengarry fairly. We ask you to consider our proposal for the new boundaries, which would be to include the city of Cornwall with S-D-G. This proposal allows for equal representation considering the possible number of electors. I will deal with that by addressing the matter from the report I mentioned previously. Financially it is cost-effective to reduce the number of seats in the provincial Legislature, and it maintains the historic creation of our united counties, which were joined together in 1850.
If we include Glengarry in the new proposed riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, including the city of Cornwall, we have 34,199 people in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and 44,191 people in Cornwall and Charlottenburgh township, for a total of 78,390 eligible voters. I will be giving specifics on these figures later. This compares favourably with the existing riding of Prescott and Russell, which has a total of 79,574 eligible voters, so we're within 1,000 electors.
With the present provincial boundaries, Glengarry is part of S-D-G. This represents one seat in the Legislative Assembly. The city of Cornwall and the township of Charlottenburgh, which are part of Glengarry, also represent one seat. All persons would be equally served if Cornwall and Charlottenburgh were to join with S-D-G. Not only would we be joining with an area that has been politically, historically and culturally linked since the first settlers landed on the banks of the St Lawrence River in what came to be Upper Canada in the early 1700s, but this new form of provincial riding would also reduce the number of seats in the Legislature by one, and that's the purpose everyone wants to achieve: reducing. This would thus provide a more cost-effective government.
Removing Glengarry from the united counties achieves no profitable goal for the province, the county or the people. The people of Glengarry share many interests with their neighbours in the counties to the west. There's a natural communication with Charlottenburgh as part of Glengarry. Geographically it is a natural union to incorporate all of Glengarry in the united counties with the city of Cornwall. Just as Alexandria is the pulse of Glengarry, Cornwall serves as the economic, social and educational centre of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.
Adopting a federal boundary for no tangible reason makes little sense when one considers that our municipal government is the backbone of our provincial government. Therefore, why should we just adopt a federal boundary that has little relevance to us politically, culturally and historically? Historically Glengarry has been part of the united counties since the mid-1800s. The first settlers to Upper Canada landed on the banks of the St Lawrence and established this region. That's history, this is our past and that is what developed our identity, which is historically significant in Ontario and in Canada.
These are not only political boundaries we're fighting for; these are historical boundaries upon which Canada was developed. From Glengarry, explorers and map makers like David Thompson, Simon Fraser and Caribou Cameron explored and opened up the west. The heritage of our future generations depends upon preserving what has been established.
To take Glengarry away from its rightful place in the united counties is irresponsible. The natural flow of life in Glengarry is east and west, not north and south. For over 200 years the development of Glengarry has been tied up with the development of Cornwall, Stormont and Dundas. We have established beneficial working partnerships in education, finance, sports, agriculture and health care with our sister counties that have taken years to become successful. We can't afford to lose them.
The winter of 1908 marked the defeat of the last Glengarry separation movement. Ninety years ago Glengarrians fought to prevent its separation from the united counties, and today we are here to ask you to join with Glengarrians to oppose another separation movement. This is the repetition of history, and when I say "repetition of history," I say this is good. It means that we're on the right track. It means that what happened in 1908 has to be repeated in 1996 and that the movement for separation has to be rejected. There's a string in history, and this string should not be broken.
Glengarry, as part of the three united counties, has been part of our grandparents' heritage, our parents' heritage and our heritage. Let it continue to be a part of our children's heritage.
I want to address the matter by referring to enumeration figures because I mentioned these enumeration figures before. The Twenty-first Annual Report of the Commission on Election Finances for the Year 1995 is an accurate reflection of the number of voters in current ridings in 1995. It is based on a census conducted by enumerators during 1995 for the 1995 summer election. The figures contained therein with respect to numbers of voters are the most accurate available in Ontario, provincially or federally. Federal figures date back to the 1991 national census and the enumeration which was conducted by the federal government immediately before the last federal election, therefore those figures are out of date. I know that the federal government will be conducting new enumerations, but as we stand today it is my submission that the figures are not current.
On pages 32 and 33 of the Ontario report of the Commission on Election Finances the Cornwall riding, which includes Charlottenburgh township, is shown as having 44,191 eligible voters. On pages 48 and 49 of the report S-D-G & East Grenville -- this does not include Charlottenburgh township -- is shown as having 47,066 eligible voters.
We know that East Grenville has 27.38% of the riding and we understand that East Grenville is pleased to join up with its neighbour to the west. No problem. Dundas has 32.49% of the voters, which is 15,291 voters -- I have 15,291.74 here because of the percentage; Stormont has 16.85% of the voters, and this translates into 7,930 voters; and Glengarry has 23.28% of the voters. This means that in Glengarry there are 10,956.96 voters, if we use the figure as percentage, for a grand total of 34,199 voters. If you put Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry together with Cornwall and Charlottenburgh township we have a grand total of 78,390 voters.
If you turn to pages 44 and 45 of this Commission on Election Finances annual report for 1995, we note that the existing boundaries of Prescott and Russell, as of 1995, show that there are 79,574 eligible voters. We're talking 1,000 people. We're not talking a large difference, we're talking a very minor difference.
1130
It is our suggestion that Glengarry be included with Stormont and Dundas and Cornwall and Charlottenburgh township, and it is our submission that in order to achieve this -- and I think this will fall into the previous speaker's suggestion -- Prescott and Russell should remain the way it was before, and that the numbers that were suggested to be taken out by the new federal riding redistribution boundaries be ignored and that Prescott and Russell stay the way it was, and that Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry, Cornwall and Charlottenburgh be put together.
I have studied the matter a little further and I believe that a great saving in dollars can be achieved by adopting many of the federal procedures and much of what's been done by the federal government and much of what will be done in the future by the federal government. The savings will be in millions of dollars. But we have to understand that the whole basis of these enumerations is not on the basis of the large riding as such but is on the basis of enumeration within polls. So the enumeration is conducted and is divided within polls. The electors in each poll are established by the enumeration conducted in anticipation of an election. So the anticipated saving of dollars by using federal figures can be achieved without adopting the new federal riding boundaries.
The new boundaries do not change the polls, and the same polls can be used federally and provincially by merely extrapolating the electoral votes produced by the enumeration of the voters entitled to cast a ballot and slotting them in their selected riding boundaries without having to adopt the federal boundaries as far as Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry, Cornwall and Charlottenburgh are concerned. The same would apply for the riding of Prescott and Russell. The names of the people are slotted in the poll and the numbers are slotted in the poll, and it's a very simple matter to simply extrapolate that poll and say this belongs to Prescott and Russell.
Now I want to address the question of the bill itself, and I'm dealing with Bill 81, and I'm concerned with respect to the wording of the title of the bill. The title of the act, Bill 81, includes wording that is too wide and too restrictive having regard to the obligation of the province to safeguard the integrity of provincial jurisdiction. The wording, as presently constituted, involves abdication of the province of Ontario government's right and duty of self-determination. The effect of the legislation is to submit the province to being manipulated and to being dictated to by the federal government. Let there be no mistake about that. There is no mechanism within Bill 81 to protect the province from federal manipulation. There is no consultation process spelled out whereby the province can exercise a right of veto with respect to riding boundaries, and this constitutes a foolhardy abdication of Ontario's right of self-determination.
In the title the word "identical" is used. They're talking about boundaries of provincial electoral districts identical to those of the federal counterparts. If you look at the schedule to the Representation Act, at subsection 2(1), we see again the word "identical" to those of its federal electoral districts. I suggest that the word "identical" in the title should be deleted, and it should be replaced by the following words, "similar to those of their federal counterparts to the extent that it suits the Legislature of the province of Ontario." That's what I suggest. So the title would now read -- it's a very slight amendment but it makes a world of difference: An Act to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Assembly by making the number and boundaries of provincial electoral districts similar to those of their federal counterparts to the extent that it suits the Legislature of the province of Ontario and to make consequential amendments to statutes concerning electoral representation.
Similarly, those words and practically a repetition would be substituted for the word "identical" at subsection 2(1) of the schedule.
Of course, the specific sections of the act would have to be amended to provide for the ability of the province to deviate from strict compliance with proposed federal riding boundaries where it makes sense to do so. It's my suggestion that in this case it makes sense to do so. That's, I suppose, the purpose of this commission today, to determine how this bill can be improved.
The Chair: Just to let you know, sir, you're down to your last minute and a half or so.
Mr Lefebvre: Thank you. The guiding factor would have to be enhancing provincial savings by use of the federal poll enumeration figures and names. The cost of extrapolating the figures and adapting them to those ridings in need of provincial recognition as significantly different from the federal boundaries would be very minimal and certainly it would be an appropriate small expenditure in safeguarding provincial integrity in matters of self-government and the election of the members of the Ontario Legislature.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate your input here this morning. You've effectively used up your 20 minutes so there's no time for any questions, but we do appreciate your input. Thanks very much.
Mr Patten: Perhaps we might ask if you have a copy of your presentation that you could share with the committee.
Mr Lefebvre: Yes, we have 10 copies actually.
Mr Currier: Okay. Thank you, Mr Chair. If anyone wants to ask us questions, we'll be hanging around.
The Chair: Okay. Maybe you can buy lunch.
TREVOR TOLLEY
The Chair: Our next presenter is Professor A.T. Tolley. Good morning, sir. Welcome to our committee. The floor is yours, sir.
Mr Trevor Tolley: Thank you. Can everybody hear me? I should first of all like to introduce myself. I'm Professor Trevor Tolley, a resident of Williamsburg township in the present provincial riding of Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville. I'm a former municipal councillor, having served two terms on Williamsburg township council. I came close to being elected deputy reeve in the last election. I'm also president of the Williamsburg Non-Profit Housing Corp and past president and vice-president of Dundas County Community Living.
I think, therefore, that I have a good basis for understanding the feelings of my fellow residents concerning the changes in riding boundaries. I believe that most of the members of Williamsburg council would echo my views. I would cite the views expressed to me by a prominent member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture who lives in Williamsburg, the view that the things he is most afraid of in what the present government of Ontario proposes are municipal amalgamation and the realignment of the boundaries of provincial ridings.
1140
I'm addressing the proposal that the boundaries of provincial ridings should be the same as those of federal ridings. I would first of all express a personal view, which is that the proposed changes and the arguments for them are misguided. The size of the federal ridings reflects the need to keep the House of Commons at a manageable level, where it is an effective body for debate and representation. Such a need does not in my view exist at the provincial level, even in so large a province as Ontario. The size of the Legislature is very manageable. This and the best size for effective representation should be the paramount criteria in considering any change. Saving dollars that are a minor percentage of the provincial budget in a matter so crucial to democracy in Ontario seems to me to be an example of the proverbial tail wagging the dog.
I would like to turn now to local considerations. I shall begin by looking at the municipal structure of the region. We have two tiers of government within the region: township councils at the lower level and the council of the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry at the upper level. While there may be amalgamation at the lower level, the counties council will remain in place. The united counties are almost identical with the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, the exceptions being Charlottenburgh township, which is in the Cornwall provincial riding, and East Grenville, which is not in the united counties. However, the united counties do not include the city of Cornwall, but the city of Cornwall is part of the federal riding of Stormont-Dundas, the boundaries of which, it is proposed, will be the boundaries of the new provincial riding. In addition, the proposed new provincial riding would include only the counties of Stormont and Dundas, plus one township from Glengarry, Charlottenburgh. There would thus be a new dissonance created between the municipal and provincial areas of governmental representation, a dissonance that does not exist at the moment.
This might not seem devastating, but the present municipal separation reflects important differences and also protects the rural areas. Cornwall is a mill town that originally emerged as a centre for utilizing wood from the surrounding region. Wood-based products are still the main industry of Cornwall, even though Courtaulds and other spinners have gone. Domtar remains, and without it Cornwall would hardly survive. The wood in the surrounding area has long since disappeared and logs are brought in from far afield. Cornwall, additionally, and indeed in this way, is in no way a centre for the agricultural activities of the surrounding counties.
There is hence no community of economic interest between Cornwall and the counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, which are largely agricultural. Their largest urban area is the village of Alexandria, with just over 3,000 people. The present arrangement of boundaries ensures that the special interests of these rural areas are well and clearly represented at Queen's Park. They are in fact represented by the present Minister of Agriculture for Ontario.
If we look at the population distribution of the proposed new riding, we see that it would contain the present Cornwall provincial riding plus three townships from the county of Stormont and the whole of the county of Dundas. The population of the present Cornwall riding is slightly larger, I believe, than the population of the entire riding of Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville. The present Cornwall riding would remain intact and its population would be far greater than the population of the remainder of the new riding, which would be that of only seven of the 13 townships that make up the present riding of Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville.
The voting power would be in Cornwall, and it would seem inevitable that the representative would come from the city of Cornwall. This has always been the case for the present federal riding of Stormont-Dundas. In view of the fact that the concerns and interests of the city of Cornwall are so divorced from those of what would be the remainder of the new riding, the representation of the rural interests would be dramatically diminished.
My position is in keeping with a motion moved by the honourable Noble Villeneuve in the provincial Legislature on 26 November 1992. I will read his motion:
"That, in the opinion of this House, when the next commission for the purpose of redistribution of Ontario electoral districts is established, the commission should be instructed to take into consideration the varying conditions, circumstances and requirements regarding representation as between rural and urban electoral districts, and the increase in geographic area of rural ridings after the redistribution of the 1970s and the 1980s, with the intention of creating three classifications of constituencies, urban, urban-rural, and rural, so as to limit the geographic area of rural ridings, and to a lesser degree that of urban-rural ridings, as well as the number of organized municipalities which members must represent."
Noble Villeneuve is the member for Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville. He is Minister of Agriculture in the present government of Ontario. His motion was passed in the House with supporting speeches from both sides of the House. I trust that the committee has been alerted to this motion of 1992.
Interjection.
Mr Tolley: I'm very pleased to hear that. Sorry to have taken up your time.
I trust the committee has been alerted to his motion. I then come back to my original position, that the proposed changes are misguided and will lead to a diminution in the representation afforded to the inhabitants of the rural areas. I urge the committee to take careful note of this and of the supporting facts I have adduced. I am in favour of the status quo, concerning which I more or less spoke at the meeting I think 10 years ago. The boundaries which were adopted were the boundaries that I suggested; it doesn't follow that they were adopted because I suggested them.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. We've got about three minutes per caucus for questions, beginning with the government.
Mr Maves: Thank you very much, Professor Tolley. I wasn't here for the first few minutes. You are a professor of what? I just missed --
Mr Tolley: I'm a retired professor from Carleton University, a professor of English and comparative literature and the former dean of arts at Carleton.
Mr Maves: I understand that you and the gentleman before you have problems with the way the boundaries have been divided for your area and that there are different interests within your riding as it's going to sit, but that's the case for most ridings. I'm the member for Niagara Falls. To the south of me Tim Hudak has a riding which has Fort Erie and Port Colborne. Fort Erie and Port Colborne often have different interests, and I would assume that there are all these types of differences in each and every riding. I would suggest that to divide up all of the ridings across Ontario and across Canada simply on that matter would make for an extremely difficult exercise, number one.
Number two, I can understand that you have a keen interest in this and I just wondered, when the federal commission went around the province taking submissions on the redrawing of the boundaries, did you present at that time?
Mr Tolley: No, I didn't.
Mr Gilchrist: Just as a follow-up to that, Professor, part of our problem in this is in May 1994, when we articulated our policy planks and our election campaign commitments, one of them was to mirror the federal boundaries. I hasten to say that in May 1994 there were no draft maps. There could be no accusation of gerrymandering by our government or by our party at that time, because there was no vision of what this non-partisan federally appointed commission would decide, based on the representations they heard. They did in fact go around the province, a number of hearings, including three in the north, and they had one in Nepean, down in this neck of the woods. Based on those submissions, they crafted these boundaries.
The flip side of that is by June 8, 1995, they did have draft maps available, and every member who stood for election to the current Parliament had the opportunity to obtain a copy of that map and know that if we were elected and if we were serious about keeping our promise, that would be the boundary for the subsequent election. But they also knew something else. The federal government was still entertaining amendments to that draft, and for seven more months people had an opportunity to call up their MP or to call the boundary commission directly. I guess our frustration, particularly from members opposite, is that those who took no time to make presentations before the federal commission and yet who knew we were about to mirror what it did are now asking us to change it, when the horse has already bolted. I guess I'm just curious to know whether -- and I want to be quite fair -- it ever came to your attention that the federal government was doing a redistribution.
Mr Tolley: I have a map of it and I have no quarrel with it as a federal riding, no quarrel at all. What I have a quarrel with is making that the provincial riding.
Mr Patten: Professor Tolley, thank you for coming today. I find your presentation fascinating and interesting, and I think you make very compelling arguments, one of which is of course -- and it's been identified before, but it's important to restate -- that the province does abdicate its responsibility to the federal government and there are different needs at different levels; otherwise, why have different jurisdictions.
1150
The second is that there is no mechanism -- you've identified this and I'd like you to elaborate on what you would suggest would be a mechanism so that there is some flexibility. My personal opinion is that, I don't care what the jurisdiction is, you've got to have the flexibilities of the variances and the uniquenesses throughout your jurisdiction, no matter how large or small it may be. In this particular situation -- and there was a recommendation from the presenters just before you which I thought was a sound recommendation -- from your point of view, what would be a mechanism -- obviously the government wants to proceed with this -- to allow for the sort of flexibility and still get some of the benefits of aligning themselves with the federal ridings?
Mr Tolley: I find that a rather difficult question to answer as a general question. Certainly within our riding it's difficult to see how such an arrangement could be made for the proposed riding because I feel myself that there is, from my own experience in dealing with Cornwall and our riding, a tremendous cultural gap between Cornwall and us. I suppose that is what I was speaking to. I'm sorry I can't answer you more fully.
Mr Patten: I meant in terms of legislation; there is nothing in the legislation that allows for any flexibility, but still to -- as they suggest, there is some cost saving by adopting the federal system because they will have done all the work and paid all the expenses and the province won't have to pay for that and they can do that.
The presenters just before you suggested, however, you still can have 95% of those benefits but show some flexibility and ensure yourself your authority and don't abdicate your authority to the federal government at this point, which is kind of an irony because usually the feds are the bad guys around here, you know.
Mr Tolley: I heard the latter part of that presentation and I was sympathetic to it.
Mr Hampton: Thank you very much, Professor Tolley. When I listen to the Conservative members argue in favour of this bill, one of the arguments I hear often is: "What you really need is a representation strictly by population, so that representation in a democracy is strictly a numbers game. You add up the total population and you divide it by a certain number and you then achieve democracy." I wanted to ask you: What do you think of that concept in terms of democracy and in terms of representation and in terms of balance?
Mr Tolley: I would say of course that has to be the starting point for consideration. Obviously one wouldn't like to see a situation where a small number of people were electing a member and in another riding two or three times the number were electing a member. On the other hand, it seems to me that for ridings which are geographically spread out there must be consideration of the geographical size, there must be consideration of the number of municipal jurisdictions within that riding, and many other considerations. These considerations certainly apply to Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. As I said myself in the beginning of my presentation, it seems to me that arranging things so that we save money is the tail wagging the dog, and going for uniformity without consideration of local needs and consideration of the geographical concerns that I've spoken of too is misguided.
Mr Hampton: One of the issues that the government puts forward is they say this is going to save money, yet recently in the press there have been a number of op ed pieces by people who've spent a fair amount of time studying democracy who point out that you're not going to find much here in the way of saving money; this may in fact cost more.
Given where you're from, in rural Ontario, do you have a sense of the kind of telephone lines or the variety of fax machines or in fact the kind of constituency staff that would be required to deal with municipalities, to deal with boards of education, to deal with federations of agriculture, to deal with -- as I gather, there are two major linguistic groups in the constituency? Do you have a sense of that, if people are to have adequate representation and people are to have a sense of being in contact with their representative? Do you have a sense of that?
Mr Tolley: I think there is a great cost involved. Of course, within the city of Cornwall there would be a much greater ease of communication, much less dependence upon the facilities for communication than there would be within the remainder of the proposed riding and it seems to me that this too would put the people of Cornwall at an advantage, the immediacy that they might have to their representative.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Tolley. We appreciate your input here this morning.
Mr Tolley: It's been a pleasure. Thank you.
The Chair: So that we do not affect the short hour we have for lunch, the suggestion has been made that we continue our discussion on our issue at 3 o'clock. We have a break at 3 o'clock. Everybody in agreement with that? We recess until 1 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1158 to 1300.
KATE THORNE
The Chair: Our first presenter this afternoon is Kate Thorne. Welcome to our committee. The floor is yours.
Mrs Kate Thorne: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you on the subject of Bill 81. I've never done this before, so please bear with me. I'll be quite brief. I don't think I have 20 minutes worth, so I certainly would welcome questions.
As the Chair said, my name is Kate Thorne, and I'm a retiree from the library at Carleton University where I worked in government documents. In fact I was responsible for the Ontario documents so I'm very familiar with many of these names.
Mr Patten: You're doing better than us.
Mrs Marland: Actually the chatty ones, right?
Mr Baird: You wouldn't know me then.
Mrs Thorne: I understand that this act would reduce the number of MPPs by 27 to 103 members, resulting in less representation per person for the province, and I think this is a step in the wrong direction for several reasons.
The issues dealt with by MPPs are much closer to home for the average Ontarian than those concerning the federal MPs. Issues of health care, education, welfare, family issues, children's issues, labour issues, all these are day-to-day concerns with which people need help. In the urban areas I understand that constituency offices usually have four telephone lines that are constantly in use. Among others, there are floods of new citizens who need assistance and advocacy. In the rural areas, particularly in the north, already large ridings would now be enormous.
In the past more seats were allocated to large geographical areas on the basis of need to see. There are areas which don't have local TV news shows or local daily papers and where even a phone call to the constituency office could be a long distance call. So I think it's very important that these electors actually see their representatives on a regular basis, but with even bigger ridings, this will become more and more difficult. In general, I would say that federal ridings are not as logical as the present provincial ridings for Ontario because of the nature of the issues handled by the provincial Legislature.
On the issue of costs, I think the savings involved with 27 seats in the Legislature would be very minimal in a provincial budget of, I understand, about $50 billion, when it's compared to the services that these MPPs deliver to their constituents. So I do feel that this bill will result in less resources being available to these people in need of help at a time when people need help more and more.
My last point is more personal. Speaking as someone with a great respect for our elected representatives and all their hard work and sacrifices, I find the short title of the bill to be subtly pejorative. The Fewer Politicians Act seems to be saying that the only good politician is a gone politician. It seems to be feeding into the perceived dislike of politicians by people who don't believe in government. It seems to encourage even more disenchantment with legislatures, and I think it undermines democracy and we may find ourselves moving towards a society like that of the US where only 49% voted in Tuesday's presidential election.
I told you I was going to be really brief. Thank you very much for your attention. But I wonder if it would be in order to ask the committee a couple of questions.
The Chair: Mr Gilchrist?
Mr Gilchrist: Sure, no problem.
The Chair: We have five minutes per caucus that we divide up. So when it comes around to the government's five minutes, you can feel free to ask them some questions.
Mr Baird: You can ask them some questions too.
Mr Gilchrist: Was it the government she meant?
The Chair: Yes. I presume your questions were of the government members.
Mrs Thorne: No. I wanted to ask all the committee members a couple of questions. I wanted to know how many new members there were in this committee.
Mr Sergio: How many new members?
Mrs Thorne: I mean new members of the Legislature since the last election. I wanted to ask you if you've changed your ideas about the importance of the role of an MPP and the need people have for personal representation.
The Chair: Do you want each person who's new to answer that?
Mrs Thorne: If it wouldn't be too --
The Chair: Okay. We'll start with Mr Stewart. Make these short answers.
Mr Stewart: I'm always short. No, I don't think it has. I was in municipal politics for 12 years and I think probably I was more involved with more issues at that level than I am now. I average about 60 to 70 calls a day. But if you have a good staff and a competent staff, they can assist you very much. With high-tech communications, whether it be 1-800 numbers or answering services, whatever, we can serve our people very well.
The one comment I would like to make is that unfortunately over the past number of years we have catered very highly to our constituents -- past members have. I think we're now to a point where, as we cut down in dollars and have less dollars to spend, we've got to get away from that bias. People have to be prepared to start to do things for themselves, and they can very easily. Instead of my predecessor sending a birth certificate application form to Thunder Bay via courier when it wasn't necessarily an emergency, there's no reason they couldn't send it by a stamp, which they have paid for, on an envelope and cut down the cost for the government. So I think that we're much the same as what I've been used to in the past.
The Chair: Okay, Mrs Thorne, could you just have the question a little bit more precise so the answers could be a little bit more precise? We will end up here with about seven political speeches otherwise.
Mrs Thorne: Yes, okay.
The Chair: What was the question again?
Mrs Thorne: I said, "Have you changed your ideas about the importance of the role of an MPP and the need people have for personal representation?"
Mrs Ross: No, I haven't changed my opinion. I think the role of an MPP is to serve their constituents the best way they possibly can. I think the significance of that role is in the office of being an MPP, not necessarily with the personality in the office.
Mr Baird: I worked for a federal member of Parliament for six years, so I already had a very high regard for the importance of the role of a parliamentarian.
Mr Gilchrist: Like Mr Baird, I've been involved in the party for 25 years. My father was an elected official, and I helped craft the Common Sense Revolution as party president at the time. We went across this province and asked people about every promise in that book, including the one to mirror federal boundaries. Everything I've seen since the election just reinforces my belief that we're living up to those promises and that's exactly what the majority of people in this province wanted us to do.
Mr Maves: I too worked for a federal member before I ran and became a provincial member. When I worked for the federal member, we handled a lot of things that were actually quite day to day in people's lives: GST payroll, child tax credit, veterans' benefits, veterans' pensions, records, recognitions, Young Offenders Act, passports, visas, immigration, guaranteed income supplements, spouse's allowance, I can go on and on, all of which, contrary to your opening statement, were very significant in the daily lives of people as are some of the things we do as provincial members. So I have a great deal of respect for the roles and responsibilities of both provincial and federal members.
Mr Sergio: It hasn't. This is my first term as an MPP. Having served some 16 1/2 or 17 years as a local councillor, I get to appreciate more the responsibility that comes with the role of the MPP. If there's anything I have noticed that gives me something to think seriously about, it's future representation. As politicians, we are told: "If you don't like the heat in the kitchen, you can leave. Nobody forces you to run."
If you have people who are so willing and take the issues to heart, everyone who has run for election and has won and is doing a good job trying to represent the people, what we are seeing with our government may be a deterrent for some good candidates who may want to run for office in the future, and I think that is a disservice to our general community as well.
But no, it has not changed my mind as to what I used to think. I like the people. As a matter of fact, I think it has enhanced it. I think we politicians are undervalued, perhaps, by the general public and the media, that we are not appreciated for what we do, and that bothers me.
The Chair: Any additions? That's all the new people.
Mrs Thorne: That's very helpful. Thank you.
The Chair: Okay, we have about three minutes per caucus for questions now, beginning with Mr Patten.
1310
Mr Patten: Thank you very much for your presentation. I particularly applaud you for your perception about the title, because it does suggest a negativity associated with politicians that I think is not warranted and certainly doesn't show respect.
The fact is, it was sold at election time as a cost-cutting measure, period. But as we get into the issue, we find that it really raises many other issues, one of which you alluded to in your opening remarks. It has been mentioned here a couple of times and I welcome your comments on it, and that is, this bill completely abdicates provincial responsibility for electoral boundaries to the federal government. If we agree with one assumption, that the needs of each jurisdiction are different -- that's why we have different jurisdictions -- then that can be an unwise place to be in when there is no flexibility whatsoever for any provincial considerations that may not be required to be made at the federal level. Would you have a comment to make on that?
Mrs Thorne: Yes, Mr Patten, I quite agree with you, and that was sort of underlying what I was saying. I didn't express it as well as you. But yes, I think that we have in Ontario reasons for having ridings where we do and I think it's a mistake to give that up. As you say, the federal ridings might be for completely different reasons, which would not be to the advantage of Ontarians.
Mr Grandmaître: Maybe I can add a comment. I've been around Queen's Park for the last 12 years, five years in government, in cabinet, and now in the opposition. I can tell you that I think my responsibilities at Queen's Park have increased in the last five or six years for the simple reason that this province has been moving along at a terrible pace. It's difficult for all of us to keep track of the many changes, and I think by having fewer politicians and fewer people in our constituency offices to talk to our constituents, it makes it very difficult for us to keep abreast and to inform our people. That's one of the main responsibilities of somebody who's 350 miles away or 325 miles away from his constituents. I think we have a job to communicate with our people.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: I'm being cut off, as usual.
The Chair: Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: Mrs Thorne, I want to thank you for your presentation. I found it very useful and I thought you were very articulate in the points you made. Three points I want to try to make quickly: (1) On the title, you're quite correct and I think that was the intent of the government to do that, because they're very clever in terms of how they present bills, just as they did with the employment equity bill; they called it a quota bill. Whatever has resonance with the public, they will simply cater to it and sadly, in my view, it's a problem when they do that. There is a purpose, there is a design to it. It isn't by accident that they come up with these titles. But you've hit on it, and I think it diminishes us as it tries to cater to the public. That's the first point.
On the second point -- and I want to touch on what Mr Stewart said later if I have the time -- I'm sure you didn't say, as I didn't say, the way Mr Maves portrays it, that what the federal level of government does is not any less significant than what we do. You didn't say that; I didn't hear you say that. He portrayed it as such. They are important issues no doubt, you will agree.
Mrs Thorne: Of course.
Mr Marchese: What you were saying and what I was saying is that as you get on with the various levels, they're more distant and that people tend to see municipal politicians more often than they will see a provincial, more often see a provincial than they will see a federal person. I think that's what you were getting at.
Mrs Thorne: Yes, that's it. Thank you.
Mr Marchese: I just wanted to clear that up between you and me and him and whoever else is listening here.
Mr Stewart makes some interesting points about representation, with which I disagree fundamentally, and that's our difference and problem. He says, "We've got high-tech stuff now." We have high-tech stuff now in our constituencies and my staff is still burdened with too many cases. It doesn't matter how much more efficient you make it, it doesn't eliminate the case work. They're still there. We still have to write letters intelligently. It takes time. He says, "If you have competent staff...." I have, I believe, the most competent staff I've ever seen. We still have a problem in terms of our ability to deal with all the constituency cases.
He says as well that we're catering too much to the public and that they should stand up on their own two feet and do their own stuff. That's the way they used to do it in the old days when government was so inaccessible. But I've got people on social assistance, people with mental disabilities who come into my office needing help, and it takes hours of my staff's time to deal with it. Does he somehow suggest that those people with mental problems go on their on their own and handle their own problems, or people on social assistance? We've got a problem. If we don't help them --
Mrs Marland: No, he's not suggesting that.
Mr Gilchrist: That's offensive.
Mr Marchese: -- they're on their own.
Mr Hastings: On a point of order, Mr Chairman --
Mr Gilchrist: Right out of the gutter.
Mrs Marland: It doesn't become you, Rosario.
Mr Stewart: If you're going to criticize, hold to the facts.
Mr Marchese: I'll have time to come back to this.
The Chair: No, Mr Marchese. Actually, your time is up.
Mr Hastings, do you have a point of order?
Mr Hastings: My point of order was simply his reference that, by implication, some of us are a little less concerned with the disabled. I don't accept that in the slightest.
The Chair: Mr Maves.
Mr Maves: When I list a litany of things that are done at the federal level, one of the things I'm pretty sure was in your notes was that less day-to-day things happen at the federal level. But the reason I list them is because there are really quite a few day-to-day things that happen at that level. I don't think anyone's out to maliciously say that the federal MPs are any less important or anything, but I think there is a misconception because what most people see is federal politicians being active in international politics and they see the military. Some of that stuff may be not so day-to-day and significant in the everyday lives of people, but many of the other things I have mentioned are very much day-to-day and significant in the lives of everyday people and I'd like to bring them out because I don't think it's a valid criticism to make of that level.
The other thing I want to say is that at the provincial level we deal with education and health, for instance, two areas that are very close to people's lives on a day-to-day basis. But you should remember that in my area, in the Niagara region, fewer than 400,000 people, I've got 68 trustees who are elected politicians to help the public deal with the school system. Every hospital has a public board with 12 or more members on it who are there to help the public. I've got 30 regional councillors in that area; I've got 112 municipal councillors in that area. So aside from the six MPPs in the Niagara region, there are 210 other elected officials who look after provincial areas of jurisdiction like municipal affairs and education.
Mrs Thorne: But Mr Maves, is it not true that this present government is moving to reduce those numbers very significantly in terms of school boards and municipal councillors and so on?
Mr Grandmaître: Right on.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Maves. Thank you very much, Mrs Thorne. We appreciate your being here this afternoon and giving us your input.
Mrs Thorne: Thank you very much.
Mrs Marland: Oh, I didn't get --
Mr Sergio: I would like to hear -- give three minutes to Margaret. Come on.
The Chair: Our next presenter is Ken Vowles.
Mrs Marland: We had less time --
Mr Sergio: I approve. She gets three minutes. She has a very important question. Please, two minutes?
Mr Gilchrist: Let's keep this on track, please. Cut the glib comments.
Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I take offence to what he -- because I am trying to be kind to Mrs Marland.
Mrs Marland: He was, actually.
Mr Sergio: Mr Gilchrist, we told you --
Mr Gilchrist: We have 20 minutes for each group. We're inconveniencing the other groups.
Mr Sergio: It doesn't matter.
Mr Gilchrist: It doesn't matter?
Mr Sergio: We're spending 20 minutes when nobody's here. I just took offence to your comments.
Mr Gilchrist: Likewise.
The Chair: Okay, gentlemen, I think we should deal with --
Mr Sergio: Next time, keep them for yourself.
The Chair: I think we should deal with those issues in another forum.
Mr Sergio: I just don't believe how low can you get.
KENNETH VOWLES
The Chair: Thank you very much for coming this afternoon, Mr Vowles. We appreciate your being here. You have 20 minutes. Should you allow some time for questions, they would begin with Mr Marchese.
Mr Kenneth Vowles: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for inviting me before you. My background, just to tell you something about myself, I'm ex-military. I spent 25 years in Canada's military in the security field.
Interjection.
Mr Sergio: You don't deserve anything.
The Chair: Excuse me, please.
Mr Gilchrist: I don't think profanity is in order, Mr Chair.
The Chair: I think it's in very poor taste for us to be arguing among ourselves in front of people who have taken the time out to come and give us their input on a bill. I ask you please to show some respect.
Mr Vowles: Thank you. As I was saying, just a bit about my background so you know where I come from: I'm ex-military, 25 years, and I've been since that time -- by the way, I jumped out of airplanes with a Liberal, Gilles Morin, about 40 years ago, and not just to stick with the Liberals, I also jumped out with a Reformer called Bob Ringma. He jumped out of airplanes. But I never jumped with a PC or an NDP, so I'm sorry about that.
Mr Stewart: Nobody's pushed us out yet.
1320
Mr Vowles: Since that time I've been in business. I'm now retired. I'm working for a newspaper at this time. From the provincial point of view, I was a campaign manager for a federal member at one time, for the last election, but we won't mention the party.
Let me continue, if I may. I thank you for giving me this opportunity, as I say. As we all know, Elections Canada recently held hearings, completed reports and consulted MPs in order to revise the electoral boundaries. This, I feel, was long overdue. We have learned that in the next federal election there will be 103 ridings, up from the 99 of today, due to the new electoral boundaries here in Ontario. I will not question the results of that commission that state there will be 103 ridings in Ontario for the House of Commons, but if representation by population and area has been considered in these findings for the federal House, why are these figures not the same and applicable for the Ontario Legislature?
It is only common sense that riding boundary lines be the same federally and provincially, and I strongly support the government's action in lowering the number of MPP seats from the present 130 to 103. Lowering the number of MPPs must result in a considerable saving.
I learned it costs us, the taxpayers -- and I've been one for nearly 50 years in this country -- approximately $220,000 for each MPP, and this figure does not include the many varied miscellaneous expenses. Simple math tells me that reducing the number of MPPs from 130 to 103 means we lose 27 seats in the next provincial House, and this represents a saving of $5.94 million. This is indeed a ballpark figure. The true saving, I'm sure, when all is considered, that is, all the offshoots and avenues from taking away these additional seats, will result in a saving closer to $10 million.
Some may argue that MPPs are closer to their constituents than the federal members. I doubt this assumption. Ask any constituent their respective federal or provincial riding and they will give you a blank stare. The average Canadian, by his very nature, is not a political animal. The average Canadian does not write, telephone, fax or communicate with his federal or provincial member on a regular basis. In fact, a shocking number of average Canadians do not even bother to vote.
I therefore feel that although some regions may be large geographically, they are not unworkable for the member of the provincial Parliament. This may be their argument. If MPPs are requested in the isolated locations from time to time, I'm sure they can delegate this attendance to competent assistants. Moreover, in today's modern electronic society, it is easy to communicate by letter, by telephone or by fax.
The maxim "rep by pop" surely is the same provincially as federally. I can only conclude by wondering why the electoral boundaries, federal and provincial, have not always been the same. They should have been harmonized long ago, in my opinion.
Ontario is now carrying a $100-billion debt. We are spending $1 million an hour -- you can see how long it takes to spend $1 million -- or $24 million a day more than we are taking in. The bleeding has to stop. We cannot and must not pass this horrendous debt to our children and our children's children. We can help, every saving can help, and reducing the 130 members to 103 is just one way of doing this. Surely it's nothing more than common sense.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We've got about five minutes per caucus left for questions, beginning with Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: Mr Vowles, what is your view of politicians?
Mr Vowles: I think it's an honourable profession. I was asked to run myself at one time. I think they're grossly underpaid, if you're interested in what I think. I think they're underpaid for what they do. They're expected to work far more hours than the average Canadian realizes how many hours they put in the House, be it at the provincial or federal level. So I have respect for politicians. I always have.
Mr Marchese: They work hard, in your view?
Mr Vowles: I certainly agree, sir. Yes, they do.
Mr Marchese: But the fact that they work hard and put in long hours, when they pick up a bigger riding, it's manageable in your view, obviously. It's not a big deal.
Mr Vowles: No, I'm not saying it's not a big deal, but I am saying it's manageable because they have assistants. If an area, the largest area in Ontario -- we are giving two more seats in northern Ontario because of the boundary lines, I believe.
Mr Marchese: Federal, yes.
Mr Vowles: Of course, yes. But I think this will follow, surely, the same lines provincially.
Mr Marchese: We lose 27 seats provincially. That's what happens.
Mr Vowles: Okay.
Mr Marchese: So you view politicians positively.
Mr Vowles: Absolutely.
Mr Marchese: What do you think the role of the politician is?
Mr Vowles: To represent his constituents, first and foremost, and secondly the party he represents. I believe the first and foremost thing he should do is represent the people who put him there.
Mr Marchese: I understand that. You were saying that the Canadian public are not terribly political animals and --
Mr Vowles: I'm sorry, if I can butt in right there and say, sir, this afternoon this is a public hearing. I didn't have to book a seat. Just to answer that before --
Mr Marchese: I appreciate it. But you were making a point about that, and I think the point you were getting at is that given that people are not terribly active or political, if we reduce the number of seats, nobody would notice. That's more or less what I gather from the point you're making.
Mr Vowles: Yes, I think I'd agree on that.
Mr Marchese: So even though they work hard and all that, even though they might pick up more work, by and large it's manageable because nobody out there is terribly active anyway even though we're more active than the US.
Mr Vowles: Yes.
Mr Marchese: So your larger view is that we spend too much money and that's a problem we've got to deal with, and so this is good to take away $11 million, taking away 27 politicians and all of the staff that's connected to that, because it will help to deal with the deficit.
Mr Vowles: A hundred billion dollars, I cannot even spell that amount, it's so large. For a province with 10 million people, sir, I think $100 billion, we'd better tackle it or your children and my children will be tackling it. That's why no one wants -- the not in my back yard theory. But I think we've got to start, and we'll start at the top.
Mr Marchese: No, I understood that. I was trying to connect your desire to cut politicians with dealing with the deficit, and obviously there's a connection there.
Mr Vowles: There is.
Mr Marchese: Do you think by cutting the 27 politicians we will become more efficient, perhaps, in our offices?
Mr Vowles: I don't think we'll lose any efficiency. We might not become more efficient but I doubt if we'll become less efficient. I think they'll still do their job.
Mr Marchese: I was trying to make a case before, and you heard me argue prior to you coming to speak. I was saying that I'm having a difficult time in my office. From what? From my meetings with my staff on a regular basis, my staff talks to me about the terribly difficult time they've got finding more and more time to deal with cases that come into my office on a regular basis.
The most complicated are the ones that deal with social assistance, because they are most heartbreaking for the staff trying to deal with the problems they bring. The other most heartbreaking issues come with people with mental illness, for a variety of reasons, in terms of finding a place or the problems they might be facing wherever they might be, and other personal matters that we sometimes don't know how to deal with.
The cuts are not helping, in my view. The more and more cases we get in my downtown Toronto riding, the more complicated my job becomes in terms of my ability to help them. So when I pick up more riding, to deal with more issues of that nature -- and it will become more complicated, I suggest -- how do you suggest I deal with it? With better technology, or what do you suggest to me?
Mr Vowles: I suggest, sir, that you may have a special riding where you do have an extra-large amount of people and obviously it will be increased. I suggest you get some competent assistants.
Mr Marchese: You heard me say --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Marchese. Mr Gilchrist, followed by Mr Stewart.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you very much, Mr Vowles. I really appreciate your comments. You raised a couple of issues where I'd like to give you some statistics. You asked why there necessarily are more provincial MPPs than there are MPs, and I would suggest that this has not always been the case. Back in 1933 the then Conservative government did exactly what we're doing today. It trimmed 20% of the sitting members. Why? Because it faced dire economic circumstances and it believed then, as we believe today, there was a need to show leadership right from the top. They couldn't ask people at the height of the Depression to be making sacrifices that they themselves would not make.
By the way, at the same time, they passed an equally impressive reduction in the size of the executive council or the cabinet. I'm pleased to say that we don't have to do that because we have the smallest cabinet since 1956 already. But it is not the case that we always had more MPPs. That's a fairly recent phenomenon. In fact, it had grown to the point where we grew 42% faster than the number of federal MPs did.
1330
You mentioned representation by population and the importance of representing the people first. That's the first obligation of an MPP and I couldn't agree with you more. What would you say to the ability under the current system for a member to fairly represent his or her constituents? In some ridings in this province there are only 19,000 voters, but other ridings today have 129,000 voters. Do you agree that if one riding is 100% and the other riding is at 625%, that's fair?
Mr Vowles: Obviously not, of course.
Mr Gilchrist: So would you agree with me that by moving to something where now the greatest variance between the smallest riding and the largest is only going to be 40%, that's a fair system?
Mr Vowles: Of course. It's more fair to equal people out more to the MPP. I agree. I'm aware of that figure. It was 90 ridings that it went down to in 1933. I have the figures here, so I'm aware of that.
Mr Gilchrist: You did great research. I'd just like to throw two other numbers out at you if I could. Earlier today it was alluded to twice by one of our colleagues and by two members making representations that PEI should be the model for fair representation. PEI has one MLA for every 5,000 people, which means we would need 2,200 MPPs today. That is what they said on the record twice. They also said it's impossible to represent and it's a problem to represent if we go larger. Let me just say that in the US House of Representatives, if they only had to represent the same number of people per representative that we represent today in Ontario, there would need to be 2,650 representatives. They represent five times as many constituents: not Senator, but each representative.
What do you think to either of those two suggestions, that instead of reducing, we expand to either the PEI model or to the --
Mr Vowles: No problem at all. Maybe we should go out and borrow another $300 billion or $400 billion from Japan or somewhere and wipe out the debt -- let the kids wipe it out.
Mr Gilchrist: I just want to make sure that when Hansard records "No problem," you were being facetious.
Mr Vowles: I am being facetious. I object strongly to borrowing any more money, and certainly my whole thrust today, why I'm here, gentlemen, is to tell you that I feel as a taxpayer, just one, that we should reduce the debt.
Mr Sergio: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I've been here since this morning and I've heard every deputation. No one has suggested that we follow the particular system based on 5,000 population.
The Chair: That is not a point of order, Mr Sergio.
Mr Sergio: No, that is to indicate --
Mr Gilchrist: It was Mr Cullen, the regional councillor.
Mr Patten: He didn't suggest that.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chair, I think it's very important that we should straighten that record out right now.
The Chair: It is not a point of order. Mr Stewart.
Interjections.
Mr Stewart: Gentlemen, if you would be quiet, I could have a little bit of time with this gentleman. I'd like to ask him a question. I made the comment a little while ago that I thought it was time we started to help ourselves a little bit and indeed help each other. What seems to be coming out is the fact that we're not going to be able to help our constituents unless we do it ourselves personally. Do you believe that's the role of the MPP totally, or is it not partially the MPP and a darn good staff?
Mr Vowles: Of course, a good staff and the MP. Obviously we can't have more MPPs, if this is part of your thrust. Cut and dried, we've got to reduce because we've got a debt. I've got two children. Maybe people don't have children. I do, and I'm not going to pass this debt on to them.
Mr Stewart: Would you agree then that --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Stewart. Mr Patten.
Mr Patten: Thank you very much, Mr Vowles. I would like to straighten out one thing, though, that Mr Gilchrist suggested. Mr Cullen today, in attempting to explain the federal approach to how they arrive at their boundaries, made reference to PEI. He did not at any time suggest that's what we should be doing. He was saying if you're just going to take prima facie --
Mr Gilchrist: He said that was a model for good representation.
Mr Patten: No, he didn't.
The Chair: Mr Patten has the floor.
Mr Patten: If you were going to take that, then this is the model, and he did not recommend the model, by the way.
Mr Vowles, there are incredible variances across the nation, as you know.
Mr Vowles: Of course.
Mr Patten: Who do you think has the lowest proportion of MPPs to MPs of any of the provinces right now?
Mr Vowles: I would think very likely Saskatchewan. I don't really know. Saskatchewan, one of the prairie provinces?
Mr Patten: No. Ontario does at the moment.
Mr Vowles: With 10 million people?
Mr Patten: Yes, for 10 million people, and our average representation right now is 85,000. We have the lowest number in relation to the number of MPs we have, and we have the highest representation, an average of 85,000 at the moment. So in relation to all the other provinces, right now Ontario has the lowest ratio. It will then, of course, increase dramatically to the same level as the federal government representation of over 100,000, and that will be substantial.
Would you agree that it would be fair -- I presume we'll move in this direction because the government wants to move that way -- that if there is an increased workload, at least the MPPs should have the same resources as the federal MPs have in order to do their work?
Mr Grandmaître: The same budget.
Mr Vowles: It's a very good question, sir. They certainly should have enough funds to do the job, but I'm just wondering whether you're suggesting there the same budget -- I might back up on that because I'm once again back to the moneys involved, but they should have more moneys perhaps paid to them. I believe it's $220,000 for --
Mr Patten: It's $201,000.
Mr Vowles: So maybe we'll give them another $10,000 to get an extra assistant.
Mr Grandmaître: I'd like to use the same analogy as Mr Gilchrist. He pointed out that we do have a riding in the province of Ontario with 19,000 and another one with 129,000, and that's ridiculous.
Mr Vowles: Absolutely.
Mr Grandmaître: We both agree that we can't have this kind of representation. Do you agree that we should enlarge geographically that riding of 19,000 people four times, five times? Do you think we should enlarge it or make it bigger geographically?
Mr Vowles: The bottom line is, geographically yes, but we've also got to consider how many constituents you are looking after. I just think it should be more balanced out. If you've got one at 19,000 and someone has 50,000 or so, that doesn't seem very fair to the member, federal or provincial.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: I already had my time, but if you want to give me more --
The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you very much for being honest with me there. I appreciate that.
Mr Vowles, thank you very much. We appreciate your input here this afternoon.
GEORGE STAIRS
The Chair: Our next presenter is George Stairs. Good afternoon and welcome to our committee. The floor is yours, sir.
Mr George Stairs: Thank you. My name is George Stairs, and I'll just read my presentation.
Ladies and gentlemen, you will have heard by now many presentations on the cost saving that will be realized by reducing the number of provincial ridings to mirror those of the federal government: less MPPs' salaries; less services; less office space and staff; a chance of competition, between Elections Ontario and Elections Canada, to run cheaper, more effective elections etc. I agree with all these goals and I feel that there will be no loss of effective representation, which, after all, is good enough federally and should therefore be good enough provincially.
Notwithstanding the mentioned reasons, my strongest support for this necessary change has more to do with civics and democracy. Franklin Roosevelt suggested that politics and governance cannot and should not be separated in a democracy. It is the political pressure brought upon those that govern us, at election times and between elections, that produce the populace style of government we know as democracy.
By having a provincial and federal parliamentarian representing the same group of people, we will be able to focus the political process of governance and thus must necessarily improve our democracy. For example, voters will be more easily able to compare the quality of policies and performance between the two representatives, demand joint efforts to help solve problems in the ridings and create within the political parties a broader and more consistent view and united action between their federal and provincial wings towards the needs of the riding. This should increase participation in our political system and improve the quality of representation.
I view the impact of this legislation as equal to that of the election expenses act brought in a number of years ago. It is important to nurture the democratic system and to maintain or increase the level of civics through policies of electoral reform such as the election expenses act or the Fewer Politicians Act.
Thank you for listening to my submission.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We've got a fair bit of time left per caucus for questions, five-plus minutes, beginning with Mr Hastings for the government.
Mr Hastings: Mr Stairs, there has been a theme running through some of these hearings -- I hear it replayed today by some colleagues -- that the title of the act, the Fewer Politicians Act, is clearly an anti-politician attitude or mindset and that we are purely playing to the latest public opinion, if that's the situation, and in looking at ethics from I think it's the centre for ethical policies, ranking police forces and used car salesmen and politicians, used car salesmen were at 10% and I think state representatives were at about 15%.
1340
Mr Patten: That's an Americanism.
Mr Hastings: Yes, I know it's American. It's awful that we cite --
Mr Stairs: That's an interesting statistic.
Mr Hastings: Anyway, do you believe that we are consciously playing to that public mindset?
Mr Stairs: The title of the act states it clearly. I suppose you can obfuscate if you wish, à la 1984, and call it something else, but I think what we're talking about here is fewer politicians. It's an act to bring in fewer politicians, so I'm not sure that you're playing to the public sympathies by simply stating what you're doing as the title of the act.
In terms of the popularity of politicians, that varies from era to era and from time to time. I would perhaps agree with you that at the present time politicians are a little lower on the scale than they have been in the past or will probably be in the future, but I don't think that should determine in any way policies that are set by those who we consider to be our leaders. So no, I don't think the act is poorly named here, and I don't think you're catering to populist opinion or whatever with it.
Mr Hastings: The other popular theme that plays is that if you have increased population to deal with in fewer ridings, the only way you can deal with the increased demands is to have more staff resources. What suggestions could you make to us to deal with these additional situations in terms of better management, use of technology or time, or any other way you'd deal with an increasing workload?
Mr Stairs: We all understand today that the wealth in our country is produced by productivity, and the drive by business, both large and small, in recent years has been to do more with less staff, to increase the productivity, to increase our wealth and to improve our future.
It can't be any less for -- there are three major groups in our society: unions, business and government. Unions have understood that they have to take lower pay deals. The present thing with Canadian Airlines, for instance, is an example of that. Large business has understood that, in terms of getting rid of middle levels of management and executives. Government has to understand that. It would appear that the present government does understand that.
I feel sorry for the MPPs who have to work harder. I can tell you, in my particular job over the last two or three years, I've had to work harder too. I work longer hours; I don't get paid any more. This is nothing new.
Mr Baird: I would just say I agree with your last statement. Obviously there's going to be no distribution that's perfect, there are going to be no riding boundaries that are perfect, and there are arguments. Reasonable people can disagree. My colleagues opposite are all good people; they're all reasonable people. We can disagree. Nothing will be perfect.
I think your last comment speaks to people whom I speak to in my constituency who say, "Listen, I'm a small business person. I had to let someone go and I have to work at the coffee counter of my doughnut shop, which I started and own, a little bit longer myself. I have to work harder because I can't afford to hire someone," or an insurance agent who has to do more of his own secretarial jobs because he simply doesn't have enough money to have as much support staff as he had before, or the family where one of the parents has to take on some extra hours at work because they simply don't have enough money to survive, to provide for their family.
Everyone's had to make those adjustments in society, and I think it would be inappropriate for us as decision-makers and leaders in government to simply say that because we're so important, because we're more important than all those people I just mentioned, we are exempt from that restructuring. I would just argue that no group in society can be exempt.
We are facing some tough financial times, caused by a whole host of reasons and we've got to deal with them. If the leadership didn't come from the top, where would it start? We're going to ask just the little people? We'll say at Queen's Park: "We'll let go a few pages, we'll let go a few students, we'll let go a few secretaries. But the members? No, actually we're going to increase the number of members, or keep them the same. They'll be exempt from cuts."
I just think it's really genuinely important to show that we take this restructuring and downsizing seriously, that we've got to be part of the solution and be one of the first to feel the restructuring before we ask our education partners, our health care partners or what have you to undertake that similar process.
Mr Sergio: Mr Stairs, with the approval of this legislation -- it seems that it's going to go through anyway, and I hope the hearings we will be conducting will not be just a charade; we hope to accomplish some changes, with the government's assistance -- we will be representing the same constituency, the same territory, the same type of people, if you will, with respect to where they may be coming from, language, customs, all those things.
In my own particular case, let's say I have a federal member who, due to his resources, because he's at the federal level, is able to send out letters on a monthly basis informing his constituents as to what's happening up in Ottawa; not necessarily who is in government or whatever, but whatever is happening in Ottawa. He notifies, he advises, he keeps his constituency informed. The same constituents say to me, "How come I only get two letters from you a year?" I tell my people, "I don't have the same budget."
Somebody else says, "It could be that at the federal level they are more efficient." I say: "No. Do you have any problem with the way we've been serving you?" "No. As a matter of fact, we like it." "Then what's the problem?" "Well, we like to know what goes on at Queen's Park. We like to know what's happening" -- I'm not saying this because this government happens to be here now -- "with labour reform or VLTs or the Fewer Politicians Act. We like to be kept informed, so why can't you do that?" "I don't have the resources." "Why don't you?" "We just don't have the resources."
How do you feel about that? Do you think we should have the same resources as the federal member, if that is the way we're going to be going? Should we be able -- I don't say to compete with the federal member but to have the same resources so that we can make not only personal representation but also inform our community on the same level and same basis as our federal counterpart?
Mr Stairs: I work at the Chateau Lafayette. It's a small bar in Lower Town here in Ottawa. In the immediate area there are 37 other restaurants and bars that I compete with daily. I do not have the same budget as those other restaurants and bars. I do not have the same advantages. My bar happens to be the oldest bar in the city of Ottawa -- 1849. When you walk inside it, it still looks like the old style hotels that you see throughout rural parts of Ontario, with a ladies' and gentlemen's side and a tavern side. Yet I have been able to compete with all the come-latelys and their Tiffany lamps and their tables because I have used my disadvantages not to cry to somebody else for more money or less taxes or anything else; I have discovered new ways of contacting my customers, new ways of appealing to them that are cheap and inexpensive.
You're going to have to do the same thing. The truth of the matter is that you cannot simply any longer, as a part of large government, depend on us, the taxpayers, to equalize your playing field or to provide you with a monopoly. You have to be competitive like all the rest of us. You will have to do it on less.
1350
Mr Marchese: Mr Stairs, the Provincial Auditor has identified some problems in a variety of different fields, and one of them is welfare. He made some suggestions to the government, and the government acted quickly last year, even without any assistance from anybody, and it cut 22% from social assistance support. The Provincial Auditor last year as well, and this year, identified another problem, which is that we are not collecting about $4 billion to $5 billion worth of money from business because we don't have the person-power to go and audit and basically collect. So we haven't acted on that. What do you think about that?
Mr Stairs: What does that have to do with reducing the number of MPPs?
Mr Marchese: Because you're concerned about cutting to save money, aren't you?
Mr Stairs: No. Did you hear my submission? I mentioned that I approved of that, but my submission had nothing to do with cost saving.
Mr Marchese: All right, let me move on.
Mr Stairs: You didn't listen, did you?
Mr Marchese: Mr Stairs, I listened to you very well. I'm going to come back to some of the points you made, all right? You want the politicians to increase their productivity in their offices. I've got several assistants -- that's the terminology you used --
Mr Stairs: To answer a question; not in my submission.
Mr Marchese: That's all right, Mr Stairs. You can answer it or not, however you want.
Mr Stairs: All right, go ahead.
Mr Marchese: I'm going to pose you a question and you can do what you want. My assistants have quite a number of degrees and they're very able. They're very overworked with the kind of case work we've got, and it's not because they're not working or they're not effective or they do not have the degrees. How do you expect to increase productivity from my workers so they can be as competitive as you're trying to be in your field?
Mr Stairs: Let me use another example. My wife is the manager of the Bank of Commerce at Alta Vista Plaza. It's a CIBC. In the last year she has been ordered by head office to cut two full-time staff. The work has not decreased at the banks; in fact it has increased. They now have to sell mutual funds, they now have to sell investments. In fact, she had to get her securities course. Soon they'll have to be selling insurance. They are all highly qualified, highly skilled people. They all work harder; they all work smarter.
You cannot simply use that argument any more. It's a nice argument. I feel sympathetic for your people. I feel sympathetic for them when I used to leave at 5 o'clock and I now leave at 7 o'clock from work. We all do more. I work on weekends now.
Mr Marchese: I heard you say that. I have to tell you this: I'm not sympathetic to the point that you're making, and let me tell you why. In your comparison, talking about your wife and having to do more, I don't believe the banks are doing a good service to you or to the rest of their clients. Now, you might like it because your wife is a good person and she's going to work harder like you are, I understand -- I'm going to make the point and then you can respond -- but I don't think it's good for the clients or it's good for your wife to have to put in more time to do the job that she was doing. What it will do is cause more stress for your wife, that person, and other people in that same situation, for less money now, I suspect, than before. I'm not certain that we're doing ourselves and society a good deed.
I'm not certain, in the comparison you make, to then bring the kind of service we provide for our clients, the people out there, taxpayers all, that when you tell me we've got to do what your wife is doing, that we can't help it because this government's saying we've got to cut, so my workers have to somehow put more time in to do their job. They're very skilled, full of degrees, and putting in a lot of time now beyond the time that is paid. I'm not sure what you're expecting of society or that you think this is a very healthy thing that is going on.
When I ask you about whether or not we're collecting the $5 billion in taxes and you say you don't know what that's got to do with anything, I'm not sure that you're understanding the connection I'm making. We have a problem here I'm identifying and I'd like to know what your response is to that.
Mr Stairs: I said your initial question had nothing to do with my submission, but the way I will respond is simply this: From my MPPs I expect leadership and managerial ability. I expect you to know what the definition of that is, and I'm not sure you do. But you have to find better ways, through managerial ability and through your leadership, to cover the bases that you're presently covering with less money and less people.
I don't think that can be stated any more simply, and that has been done in my own business. That has been done everywhere. We can go out on the street here and find people who will agree with that statement. Why do you disagree with it?
Mr Marchese: Mr Stairs, I understand what you're saying and I have to --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Marchese, and thank you, Mr Stairs. We appreciate your input here this afternoon.
Our next presenter was to have been the Nepean Chamber of Commerce. I understand they will not be showing up, so we are going to get back to our discussion. We had three people left to make a comment. Mr Patten, you hadn't got on the list. We're going through this. Did you want to make a comment about having members standing in front of the committee? Then we're going to vote on Mr Marchese's motion that is on the floor. Did you want to be on the list?
Mr Patten: Yes, please.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, I'm going to let you go last, since it is your motion.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you very much. I'm trying to remember where we were in the train of thought when we broke this morning. Already at second reading we have had Mr Miclash, Mr Martin, Ms McLeod, Mr Gravelle, Mr Bartolucci, Mr Wildman, Mr Wood and Mr North. The first seven names are northern members. I guess bang on half the northern members have already spoken to this bill for 30 minutes. Others have had numerous two-minute responses. Mr North, the only independent, has already spoken to this bill.
I will not impute motive and would not want anyone to infer that I am imputing motive in this, but I must say I might have been more responsive had the request been to speak before the committee in Toronto. They want to make these speeches in front of their home constituents, I must see this as something other than a genuine belief that they haven't had an opportunity to speak. We heard one of the members say earlier here today that they have two jobs: One is what they do in the Legislature and one is what they do in the eyes of their constituents. I don't think it is appropriate to take the time for public hearings to allow for a forum for anyone from this side of the House or the other. I think they are genuinely designed to be a mechanism for people to come forward.
The most fundamental thing in all this is the fact that the other two parties asked us to go to the north, to hear the people of the north -- not to hear them but to hear the people of the north. I would remind them that every space taken up by an MPP speaking is a space that a member of their constituencies will not be able to occupy. Either there was not a sincere belief that they have enough people coming forward to fill just one day in each town or this is designed for perhaps less than altruistic reasons.
In particular because we have had the leader of the official opposition speak in the House and because at least, I believe, three of the five people who have requested were on that list of names I've just read off, it is totally inappropriate for us to grant extra time, particularly in the context of the fact that there will be third reading debate and every one of the members, even those who have already spoken, will be eligible to speak again for 30 minutes if they so choose and if their respective House leaders allow them.
The Chair: Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: I said what I had to say. I think I've said it all. Nobody will change their minds, and I find this deplorable.
1400
Mr Patten: I find myself looking at it somewhat like Margaret Marland. I believe these committee hearings are essentially for the public. There may be extraneous or special cases where the committee may decide that yes, an MPP in a particular instance should be heard and the rationale would be discussed and debated, and if there is some merit to it, then the committee in its wisdom hopefully would provide that exceptional circumstance to arise.
Like Margaret, I agree that someone like Peter, who does not have the same opportunity, would be appropriate. I think it is a little dangerous to begin to throw it open and suggest that whoever wants to speak now can speak and we get into these types of things.
However, I do have a suggestion: One way we can provide a forum for all three parties is that if we find that the committee is unable to completely fill the slots we have available, then we could share the time and each caucus could decide who might want to speak for that proportion at the committee.
Mr Grandmaître: I offered them that.
Mr Patten: It seems to me that would be a reasonable one. It would not show favouritism on any side and it would address the issue the committee had before it.
The Chair: Our last comments will come from the proposer, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: I'm going to try to convince a few Tories that they're wrong in this, and we'll see whether I'm successful.
The Chair: Just to remind you, Mr Marchese, we also have to deal with that other issue during this same break.
Mr Marchese: We've got another break here. This is not a function of time. I'm not sure that the more time I have, the more convincing I'll be.
Mrs Marland: Rosario, would you tell the committee that Shelley Martel was an MPP who came before a committee on rent control? Mr Hampton didn't mention that this morning.
Mr Marchese: Okay. I think he was responding to the fact that we would be setting a dangerous precedent if we were to do this. He was pointing to the fact that we have done it before as a way of showing that his view was different from yours in terms of historical precedents. If she's done that, it's a way of reinforcing his opinion that it has happened. Precedents mean that you start it once. When you've started once, it means it's happened.
Mrs Marland: That's the problem.
Mr Marchese: I'm not sure I agree with you or Mr Patten that we can make an exception for Mr North simply because he's not representing any political party. He's a politician at Queen's Park and he does not get equal time, does not get as much time as we do, but he's a politician there. I'm not sure I would argue or find reasons to make an exception for Mr North and not the others.
We have changed the process quite a lot, and in this change of process we have changed the very nature of this debate, in my view. The way we have done this will affect many members, some of you very much, I suspect, some will disappear completely and some will be partially affected and so on. But many are affected individually and feel strongly about this issue. Some argue that this is not a big deal and that we can do it and it can be handled. Others argue quite strongly that it's a problem for a variety of reasons. I have said that the people who have to represent those big ridings up there in the north -- I don't live there and have only seen the north every now and then around constitutional discussions, but I tell you I wouldn't want to represent those ridings. Having seen it, I understand the difficulty they face.
Mr Gilchrist, when you talk about 19,000 in some ridings and 120,000 elsewhere, I appreciate the differences in numbers but I also understand geography and its implications in terms of how reachable or accessible or inaccessible they can be to each other, let alone to their political representatives. It may not be fair for one vote for each person and that's the way it should be viewed, but on the other hand, if we don't take that into account, we've got a problem.
We're changing the very nature of this discussion around representation, therefore I argue that individual members who want to speak to the committee feel strongly about this, as you do on the other side. When I say that I quite support the idea that a Liberal or an NDPer would want to speak, I hope you would want to do the same. I don't have any problem with that.
I don't see this as a dangerous precedent. A precedent has been given, but even if it weren't, I don't see it as dangerous. I see it as setting a precedent, no doubt, but I don't see it as a problem. You do, Mrs Marland, and I understand that, but what I really want to say is that from time to time we have to take opportunities to free ourselves from party politics. We don't do that too often, but we can. I have to tell you, and only Margaret might know because she was in meetings I've been at, from time to time I would ask my staff: "What's wrong with a particular motion? Why can't we support it?" On a number of occasions I was successful in convincing my staff that there were things you said in opposition that I could support. We tend to be very actively involved in party politics on almost every issue, however inane, and that's where I think we should free ourselves from what is ideological that we all need to support as a caucus and what isn't. I don't see this as an ideological thing.
Mr Gilchrist said the reason they want to do this is for politics. They don't need to come in front of the committee to be political or to get the politics or the media in their own ridings. They're going to get them anyway. If you think somehow they're not getting that, maybe you haven't been seeing it. They're getting the media. That's not the issue, and in not coming in front of this committee they will not be prevented from getting it. They'll get it anyway.
Mr Gilchrist: That's the point. They get space.
Mr Marchese: No, I'm sorry. I'm not making -- whatever point you said, that's my point. The point I make is that people feel strongly and want to come as members to speak to this committee about the changes and their impact on them and on their constituencies. They're going to get the media one way or the other, but I think it's all right for the members to come in front of this committee, wherever they want to come and speak to us, to do so. I don't see that as a danger.
When you defeat this, we're not going to go bananas over it. I'm just saying that from time to time we can free ourselves from seeing everything so ideologically connected. I argue that one way or the other politicians will get the attention they want to get from the media, whether or not it's in front of this committee. These are the arguments I make. It's not a dangerous precedent, Mrs Marland. I don't see it that way. If this is lost, it's not a big deal. I just want to make the argument that this is not a big deal in the way you make it sound.
The Chair: Mr Marchese's motion was that any member of the Legislature be allowed to appear before the committee.
All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
The second issue we have to deal with is a request to be reimbursed for expenses. You've all been given a copy of this. A group from Thunder Bay wants to travel to Dryden to appear before the committee. Of course we're not meeting in Thunder Bay, we're meeting in Dryden, and they have asked, in view of the nature of their group, to be reimbursed for round trip at 20 cents a kilometre plus one night's accommodation for one person. It comes to a total of $187.50. Basically we have done this on other occasions, so this does not set any kind of precedent.
Mrs Marland: I'll move it.
I move that we --
Mr Gilchrist: Doesn't that require unanimous consent?
The Chair: It does not require unanimous consent. If we have unanimous consent, then we can just stop the discussion.
Mr Marchese: That's something that normally you, with the clerk, would solve without necessarily having to discuss it, but you feel it needs to be here. Is that it?
The Chair: Yes. Basically we can, but I thought we'd bring this particular one before the committee. Do we have unanimous consent?
Mr Stewart: For what?
The Chair: To pay these expenses for this group.
Mr Stewart: No.
The Chair: We don't have unanimous consent. Mrs Marland, you put forward a motion.
Mrs Marland: I'm putting forward a motion after having heard you say that committees have done this in the past.
Mr Patten: Yes, they have.
Mrs Marland: I'm quite willing to spend $187 for this group to come to Dryden.
The Chair: Any discussion on that?
Mr Stewart: In probably the first committee that ever met back in the summer of last year, much the same type of request came forward. At that particular time it was turned down. I think we are creating a precedent halfway through hearings that we would approve this. I would suggest that it be referred back to the House leaders, whatever, to arrive at some type of solution to this rather than this committee approving something like this halfway through. We've had more requests in the past and they have been turned down. I think the House leaders, if that is where it should go, are remiss in not addressing it, and we go from there, but to start this halfway through this hearing I cannot support.
The Chair: Just to clarify the issue, on this particular committee, since I have chaired it, we have approved any requests we've had like this.
Interjection.
The Chair: We have. Just to let you know, on this particular committee that's been our position.
Mr Sergio: Even the staff knows it.
Mr Gilchrist: I would put a motion on the table that this other motion, until we can be supplied with information dealing with who it was in the past --
The Chair: Mr Marchese has the floor.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I know I came to ask you how I can buy patience. If you have a secret for that, please pass it on.
This is a problem. I thought we'd dealt with this early in your mandate when you got elected. We've had precedents for this for many years. If you want to show leadership and you think you're going to show leadership once again by doing something that I profoundly disagree with you on, you're committing a grave error. People cannot come to Toronto or to the city where we are. We need to guarantee access for people. When we travel they can't always get to that particular city on their own. If you're saying to them they need to pay their own way, you're limiting the democracy and the democratic right people have.
If you're saying they've got to buy that democratic right, we've got a problem. Some people will not be able to afford to come and give their opinion to you if you're having meetings at great distances and you're asking people to come and pay to get there to give their opinion. If that's what you're doing, you are in this particular instance creating a very dangerous precedent indeed. You're committing a grave mistake. If we have to do this over every committee where someone is making a request to come and asks for support, we've got a problem. I hope they will reconsider their position because this is really, in my view, a very dangerous precedent.
Mr Grandmaître: One thing I want to make clear is that this is not a precedent. I've been around at Queen's Park for 12 years and I've sat on five different committees and I've never seen a request turned down, never. I think it would be very unfair --
Mr Gilchrist: That's not true.
Mr Grandmaître: You might say it's untrue, but right now I've got the floor and I can call you a liar after, okay? So now I want --
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Chairman --
Mr Grandmaître: Well, I'm sorry.
Mr Sergio: He keeps interrupting all the time.
Mr Grandmaître: If you want to keep your mouth shut, then --
The Chair: Mr Gilchrist, Mr Grandmaître does have the floor.
Mr Gilchrist: That's unparliamentary language.
The Chair: Mr Gilchrist, Mr Grandmaître does have the floor. Mr Grandmaître, I would ask you to withdraw that comment, though. You know the comment. I would ask you to withdraw the comment.
Mr Grandmaître: I said I would call him a liar after.
The Chair: I would ask you to withdraw that.
Mr Grandmaître: Well, I didn't say it. I said I would --
The Chair: I would ask you to withdraw that.
Mr Grandmaître: I will not.
Mr Marchese: You can say that in committee. You can't say it in the House but you can say it here. It may not be nice, but --
Mr Grandmaître: I will not, Mr Chair. I'm sorry. I'm sick and tired of having to listen to that member all day.
Mr Gilchrist: Well, I can tell you a precedent. Resources turned down every request.
The Chair: I think we will take a five-minute recess here.
The committee recessed from 1414 to 1419.
The Chair: Out of respect for the next deputant, who is here at the allotted time, could I suggest that we delay any further discussion on that particular motion until such time as we have another break at 3 o'clock.
Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, it will take a couple of minutes to finish the item. I think we should finish it, with all due respect.
The Chair: I'm not so sure it will take a couple of minutes.
Mr Sergio: I don't think anybody has any comments.
The Chair: I think we should deal with the next deputation and then deal with this issue at 3 o'clock.
Mr Sergio: I wish I would have the chance to vote, but I have to leave.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, Mr Baird indicates it's likely that we can get it out of the way very quickly.
The Chair: Are we ready for a vote on it? No? Okay, then we're going to go on with the next deputation.
Mr Maves: It would only take me a minute.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
The Chair: The Ottawa-Carleton Federation of Agriculture, Alvin Runnalls, director. Have a seat, gentlemen. Welcome to our committee. The floor is yours.
Mr Alvin Runnalls: Thank you, Mr Chairman. First of all, a slight correction. It's the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I'm from Dundas county, just south of Ottawa-Carleton, and my two colleagues here are Réjean Pommainville from Russell county, president of the Russell county federation, and Gordon Garlough, president of the Dundas county federation. Yesterday Mr Ken Kelly made a presentation in Toronto, I believe. We do not have a written copy. We'll kind of carry on from that and add an eastern perspective, if you don't mind. Also, I was born in northern Ontario, so it gives me an added idea of distance and added problems that way.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity of having these hearings. However, there's a slight problem. I was in Toronto on Wednesday and we heard that morning that there were hearings and that 9 o'clock was the deadline to get your name in, but we did get in. We were a little disappointed about that.
As you know, OFA represents the farmers of rural Ontario. We represent a lot of commodities and a lot of jobs. There are 640,000 jobs created by agriculture in Ontario and that's certainly a very, very important part of the economy. We rank second after automotive, I believe, as far as job creation.
Rural MPs have worked hard to understand agriculture and it's making it a little more difficult when ridings get bigger and more unwieldy and so on.
I guess another issue would be that in rural Ontario we provide an awful lot of raw materials. Even stepping out of agriculture, mining and everything like that, so much comes from the rural part of the province; it creates, and it's important for people to understand that. Some people feel the cities are the only important thing, but without that rural part of the province, the cities wouldn't be there.
Mr Hastings: Couldn't do without them.
Mr Runnalls: That's right, and we certainly want to be heard in that respect.
I'm doing a overview of this and my colleagues then will zero in on some other things. Another issue: With Ontario having 10 million people and growing rapidly and we're going back from 130 to 103 members of Parliament, it may make it worse rather than better. It's just another point. With that, I'll turn it over to Gordon Garlough.
Mr Gordon Garlough: I'm a farmer from Williamsburg, out Bank Street here almost to the St Lawrence River. Before farming, I was a high school teacher for a number of years and have been active in various community organizations, including the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, community organizations, church groups and so on, and also involved in watching the politics of our rural community. I guess that's what brings me here today, what is happening to the influence that our rural community has.
One of the main issues that I see as a problem here is simply a loss of rural voice. The riding which I am located in presently is S-D-G & East Grenville, which is sort of a three-and-a-half-county riding, but it is a rural riding. Under the new arrangement, if it comes to pass, we will suddenly be 25,000 to 30,000 rural people in a roughly 80,000-person riding. The simple fact is that Cornwall will become by far the dominant centre in terms of numbers, voters and everything else, and the essence of that rural voice which we've had and which we have under the present situation will be lost.
Related to that, I have to in my own mind ask the question about the savings that are predicted from this decrease in numbers. I go back to my teaching career when midway through my 10 years as a secondary school teacher, roughly midway through that career, was the time the school boards went from the old local boards to the regional or in our case the three-county board. Exactly that same reason for creating the large boards was behind that move in 1969: "We'll save money."
Well, it did anything but save money. It was only six months later that you could see the changes occurring in the particular school I was employed in at the time. The old board locally had operated with a volunteer board and one half-time employee. If you go to that jurisdiction now, and I suppose it's apt to get bigger rather than smaller, and divide the number of board staff employees by the number of schools it serves, you'll find that the bureaucracy has increased somewhere between 15 and 20 times from that pre-amalgamation or pre-getting-big-and-efficient situation to the present situation.
It simply doesn't work. Besides, at the same time as the costs escalate, the representation or the feeling that the local people have of connection with those institutions goes by the boards. That is exactly what I see happening with this change in the boundaries of our ridings, that same tendency.
I'd like to say, lastly, that equality is a lot more than numbers. Just listening to what was being discussed here 10 or 15 minutes ago, I think some of those comments were very appropriate. Equality also involves population density and distance and things like that.
I was looking back to the records from the Ontario Legislature where about three years ago Mr Villeneuve, our present MPP, was making a case for -- I hate to use the words "common sense," but I'll use them anyway, if and when the next electoral commission were to redistribute the ridings in Ontario. One of the things he asked for was to recognize the difference between urban and rural population densities.
Second, he said, "Rural areas have been and are being" -- now, this is three to four years ago -- "simply tagged on to the nearest urban centre and carried along with it." That's exactly what's happening. "As a result, rural concerns tend to be ignored."
He was proposing at that time that when boundaries were changed again in the future the idea of three different types of ridings be considered -- a rural riding, an urban riding or a rural-urban riding -- with different population boundaries or numbers being taken into consideration for those three different types of ridings. I think that was pertinent then and I think it's still pertinent despite what Mr Harris seems to want to do.
Mr Réjean Pommainville: Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, MPPs from the Legislature of Ontario, my name is Réjean Pommainville. I'm from Russell county here, the neighbouring county. I'm also the president and director of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for my county. It's a great opportunity for me to be here this afternoon to talk to you about agriculture. I'm not going to give the same talk as my two predecessors. I will talk about OMAFRA cuts and what they may represent for us. Being an agricultural organization, we have to represent our members, the farmers of this great province of ours.
If I take my county, for example, last year we lost our OMAFRA offices in Embrun in Russell county. They called it an amalgamation, two counties together. Now Prescott and Russell are together, located at the Alfred College. It's a cutback to the agricultural sector, because instead of having the staff people of two OMAFRA offices, now we have one ag rep and some support staff for the two counties. Distancewise, lots of people will not travel for over an hour to go meet with their ag rep, because sometimes it's too time-consuming. This is one of the reasons we believe that the cuts at OMAFRA should stop. We believe that the 15% to 20%, or even the 35% the Harris government was thinking of at the beginning, is inappropriate.
1430
Distance is very important. Personal contact is also very important. If I take, for example, the changes that happened to crop insurance in the past, a lot of people are getting away from crop insurance because they don't have personal contact any more with the people who used to be the crop insurance agents, who used to go farm to farm each spring to collect crop insurance. That's one aspect. We don't want to lose any more of our OMAFRA budget. It is very important for us, and we shouldn't have any more cuts.
With the size of the riding, with Glengarry, Prescott and Russell now, you're going to be talking about over an hour of travelling for the MPP who's going to be in that area. If the people are going to be able to meet with their MPP, it's going to be very difficult for this person to be responsible, to be -- disponible, en français -- available to all the people. They will not be able to meet as many people because of travelling time; you can go only so fast. I don't think the Harris government intends to give everybody a chopper or something like that to meet in their riding. I don't think that's the purpose of this whole issue. The personal contact is still very important for the people of rural Ontario. That's what I want to say in finishing.
Mr Runnalls: If I could just add to what Réjean said, it's a double whammy, really. We're going to lose out on the representation to the government, but we're also losing with the Ministry of Agriculture, because we've taken huge cuts, more than anybody else. Actually, with the last government and with this government we've gone down probably way over 50%. We're getting it every way we look.
Mr Patten: Thank you very much for being here today. I haven't got much time, so I'll speak quickly. I'd like to address your two points and support you on your perception. What do we mean when we say "representation"? What I gather you are saying is that not only do we lose -- and I was just doing the figures while you were talking on that issue. The north, the east and the west, outside of suburbia and the urban areas, are all the big losers in this. The big gainers are suburbia and the urban environment and around the Toronto area.
You know as well as I do, or I know as well as you do, that when you're outside the Toronto area and you try to get your point of view across, it's like fighting all the time. Sometimes you begin to think it's the province of Toronto rather than the province of Ontario. That's the feeling in many of the regions of this province.
Your double hit is what you say in terms of agriculture, but also you're going to lose representation from the rural areas and then you're going to be dominated within this larger riding by an urban area. You lose that cultural perspective that is important to maintaining a way of life and the full range of diversity in Ontario. What we're going to have is just one big urban view out of centralized Toronto. I don't think that's going to serve the people of Ontario very well. Would you like to comment on that?
Mr Runnalls: You're hitting it right on. We hear of a city state and that sort of thing. As we go back to what we said before, so much comes out of the rural area that a lot of people don't appreciate.
Mr Marchese: Mr Runnalls, I want to tell you that I'm from a riding in downtown Toronto. We appreciate agriculture a great deal. I want to tell you that in most Italian gardens we have vegetable gardens; in most Portuguese gardens there's a vegetable garden; Chinese and so on. We appreciate it. We may not be living out in those rural areas, but we have a good sense of --
Mrs Marland: You have Fort York in your riding, don't you.
Mr Marchese: I've got the fort as well.
I appreciate the comments you made about M. Villeneuve. When he was in opposition obviously he felt very strongly about it, and now we're not sure what he thinks as a minister; he and many others. But the arguments he advanced are as relevant today as they were then; nothing has changed. The comments of Mr Garlough are relevant where he says equality is more than numbers; he's quite right. We don't achieve fairness by simply having one member, one vote. It's not necessarily how you achieve equality. That, again, applies to the comments of M. Villeneuve. By the way, we, the NDP, don't do well in the rural areas. It's not that we have a stake in this and it's not because we didn't put enough money there. As you were saying, perhaps you lost out with us. We treated agriculture fairly, I think. It's not for votes that we're doing this, but I think you have advanced the right argument, that distance is a problem and geography is a problem. If we don't take that into account, there will be many losers in the next election. I think there's time for comment.
The Chair: A quick comment.
Mr Garlough: Mr Chairman, if I could, I had wanted to make a comment in relation to Mr Patten's comments earlier, and it was simply that if you look currently, I believe the provincial government has six hearings on the education revisions for high school. If you put those six pinpoints on a map where hearings are being held, you'll get some idea of how far things move out of Toronto. As far as I could see, the farthest distance away from Toronto of the hearings were Kingston and North Bay.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, gentlemen. The united counties have been well-represented here today. I just wanted to speak very briefly, because I agree with everything Mr Garlough said today, but there's an interesting schedule at the tag end of the federal report, the actual riding boundary commission report that changed theirs, which have now become the template for us. In fact, everything that now-Minister Villeneuve asked for is reflected. As you go through the ridings, you'll find that every riding in the north is 20% below the average of what rep by pop right across the province would be, with the exception of two urban centres up there. Sudbury is only 10% less than average. Sault Ste Marie is 16% below. All of the urban-rural are roughly between 7% below and average. All of the urban seats are at the average or above. In fact, you'll find that many of the Toronto ridings have a population 10% or more above what a strict distribution in the province would be.
With the greatest of respect, and we've heard this a number of times -- the minister's resolution back in 1992 -- the federal boundary commission embraced those concepts when they defined these ridings, and while we may need to look at some of the specific boundaries as time goes on -- I don't quibble with that -- I think there is a reflection in the different workload and the different realities across the three types of ridings.
Mr Runnalls: There's still distance and there's still a vast diversity in the rural ridings, which maybe are still not noted.
Mr Gilchrist: I certainly agree with that.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate your input here this afternoon.
CHRIS BOWES
The Chair: Our next presenter is Chris Bowes. Good afternoon. Welcome to our committee.
Mr Chris Bowes: I'd like to begin by welcoming everyone to the most overgoverned city in the world. I'm speaking to you from that perspective. My background is economics and law. I'm pretty much an urban dweller. I live in Ottawa South, which will be one of the largest ridings population-wise in the province and in the country.
The main things I want to speak to are the issues of economics, the symbolism that going to federal boundaries will bring to the two different issues related to representation, which seems to be a key point that many of the speakers have brought up, and my own personal observations I've had, being somewhat politically active -- we're all political animals of some kind -- and some of the things that revolve around those observations.
1440
The economics of the situation is that we'll save $11 million initially. We may not think that is a big sum when you look at the total provincial budget, which is in the tens of billions of dollars, but it's these small things, these small items, these small savings that can make the difference as to whether this province is going to be able to service education and health in the long run.
I don't know how many of you drove up here. This part of eastern Ontario, as part of the province, has not been well served in the past. We're just finally getting a highway built that should have been built years ago. That kind of saving, by reducing members of the Legislature, could be applied to things like actual infrastructure. A highway like that will help many rural ridings in this part of this province, giving better access. That seems to be one of the main things you keep hearing about: representation and access.
Why not utilize a duplicate federal bureaucracy to do the exact same thing the elections commission would be doing in Ontario? It just makes sense. We're already paying for it. It will work well, as was pointed out by Mr Gilchrist. In the appendix many of these things about the rural-urban split are addressed. Being of an economics background, I think good government is efficient government and that it's in the interests of all people, whether they're rural or urban, that their government deliver services efficiently and as inexpensively as possible. I understand some of the concerns. I have many relatives who live in rural ridings, farmers themselves. If you told them the name of this act they'd get a chuckle out of it and they'd agree with everything it's trying to do.
That brings me on to the issue of symbolism. Some who oppose this have said it's just political hype, it was just a promise -- shouldn't keep your promises. I think that would damage the government. That is the kind of attitude that has damaged governing in this country, that one should keep promises only if it's pragmatic. After you get elected you should keep your promises, and symbolizing of representation -- I don't agree with the idea of a one person, one vote kind of model. The idea that there would be over 100,000 people living in my riding versus another riding where it's, say, 20% less and comes in at 80,000 people, I think 20,000 people would have been disfranchised. They are not adequately represented, and some realities have to be faced when setting these kinds of criteria.
I think that through technology and access you can improve access. Saving $11 million, say, if you were to take 10% of that $11-million saving, $1 million, and reinvest it into constituency support services, make it easier for rural people to get hold of people in Queen's Park or have more things like these committee hearings -- which I might add always seem to meet during the middle of the day instead of in the evenings, when you'd probably find you'd get more public input -- a 20% reduction in the number of MPPs would be a powerful symbol to say, "Members of the Legislature are not immune to the same market or economic factors that everyone else in this province is facing."
I've been a factory worker. I will have a degree shortly. I just have to apply for it. I have been downsized three times in three different jobs: a white-collar job, a blue-collar job and as a consultant. To me it would go a long way in giving some moral leadership value to the Legislature to show some resolve on these matters.
Also as an item of symbolism, in this city I elect as an elector two city councillors and two mayors. If you're going to try to reduce some of the government expenditure, the waste, especially in urban areas -- I can't speak to the rural concerns about some of the municipal concerns -- this would be a powerful symbol to people who are sitting on our city council in this city, our regional council: "Look, if the province can do this, you can do this. You should do this." It would set a standard for school boards, it would set a standard for municipalities across this province that they should meet this, that it's a good thing and it's a way to deliver efficient services.
Particularly, there's the idea that more representation makes government better, makes accessibility better. I submit, on the basis of any regional municipality across this province where you have these explosions of representatives, that this is not necessarily true. More doesn't always equal better access. What equals better access, I believe, is the quality of people who are running for those offices. Accessibility to the process, this kind of stuff, this kind of forum, if I were an MPP I would try to hold monthly town halls in my riding to get people's responses to things. I think that's better government. As far as distances, as I said, a small reinvestment in technology from the savings could easily compensate much of these rural problems: 1-800 numbers. You look at most of the rural members around the Ottawa area and they have 1-800 numbers for their constituency offices. It's time to bring some aspects of political consultation up into the 20th century before we get into the 21st century.
This brings me to personal observations. When you look at my riding, the federal boundaries cut across the provincial riding of Ottawa Centre, Ottawa South and Ottawa-Rideau. I've worked on campaigns. You talk to people, they phone you up, and they have no idea what riding they're living in. A good example: I live almost on the dividing line between Ottawa-Rideau and Ottawa South. We were getting phone calls and people didn't know whom they were voting for, "Am I voting for Garry Guzzo or am I voting for Linda Thom?" I actually had phone calls in our campaign office asking who the Liberals were running in the riding. They had no idea. They would phone up and they'd say, "I'm in Ottawa South," and you'd have to go through this, "Where do you live, what part of the city?"
I also believe that the federal boundaries are much better at representing the true demographics of this province. With all due respect to some of the rural people, the fact of the matter is that this province is an urban province. The majority of Ontarians live in those urban areas and they deserve to be properly represented.
With regard to some of the comments from rural people, I've got relatives strewn across this province, from Ottawa-Carleton all the way down to Oxford county, up to Elliot Lake, and I haven't heard one who is worried about losing representation in the Legislature of this province. What they want to see is government that functions more efficiently, that addresses their real concerns. As I said before, more politicians are not going to make access better. There are more concrete ways to deal with that. People in this province want real issues solved. As I said, just look at any regional municipality in this province. Big government, more politicians, does not necessarily work.
1450
In summary, I'd say it makes sense economically. We have to start cutting some things that it makes sense to cut. To me the example given of the $11 million is that this is a fixed cost of government. If you can get the fixed costs down, you will free up more resources to spend on variable costs such as health care, education and infrastructure. Also it would show leadership by the Legislature to many levels of government in this province that it should be done. Your self-interest to be elected or keep your position -- hey, we took cuts; you should do it too.
It would also, I think, make the process much more accessible to the electorate because you would be eliminating a lot of the confusion in different areas where people have no idea what riding they're in. Most people in Ontario, I find, gravitate to federal matters in that way and they think, "Oh well, I live in this federal riding, so the provincial riding is the same way." So you would be lessening confusion, a good thing. It makes government more accessible.
Basically I'd just like to thank you for letting me have this opportunity to speak.
Mr Marchese: I've got about eight questions. You said the urban areas deserve to be better served because it's becoming more and more urban. How does decreasing by 27 members help them?
Mr Bowes: When you look from a political science standpoint, from some of the stuff I've read, one way to weaken legislative government is to put more people in the Legislature. It weakens government. Most first-year poli-sci stuff will show that.
Mr Marchese: I don't see the connection between what you said and how reducing numbers helps, but let me move on to another quick one.
Talking about boundaries, once we consolidate the boundaries, people will then be able to know the boundaries, is your assertion. Is that correct?
Mr Bowes: Yes.
Mr Marchese: I'm not sure about that. I want to ask you the final question, because we won't have much time. You're an economics student, you say.
Mr Bowes: Yes.
Mr Marchese: I asked Mr Stairs the same question, and we had a difficult exchange with that one, but I said to him -- since you're a student of economics you would appreciate this much more perhaps -- the Provincial Auditor has identified $5 billion of moneys that business isn't paying because we don't have enough auditors to go and check these things out and pursue them to be able to get what he argued we should be getting as a government. The government aggressively went after the social assistance recipients with a 22% cut, and this is something the auditor identified as a big problem. What do you think about that?
Mr Bowes: One of the main problems we're facing in this province is allocation of resources, and economics comes down to basically that premise. Economics is the study of the allocation of resources.
Mr Marchese: Right, so we'll save another $1 million, then we'll be able to hire those people to go after those $4 billion or $5 billion. Is that what you're arguing?
Mr Bowes: If we don't get our interest payments down and get some control on government spending --
Mr Marchese: I appreciate that. I just wondered what your view was of this.
Mr Bowes: -- we'll be forced to cut even more.
Mr Marchese: Yes, but your answer to the $5 billion we're not collecting from business is that we don't have the resources to go out and collect them and audit. What do you say about that?
Mr Bowes: It's part of a much bigger plan. You have to look at everything, and that's my point. Some people would say that $11 million really isn't that substantial, but it's the small things. Many of my friends are in small businesses and I've done some small business stuff as well. It's these small fixed costs that eat up your ability to respond to things like this.
Mr Hastings: Why do you suspect that the political and bureaucratic élites somehow ought to be immune from any kinds of reductions?
Mr Bowes: That's why I say "symbolism." I thought by taking this kind of reduction, 20%, in the number of positions, this would show that they are not immune.
Mr Hastings: I'm just thinking of the whole thing. There seems to be an argument with colleagues here and out in society that somehow it's so sacred, the public sector, you can't change them at all hardly.
Mr Bowes: I don't agree with that. I don't believe anyone should be immune. To me, it's wrong to expect people to take cuts and not be willing to take some of the brunt of those cuts yourself. I think that's a powerful symbol. It gives moral suasion to the arguments you're making for allocation of resources.
Mr Maves: Quickly, one of the ways I guess you could get $5 billion or whatever the number is of uncollected taxes is to hire more people in the finance department to help catch those people, which we've done. We've hired 168 more people, so that's something the Provincial Auditor showed and we're addressing.
The other thing is that when you have more members -- federally I worked for a member and there were 172 members that he had to go into caucus with and try to find one or two opportunities to get a say. Provincially, we have 82. I have a lot more opportunity to have my say. Is that what you meant?
Mr Bowes: Yes, basically. I bet everyone here has been on some form of committee. I've done a lot of different volunteer stuff, and the easiest way to destroy the best intentions of a committee is to get so many people on it that you never can get anything accomplished. It's the joke about the committee that went to draw a horse and they ended up with an elephant in the end.
Mr Patten: Thank you for coming and sharing your views. Let me ask you this question. Which province do you think is the most frugal in terms of its number of MPPs related to its MPs?
Mr Bowes: I'm not too sure of that figure. I haven't really looked at the other provinces in that sense.
Mr Patten: Believe it or not, right now Ontario leads the way. We have 99 MPs and 130 MPPs versus, for example, BC, which has 75 and -- where was that other figure? I forget what it was. With a population base that's one third of Ontario's, Alberta has 83, with 17 MPs. Right now Ontario is the most frugal, and some would say if you did a comparison -- because how are you going to compare? You compare province to province -- you would say that right now Ontario is underrepresented.
My concern is that there's an economic symbolic gesture here, which I think is what it is at the beginning, but as I look more deeply into the issue of what that system is there to do, it's there to represent people. The closer I look at the nature of representation and the complexity of what that really means -- I don't care what the feds have just done in terms of redrafting the map. I don't think we're there yet. So I don't think we have a perfect system, that's for sure, but I don't believe this is going to give us the best point of view of relating to people.
By the way, MPPs were cut back in the budgets for their two offices, cut back in their own salaries. They lost the pension plan; they don't have one now. So there are a lot of symbolic gestures that have gone on. I appreciate that and I take no issue with that, but I am concerned about the quality of representation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bowes. We do appreciate your being here this afternoon and giving us your input.
Okay, back to the drama. Mrs Marland, we're going to discuss your motion again.
Mrs Marland: I have learned that this kind of decision has been made by the Chair before without a motion of the committee. If that is so, my motion isn't necessary. I would be quite happy for the Chair to make the decision. Whether it was you or a previous Chair, the decision has always been made before that this kind of allowance has been made for groups to appear before a committee. So I'm confident about the decision that would be made and my motion would be redundant.
The Chair: So you're withdrawing your motion?
Mrs Marland: Yes, sir.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent that the Chair make the decision?
Mr Maves: No. I still want to speak to this.
The Chair: Okay, if there's no unanimous consent for the Chair to make the decision, I guess we --
Mr Maves: I want to speak to it before you put that motion, that's all. I was on the list.
The Chair: Did that require a motion?
Mr Maves: No, before you ask for unanimous consent, can I not speak?
The Chair: Just for a point of clarification, Margaret has withdrawn her motion, okay? I'm asking for unanimous consent.
Mr Maves: Okay, on a point of order, then, before that.
Mr Gilchrist: Actually, it would be a point of order.
Mr Maves: I'm not being difficult whatsoever, Mr Chair. When this committee very first sat -- I can't remember the bill; it might have been job quota repeal -- we had a gentleman fly in from Ottawa and he sat down and said, "Here are my costs, by the way, that I'd like to be reimbursed." He had a plane flight and he had a hotel for Toronto and he had return train fare. At that time, we had this debate about whether or not we should be reimbursing people. At that time we debated it, we said maybe we should for travel costs, but not stay; maybe we should, but it should be the lowest cost to get to the site; maybe we should, but if there were hearings in the city the person came from, they couldn't get payment.
As I remember, the subcommittee was going to discuss this and try to come up with a policy for the general government committee. I just wonder if that ever occurred. Maybe it should occur so that we wouldn't have to bring these debates to the floor in the future.
The Chair: That discussion has never occurred because there has never been the same subcommittee; it's always a different subcommittee for every bill that goes out, so it always becomes an issue to be dealt with. We have very few requests. We haven't had one for the last two or three bills. So there's no general rule that seems to be acceptable except, in our opinion, we have never said no on this particular committee.
Mr Marchese: If I can, we've also allowed the clerk some discretion in terms of how they deal with this, generally speaking, so that we don't have to have these kinds of debate all the time. I think they by and large determine what is probably reasonable or unreasonable, and there are some unreasonable requests that we probably all agree with and we leave it to the Chair and the clerk to make that judgement. But if we bring every question here, I think it's a problem.
Mr Gilchrist: Just give me 10 seconds on a point of order. I'm going to be indicating that I personally would be in favour of allowing the Chair, but I would just ask that consideration be given this time, in the absence of a general policy, to the mileage component. I have no problem with that. If the clerk could, if she hasn't already arranged scheduling for Dryden for that day, arrange that this group could meet in the middle of the day so that the drive in and the drive home can be done in daylight hours, I'm completely comfortable with this.
The Chair: The interesting thing is to give the authority to the Chair and then to second-guess the Chair's authority.
Mr Stewart: We would never do that.
The Chair: That's exactly what it is, second-guessing the Chair's authority. Mr Stewart?
Mr Stewart: First of all, I want to clarify. I made the comment that the House leaders should be looking into that. I understand that's not the way it should be.
Whether we pay or we don't pay is not my concern. My concern is that there should be some type of precedent or some type of rule of thumb or some type of general policy created at the start of each of these hearings. To try and make these decisions halfway or a quarter of the way through the hearings is not the way to go. Whether it be done through the Chairman or not, that's again not the point, but you should have a general policy. There should be some type of precedent set and adhered to. But to do this halfway through I do not think is the right way to go.
The Chair: I agree with you, Mr Stewart. This request was just received. Some committees deal with this different ways. Some committees say no to every request; other committees say yes to every request. In the absence of a particular policy, I felt it necessary to bring this particular issue to the committee. Now, do we have unanimous consent for the Chair to make the decision on this particular request?
Interjections: Yes.
The Chair: Okay, fine. Thank you very much.
Is Frank Cauley in the room? He is scheduled for 3:20, so we will recess until 3:20.
The committee recessed from 1504 to 1539.
MARIANNE WILKINSON
The Chair: Our last presenter for the day has arrived, Marianne Wilkinson, president of the Ottawa-Carleton Council of Women and president of the Kanata Beaverbrook Community Association. Welcome, Mrs Wilkinson. We appreciate your coming this afternoon. The floor is yours.
Mrs Marianne Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Although I'm president of those two associations, I didn't know about this hearing in time to have meetings with them. I've talked with some of them and they are greatly concurrent with what I'm saying, but I'm not speaking for the associations in what I'm going to say today. I'm speaking as an individual.
When the federal redistribution was going on, I actually made presentations at that time to the commission that was doing the changes in the federal boundaries because it was important to me that my community, which is the city of Kanata, was all together in one riding, and that is the case now. It wasn't originally that way. But the number of ridings is really, I think, more at issue here. In talking with people about it, they feel there could be a lot of advantages to having both the provincial and the federal being the same. There's a certain degree of confusion that comes out. Our particular riding goes this way federally and this way provincially, so that we're actually being pretty well cut in half. I'm in the provincial Carleton riding at the moment and the federal Lanark-Carleton. So there is a significant change coming to our community.
I was talking with one of the offices today about something else and they said they still get inquiries. People get confused about where they are, who looks after them, who's representing them. I think some of this degree of confusion could be eliminated if you have the two together. If you were talking about municipal boundaries, I wouldn't be saying the same thing as I'm saying now. I really think that, philosophically, in today's age, with the kinds of communications we have, the kind of transportation systems we have, the way we can get information back and forth, we have to look at the level which is -- and I consider the federal and a lot of the provincial to be more policy-oriented types of governments. You don't actually do the services as much. You don't plow the roads in most cases; on the highways you do. The municipalities are providing services on a very narrow location thing and they need to have smaller and more intimate types of direct contact with the people.
1540
The federal and provincial are fairly similar in that they have to keep in contact, but there are a lot of different ways they can do that these days that you couldn't do even 10 years ago. It makes some sense that if the federal and provincial members have the same boundaries, they might even have the pleasure that they would talk to each more and perhaps go jointly together to talk to people in the community so that the people would have a better understanding of who does what, which is often very confusing. I was at one point mayor of the city of Kanata and I used to get calls all the time on items that were either provincial or federal. We had to become walking encyclopaedias of who did what. Because we were handy, we were there, if they had a problem they would call us and we would learn to do it. People don't like being told to call somebody else, so we'd have to usually send the information through. There is a lot of merit in how you could administer things if you had the same boundaries.
I don't think the reduction in numbers is going to cause a significant problem. It's nice to have ridings that aren't too large, and it is a bit of a problem in the north even though the populations of their ridings are going to be smaller. They're just huge territories. Our particular riding is one that's half very urban. Kanata is high-tech city, highly educated, high incomes, very fussy etc, and we're next to an extremely rural area, a poverty-stricken rural area around Perth, poor farm land areas; interesting, very small communities, lovely little communities, but they have quite a different lifestyle. It's amazing how well you can get along even though you're quite different, and it's sometimes very advantageous to put people together like that, because maybe people get to understand Canada better and know the differences between one part and the other.
I don't have any problem with what's being done here. It could work extremely well. I don't really see having the need to have double commissions going around and redrawing boundaries because that also gets confusing. For the people who take an interest in these things, there are only so many meetings we can get to. We don't get paid for this type of thing and we have other businesses we have to carry on. It's quite a strain to make double presentations when one would do. The process would be the same, so there's a little bit of money saved there, not a lot, when you look at your total budgets, but it causes things always to be done together.
That's my general feeling on the change and I'd be glad to answer any questions if you have any. I'm very familiar with all the ridings in this area because I now sell real estate, which means I travel. At one point, I was chair of the regional planning committee and had a lot of work to do with the entire area.
Mr Stewart: Thank you very much for your presentation. We've heard today that some of the people from the rural ridings feel that they will not be represented well. One of them was Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry, with the possibility that Cornwall goes in. Of course, the thought is that because the concentration of population is in Cornwall, Cornwall is going to be the one that's going to elect the next MPP, so the fact is that the rural areas are going to get the short end of the stick. I look at some of the areas near where I represent. The city of Peterborough is in the new riding. I don't represent the city of Peterborough; I'm from the rural part of the Peterborough riding. Victoria is the same thing. Barrie's the same thing. What are your thoughts on that? Do you think that the rural community will be at a disadvantage?
Mrs Wilkinson: I actually find that the rural people tend to dominate the urban rather than the other way around. Rural people tend to be much more interested in politics. They had a nomination meeting about 10 years ago, in 1983, for a riding. It was Nepean and some rural areas, and I would say probably 75% urban and 25% rural. That nomination was won handily by a rural person, because they bused all the rural people in and the urban people, being so busy, didn't bother to come. I've seen that in other places. If the rural people want to, they can do it.
The other thing is that it makes sense for people to get together. They're all people when you get right down to it and their aspirations aren't significantly different. They live in a different type of lifestyle, but as people they're not different. It brings them together. I'm in a mixed urban-rural riding now. Kanata is with Goulbourn, Osgoode and Rideau. They're all rural townships, and now we're going to go with different rural townships. To me, it doesn't make a lot of difference. We've never had any problem. Norm Sterling is my member right now. He lives in a rural township and he represents the entire city of Kanata, which is now 50,000 people. He's never lived in Kanata; he has never lived in the urban part of the riding.
Mr Stewart: The reason I ask that is that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is very concerned about that. I must agree with you, I think you're absolutely right. As I look now, many of them from the rural areas are those MPPs who are representing, even though there's a good urban group --
Mrs Wilkinson: We always call them Sand, Dust and Gravel -- that's not very nice -- SDG. There also is a problem there. You have francophones and anglophones, and there are a lot of things in that area that are perhaps different from the rest of the province. But those people -- I've known them a long time -- can look after themselves.
Mr Stewart: I rather assume so.
Mr Gilchrist: Very briefly, thank you for coming this afternoon, Mrs Wilkinson. You mentioned that as a former mayor you have municipal experience as well. Something we haven't talked about yet in the hearings to date: There are going to be some obvious operational efficiencies by going to common boundaries. I think most people would see as a likely consequence that we'd be able to have one voters' list. You'd have common mapping, common poll design. Presumably the same apartment buildings would be lumped together and the same streets could be put into the same polls as well, and at some point down the road maybe even shared staffing and the deputy returning officer and poll clerks and the like.
I wonder whether there are even further benefits to be derived from that cooperation that would see us able presumably, because the federal government has already announced that it's moving to an electronic voters' list, to take that electronic voters' list and also utilize that at a municipal level if we could frame the municipal wards as some kind of a subset of provincial ridings; for example, half of a provincial riding or a third, but at least you'd have some commonality in the boundaries. Would there be any merit in also looking at saving enumeration costs and staffing costs at the municipal level?
Mrs Wilkinson: There are some differences municipally that would be a problem. One is that you can vote in more than one municipality, but you can only vote provincially or federally once. If you have property in any municipality you can vote in that municipality, so you have a lot of people on the voters' list who are not resident. Therefore, you wouldn't be able to use exactly the same voters' list.
In urban areas the division of percentages in polls and things might work all right. In rural areas it wouldn't because you have not just population but also size, and you see that in northern Ontario. You have to be extremely careful about that type of thing. It's an optional thing that could work in some areas. I would hate to see it ever mandated, because I think it could cause serious problems. In the very rural townships that would really cause some grief, and I would support them on that, because you need a little bit of local autonomy for that type of thing.
1550
Mr Patten: Good to see you, Marianne; a long time.
Mrs Wilkinson: Hi, Richard.
Mr Patten: Your argument revolves, as you've expressed it so far, around some of the benefits of reducing the confusion that people have. There are some things that, if adopted -- and I expect they will be -- will be some cost saving for the province. But when we look at representation, which it seems to me is why we elect people, I have some concerns.
We had a mayor and a reeve today who were concerned that the new riding boundaries would be divisive in terms of their municipalities, so they'd have four people they would have to relate to, and that culturally, in terms of what Gary was just talking about -- Stormont-Dundas -- the mix and the sense of heritage and the sense of the infrastructure they have now is going to be somewhat lost in the grand scheme of things. While I agree with you on the feistiness of the rural area, the whole pattern is now urbanization. The big winner in this representation-wise is suburbia and the cities. The rural areas and the north are losing representation numerically and because of the increase in geography. I worry about that. It makes it much more difficult.
Do you have any views related to the resources? Do you think the resources of the MPPs should be similar to the resources of the federal representatives as well?
Mrs Wilkinson: I don't know all the details. I have a general idea because I know a lot of MPs and MPPs. Particularly in the north, you have to take account of area and representation. You're in a central city area; it's easy for you to get around. But the person who's up, say, for Renfrew, which is a very large, spread-out rural area without good air flights and the rest of things -- you don't have those types of things -- might require more travel budgets and things of that nature, long-distance calls and all those things that would go with it because they'd have to have 1-800 numbers in those areas. There are additional costs, and that's something that should be looked at.
It's very important that we have representation. I'm a grass-roots person and a strong believer in representation, but I'm also a strong believer in balancing the bottom line. Municipalities have always had to do it because the province legislated it. I was always wishing that we could legislate it back to the province. You wouldn't be the problem you're in today if we had done that. That has to be looked at and accepting a blanket one other than accommodation, which I guess doesn't apply to Toronto people, is probably not the way to go.
Mr Patten: Did you have a chance to see the actual draft of the legislation?
Mrs Wilkinson: I haven't seen the legislation. I've got the map because I had the federal ones from before.
Mr Patten: If you take my word for it, there is no mechanism for flexibility. It uses terminology like "identical to the federal system."
Mrs Wilkinson: That's for boundaries, you mean.
Mr Patten: Yes, for boundaries. If indeed it's true that different jurisdictions have different responsibilities, different needs, this sort of thing, it seems to me important that if you're going to go this route, at least have the flexibility to make -- they may be minor adjustments overall, but they're highly significant in the minds of a lot of people who are affected. Provide a provincial adjustment to a generally federal plan because it's in their interests, and that's our responsibility at this level.
Mrs Wilkinson: If you do that you're going right back to another commission and you're going to do the whole thing over again, unfortunately. I think a better system would be that in the next review after the 2001 -- it sounds like forever, doesn't it -- census, hopefully for the Ontario portion of it, because they usually break it down by province, it will be a joint federal and provincial one, that they do it jointly so that these kinds of considerations could be taken account of right at the time. However, if you start having minor adjustments here and there, you're going to defeat the whole principle of having things so that people know exactly where they are and having the joint lists and all the rest of it. You can get around the problem by having differences in people's budgets and various things. I realize that some communities are more split than others.
Mr Patten: You used to have a committee of adjustment.
Mrs Wilkinson: A committee of adjustment? Yes. It doesn't do quite that thing.
Mr Marchese: Mrs Wilkinson, you talked about two areas that I heard. One is the issue of confusion and that if you have one boundary people will be less confused. I understand that. If you have one boundary people are likely to know that they're in a federal riding as well as a provincial one.
Mrs Wilkinson: Hopefully.
Mr Marchese: That's the point I raise -- hopefully -- because my suspicion is that in spite of that it will still not solve the issue that people won't know the boundaries. By and large, I've never met anybody in my riding who knows the boundaries from my western end of the riding in Toronto to the east or the north, the fact that it jigs so stupidly up north in one little part. My sense is that they won't know the boundaries, and I'm not sure that really matters to them. I've never met anybody north of those northern boundaries who has said, "I really think we should belong in your riding." So I'm not quite sure that is really an issue in the mind of the public, but this gets talked about as solving the issue of the confusion people have between one level and the other. Do you have a response to that?
Mrs Wilkinson: That's only one factor. There are people who know. I know the ridings in my riding. I've always known them, but that's because I'm politically involved. It is much more difficult in cities. I can never quite figure out where my colleagues' boundaries are, so I understand that. It's different when you're not in a major city. The point of it is that I don't think that having 103 instead of 130 is going to cause serious problems. I think you can handle it by having the resources.
Mr Marchese: I want to get to that as a question, though. That's a separate issue.
Mrs Wilkinson: It comes down to that because if you don't have the common boundaries, then you're probably going to have more MPPs and you start having a whole double system. I don't believe in doing away with provinces because I don't believe in doing away with municipalities. We have a very large, diverse country, and I think we have to have these different forms of looking after things. If we can simplify it a little bit in some aspects, we should do so. I think the common boundaries for having your voters' lists, because it is a residence vote and things like that, make a lot of sense, but then you have to accommodate that with other things to make sure you get the representation.
Mr Marchese: If you have a permanent voters' list, wouldn't that simplify things? Whether it's in the same boundary federally or provincially, if you have a permanent voters' list, doesn't that simplify everything?
Mrs Wilkinson: A permanent voters' list does a lot to do that, but if you have one permanent voters' list instead of two it's better too, because then people aren't quite sure where they vote. Right now it happens, federally and provincially, that people vote even in different locations and they go to the wrong place to vote sometimes, and if they happen to go near the end of the voting day they lose their vote.
Mr Marchese: I'm just not sure those matters are as significant as we raise them in terms of having to cut 27 politicians to make a point that we solve some little things in the riding around polling stations. I've never found that to be a problem. We tend to find them usually --
Mrs Wilkinson: I've worked as a DRO. It can be a problem.
Mr Marchese: I was a DRO a long, long time ago as well. Anyway, I am not sure these other little problems get solved by causing this great loss, and I think it's a loss. Although you say this might encourage some provincial and federal people to work together, I'm not sure. We have a party politics system in this country, and yes, there is sort of peaceful coexistence between those of us who are of one party and the other, but I'm not sure we're going to work together the way you suggest.
Mrs Wilkinson: I'm not saying being pals, but being cooperative. There's a difference.
Mr Marchese: I appreciate that, and sometimes we do that just to survive with the fact that we have a different person at a different level. In either case, you really believe that reducing the number of politicians by 27 is a good thing.
Mrs Wilkinson: Yes. I don't think it's a bad thing. I think it's workable and achievable. You could have lots of politicians; you just put two in each riding and have one male and one female, and that would really equal things, wouldn't it?
Mr Marchese: I'm not sure the Conservative Party would agree with that because they don't like quotas.
Mrs Wilkinson: You've got a couple of Conservative women here.
Mr Marchese: Yes, but they don't like quotas.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Wilkinson. We appreciate your coming forward today with your input.
That being our last presenter for the day, we are recessed -- Mrs Marland.
Mrs Marland: Just before we recess, I wonder if I could do a couple of housekeeping things. One is that since I'm only subbing today and reluctantly can't be with you tomorrow on what I understand is both your birthday and Mrs Ross's birthday, I would like to extend the best of greetings for you on that occasion tomorrow. It's a personal sacrifice for both of you that you're not going to be at home with your family on Saturday, but you're going to be serving your constituents and the people of Ontario as a whole with the other members of the committee.
Because I am subbing, I ask that I might receive a copy of the brief that was submitted by Mr George Currier, the reeve of Maxville, this afternoon. I know that the clerk will get those copies to us when we get back to Toronto.
The final thing I have is that since I may be -- I guess I am -- the most senior member of the committee here present at the moment and since this morning the leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr Howard Hampton, suggested that perhaps my recollection wasn't what it should be -- this was in the debate about whether members would appear before the committee -- he did say I might recall that MPPs appeared before the committee on Sunday shopping. I think it's important -- and I'm sorry Mr Hampton isn't still here, but I will tell him personally a week on Monday, you can be assured -- for the record to show that I have been able to do some research over the lunch-hour: There were 519 deputations before the select committee on retail store hours in 1987, oral and written. Not one was a member of provincial Parliament.
Interjection: Oh, really.
Mr Baird: You can't trick a veteran legislator, a seasoned legislator.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Marland. On behalf of Mrs Ross and me, thank you very much.
Thanks to the folks in Ottawa who hosted us today and who came forward with their ideas. We are adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning in London.
The committee adjourned at 1601.