FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS
TOWN OF HEARST VILLE DE HEARST
NORTHEASTERN ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION
SOCIAL ACTION COALITION TIMMINS
COCHRANE NORTH MUNICIPAL COALITION
CONTENTS
Saturday 23 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
Mrs Joyce Warren
Rev William Ferrier
Timmins Chamber of Commerce
Ms Bonnie Foster
Mr René Fontaine
Town of Hearst / Ville de Hearst
Mr Donald Gratton
Mr Rob Saunders
Mr John Murphy
Ms Tammy Lynn Gouch
Northeastern Ontario Municipal Association
Mr Mike Doody
Mr Jim Thomson
Mr Marc Lachance
Social Action Coalition Timmins
Mr Raymond Séguin
City of Timmins
Mr Vic Power
Cochrane North Municipal Coalition
Mr Fred Poulin
Town of Chapleau
Mr Ken Russell
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 GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND) for Mr Marchese
Mr SteveGilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC) for Mr Flaherty
Mr JohnHastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC) for Mr Carroll
Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L) for Mrs Pupatello
Clerk Pro Tem / Greffière par intérim: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Mr Stephen Capaldo, Legislative Interpretation and Translation Service
The committee met at 0909 in La Ronde Cultural Centre, Timmins.
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.
The Acting Chair (Mr John Hastings): We will bring the Timmins version of Bill 81 to attention. Before we get started, I'm sure M. Bisson has a few words to say. You get 12 seconds, sir.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My reputation precedes me. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I would like to welcome members of the committee to the city of Timmins. I'm sure the presentations today will be varied and interesting, and on behalf of the community and of the people in the riding of Cochrane South, we welcome you. But don't be too comfortable; this is a New Democratic riding, after all, and we want to keep it that way.
I would like to ask one other thing, Mr Chair. As I understand, the 2pm spot from the Hearst university has cancelled. I would ask the permission of the rest of the committee: There is a gentleman here by the name of Marc Lachance who would like to make a presentation to the committee in French.
Le Président suppléant : Est-ce qu'il y a un problème ? Non. D'accord.
MRS JOYCE WARREN
The Acting Chair: Our first presenter is Joyce Warren. You have 20 minutes in which to make your presentation. Take it up all by yourself, or whatever's left, we'll have some questions for you equally divided among the three caucuses.
Mrs Joyce Warren: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am here not because I represent a specific agency, but I believe I do represent a growing group of those who love this province and are increasingly apprehensive with regard to the motivation of the present government, who are racing to effect changes such as this one without an appropriate consideration of the long-term consequences of such a move.
I was born, raised and educated to post-graduate level in the province of Ontario. I'm a fifth-generation Canadian. I have been privileged to raise a large family and to practise my profession of clinical psychology in Toronto, Ottawa and, for the past 17 years, in northeastern Ontario. It might be interesting to those coping with the medical profession at the moment that I came up here 17 years ago for a two-year period. I never went back and I have no intention of going back.
I've lived under Liberal, Conservative and NDP provincial governments for all of my life. Although I had normal and typical concerns regarding some of the policies of each government, I never had any reason to doubt in the past that the elected members were motivated by anything but a common goal of governing the province in their perception of the best interests of the citizens who reside in that province. After all, in the history of the western world, democratic governments are assumed to be governments by the people and for the people. I lifted that one from the United States Constitution because I couldn't think of ours.
Governments are there, in my estimation, to manage resources equitably and to keep the less idealistic and avaricious citizens from exploiting resources or others for material gain. Democracy may not be a perfect system, but it aims at a level of law and humanity which has slowly improved the conditions of living for the human race, especially during the present century.
Canada is envied throughout the world for its humanity and for the equality of its citizens. Ontario, as the wealthiest of the provinces, largely because of the endowment of natural resources which come from our north, has been able to raise the standard of living for its most vulnerable citizens by assigning some of its wealth to those who are less able and by developing an educational system superior to many in the western world, including Great Britain and the United States.
Nothing in our political or social history has prepared us to anticipate a government which would take advantage of our gullibility to, first of all, make promises that we should have known could only be kept at great sacrifice to our citizens, but especially to vulnerable people -- the poor, the handicapped and the children; secondly, that they would use their majority to bulldoze through legislation such as this, which significantly affects the largest geographical area in Ontario, and would strive to do so without any consultation either with those directly affected or with planners experienced and trained in those areas affecting decision-making.
The hearings today, as with the hearings for the omnibus bill, are only being held because of the vociferous challenge by the opposition parties for at least some semblance of consultation with the affected groups that heretofore has characterized the democratic process. While there are many of us now who have reason to be somewhat cynical as to the possibility of any effective change, we will doggedly pursue our right to be heard. Historically, dictatorships always are accompanied by and tend to create an underground of significant resistance.
Everyone knows that we have never had dictatorships in Canada. We know what they are, of course, especially at my age, because we had to fight the greatest one of all time. We know that there are dictators in Third World countries; we associate them with violent revolutions and overthrows of leaderships. We don't expect them to slip into power disguised as traditional political parties even when they openly refer to their policies as "revolutionary."
This government learned its strategy well in order to gain power. This may sound familiar to those at least in my age group. You first identify a group that the general population is happy to hate: in this case, welfare recipients. You promote the removal of obvious irritants -- photo-radar, gun control -- and guarantee a pie-in-the-sky reward: a tax cut.
Once in control, you move with incredible speed to deregulate and dismantle as many controls as you can which have been legislated by previous governments, including Conservative governments, that were put into place to preserve resources for future generations. Our future generations may not have a deficit; they may not have a province. You make massive changes in education and health care, many of which will be irreversible, and you do all of this without consultation.
I'm not sure those great minds propelling the Tory agenda, those minds behind the Premier and cabinet, of course, are aware that common sense is defined in Webster's Dictionary as the unreflective and naïve judgements of ordinary men. In my profession, which is psychology, common sense has always been synonymous with ignorance, naïveté and uninformed opinion.
Those of us who believe we are in the control of a juggernaut determined to wreak as much havoc on the province as may be possible in their term of office also recognize that there are no mechanisms available other than the electoral process to overthrow a government thinly disguised as democratic. That Ontario has never before experienced such massive protests by so many unrelated and diversified groups would certainly raise concerns, or should, among members of Parliament accountable to their ridings. Ontario at the moment should not and cannot be dismissed as one big interest group.
This government is great on buzzwords. The legislation being discussed today has not been named the Fewer Politicians Act for nothing. "Politician," if you look in your dictionary, also has two definitions. One is that a politician is one actively involved in the business of government, which would seem to describe our parliamentary representatives in the north. The second definition is of a person primarily interested in political offices from selfish or other usually narrow and short-lived interests. Does this sound familiar?
In the latter context, we could certainly do without politicians altogether. In the first meaning, of course, the present bill will drastically cut the representation that the north has in Queen's Park. Unfortunately, the second definition is the one that ordinary citizens believe appropriate to those who run for public office. The Daily Press here runs a daily question of the man in the street. I have no doubt that if the question of the day to the citizens in the street were, "Can we do with fewer politicians?" the majority would probably enthusiastically respond in the affirmative. On the other hand, if the question is asked, "Do you believe that one person can represent the citizens who reside in north Cochrane and south Cochrane and the communities up the James Bay coast?" those asked are likely to think the interviewer is crazy.
There are historic precedents for changing boundaries. There are also established procedures and mechanisms for doing so. This government, truly consistent in its approach, has followed none of these. Since this government clearly has its own agenda, one wonders about the haste and the secrecy. This government needs money in a hurry, obviously. They've got a real commitment there. But the effect of reducing the number of elected representatives will only be felt fiscally after the next election, when the government is likely to be gone, we hope. Still, diminishing the voice of those demanding services for remote communities and lobbying for protection of the natural resources on which corporations are dependent are sufficient reasons for the cabinet to take these unprecedented steps.
0920
Northeastern Ontario is unique in every way. To simply move boundaries artificially is to totally ignore the social fabric of the north. Unlike southern Ontario, each community has a very distinct character of its own and is quite unique. No matter how conscientious a member of the provincial Parliament is -- and we've been blessed with highly selfless ones here -- to represent an extremely divergent population spread over an area greater than that of many countries and of 40 American states is a task beyond human capability.
Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the government has just passed, equally hastily and without public fanfare, the environmental bill which effectively removes the environmental controls put into place to protect the environment from exploitation and to preserve the environment for future generations. Although the Niagara Escarpment does not exist in the north, we have the same vulnerability. The Niagara Escarpment has just been freed from protection and will no doubt be covered by houses within the next two years. While the present government would like you to believe that pesky environmental controls were put into effect by mushy NDP governments, the Tory government under Bill Davis had a great responsibility for this as well.
Similarly this government has handed responsibility for the management of minerals and forestry, our two main industries, to those corporations which have a vested interest financially.
These are all reasons for opposing any effort to reduce the number of elected representatives in the north.
In conclusion, up to June 1995, Ontario was not considered by many to be a distinct society in comparison with the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. We are unique, however, in the geographical vastness, the riches of our forests and minerals, and the great diversity of our population. We've had stable governments of all political philosophies but with a common goal of preserving Ontario and providing for all of its citizens regardless of their ability to be productive. Perhaps we will live to see it again. The question is, however, how many changes can the province sustain and what is motivating this government to effect changes fast and furiously which may in the long run damage the fabric of our society?
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mrs Warren. We have some questions for you. We have eight minutes. I'll give three to each member on this round, starting with the Liberal opposition.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Joyce, thank you very much for your presentation today. It's very well written, and in fact I would almost say it was in the form of a manifesto to get rid of this government. I think you describe it very, very well. We have always said that this was a very bullying government. I think in this particular bill what you've pointed out is that in this case this government is bullying democracy and especially, as you point out, in northern Ontario.
I'm not sure that everyone in the province, or maybe even northern Ontario, understands that proportionately we will be losing more representation than southern Ontario as we will lose a third of our seats. Generally the reduction is around 20% across the whole province, so again, the north is going to have a weakened voice. These hearings for the last couple of days have given an opportunity to citizens of the north to cry out, as you have, against this government. I, like you, am very concerned about it and I appreciate your coming here today and bringing this forward. These are words of inspiration for all of us who want to see democracy alive and well in Ontario. Again, I want to thank you very much for your comments.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you very much, Joyce, for your excellent presentation. You've covered a lot of territory. I notice in one area you're saying that the reason for all of the drastic changes that are being made seems to be the major tax cut that was promised during the election campaign, which a lot of people are saying is silly if you're going to destroy health care, education, and eliminate a lot of the representation that northern Ontario has at Queen's Park. It's silly to bring forward this legislation and other pieces of legislation that are going to reward the wealthy with any savings that might come through a tax cut and, at the same time, reduce the number of politicians at Queen's Park.
Back in 1992, the Conservative caucus at that time passed a resolution saying the geographical area and the population in northern Ontario should be respected, and it was passed by all three political parties that northern Ontario should be respected in any reorganization of the boundaries. Now we see this legislation is being brought forward that is going to eliminate one riding, the riding of Timiskaming, which is Liberal. Some people say, "Why are you trying to defend that riding when it's a Liberal member there?" But it's a matter of there being two ridings instead of three, so one of the three politicians -- myself, Gilles Bisson or David Ramsay -- would not be around in the next election because there will only be room for two elected members. I just want to give you an opportunity if you want to make further comments on that.
Mrs Warren: First of all, I have a vested interest in education. I've been an educational consultant in major cities and up north for 35 years now, so I have real concerns there and I can speak in an educated way. I have also perhaps -- there may be people here who can argue with me -- a rather unique situation in that I was born in Toronto, lived in Toronto and Ottawa as well as other countries, but came up here 17 years ago and ran a children's program that covered all of the areas in northeastern Ontario. In other words, I'm as familiar with Holtyre, Peawanuck and Attawapiskat as I am with Timmins and New Liskeard, and when I globalize here that these areas are quite unique, they are quite unique.
It's hard to represent them because, for example, New Liskeard people don't want to know much about Timmins. There are just characters that people can't possibly know. Anyone who has come up here or lived here has a much greater understanding of the south and its total and complete lack -- we have a major children's program here that has been grossly unsuccessful because it was planned in Queen's Park. It's called integrated services for northern children and it is a very poorly functioning agency because it was designed by people in the south who had no genuine concept of the north or how it works. The population is an issue which should not --
Mr Len Wood: It's unique.
Mrs Warren: Oh yes, the population is unique. The fact that there are 100,000 people in 200,000 miles of territory makes it even more important by my standards and most standards that this area should have more political representation.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Thank you, Mrs Warren. I'm unfortunately not going to be quite as fulsome in my praise of your presentation.
Mrs Warren: That doesn't surprise me.
Mr Gilchrist: I'm very distressed at the tone, and perhaps before I unfairly characterize anything, it's the media up here that have fed certain misconceptions. For example, you mentioned health cuts. How you can go from $17.4 billion to $17.7 billion and call it a cut I'd be very intrigued to know.
You talk about a lack of responsible government. How you reconcile that with an NDP government that doesn't even have a single day of legislative sitting for the entire last year. If you want to talk about dictatorships, you had no input, no member, no opposition party had any input for an entire year while they continued to spend this province to $100 billion worth of debt.
I take it that keeping promises is something you have great difficulty with. We laid out 13 months before the election -- the first time any political party in the history of this country has had the courage and, quite frankly, the integrity, to put forward its entire election campaign 13 months before an election to give people the time to analyse every one of those commitments, to ask the questions of the candidates, to get answers that satisfied them. Now when we fulfil those promises, you suggest that somehow that's being dictatorial. I think that's very unfair. That's extraordinarily unfair, and to equate our government, which still, by the way, has 52% popular support, up from 45% the day of the election, with a Third World dictatorship is the height of unfairness.
0930
We've started off here this morning with all sorts of misinformation. In 1992, a resolution by a specific Conservative member, endorsed by all three parties, not by the Conservative caucus, said there should be a differentiation in terms of population of the types of riding. It didn't mention northern Ontario. It mentioned urban, urban-rural, and rural, and that is exactly what the federal boundaries commission takes into account as well. They did that. The ridings in the north have an average of 40% less population than the ridings in the south. They have taken into account the extra geography.
I guess my final comment is --
Mr Len Wood: What's your question?
The Acting Chair: Do you have a question, Mr Gilchrist?
Mr Gilchrist: -- in your profession, "common sense is considered to be synonymous with ignorance, naïveté and uninformed opinion." I must say that whatever your opinion of politicians, if that's really what clinical psychologists believe, that common sense is ignorance, I suggest that that same question posed by the daily press, if you were to ask that question of the people of Timmins: "Do you believe common sense is equated with ignorance and naïveté?" they would believe the interviewer.
Mrs Warren: Have I got time to respond to that?
The Acting Chair: Briefly.
Mrs Warren: There are two things I resent very much: the implication that people tend to be influenced by the media and that the media has influenced my opinion. This is not the case. What is the case is that since June 1995 we have been presented, and I just have again, with a completely repetitive, stereotyped rhetoric -- "We have a deficit; we are popular; we have this," -- which, when heard over and over again, is used to disguise the fact that you have in this province never experienced the pain and the social unrest that we are seeing in the Days of Action, which are just a beginning.
If you don't pay attention to the significance -- and your leader, even with Tom Long behind him, is gloriously able to continue with this. But those are the facts, not the deficit. Those are the facts, what is actually happening --
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mrs Warren, for your presentation today.
WILLIAM FERRIER
The Acting Chair: Our next deputant is Mr William Ferrier. You have 20 minutes you can use as you like, or if your submission is shorter, than there will be some questions, I'm sure. Proceed.
Rev William Ferrier: My name is the Reverend William Ferrier. I'm a United Church clergyman. I'm also a past member of the Legislature from the years 1967 to 1977, and I can assure those who may not be members after the redistribution that there is life after Queen's Park.
Mr Gilchrist: Probably a better one.
Mr Ferrier: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I wish to thank you for coming to Timmins to hear representations on the electoral representation act in this area. The fact that this bill has reached this stage without any prior public consultation is shocking since previous redistributions in 1962, 1973 and 1983, all by PC governments, provided for consultation and public hearings from the people throughout the province before the bills were finally enacted.
This bill will enact major changes in the size and number of northern ridings. We shall lose power, influence and voice by the loss of five MPPs, while the remaining 10 members will be hard-pressed to adequately represent us. All of these proposed changes have been put forward, and decisions will likely be taken, without any prior input from northern residents, who are adversely affected. This is just another example of how others make major decisions affecting our lives and tell us what is best for us.
This adds to the sense of alienation and frustration that we experience as northerners. There is a sense that everything is decided for us by politicians and bureaucrats at Queen's Park who do not really understand our needs, concerns and way of life. We are either ignored or taken for granted by these southerners. Our economy in mining and forest products creates great wealth for others and contributes significantly to government revenue, and yet we do not benefit to the extent that we should.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Ed Deibel of North Bay travelled the north country to promote a separate province for the north and to sign up supporters. He made some headway and garnered some support for the political party that he hoped to get recognized. His movement eventually disappeared. However, this piece of legislation will lead someone, I'm sure, to revive the movement for a northern Ontario province. We have been further disfranchised and alienated. Our democratic voice has been threatened, and what is even more alarming is that it has been done by the Premier who purports to be a northerner.
This bill, in making the provincial constituency boundaries coterminous with the federal ones, reduces the number of constituencies from 130 to 103, if my information is correct. All these ridings come from either rural Ontario or northern Ontario, while two or three are added to the greater Metropolitan area. The influence of both rural and northern Ontario will be diminished while more power will be concentrated in urban Toronto.
It is unusual, in my experience, for a provincial government to let a federal government do its thinking and planning. If other provinces were to follow Ontario, Prince Edward Island could be governed by four MLAs, not 27. Obviously, other governments do not agree, because they see that provincial issues, such as health, education, resource management and transportation, more directly affect people's lives than most federal matters do. Therefore, they make provision for more representatives to deal with these important matters.
While I see the need for redistribution, I really question the drastic reduction of Ontario MPPs to 103. Rural southern Ontario can speak for itself, although may I say that the present day PC MPPs who represent those ridings that will be adversely affected must be a more docile lot than the ones I knew in the Robarts and Davis eras.
The proposed constituency of Timmins-James Bay is massive, and the differences in the needs and interests of the communities to be served are also significantly diffferent. From Timmins to Peawanuck is 760 kilometres. Several of the communities are only accessible by air. Our own special interests and ways of life cannot be represented adequately, especially if we are lumped together more than we already are.
In his statement to the Legislature when he introduced this legislation, the Premier said, "We heard repeatedly that government at every level has become too big, too cumbersome, too costly and too unresponsive to the needs and aspirations of the people who pay for it, the taxpayers." We have already seen a significant number of civil servants and public sector workers cut and offices closed in northern communities. More power is concentrated in fewer hands further removed from us, the northern taxpayers. With fewer MPPs we shall have less clout in challenging the bureaucrats who interpret the policies of government and who allocate public spending. This bill makes government more, not less, unresponsive to the needs and aspirations of the taxpayers.
The government is set on saving money, but sometimes the costs of the changes made may far outweigh the money saved. Greater attention needs to be paid to quality-of-life issues and the legitimate needs of people. While there will be money saved by reducing the number of constituencies, on the other hand the 10 northern members will need additional money for travel, additional offices and other support staff and services to meet the needs of their constituents. This will eat up some of the savings.
The MPP's work will significantly increase. With the loss of civil servants and the cutbacks in the provincial services, dissatisfied taxpayers will seek out their MPPs more often than they do now. With the rumours we hear of contracting out certain government services to the private sector and the layoffs in northern civil servants, there will be more work for the MPP who will have to take the complaints and concerns of taxpayers to try to get the action or satisfaction for them as there are few other ways to be heard. However, rather than at least maintaining the representatives there to listen to northerners, it will be more difficult with fewer members having to consult more constituents who are scattered throughout larger geographic areas. So the work will increase and representation will be more difficult. People will see much less of their member, no matter how conscientious he or she is.
0940
People who live in Timmins are much different than people who live in Peawanuck, and all northerners are much different than people who live in Toronto. We are all Ontario taxpayers, but the message that this legislation will reinforce is that some Ontarians are more valued than others. The voice of the northerners will be much more easily ignored as a result of this legislation. In order that further dissatisfaction and deepened alienation of northerners with government be avoided, I suggest that northern representation be restored to 15 and riding boundaries be readjusted only to reflect any changes in population. If you leave the bill as it presently stands, our democratic rights will be significantly diminished.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Ferrier. We have approximately nine minutes for questions. We'll start this round with the NDP.
Mr Bisson: Bill, thank you very much for your presentation. Just prior to the question, I want to touch on one thing because you touched on it in your presentation and when Mr Gilchrist was speaking earlier, the changes to ridings have always been done through a boundaries commission, which is the point that we're trying to make, and that the boundaries commission has the responsibility, first of all, of being a non-political body appointed by the government and agreed to by the three parties who go through the province to look at all the issues when it comes to redistribution, whatever they might be. Then those recommendations are made to the cabinet and it's up to the Legislature to either agree or disagree and make any amendments further to that through a legislative committee such as we're doing now. I think that's one of the points that Bill makes in the committee that needs to be put forward.
The other point is that there was a private member's bill passed by Tories, at least during the time that we were government, that said when you're doing changes to ridings that you have to take into account the geography. That's what Mr Villeneuve's bill was all about, to make sure that the ridings didn't become so large that they became impossible to service. I think Bill has a perspective of that, being a former member of the Legislature. These ridings are quite large.
I'm lucky. The riding of Cochrane South is serviceable. There are three communities, Matheson, Iroquois Falls and Timmins, and if I want, I can get from one part of my riding to the other in a day. It's hard to do but it's possible, and if the member chooses, they can do the best they can to represent. The point that Bill makes is that it will become more difficult to represent all the communities from all the way up to Attawapiskat and down to Timmins and try to do that in any kind of a real way, given the size of the ridings, and I think that's something that you need to hear quite specifically.
I have two questions, Bill. The first question is, taking off on the comments that Mr Gilchrist said a little bit earlier, he was saying we need to take into account that population shifts have occurred. We don't have the population base in northern Ontario -- and I don't want to put words in his mouth but I guess the inference is to warrant 15 seats. What do you say to that?
Mr Ferrier: The people aren't here to the same extent but before there was always 25% under the set amount, 25% under or 25% over, and that provided some balance and some fairness. But with the scattered communities and the time it takes to drive from here to Kapuskasing, a little over two hours, and in the winter you never know just what kind of road conditions you're going to confront -- I'm not sure whether Hearst is in this proposed riding or not. Well, that's another hour and a half -- if the member were from Timmins, it would take a long time. They would probably have to stay overnight to go to the number of communities that are here, some of the small communities. It would take, I suggest, probably a week if you were to go to the isolated native communities up the coast and as far as Peawanuck.
We may not have the numbers but to be able to do the work will take an increasing amount of time. Even with cybernetics and all your gadgets and everything, I think politics in a real sense is the human contact between member and constituent and you're going to lose that by these extended ridings.
Mr Bisson: Yes, and I think one of the things that the members need to hear from the government side is that we've been very lucky in our ridings, in that we've had good representation both from Mr Ferrier when he was the member for this riding and Mr Pope, who was a Conservative, and hopefully myself. People have taken their jobs seriously and tried to keep in touch with their constituents. I guess we look at this as saying you're taking the MPP away from the public to a certain extent by making the ridings larger because it will become more difficult for us to keep up the relationships we had with the communities within our riding.
The last question, very quickly -- you touched on this in your presentation and I guess I ask you it as a rhetorical question: How do you see eliminating ridings, or eliminating the number of MPPs, as a way of augmenting democracy? You talked about that in your brief, how what the government is doing is a takeaway from democracy. The government is saying, and I've heard the Premier say this in the Legislature, that by removing MPPs we're going to augment democracy. How do square that?
Mr Ferrier: Well, you can't augment democracy by taking away MPPs in this region because we have a hard time as it is, with the 15 we have, in being heard and having our needs addressed. When you take away a third of that voice, even though it is a smaller Legislature, our needs are going to be less heard. So I see democracy being diminished, not enhanced, by this.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): Thank you for your presentation. Just to look at the legislative changes that are in place: the southwest's seats, for example, are going to go from 18 to 14; west-central Ontario, which is Kitchener-Golden Horseshoe, the seats are going to be reduced from 22 to 17; Metropolitan Toronto is going to be reduced from 30 seats to 22; Toronto suburbs, which is Halton-Peel and York-Durham, are going to be increased from 18 to 19; east-central, which is Simcoe county and Kingston, is going to be reduced from 13 seats to 10 seats; the east is going to be reduced from 14 seats to 11; and the north seats are going to be reduced from 15 to 10.
With respect to the hearings, as you're probably aware, there were federal hearings with respect to these boundaries which were put in place by the federal commission, and I believe they were over a seven-month period and I believe that all the northern members who were federal MPs voted for these changes and supported them.
I have one of the largest ridings in the province and I have to run my office with two offices. It's not easy, but I can say this: As a newly elected member, I ran on a promise. I feel that my own integrity is at stake in terms of saying I ran and we're going to reduce the numbers, but also I feel, being down there, that with the less number of members, I'm going to have a greater voice in terms of dealing with the bureaucracy because I've got less members to compete with, 27 less members in fact. I feel I'll be able to represent my membership better.
I know that when you were in office, 1967, there were 117 members and I can certainly tell you with the increased numbers, I think even you yourself would probably find that more members to compete with is obviously less time to deal with that bureaucracy. I sort of consider myself as a watchdog on that bureaucracy, and if I've got less members trying to take up their time and I can focus on them, I feel I can do a better job. Now, I'll just pass it along.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Just one comment before I pass it on as well. I'd like, for the record, for you to know that of the seven government people here, four of us represent rural ridings. So it's not the big, urban city of Toronto coming up here and trying to bulldoze, as we've heard so far this morning. We are rural and urban ridings, and I'd just like to make that clear.
Mr Ferrier: Could I just ask you, are you happy to see your influence as rural members diminished like this?
Mr Stewart: I don't think we are. I think what we have to do is find better ways and more effective ways to service the people we represent. I represent 100,000 people and I represent them, I feel, pretty well. In fact, if we can get out of here, I've got two dos on tonight back in the riding and I will be there, but I've got to find better ways and more efficient ways to do it, and that's what has got us in this problem. We're hearing that today you've got to go from Timmins up to the farthest point in your riding and then come back. Tomorrow you've got to go back up. The next day you've got to go back up. That's not the way you do business any more.
Mr Ferrier: I didn't say that.
0950
Mr Stewart: No, no, I appreciate that, sir, but that's what is coming out. We have --
Mr Bisson: We don't dictate the issues.
The Acting Chair: Mr Bisson, please.
Mr Stewart: I have the floor. What I'm saying, sir, and I'm not trying to be critical, is that we have to find, within our own constituencies, better ways of doing it and more effective and indeed more efficient.
Mr Gilchrist: This will just take 30 seconds. Mr Ferrier, I appreciate your comments. It was barely a dozen years before you were first elected that there were virtually identical numbers of MPs and MPPs. You're a bit older than I am. Would you suggest that we didn't have democracy and we didn't have a voice from the north in the mid-1950s?
Mr Ferrier: Well, there was a lot smaller population then.
Mr Gilchrist: But relative. Everything is relative. If we reduce the south and we reduce the north -- you'd have to agree with me that it's the relative weight of the voices down at Queen's Park. Did we not have democracy? Did you not have a voice from northern Ontario?
Mr Ferrier: I don't think we were satisfied with the voice that we had. I think when they moved from 117 to 130 and there were the 15 that it was a more effective voice. Mind you, if you were to have a cabinet minister from one of the northern ridings -- René Brunelle and Leo Bernier, who were both cabinet ministers in my day, serviced large ridings. But if you double the size of those ridings, I don't know how they'd ever combine being a cabinet minister and an MPP who could see their people. It really boggles the mind as to --
Mr Gilchrist: I think that applies to cabinet ministers everywhere in the province. But thank you.
Mr Ramsay: Bill, thank you very much for the presentation. It's very nice to have a person here who has the experience of knowing what it's like to do the job as an MPP and, as Gilles Bisson said earlier, you did a very good job for the people of Cochrane South.
You made the point, and I'd like to emphasize it as one thing that really sort of sticks in my craw, that the Harris government is allowing the federal government to dictate how the people of Ontario are to be represented in its own Legislature. I really think that's wrong. Regardless of who is in office in Ottawa or who was on that commission, the federal government made a decision based on building a federal Parliament to represent Canadians from coast to coast. I don't question their decision and the makeup that they chose. That's fine. They increased seats in this province and that's fine. They try every 10 years, based on the census, to find a balance, and that's their process.
As you know, being a past member provincially, the issues are very different federally and provincially and the concerns of the population are very different as it looks towards its federal government and its provincial government. Federal politics is very different. A lot of it has to do with our military, foreign affairs, Criminal Code, things that, while obviously extremely important areas of concern, aren't top of mind with average Canadians. As you know, and the provincial members around this table know, and my federal member has said and agrees with me, provincial politics is more in the bread-and-butter issues of roads, schools, hospitals, hydro, Workers' Compensation Board. I'm sure this is bringing back to you all the files that you worked on. It's a very different job. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that and maybe give us a sense of the type of things you dealt with in the past, those types of issues, and why you have to be so close to the people you represent.
Mr Ferrier: We didn't have the backup support that you have now.
Mr Ramsay: Too true.
Mr Ferrier: But I did deal with many compensation, social service questions. I even dealt with a lot of federal issues too, but needs that people had, and they are more pressing at the provincial level than at the federal level. There are more provincial ones.
As you said, I don't know that the provincial needs should be governed by the makeup of the House of Commons, which tries to balance the whole of Canada, governed by how they set up their representation. I don't think the two really are parallel or coincide. I think they're different and should be different because of the areas you mention and the things that I had to do in my day. I'm sure you members have those kinds of questions too, whatever it is, agriculture or transportation or compensation or social welfare.
No matter what party you are, you have to serve your constituents and you have to try to meet their needs or resolve their problems and see that they get justice from government, and there are a far greater number of needs at the provincial level than there are at the federal level, from my experience.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Reverend Ferrier, for coming in and presenting your views today.
Our next deputant is Ms Bonnie Foster. Is Ms Foster here?
Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, if I may, the representative from the Northeastern Ontario Municipal Association, is here and didn't know that he had to ask for standing before the committee prior to the committee being here. With the permission --
The Acting Chair: Was that Councillor Moody?
Mr Bisson: Not Moody: Councillor Mike Doody. He has asked if he could present on behalf of the North Eastern Ontario Municipal Association.
The Acting Chair: What I had thought about, and we'll have to play it by ear, is if there is a vacancy open and somebody doesn't come, we can possibly consider slotting them in at that point. But right now we're going to stick to our agenda as is. If we get ahead a little, we could consider later in the day for Councillor Doody, but that's the best I can do.
TIMMINS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Acting Chair: Ms Foster, you have 20 minutes in which to make your views known. You can use up the whole time or, if it's shorter, then we'll have some questions for you.
Ms Bonnie Foster: I probably won't use the full 20 minutes. Just to let you know, I'm coming down with the flu, so the shorter the better for me.
My name is Bonnie Foster. I'm the president of the Timmins Chamber of Commerce. Just to preface this, the chamber of commerce here represents approximately 450 businesses in the city of Timmins.
The first point I'd like to make is that since notice of Bill 81 first became public, the chamber did not receive any complaints about it whatsoever, either from its members, the residents or any other parties. So from that we can draw the conclusion that, generally, the members are satisfied with the proposed changes. Had there been any serious problems, we would have been notified immediately.
The business community supports these cost-saving measures proposed by the present government and urges continued progress in reducing government spending. All too often, this sentiment is expressed, but when a change occurs which directly affects someone, they are the first to say, "Not in our backyard." The Timmins business community realizes that some compromises are necessary and we feel that these compromises can be accommodated.
We feel it's a logical step to organize the ridings such that the federal and provincial borders are the same. We feel that residents can better understand who is representing them at the appropriate government level. In this day of partnerships and shared responsibilities, maintaining identical ridings will permit residents and communities to be better equipped to arrange and discuss concerted efforts. Parliamentary representatives will also be able to work more efficiently with their counterparts.
There's no disputing that the size of the Timmins-James Bay riding is extremely large and will be difficult to represent. Travel throughout the riding will also be difficult. However, communications have developed such that residents can readily know what Parliament is doing. We feel that communications from Parliament down to the residents are well handled by the media. The difficulty may be from the residents up to their member of Parliament. With television, radio and newspapers, plenty of information is being distributed and is easily obtained. If a resident requires to speak with the MPP, it is likely that those communication lines begin with a written request or a telephone call. It is not as important for the MPP to be in a certain office at a certain time on certain days as it is to be accessible for communication by any other means.
1000
However, a word of caution is necessary here. While communications have improved significantly, government cannot assume that all taxpayers have access to all means. There are many areas in this riding which do not have Internet or modem access because the infrastructure is not in place. Telephone service in remote areas is lacking in new technology. It's as simple as a touch-tone telephone. There are places that don't have it. If you call down to a certain place and you get the message, "Press 1 for this; press 2 for that," you cannot get through. So we can't make the assumption that everybody has access to those things.
Also, because of the large territory, certain allowances must be permitted to allow the MPP to adequately communicate to the riding taxpayers whenever necessary. This may mean extra time to allow for turnaround on things, if access is necessary, to go to the specific location and get back.
Upon discussion of the proposed riding changes, one concern raised by some was the location of the boundaries themselves. Communities which have natural linkages between them either because of economic similarities or preferences or easier transportation routes may be better represented if they were in the same riding. Accordingly, it will be important to monitor the effect of the changes when implemented and to realize that further changes may be warranted should the population shift or other changes occur.
Generally, we're suggesting that this shouldn't be etched in stone forever. We have to look at the changes that are happening in the economy and in population and everything.
I thank you for your time. If there are any questions, don't hesitate to ask.
The Acting Chair: We have about 15 minutes, so we'll put five to each side, starting with the government.
Mr Stewart: Just one comment. We've heard from two speakers before that such-and-such an area doesn't want to be associated with another area. Maybe by putting some of the groups together and changing the boundaries, this is going to help to solve some of the compatibility or the controversy, if that's what it is, between communities.
Ms Foster: I think it's possible. I think what might be happening is that a certain community, let's say, that is a mining community that is not in the Timmins-James Bay riding may feel they don't have that same kind of backing behind them that mining is important in their riding. So they might be looking to say, "Let's get into a riding in which mining is important and we'll have that support."
Mr Stewart: It may be a turf war that has been created.
Ms Foster: I don't think that's what it is. I think they're looking to see what benefits we can get from this.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I just wanted to follow up on that line of questioning. When the federal electoral commission went around and heard from different people in communities such as this, for example, I'll read to you directly from their publication: "Several municipalities expressed fear that their interests would not be properly represented," and I'm speaking about North Bay-Timiskaming district. "For this reason, while considering transportation links and communities of interest, most of the Timiskaming area is kept together," and population is added to the south.
If I read through most of this, it says that they followed through and changed the boundaries because of what they heard from the public. So I think they've tried to accommodate as best they could communities of interest in special geographic areas.
I'd like to ask you one other thing, though. We've heard a lot from the people of the north of how different people in the north are. I come from Hamilton. Right now we're going through a restructuring which includes six different municipalities, each of whom believe they are completely different from people who reside in Hamilton. I'm speaking about the areas of Dundas, Ancaster, Glanbrook, Stoney Creek and Flamborough. They're all different. They all have unique community interests.
So it's well and good to say that up in the north they're all different and they're all unique, but we in the south also are unique and different. But somehow everybody comes together and works together to solve their problems, and I believe that can happen in the north. Do you believe that as well?
Ms Foster: Absolutely. That's why it's important that you're looking at all the different interests and the reasons behind certain people's perspective. As long as you're looking at this in a concerted effort, there should be no problem. Northerners will say we're different than southerners. I think probably it's because of the location, and from that respect we will always say we're different.
The Acting Chair: Mr Hardeman, one minute.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you for the presentation. Again, I want to deal with the differences in people as opposed to the similarities in people. We've heard from quite a number of deputations for the last couple of days that the people in the north are different than the people in the south --
Mr Len Wood: Just look at us.
Mr Hardeman: -- and that's what I say as I look across the table; the difference doesn't seem to be very obvious physically. I just wondered if the people in the different communities in the north are different in policy as northerners, or are they actually individually different? Are the needs of the individual in a community different from one community to another? When we have a problem with government, when we call a constituency office about a social services problem, is that a different problem in different communities?
Ms Foster: I don't think it's the individual that's different. I think their circumstances may be different. They will be farther removed from the parliamentary seats; their distances, their climate. Those are the circumstances around them that are different. It's not the individual.
Mr Ramsay: Just a minute ago, my colleague asked a few questions. I'd like to answer that a little bit as to why we are different. I find in dealing with my constituents that there's a sense of isolation there, whether it's real or not, because of the physical distance from Toronto. What I find when I talk to some of my southern colleagues is their constituents tend to pick up the phone and call directly from the blue pages government offices that may be in the Golden Horseshoe area. I find that in the north we get more of our constituents calling us because we don't have all the offices in our ridings and they find it easier to facilitate their complaint through the MPP's office.
The other thing, whether it's right or wrong, is that unfortunately I find, proportionately, that northern Ontarians from time to time can become more dependent upon government. I have about a 30% unemployment rate in my riding, so unfortunately many of my constituents are dependent upon government assistance, and we tend because of that to have a lot of interaction with our constituents.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Thank you, Mr Chair. Ms Foster, I think you have delivered the essence of what the bill is trying to do in your brief presentation, but you have also said that the chamber seems to be happy with the proposed legislation because you didn't receive any complaints or whatever. From whom did you expect some complaints or some concerns?
Ms Foster: Maybe this is a northerner trait, but if anyone has a complaint, they're going to talk to everyone about it, whether it's the business people, whether it's residents, organizations. They would be the first to jump up --
Mr Sergio: How long did you know about this?
Ms Foster: You have me on that. I'm not sure. It's been a while that we have heard about it. The first time I don't recall.
Mr Sergio: I see. So you think that people up north, especially those who are mostly affected, had plenty of time, plenty of notice?
Ms Foster: Yes, I think so. People who are interested in certain affairs make it their business to look into it and to find out what's happening.
Mr Sergio: You have also delivered a word of warning in your presentation as well. You said, sort of, beware. While you may have some support for the proposed legislation, you also said that to represent some of the larger ridings may be indeed very difficult, and then you added that with all of that, we have television, we have radios, we have the Internet, we have computers. Then again you have said that some of those communities don't have all of that either.
Ms Foster: That's right. I'm saying we don't live in a perfect world, and we can't expect that.
Mr Sergio: So are we moving very slowly to de-represent certain areas or are we moving into the technical age and letting the technical age take over the personal representation that the people should have, that they should be entitled to get from the government and from their local member?
Ms Foster: I don't think you can let the technical edge take over. I think you have to work with it, and it's much easier if you can be working with technology if it's available to everybody.
1010
Mr Sergio: I'm trying to find from you perhaps the happy medium that says, "No, we cannot let a 1-800 number satisfy my needs up here, the northern needs." I understand we have different needs, different requests, but we seem to be moving into, "You have a problem? Call a 1-800 number," for family support and whatever, stuff like that. We are diminishing the various offices of assistance. Do you really think that less means more, means better representation, more efficiency? Do you really believe those large ridings that will see a diminished representation will indeed receive the same or better, more effective representation and we should be doing something about that? You still feel happy with it?
Ms Foster: I'm still happy with it. Can I say that if there are 1-800 numbers, it means there are services being provided by those agencies or whoever is at the end of the phone. In instances where there is no agency, they don't know the right place to go, that's when they will call their MPP and say: "I have a problem. How do I deal with it?" You may not be the one to deal with it, but you may be the one to say: "This particular agency deals with that problem. I'll get you in touch with them."
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Bonnie, for having come here on behalf of the chamber. I've got to say we somewhat agree in regard to some of the stuff you have in your presentation. I think where we disagree is that I, like you, want to see the government find ways of making things happen in a more efficient way, and if that means to say there's going to be a change to the ridings, I don't have a problem with that overall. But I do have a problem with the mechanism and how this is going to work. I think you speak to that inside this brief by passing through it, and I'd like to get into some of it.
I just want to explain something for the members of the government to understand. The city of Timmins in itself doesn't have a huge problem in the end under redistribution, because more than likely the member will come from Timmins. But that is the problem with the legislation.
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: Just let me explain. If you went to ask the chamber of commerce president in Kapuskasing, you asked them in Cochrane or you asked them in Iroquois Falls or you asked them in Hearst, I think you would get a very, very different view of what redistribution means, because from Bonnie's perspective and for the business community and people living in the city of Timmins, no matter what happens under redistribution, if the member is elected from Cochrane North or the member is elected from Cochrane South, more than likely the constituency office will be located in Timmins. Timmins will have access to the provincial member. So that's not as far in front of the concern of people. But for the communities on the outside, and I think that's what Bonnie starts to speak to, it becomes a problem.
I want to get to that point, because you talked about it through your boundaries. As an example, in our riding under Cochrane South now we have Iroquois Falls, Matheson and Timmins, and there are synergies between those communities and how they relate to the city of Timmins, because we are the regional centre when it comes to both commerce and government. Taking Iroquois Falls and Cochrane and Matheson and lumping them into the riding of Mr Ramsay, which will be I guess Cochrane-Timiskaming, there is no connection. Iroquois Falls is as connected to Kirkland Lake as Toronto is connected to Vancouver. It's not because people don't like each other or they fight; it's because people don't go that way, everything comes this way. I think that's what Bonnie is trying to speak to.
I guess the question I have of you is, if we agree that there needs to be some kind of change in regard to the amount of people to represent the Parliament of Ontario, do you think we'd be better served by trying to find a way of drawing up the boundaries in some way such that those synergies are allowed to happen?
Ms Foster: Yes, you want to get those synergies if you can. However, I can't see having it done twice. To be really honest, if we can be represented federally in a certain area, provincially it should be the same. I think it's as important, if not more important, that the representative from the two levels of government be looking after the same individuals.
Mr Bisson: Where I have a problem is that the chamber of commerce presented to the federal committee when the boundaries were being changed for the new federal riding of Timmins-James Bay, and it was opposed then to the federal changes. The chamber went before the federal commission on boundary changes and said, "Listen, we're concerned about the synergies."
I agree with you. I think that's a real problem and I would be looking for some support because I know that's where the chamber was when the federal boundaries were being changed. You had concerns about: What happens to Iroquois Falls? What happens to Matheson? What happens to Cochrane? I had hoped you'd assist me as your provincial member so that I can properly represent the views of the chamber and speak on that issue.
I, like you, don't have a problem with the reduction of ridings. That's not the issue as far as I'm concerned. The issue to me is how we draw up the boundaries so they make sense, so that the people living within the ridings are able to access government through their provincial member. I'm looking for your support as a chamber of commerce to help me in your position that you took with the federal government when it comes to those boundary changes. Can I have it?
Ms Foster: Probably not.
Mr Bisson: All right.
Ms Foster: Times change.
Mr Bisson: Okay. That's fair.
Ms Foster: Right now, granted again, it's not going to be perfect. Whatever boundaries come up will not be perfect. Everyone won't be happy. But again, making them the same, I think, will be --
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: Okay. Just one --
The Acting Chair: Thank you. Merci, Monsieur Bisson.
Mr Bisson: I wanted to say something complimentary about the chamber. It's not often I get to say nice things to the chamber of commerce. I just want to say that it's too bad, but the chamber's position originally I think is the right direction. I hope we can find some way of being able to bring that message to Queen's Park so those synergies can happen, and I will be looking for your support, albeit you didn't give it to me this morning.
Ms Foster: Again, we're saying these can't be etched in stone. As things change, the world changes, and we have to look at global as opposed to each individual community.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms Foster, for coming and representing your views through the chamber of commerce today. I hope also that this theme you've brought up -- it was brought up in Dryden -- about the touch-tone phones and the lack of accessibility, perhaps the chambers could take that up with Bell Canada to see if that's a technical infrastructure problem.
Mr Bisson: There's no Bell Canada in the north.
The Acting Chair: Not up here. The other utilities, telephone companies.
Ms Foster: We are working on those things, yes.
RENÉ FONTAINE
Le Président suppléant : Monsieur René Piché -- Monsieur Fontaine. Bienvenue, Monsieur Fontaine.
Interjections.
Mr René Fontaine: He was always mixing up the persons, all the ridings, in Cochrane North.
Le Président suppléant : Vous pouvez utiliser 20 minutes pour votre présentation.
Mr Fontaine: No. My French people don't understand, and even my English. I'll try English.
The Acting Chair: You have 20 minutes, and you can use it any way you want.
Mr Fontaine: Can I ask a question? First of all, I want to know, where are you all from on your side? Are you from Toronto or from Hamilton? I don't know.
Mr Tascona: I'm from Barrie.
Mr Stewart: Peterborough.
Mrs Ross: Hamilton.
Mr Hardeman: Oxford.
Mr Gilchrist: Scarborough.
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): Hastings-Peterborough: two counties, very rural.
The Acting Chair: Etobicoke.
Mr Fontaine: So most of you have a good sleep at your house every night.
Interjection: No.
Mr Fontaine: How come? It's only an hour. Maybe that's where we should cut some expenditure. Instead of renting a room in Toronto, they should travel, and us, we should be there. Bound to come.
I'm from Cochrane North. I was a minister that you are talking about, who arrived home at 3 o'clock in the morning when the airplane didn't fly -- take a taxi from Timmins or Sudbury, leave in the morning at 6 o'clock to go to Cochrane once a month. If I'm here today -- my wife is very sick but she said, "You go" -- it's to tell you people that what you want to do is inhuman for a man, married and with children. Me, my children were older. It's inhuman.
It took me three and a half hours this morning. I could have left last night. I left today just to prove to you, when I left Hearst at 6 o'clock, I was in Cochrane at 9 o'clock. I heard the presentation of the chamber of commerce. I don't agree with Bonnie because in Timmins, they got it all. They got everything. It's like Sudbury. Those big centres are always there. But us, the small centres, where are we going to go? I don't understand at all why Cochrane and Iroquois Falls, Matheson, are pushed on the other one when all our lives those ridings exist in this province in the north where Cochrane was always with us.
I didn't agree with the feds. At first they put Hearst with French River. Our small villages in the riding of Cochrane are -- we never mention the native people or the first nations. Today, the people don't want to see us at election time any more. I organized elections in 1952 as a young man. Okay, I'm a Liberal, but still I was a very good friend of Monsieur Brunelle. I made one promise at my election and he told me after, "René, you're going to regret it." It was to go to Smooth Rock Falls and Cochrane once a month, which I didn't miss too much.
Today, again, with the new rules of this government -- I'm not blaming you. The MTO, they don't clean the roads any more. It took me an hour between here and -- 16 kilometres.
1020
Why we sit in the spring and why we sit in the fall: It was respect for the northerners and the farmers. I made a study in 1987. If we separated northern Ontario -- and maybe that's going to happen too, that's not over yet -- we could be the fifth-largest province in population and the fourth in GNP. Before the advent of the auto pact, where did the money come from, where was Bay Street born? It was born with our money here, the resources and the agriculture and the tourism. That's before the auto pact.
I'm 63 years old. I go back to 1934. Before, they always respected the north. That's why we came with the ridings that we've got today. Like Mr Ferrier said, I don't care what people say, if you lose MPPs, I don't care which colour they are, it's power that we lose. We lose power in cabinet. With Frost or Robarts, there were always three or four MPPs from the north who were in the cabinet. And I was there. I've got nothing against the south, I've got nothing against Toronto, but it's a big fight just to win our share of the distribution of the money. At that time our population was 11.5 million, at that time when they gave you $2 billion for your GO trains and all this. I said, "What about my share for the north?" My share was supposed to be about $175 million, which I got after fighting.
I don't understand that. I don't understand it at all, because federal is federal. They've got to deal with, what? My own member, Mr Habel, sat with Hepburn from 1934 to 1948. He lost two years because it was a minority government and he lost to CCF. He came back. Then he went federally. In 1968, I was supposed to run during Trudeaumania. I could have won the riding with Trudeau in, probably one speech and that was all. Mr Habel brought me to his house -- I had five kids at that time, I was a businessman in Hearst -- and he told me, "René, don't go federally." I was the mayor of the town of Hearst for 17 years. He said, "If you want to go into politics, you go provincially because you're closer to your people." And I did that. I could have got the other one on a platter. I won the election, but still it was a hard-fought battle.
But I'm telling you, this kind of redistribution for northern Ontario or rural areas is not fair, because you cannot represent the people. Three hours and a half from Hearst to here, and like Monsieur Bisson said, the office will be in Timmins. Timmins is all right. Me, I don't care. I understand, all the offices over here now. In the old days the government was always in every village with the MTO or the MNR. Now you're closing all offices, closing the welfare in Hearst. It's going to be run by the town, but we ran it before, in the 1960s. Then who's going to get all the work?
I asked this morning how much it costs if I take the plane from Hearst to here: $200. If I want to go to Toronto, $900-and-something if I decide to go because of urgency. Yesterday I was with my wife with cancer at Thunder Bay. I drove over there this morning. I wake up and I ask her -- "You go."
I came over here just to tell you it's inhuman for this riding, the way it's going to be. Inhuman. Immoral on top of that. I'm telling you, a young MPP with family, she won't survive. It'll be a divorce. We don't sleep at home every night, and we've got a hard time to sleep home on the weekend when we come because on the way through from Cochrane to Smooth Rock to Kap I had to stop in Val Rita for a 50th anniversary. Came home on Saturday night all the time at 12. Leave the next afternoon because I have to go the plane. Sometimes I had to go Red Lake or Pickle Lake and back to Toronto for a vote on Bill 8 or Bill 31. I did it to the detriment of family, which were older, and my wife. The way they're going to arrange this thing today, that's going to happen all over the place.
The people today they want to see the MPP. Don't come any more at election time. With that riding you're going to put, how can we see the people at least once a week or once or twice a month? Go and see the natives today. The first thing they ask you -- first of all, to go on their reserve, if the chief doesn't want to see you, you don't go in. But they're going to see you. And if you're coming only at election time, he's going to say no.
It costs $8,000 today to go to the north of my riding; it was $5,000 before. It's $8,000, and two and a half or three days if it doesn't snow. If you get caught over there, then you spend the whole week over there.
I'm telling you, it's definitely wrong, because we're losing power. I don't understand how a young MPP or any MPP can survive doing that. On top of that, if he's a minister, that's the end of his life; he's going to be dead after six years. That's why I left, in a way. I'm telling you, let's be reasonable.
The promises on that one -- I believe you on the other things -- but this one, first of all, the people who wrote that didn't look at the map like the feds did. They didn't look. When you wrote that book there, the redistribution wasn't even there yet, because they were working on the Mulroney one, which was scrapped, and the other one was not even finished. We went for a few revisions. But it's not right. It's not right for a representative, because we've got to spend the week in Toronto; we cannot go home on Wednesday. When we come up here, we've got to do the riding, three and a half to four hours over here and 15 hours over there. I don't understand it at all.
I'm begging you to look into this seriously, because northern Ontario is the bread and butter for the south. I'm a chamber of commerce president. I don't agree with Timmins, and a small community won't agree. We are French.
I'm going to tell you a story before I finish. I don't know if you still remember what they called Bill 17, which was to stop something. But when they woke up in Toronto one time after they'd built the railway between North Bay and Cochrane, they found out there was a whole community of French people from Quebec which had their own schools and their own things. That's why they had Bill 17, but it was never passed.
We're dealing with small communities, isolation. Somebody said, "Well, we're still isolated." You go to the north, but you get the news from the west. Am I right or wrong? You don't get the news from Toronto. We tried to change that. We put in a satellite when I was there, a very small community. We brought TVOntario down to the small community and tried to get Toronto news. They don't get that. It's a big difference.
A law was passed that cabinet had to meet with the northwest chamber of commerce every year. What did they do that for? Isolation. The more you change like that in northern Ontario by closing the offices -- okay, we accept that. We'll say, "Well, Timmins gets it all." But the MP will have a job to do. If it's not there, I take the car. I just put some gas in, $47; when I go back home, $47. If I take the plane, $200. If I take the bus, it's a four-hour drive.
We're human too, you know. We were born and raised -- it's enough with the weather, but we've got to pay higher taxes, more for education. My children have got to stay at the university. Higher this, higher that, plus the heat and plus the roads that are not plowed any more. Imagine that. How can we travel on Saturday to meet with the MPP? If he's right, probably it will be from Timmins.
If we go that route, some day you're going to pay the price for it, I'm telling you. Remember Deibel. They need 5,000 names, you know, to start the ball rolling. At least the government at that time saw the light. They opened the Northern Affairs office and it came as a ministry to be closer to the people. Now, Toronto, it's $1,000 to go by plane, plus $150 for a room.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Fontaine. We have some questions for you. Six minutes, two minutes each.
Mr Ramsay: Welcome, René. It's very nice to see you again. I wish you well with everything. I thank you very much for bringing the point forward about the inhumanity of the workload. It's not something I, as the sitting member, can do. It would certainly be used against me in the next campaign against my opponents if I say it would be impossible to represent the riding that I've been given, so I can't say that. But you're right; I don't think people appreciate the time away from home and family that we have. But we don't complain about that because we volunteer for this job. We're proud and honoured to have this responsibility and we do it, but this is going to make it tougher. A lot of my constituents say, "How are you going to do this?"
1030
I think the second question that's there of course is, they sort of know that I'm not going to be in Kirkland Lake and New Liskeard as often, or down at Temagami, because I am going to have to go all the way down to Noelville and through Sturgeon and all the way up through Cochrane. So instead of a riding being about 180 miles long, it's going to be over 400 miles long and it is going to be difficult. It will mean that I won't be in touch as much.
I think you bring the point that, yes, we have this high-tech world, the cybernetic world, but I think a lot of people like a little bit of high-touch in there. I think they look towards their politicians as one of the last vestiges where there's some direct contact with a human being instead of picking up the phone, calling the Ontario government and being in voice mail hell: press 1, press 2, press 3, press 4.
When I'm at a 50th anniversary party, people just come up to me -- and sometimes they apologize. I say, "No, that's why I'm here; I'm here so I can hear what's on your mind and what's going on because that what allows me to do a job." So, you're right; in a high-tech world there's still need for being one-on-one with the constituent and finding out what they feel and how their life is. I appreciate your bringing that forward today.
Mr Bisson: I am going to give the time to Len, but I just want to say to René, on behalf of my family, I want to thank you for speaking from the heart, because those are some of the issues that we're afraid to talk about as elected representatives of the Legislature. Thank you.
Mr Len Wood: Thank you very much, René, and thank you for giving me your spot when you decided to retire from politics. It does take its toll. I agree with you.
I just wanted to go back a little bit. You were saying that you're here today speaking from experience, 17 years as mayor. You're also the president of the chamber of commerce and you disagree with the fewer politicians legislation, which is contrary to the other president of the chamber of commerce who came before you. You also served six years as the provincial member of Parliament and you're speaking from the heart.
I can relate, having an ill wife and having her at Thunder Bay and then having to go to back to Hearst, and then dedicated to coming in here this morning to try to encourage some common sense in the Conservative caucus, because they can block any amendments that we bring forward. We don't have the numbers. I congratulate you for coming forward and trying to get the Conservative caucus to listen to your very emotional plea that this doesn't make any sense -- scrap this bill and do something that does make sense for northern Ontario -- and the fear that you brought up that northern Ontario will become a separate province in the very near future if this attack on northern Ontario continues through everything.
I agree with you on the roads. They are treacherous. We never saw this two years ago, under any other government, what we saw this morning.
Mr Bisson: That's absolutely true.
Mr Len Wood: They're saying there's no money for sand or salt and people are being put at risk, myself included, coming in from Highway 11 over here this morning. Fifteen hours after a storm is finished, there's no sand and salt out there. Why? People can't understand that. They say, "Well, Palladini's cut all the budgets and everything is frozen and you can't do anything."
I don't really have a question for you because you've covered all of the angles. You're saying that the decisions that are being made are going to put constituents farther away from the politicians. There's going to be very little contact. It's going to be hard on the members to cover the areas. If you want to make some comments on that, René, I'll give you time. Thank you.
Mr Fontaine: I'd like to say about the feds: Compare your salary with those of the federal MPs. Maybe they could cover a little bit more. Hell of a difference in salary.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Fontaine. I'm intrigued at Mr Wood's comments. The people from this community and from south of here that we had breakfast with this morning said that the four-laning of the highways, not just around here but North Bay south to Toronto -- in many ways the highways have never been in such good shape. I can't speak to the weather in any one year but we'll look forward to this year.
Mr Len Wood: You're not out on the roads.
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: Mr Bisson, Mr Wood, please. Mr Gilchrist has the floor.
Mr Len Wood: It's very unfair of him, Mr Chairman.
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Fontaine, when you were first elected, the population of Ontario was 4.6 million and we had literally almost the same number of MPs and MPPs. There were 85 MPs and 90 MPPs. As a minister you would have had a particularly difficult burden obviously; the perspective of trying to represent and take on ministerial duties.
The question I have for you is, since then, since 1952, population in the north has only grown by just over 200,000; the population in the rest of Ontario has grown by 5.2 million. I ask you this with the greatest of sincerity, sir, because it's all very well and good to talk about the loss of democratic rights, but where are the rights of the 5.2 million other Ontarians, recognizing that this isn't a county government or a city government we're talking about but a provincial government? When we reduce the north by five, but we reduce the south by 22, and their population has doubled in the time period since you were first elected, how is that being unfair to the north? Given your experience in caucus, wouldn't that give more time to each member in the limited time that's available in every caucus meeting each week to articulate the views of your constituents?
Mr Fontaine: First of all, if you go back, in the old days too the south was always more people than northern Ontario.
Mr Gilchrist: Only about 200,000 more, spread over 10 ridings.
Mr Fontaine: But you've got to look -- spread over 10 ridings, but we're not second-class citizens either.
Mr Gilchrist: I'm not suggesting that. I'm asking, how do we balance the responsibilities with the south?
Mr Fontaine: Balance? If you reduce the MPPs, you reduce cabinet, and that's where the power is.
Mr Gilchrist: We did.
Mr Fontaine: We were at 20.
Mr Gilchrist: That's what we have, sir. We have the smallest cabinet since 1956.
Mr Fontaine: Fewer MPPs -- because Mr Harris is not God; he won't sit there all the time. I don't say that Parry Sound is northern Ontario. I put it in northern Ontario, but still. So when you lose MPPs, you lose the chance to get a fair balance in cabinet too. And then you've got to look at the way northern Ontario is structured. There is a whole population that we never talk about -- the first nations. Who's going to represent them? If I were you, maybe I'd give them two ridings.
Mr Gilchrist: Let me ask you this. Two days ago in Dryden, we heard from Mr Miclash. He didn't even visit those communities until after he was elected. What kind of representation is that, if you don't even go up during the election campaign?
Mr Fontaine: It's 10,000 bucks to go and visit with them.
Mr Gilchrist: But, Mr Fontaine, we're trying to understand, because on the one hand they keep throwing out those communities as somehow being part of their workload, and yet in the next minute they admit that they never go there.
Mr Len Wood: Give your head a shake.
Mr Gilchrist: It's on the record, Mr Wood.
Interjections.
Mr Fontaine: I'm not talking about Miclash. I'm telling you --
Interjection.
Mr Fontaine: Never mind.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Fontaine, for coming and making an impassioned and humanistic presentation today.
Mr Fontaine: First of all, okay, you grow, but look where the money comes from too.
TOWN OF HEARST VILLE DE HEARST
The Acting Chair: Our next deputant is the acting mayor of the town of Hearst, Mr Gratton. You have 20 minutes, Mr Gratton, to make your views known. You can use the whole time yourself, or we can have some questions after you've finished.
Mr Donald Gratton : As you've probably remarked, my presentation is going to be in French and English, and I will answer the questions in French, please.
Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Je suis ici pour représenter la communauté de Hearst à titre de maire suppléant. Les changements drastiques des limites territoriales au niveau du comté de Cochrane-Nord créent une expansion fort significative dans notre circonscription, et cela inclurait aussi une ville de la grosseur de Timmins. Je dois avouer et je souligne avec trois traits que ça inquiète sérieusement les citoyens dans notre région.
The existing Cochrane North riding is already one of the largest in Ontario and covers more land than several provinces of this country, states in the US, and countries all over the world. To further expand the geographic limit is compounding the challenge of political representation for northern Ontario at Queen's Park.
Travel is a factor of great significance, particularly in light of the harsh climate that is a threat for half of the year here. The transportation modes are questionable, with the air service that has fallen by over 50% in flights with the disbanding of norOntair and the frequent cancellation of flights. Further, the passenger rail service is progressively coming to an end while the highway infrastructure -- and then I can underline "tree line" in red -- is deteriorating at a fast pace.
1040
Le peuple du nord de l'Ontario est surtout éparpillé et isolé dans des communautés sur une vaste étendue de forêt. Évidemment il y a plusieurs centres plus majeurs, tels North Bay, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Timmins et Sault-Sainte-Marie. Mais encore là les distances de l'un à l'autre sont très élevées. À titre d'exemple j'ai dû voyager hier, parce que j'ai couché ici à Timmins hier soir, au-delà de 300 kilomètres sur une période de plus de trois heures pour me rendre ici. Je n'ai pas pris ma voiture. J'ai pris l'autobus parce que je ne croyais pas que les routes seraient en bonne condition, à voir la température qu'il faisait avant que je parte. C'est clair. Finalement, me voilà.
En contraste, vous retrouverez dans le sud de l'Ontario une population concentrée surtout près des villes en général. Ces grandes villes sont l'une près de l'autre. Dans le comté de Cochrane-Nord, il ne faut pas se le cacher, il y a un lien naturel et commun qui traditionnellement existait entre les communautés anglophones, autochtones et francophones et qui engendrait des besoins spéciaux dans cette circonscription.
Si je fais la remarque, qui n'est pas nécessairement dans le texte, c'est que si vous voulez aller à Hearst, à Kapuskasing ou à Cochrane, même à Smooth Rock Falls, il y a bien des maisons d'affaires qui annoncent en français, en anglais et en langue Cree-Ojibway. C'est un fait. Je veux dire que c'est réel ici. À Hearst on a le Nord-Aski Economic Development Corp qui regroupe les trois nations.
Les consultations étaient toujours très productives pour la mise en place de services d'une bonne qualité pour la vie des résidents. Timmins est un centre urbain majeur, mais il a très peu en commun avec les relations, disons, des municipalités vraiment rurales.
The disparities: In addition to the isolation and distance, northern Ontario is several steps behind in financial resources, technology and employment. It's not in the text, but in Hearst the range is over 10% officially; unofficially it's over 15%. The range of quality of services is also very inferior. Therefore, quality of life and poverty are without doubt constraints that we must alleviate, and the need of direct and effective political representation at Queen's Park is critical to do so.
These differences and disparities are indeed more widespread, and the requirement of an MPP who is available and has time to act and respond for his constituents is of paramount importance for effective representation. Distances in a riding of the magnitude proposed for Timmins-James Bay will be devastating to an MPP and his constituents. One can only expect very infrequent visits of perhaps once every two years, which prevents a segment of taxpayers from this province being heard at Queen's Park.
To maintain regular and ongoing contacts with residents, organizations, entrepreneurs and municipalities would evidently be an inhuman task that would take its toll rather quickly. The opportunity for election to a party would also be very unlikely for a candidate who is coming from a smaller community within the Timmins-James Bay riding, since the power will always remain at the same place, like Timmins.
Le comté de Cochrane-Nord existe depuis au-delà de 100 ans et les différences dans les populations sont autant significatives aujourd'hui que lors de sa création il y a pas loin de 100 ans. Les mêmes raisons qui justifiaient pour la province de l'Ontario la division présente des circonscriptions du nord de l'Ontario s'appliquent encore aujourd'hui, à savoir les distances, l'isolation, les niveaux de population, la vaste étendue des territoires et les régions sauvages.
It's not in the text, but I should say that if we create a larger riding, the isolation will be further resented over here. Prince Edward Island has a population lower than the Sudbury region, yet is recognized as a province and has strong representation at the Parliament of Canada. The loss of five ridings in northern Ontario, bringing representation to only 10, is preposterous and bears no logic at all.
The residents of northern Ontario are being choked and treated as second-class citizens. That's the way we feel right now. The voice of the north is being gagged and our interests and needs will over time be ignored. We are people who live under different conditions, who have a different culture because of those conditions and whose needs are certainly not the same. We do not feel understood, and the elimination of five ridings and the expansion of the territory of ridings such as the proposed Timmins-James Bay are counterproductive for the north but could be very advantageous for the south.
The Acting Chair: Monsieur Gratton, we have nine minutes for questions, three minutes each, starting with the NDP this round.
Mr Len Wood: Thank you very much, Donald, for coming forward with your presentation. I just want to cover one area and then my colleague Mr Bisson will take over. I can vouch for the previous presenter as well as yourself that the roads are in terrible condition. The money is not being spent on filling up the potholes. This time of year, hours and hours are wasted before they decide to come out and spend some money on plowing and sanding and salting, and it's putting people at risk.
You're saying that people are being treated as second-class citizens. I can vouch for that, because I've talked to a lot of people from the town of Hearst and the different areas. They agree wholeheartedly with that. They're saying that by eliminating one riding out of northeastern Ontario, it's a shame on Mike Harris. He claims to be from northern Ontario and he's going to have a voice for the north. He's just eliminating that voice and trying to choke and throttle all of the good things out of northern Ontario. We've had nothing in the last 18 months from there. I'll leave it to M. Bisson.
M. Bisson : On n'a pas beaucoup de temps, donc je vais demander la question de façon bien brute, bien claire. Le problème que nous allons avoir, c'est que ça va devenir un comté de Timmins jusqu'à Hearst. Si le député est élu dans la partie du nord, mettons que le député vient de Hearst ou de Timmins, où va être le bureau du député ? Comme un résident de la partie nord ou centre, franchement, du beau comté, comment est-ce qu'on se retrouve là-dedans ? Qu'est-ce vous auriez à dire au gouvernement qui dit qu'il va faire un gros comté avec ça ?
M. Gratton : Comme je disais tout à l'heure, si jamais ça se concrétise, l'isolation que l'on ressent présentement va être amplifiée davantage, et ce n'est pas juste à Hearst ; c'est à Kapuskasing, à Val Rita, à Moonbeam, à Calstock. Une chose qu'il ne faut pas oublier dans ce comté-ci, c'est que Cochrane-Nord est vraiment l'extrême nord au niveau géographique : le nord réel de la région de Parry Sound qui est au nord de Toronto ; le moyen nord qui est Manitoulin et toute cette région-là, Sudbury et Timmins ; et le grand nord, soit tout ce qui est au-delà de la «Highway 11».
Notre particularité à nous qu'il faut que l'on comprenne, géographiquement, culturellement parler, je l'ai soulevée dans notre bref : c'est les basses-terres de la baie James et de la baie Hudson. C'est ça qui est notre particularité et notre chez-nous. Notre contact n'est pas nord-sud ; notre contact est est-ouest du long de la route 11. On a plus de contact avec Thunder Bay qu'on en a avec Toronto. Il faut le comprendre. C'est réel. On le vit à tous les jours.
M. Bisson : Vous avez soulevé la question des trois peuples dans votre présentation et vous avez parlé de l'ouvrage de Nord-Aski à Hearst avec les autochtones, les francophones et les anglophones. Est-ce qu'une affaire qu'on doit regarder comme solution, c'est possiblement donner un ou deux sièges au grand nord, de la baie James jusqu'à la baie Hudson pour les groupes autochtones, et le nord-ouest de l'Ontario ? Est-ce que c'est quelque chose que vous favorisez ?
1050
M. Gratton : Personnellement, je pense que ce serait tout simplement une question de justice, de faire une représentation adéquate au peuple autochtone. Je pense que ça a été soulevé même du temps de M. Fontaine, même du temps de M. Brunelle. Ce n'est pas d'aujourd'hui que ça se vit.
J'ai travaillé comme adjoint politique pour M. Fontaine du temps qu'il était ministre. On a fait des voyages à Winisk, à Attawapiskat, à ces coins-là. Ces gens ont une culture vraiment spéciale, particulière. Eux aussi devraient avoir droit aux chapitres.
Pour les gens du nord de Kenora c'est la même chose. Je verrais très bien que tout ce qui est au nord de Kenora et de Cochrane, c'est-à-dire Moosonee en montant vers l'arctique, on devrait faire deux comtés pour ces gens-là.
Le Président suppléant : Monsieur Stewart, une question ?
Mr Stewart: Yes, I have. What's the population of Hearst?
Mr Gratton: The population of the town of Hearst is about 6,000 people.
Mr Stewart: How many elected officials would you have there?
Mr Gratton: As a town, we've got the mayor plus six councillors: seven people in all.
Mr Stewart: You have seven, and then you have other elected officials, whether it be utilities or school boards or whatever.
Mr Gratton: We've got the school board. We've got also the public utility and things like that.
Mr Stewart: The reason I'm asking, and I'm going to put you on the spot, is that when I was warden of Peterborough county, I used to do a speech, and in that speech I used to suggest, and I think I'm low, that there were 24,000 politicians in Canada. I'm looking at seven politicians for 6,000 people. If we went along with the same ratio, in this riding alone we're probably going to have about 10 to 12 MPPs to get the same type of representation. Do you not think that also is a bit overgoverned, that we have to make changes and do things a little more efficiently and a little better? You've got one politician for every 800 people. Isn't that a bit too much?
M. Gratton : Si j'ai bien compris, non, je ne propose pas nécessairement un politicien pour 800 personnes. Ce n'est pas ce que j'ai mentionné. Pour répondre à votre question quand même, à savoir si on ne devrait pas avoir moins de personnes élues, il y a peut-être possibilité de faire les choses différemment, d'accord, mais je pense qu'ici ce n'est pas nécessairement d'avoir un certain nom, X. C'est vraiment pour tenir compte d'une culture, d'une région particulière. Ce n'est pas la question de dire qu'on en a 15 et qu'on va tomber à 10 ou quoi que ce soit. C'est vraiment tenir compte d'une population, d'une géographie particulière qui fait que ces gens d'ici sont vraiment des nordiques. On pense vraiment d'une façon spéciale.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'd like to elaborate on some of the points that were made in this presentation because I think they're very, very important and they have application to southern Ontario also. But these changes have made a profound difference in the balance of the representation between rural and urban in northern Ontario, where primarily the changes in the south have still kept fairly distinct the urban and the rural areas.
What has happened in northern Ontario is that we now have, and you made the point very well, that Timmins, as the major urban centre in this part of northeastern Ontario, will dominate the new riding of Timmins-James Bay. That will be a change. In the old system, Timmins, by and large, with two other smaller municipalities, was a riding. As Mr Bisson has said, the orientation even in those two smaller communities was with Timmins, so basically having a member from Timmins was quite satisfactory for this riding.
In your riding of Cochrane North as it sits today, you're fairly well balanced, with a number of communities along the Highway 11 corridor, a fairly balanced and equal population with very similar interests. They're pulp towns and there's a bit of agriculture there for sure. Now the real danger is, as Mr Bisson and you have possibly predicted, it could be that in this particular riding it will be the advantage of a Timmins representative of whatever party that could get elected over, say, somebody coming from Hearst or Val Rita, one of the smaller communities. Obviously those city issues are going to dominate the attention of that member, and because the member probably won't come from here, it's going to be harder to get to those communities.
I think that's a point the members should understand, that the mix here has been changed between rural and urban. What you're doing now is giving greater influence to the urban centre over the rural parts of this riding. I would just like to ask you, as I conclude, what effect you think that's going to have on representation to people in Hearst if you end up with a representative from the city of Timmins.
M. Gratton : C'est sûr et certain que pour communiquer, disons, avec ce représentant en question, comme je disais tout à l'heure, il y a une question de distance qu'il va falloir qu'on fasse. On n'a pas le choix. C'est la réalité géographique, la chose.
L'autre chose c'est que, étant donné ces deux codes complètement différents, nous autres on vient d'avoir le 911 à Hearst. À Timmins c'est quand même depuis un certain nombre d'années, et on vient d'arriver à ce point-là. C'est tout des petits problèmes qu'on «deal» avec à Hearst, Val Rita ou Harty : des problèmes dessous, des problèmes des goûts de base. Ici on n'a pas ce genre de trucs-là.
Les problèmes qu'on vit réellement chez nous se retrouvent dans des petites communautés rurales isolées qui ne se retrouvent pas ici. Il va falloir qu'on fasse valoir notre point à chaque fois, à chaque fois, tandis que présentement on va voir que ce soit M. Wood, que ce soit M. Fontaine, que c'était M. Brunelle ; on allait le voir, on s'assit avec, il savait de quoi on parlait. Il savait que c'était les «statutes labour boards», les «boards» locaux puis ces trucs-là. On vit avec ça chez nous. Vous ne vivez pas avec ça dans le sud et vous vivez très peu avec ça dans ce coin ici. C'est la réalité de la vie.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Gratton, pour votre présentation et pour votre perspective réaliste.
ROB SAUNDERS
The Acting Chair: Our next presenter is Mr Rob Saunders. You have 20 minutes, Mr Saunders, that you can use any way you want.
Mr Rob Saunders: The first thing I want to point out to most of you here is that when I actually was given a phone call on Thursday about this committee being here and when my time slot was, it was suggested to me that my presentation should be 10 minutes, and I'll have 10 minutes for questions or comments is what seems to be the case. However, I want to reiterate what the Chair has said. I think a lot of you people, especially the government side, should do a little more listening to what actually concerns people in northern Ontario. I've been here for a while and listened to some of the questions, and some of them are quite irrelevant. To be blunt, they're very irrelevant as to what's actually taking place in the north. I've heard all kinds of numbers and figures. I can quote you numbers and figures as well, which I will do, by the way.
Just to point out, I'm originally from southern Ontario, which is where everybody on the government side is from. I'm originally from a riding which was the second largest by population in the province in the last few elections, Markham. It is and always has been a Conservative riding. The fact that that riding, which had the second highest population, has a totally different perspective on the MPP and the representation that they receive there from being in northern Ontario.
Being in northern Ontario, not many of you can realize, and being here for a day you will not realize, the changes and the differences there are. After being here for over six years, I know there are substantial differences in attitudes, outlooks, education, health and everything else across the board. You also get a lot more colds, which is what I'm trying to get through here.
1100
The people in northern Ontario utilize their MPP, their representative, a lot more. There's no doubt about that, and I would argue with anybody who would contravene that issue. People in the north know their MPP, they want to see their MPP, they want to see their representative. It's hands-on. I've heard the technical revolution and getting into the Internet and all the rest of it. That might apply and may be very well and good in southern Ontario. I've heard some of your ministers actually make the comment, "Pick up a cell phone when you're on the highway." We all know that was a very foolish statement. If you understand the north -- these are things that you won't know unless you've been here, and whatever your briefing notes say is not the case. The satellite systems up here for cell networks aren't that far. If you have a cell system, you can only go 10 miles from here. That's how far it's going to reach, and it won't pick up again until you get into Kap or North Bay.
The ridings are vastly different from southern Ontario. A 1-800 number? That might be great. What do you do when a lot of the communities don't have phones? There's air time on these things, on cell phones. Some of the communities that are now going to be -- I'm talking in particular about this riding, Timmins-James Bay. They only have satellite phones. Satellite phones are very expensive. Whether it's a 1-800 number or not, you're still paying for the air time. They need to see, they want to see and they expect to see the member there.
Part of the reason they need to see these MPPs is because we have far fewer resources here. When I'm in southern Ontario, in the GTA and anywhere around there, I can go right to Queen's Park; I can go right to the ministries. In northern Ontario, if you want to go to the MNDM and you're in Cochrane or Matheson, you've got to drive to Timmins. You've all seen the weather we have outside. That's nothing; that's absolutely nothing. That is a major snowfall outside for Toronto, and I know what I'm talking about because I've been there and I've lived there most of my life. Some of you come from outside ridings. You may see a little more snow in the Peterborough area. I have family there as well. I know that area. But they don't get anything to the extreme that we get here in the north. The resources just aren't there.
The members are expected to be at functions. The only way they can actually come in contact -- I've heard Mr Ramsay talk about 50th wedding anniversaries. Well, that's a time that you utilize as a member to come in contact with as many people as you can, similar to a wedding when your family gets together. It's the only time you get together and the only time you'll ever get a chance to see them.
The government is proposing reducing northern representation by 33%. That's a figure that there is no doubt about: five of 15, 33%. Like I said, I can quote you all kinds of numbers and go around the board and what numbers mean, but we all know that figures can lie and liars can figure and you can make heads or tails of whatever numbers you want.
I've heard it said that we're removing five from the north and we're also removing 20 from the south. Well, if you do the math on that, it's still less than 20% that they're removing from the south and they're removing still 33% from the north. So that argument doesn't float very well with me
Perhaps in drawing up the boundaries whoever actually looked at it should realize that southern Ontario on the map is on one scale and when you flip it over and you see northern Ontario, it's on a different scale. It all fits on the same sheet of paper but it's on a far different scale.
The number I heard was 200,000 in growth in the last 10 years. Let me explain that this geographic area has not changed. Northern Ontario encompasses -- a number off the top of my head would be at least two thirds of the province of Ontario, yet we're going to be represented by 10 members, which is 10%.
Mr Len Wood: It's 85%
Mr Saunders: It's 85%? Well, since I've been in northern Ontario, I actually don't qualify North Bay any longer as being north. The last member spoke about, what is north? When I lived in Markham I thought Barrie was north. I can assure you that most of you cannot grasp what actually is being dealt with in northern Ontario.
For the first three years, I used to think, "What are these people griping about?" Until you start driving the roads -- and I heard Mr Fontaine say that. I had to go and do a presentation in Sault Ste Marie, and from here to Cochrane -- now, this was three weeks ago. We had beautiful weather in southern Ontario. I know that. It took me four and a half hours to drive 200 kilometres. Like you said, there are a lot of other issues that come up. If I had gotten stranded, guess what? My cell phone didn't work. So we are facing a lot of different problems.
The other thing I heard was that four-laning has never been better. I don't know who you had breakfast with, sir. I don't know how you got here, either, but I can assure you that you didn't drive, because we don't have four lanes from here to North Bay, in the north. From North Bay down, from Mike's riding and down, you may have some four-laning, and it's not all the way down. The roads are great through there and I drive that stretch quite often. I also drive farther north. If you ever take what's called the shortcut from here to go to Cochrane or Kapuskasing or farther north, if you don't get hit by a moose or you don't run into a moose on the road -- it's a scary thought. The roads are not as good. It's not to knock anybody on that issue; I don't want to belittle anybody on that issue, but we do have far different needs.
Accessibility: This new riding will be far too inaccessible for the majority of the people in this riding of Timmins-James Bay. You cannot expect somebody from the farthest northern remote area of this riding, Peawanuck or farther north, to take over 10 hours to get to an appointment with you. I can assure you that nobody in your riding would have to take 10 hours to get to an appointment to meet you in your office.
That comes to the next point of reducing the size of the budgets of the MPPs. That's been done. You're going to now make one riding out of what was two, that was staffed by two MPPs and six, maybe seven, staff in total.
Mr Bisson: Two ridings, it would be about two and a half each.
Mr Saunders: You're going to limit that to one member and two staff. Unless you propose, with making it one member, to increase their budget by more than double just so people can receive some form of access to the members, increasing their 1-800 lines and everything else to their offices -- you guys all have global budgets now. You have to increase that just so that people have accessibility to the members, and I just cannot see that being done. Because this riding will be losing one seat and a voice, I would hope that it would be considered to increase their budgets for accessibility. I understand that this is as far north as you're going in your hearings.
The Acting Chair: At this point.
Mr Saunders: At this point, which would lead me to infer that there may more hearings, I would hope, with the people who are more concerned farther north? Now I see their heads shaking no.
Mr Len Wood: They said no.
Mr Saunders: I'm somebody who's not going to be as affected by these changes, which has already been pointed out, because I live in the greater area of this new riding of Timmins; Timmins will be the hub. But I can assure you, I've got family in Kapuskasing and farther north, in Hearst and other areas. If you drive to Hearst -- I would just urge you after this, if you think it's such an easy riding to manage, and I'm sure you've got all kinds of tips on how to manage this riding, just try and service it. You can't. You cannot with the budgets that have been allocated. The resources just aren't there.
The one road that takes you from here to all those points farther north -- there are tractor-trailer spills, there are accidents on the road. That gets shut down. What are you stuck with? You're stuck staying over, and with all the other points that Mr Fontaine brought up about inaccessibility to your family and everything else, the stresses on it, it will make it an inhuman and unmanageable riding. Now, I can say that. I'm not a representative. I know none of you would actually want to say that, for the points you've mentioned.
1110
I still can't fully comprehend the reasons you're redrawing the maps the way they are, and most of the people I've heard present before me can't grasp the thought or have no idea why, so I'd be looking for some insight into why you wanted to do that.
Here are some of the arguments that have been put out there. "We're redrawing the map to reflect the federal boundaries so that people have one common boundary and they're not perhaps in two." Pardon me, but I'm not that stupid. I know if I'm in one riding or if I'm in another. The people in the north know if they're in one riding or the other. In the north people are in contact and they know; it's a small-town mentality. Once again, I lived in Toronto for many years, and most of you will know you can go years without even knowing who your neighbours are. Up here, people know, and they aren't that stupid.
That may work in southern Ontario, from North Bay down. Leave the north alone then. We only have 15 members in the north, none of whom are Tories. I fully understand that, and that might be some of the reasoning behind it, and then you can shift the burden to the reason that "We're trying to follow the feds." Now, the feds are not without --
Mr Len Wood: That's Mike's story.
Mr Saunders: Like I said, I don't qualify Mike as being in the north, only from North Bay. When you say you're going down south, people in Timmins say, "Oh, are you going to Sudbury or North Bay?" That's considered down south. I consider it Toronto, but that's what most people's attitudes are. A four-hour drive doesn't qualify very much. I mean, four hours from Toronto and you're south of Ohio.
This new riding, all the facts and figures are there: It's bigger than 40 countries in the world; it's bigger than a lot of provinces in Canada; it's bigger than 40 of the US states out of 50, all the rest of those things. But the fact is, it doesn't matter what anybody else does. This is us up here that you're dealing with. These are our lives you're affecting. These are people who, for various reasons, are in the north. If anybody else tells you differently, we're the hub of the economy of Toronto. That's already been stated. For every one job that's created in the north, four are created in the south -- those aren't my figures; StatsCan released those figures -- through mining and all the rest of the sectors.
The Liberal Party is not without fault in this, federally, and they're going to pay dearly for it, I can assure you. If they're the ones who actually initiated it and you're riding their coat-tails saying, "We're only following the feds in what they're doing; they see it proper," in fact they're increasing their number of seats in total in Ontario by 4%. That being the case, let's stick with actual numbers here. Like I said, we can go through this: a 4% increase? Why don't you guys increase it by 4%? If that's not the case, leave it alone. You're still ahead of the game by following the feds. You're reducing it by 4% and by not incrementing it.
The Acting Chair: You have three minutes left, Mr Saunders.
Mr Saunders: I'll just leave it at that. Thank you for your time. I look forward to any questions.
The Acting Chair: One minute each to the caucuses, starting with Mr Gilchrist for the government.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Saunders. Obviously, as the campaign manager for Mr Bisson, I would have thought you would have a greater grasp of why we're doing this. It's $80 million per term of office that we're saving. I would think $80 million spent on roads or --
Mr Saunders: I would just like to correct you on one thing. I don't know where you got your facts, but I am not a campaign manager for Mr Bisson and I never have been.
Mr Gilchrist: You didn't work in his campaign? Oh, okay.
Mr Saunders: That might be the beginning of false statements that you're going to make.
Mr Gilchrist: Whatever. It's sort of like a four-hour drive from Toronto takes you south of Ohio. A four-hour drive gets you to Windsor, if the roads are good.
Quite frankly, part of the problem we have here is that all of the descriptions we've had of difficulties come from four rural ridings. We're the provincial government. We have a responsibility to pass legislation that is pertinent to all the citizens of this province, obviously, and because this is a democracy, we should be guided by what is in the best interests of the majority. We understand that.
The distinction that has to be made, of course, is that in a civilization such as ours we try and balance the needs of the minority. Everything we've heard here right now and everything we heard in Dryden and the Sault said that there's no problem in Sudbury, North Bay or Thunder Bay. Every one of the major cities in the north, no problem. Sitting members have said that this bill will not affect them in the slightest.
Mr Saunders: Their ridings are not doubling.
Mr Gilchrist: They're all expanding, but they say they have no problem.
Mr Saunders: Doubling?
Mr Gilchrist: So we have four ridings we have to make special allowance for. Obviously, if we don't exactly mirror the federal boundaries, a lot of the savings that could be accomplished by joint enumeration, joint mapping, joint riding names, disappear and we would lose those savings, that $80 million per term.
My question to you, as someone obviously fluent in the political system, is that particularly when opposition members have less of a need to be at Queen's Park because they don't sit on anywhere near the number of committees, behind-the-scenes committees, why wouldn't, for those four ridings only, the members simply go to their House leaders and say, "If my territory's increasing from 60% to 80%, I need an extra day in the riding," and instead of four days at Queen's Park where many of them only come for question period for an hour, why not take two days in the riding and three days at Queen's Park?
Mr Len Wood: Mr Chair, I'm sick and tired of listening to the attacks continuously from Gilchrist.
The Acting Chair: Mr Wood, Mr Gilchrist has the floor.
Interjection.
The Acting Chair: Mr Gilchrist has the floor.
Mr Gilchrist: I'm not attacking Mr Saunders. I'm asking a very simple question.
Mr Saunders: I heard the question. Let me answer the first question you have. If you're talking about opposition members not required in the House, I would suggest that you start with your backbenchers, who are far less required in the House, who actually do nothing, who speak up very little. If you want to make some little attacks, I suggest that's where you start to make savings.
The Acting Chair: For the Liberals, Mr Sergio.
Interjections.
Mr Saunders: I've been to the House and seen what takes place and if you wish to continue --
The Acting Chair: Mr Sergio has the floor, thank you, Mr Saunders.
Mr Sergio: That's all right. You have dealt with a number of the concerns we have heard from other presenters as well throughout the hearings. I really have no questions other than just making a statement that I believe there is serious concern up north here, which is quite different from the concern we have in the city of Toronto. I'll be gaining some 25,000 people more, but my riding consists maybe of five square miles. Up north, you are getting a lot more territory.
Do you think that in order to balance the larger territory but more population in Toronto, we should be allocated the resources to serve the needs of those people or that we should really treat representing people with doing more with less? Do you think we can do more with less resources?
1120
Mr Saunders: To do more with less in terms of actual members? I think it's possible.
Mr Sergio: That seems to be the credo of the government in every area.
Mr Saunders: It's pretty tough. I'm not going to knock the government on every issue, but the fact is, there are ways of making savings out there and we all know it has to be done.
Mr Sergio: Do you feel democracy is worth saving at a low but extra cost?
Mr Saunders: No, I don't think you can make the savings, because here, quite simply, is what's actually taking place. The people who have access and can get the things done that they need to have the money and the power and the resources. As far as I'm concerned, what government ministries are there to help and assist in doing is to make the whole process more accessible to everybody. For example, if somebody needs a birth certificate, if you've got money you can pick up the phone, call your lawyer, and you get it done, or whatever the case may be. Most people, the majority, the government is not listening to and not being able to deal with in making the changes that affect them the most, the accessibility --
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Sergio. Mr Wood.
Mr Len Wood: Just briefly, the purpose of these hearings and the general government committee going around the province listening to presentations is to bring forward, from the comments, amendments to this particular legislation that they feel is good for all the people in the province. Do you feel there is a listening on the part of the government members to bring forward amendments to this legislation when it goes back to Queen's Park?
Mr Saunders: If you're asking me about what I've just seen in my presentation, all I've seen is them looking through their briefing notes prepared for them by somebody in a think tank down in Queen's Park. It has been pointed out that perhaps I know something about the political process. Yes, I do, and I don't take kindly to being told, "Young man, come down to Toronto and actually see what takes place in the House." That's just ignorance.
Mr Bisson: I just want to say one thing quickly. You said that if we're going to reduce the ridings, we need to look at the MPPs' budgets so you can properly service the constituencies. I think that's something the government needs to hear, because as other presenters have said, larger ridings -- it costs 8,000 bucks just to do one trip to go up the coast. We don't have that money as it is, to do it more than once a year. If you're going to increase the riding size, that's one of the things you have to look at.
What's interesting is that the government, as you said, has already reduced the budgets of MPPs, and I understand there are reasons for constraint. But one of the things they've done is cut our communications budgets, and that affects us here in the north as well as in your ridings, so that we have less ability to communicate. I understand that the government House leader would like to reduce our long-distance budgets altogether in next year's fiscal budget, which means that MPP offices in northern Ontario will have to dig into our global budgets to pay long-distance charges, which are probably around 30,000 bucks a year. So don't kid anybody. It means we're going to have less access coming out of northern Ontario into Queen's Park.
I'll give you the last word. Are you opposed altogether to changes?
Mr Saunders: Actually, I'm very open to changes. In reality, I think it needs to be done. In all sincerity, government members -- it's hard for me to say this, but you've probably made some good changes.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Saunders, for your views today.
Mr Saunders: Thank you, Mr Chair.
JOHN MURPHY
The Acting Chair: Our next presenter is Mr John Murphy. Welcome, Mr Murphy. We'll see if we can have a productive next 20 minutes. Proceed.
Mr John Murphy: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to start by making an apology. I wasn't too sure of exactly what the act is, the complete name of it, because when I've seen it scroll past on the political channel, it seemed to go on and on forever. I thought maybe Gilles Bisson was speaking in French and we were getting a translation. I can say that. Gilles and I are friends, or political friends. That's about as close as we can get.
I'll try and stick to the script so we get through this within the 20 minutes.
Mr Bisson: It's because you're a red Tory.
Mr Murphy: I don't think anybody's ever accused me of being red.
I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to speak to the Fewer Politicians Act, Bill 81. In the event that there might be any confusion at the end of my presentation about whether it was to critique the act or to support it, may I make it clear at this time that my intent in this presentation is in support of the changes to the electoral system.
My name is John Murphy, and I've been a resident and taxpayer of northern Ontario since my arrival in Chapleau from Ireland in September 1960. I can tell you that was a surprise. I have worked for two railway companies, from Cartier west to Nipigon and from North Bay to Moosonee. I have been a resident of Chapleau, Sultan, Matheson, Timmins, South Porcupine and Moosonee, and I have worked on a relief basis in northern communities too numerous to mention at this time, and in addition, I have owned a summer cottage at Temagami since 1962. I should point out that in the event the committee may think me a nomad, I have worked for the same mining company since 1970 and have been a resident of South Porcupine since 1971.
As a past deputy governor and vice-governor and governor in the Association of Kinsmen Clubs, I have had the opportunity to visit most, if not all, of the communities in northeastern Ontario and indeed most of the communities in southern Ontario. As a former alderman in the city of Timmins and as a candidate in the last federal election, I can assure you that when I say that I have experienced northern Ontario, it has been through being there, and not through a casual visit.
Since my first involvement with Canadian elections in the early 1960s -- it was difficult not to get involved; Chapleau was in Algoma East and the candidate was Lester Mike Pearson -- it has always been a puzzle to me that federal and provincial riding boundaries differed so greatly and I therefore applaud the move in making them the same.
The members of all parties in the provincial riding of Cochrane South will no doubt share a sense of nostalgia for elections won and campaigns lost within these electoral boundaries, and there is doubtless a sense of loss that in the adoption of new boundaries we will lose the communities of Iroquois Falls and Black River-Matheson from our riding.
It is a bold move at any time to change electoral boundaries, and few committees, if any, have ever escaped without someone trying to hold on to a favourite community of support or a neighbouring location. These are the ways of politics and politicians, and I know that while you do not have within your power at this time to have influence over the federal electoral districts which are proposed as provincial boundaries, the future will hold a thrust to include the town of Cochrane in the Timmins-James Bay riding. If you look at the map, it just looks like a natural. I know it was probably left in the Timiskaming riding in order to make up the numbers necessary.
I support the government in their adoption of the federal electoral districts which were set by a Liberal government in Ottawa. It takes courage, but it is a fair and equitable manner in which to establish new provincial ridings. It means that this government has not tried to manipulate ridings to gain advantage but rather to use the same ones we use to elect federal members of Parliament. This is being done at a time when the federal districts are being changed, so it gives no advantage to any political party. In addition, it saves millions of taxpayers' dollars normally used for the province to repeat the process and it provides opportunity for savings in the future through pooling resources with the federal government in the production of electoral material.
If there is a major concern about the reduction of the number of politicians at Queen's Park, I have yet to hear it. The response I get from those with whom I have discussed the matter has been that we could use a few less. These are their words, not mine. Experience here in Timmins has shown us that the reduction in the number of politicians is not only possible but that it works. When I moved to South Porcupine in 1971 this area consisted of four municipalities -- that is, Timmins, Whitney, Tisdale and Mountjoy -- each with its own mayor and council. In 1972, when the city was amalgamated, it became one, with 14 councillors. The city operated in this mode until 1980, at which time it again reduced the number of members of council to eight, where it remains and operates successfully to this day.
Was the transition easy? Not at all. In fact, there are people who maintain that amalgamation has never worked. Some of them may be here today. Has everyone always been happy about the reduced number of politicians? Hardly. As a casualty of the 1980 reduction of council members, I had some doubts as to how well council would function without me, but they have somehow survived and the city thrives today with one mayor and eight council members.
Be assured that there will be predictions of dire happenings because the number of members of provincial Parliament will be reduced from 130 to 103. You will be told that northerners will be underrepresented. I am pleased to note that while representation is based on population, ridings in the north will continue to have smaller populations, for example, 75,000 as compared to 100,000 for ridings in the south. I used wrong figures, because they run, I believe, in the federal electoral districts, from 74,000 to 108,000. This means that northern Ontario has more representation than it would have under a pure representation by population system.
1130
There will be suggestions that problems will arise because provincial politicians will not be able to serve their constituents due to the distances involved. It is my belief that the opposite will be the case. In these days of shared costs between the municipal, provincial and federal governments, it is my contention that federal and provincial members, whatever their political persuasion, serving the same constituents and municipalities, will be better able to focus on projects and develop a team with their municipal partners to achieve success. Even in northern Ontario, technological changes have made communications virtually instantaneous. Teleconferencing and videoconferencing are commonplace, and those wishing to provide information can do so via a Web site, fax or e-mail.
To conclude, let me recap the advantages of using the same boundaries for both federal and provincial electoral districts:
(1) It avoids holding a provincial redistribution commission, thereby saving millions of taxpayers' dollars.
(2) It provides an opportunity for future savings by cooperation with Elections Canada, reducing the need for staffing, mapping and enumeration.
(3) It reduces the Legislature by 27 MPPs, saving the taxpayer from paying their salaries, staff and travel expenses.
(4) It ensures that federal and provincial politicians represent exactly the same areas, where communities can easily hold them accountable and promote working together, political parties aside.
(5) It has been proven locally on the municipal scene that reduced numbers of politicians can still operate effectively, even though it means having a larger constituency.
There is little doubt that there are many who do not share my views. I respectfully submit that it was only a few years ago that Ontario had less than 100 provincial ridings, and I am confident that in 1998, when this act takes effect, it will be just as well served by the representatives who are elected to represent the 103 new provincial electoral districts. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Murphy. We have 13 minutes, so we'll divide that time, starting with Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mr Murphy, for your presentation. You've heard probably from all of us around this table that we're really not against redistribution. I think the northern members in the opposition are making the point that because of the vast geographical distances in northern Ontario ridings, and because of the disadvantage in the north of not being as hooked up to cyberspace as well as we are in southern Ontario -- even though we have two fibre optic lines running through the Highway 11 corridor, we don't have all the on and off ramps yet. Many of the homes that I visit in my riding do not have computers yet, and many are on party lines and don't even have, let alone touch-tone service, single-family residence phone lines. So I think it still is necessary in this part of the world to have more of a hands-on contact with many of our constituents.
Do you see the harm, with this redistribution, of leaving northern Ontario with the same representation so that we would go up somewhat from the 103 that is being proposed to 108? We still would have a reduction of 22 politicians in Ontario.
Mr Murphy: The problem I've always had with the federal and provincial boundaries is the blurring of areas. If you talk to the people who aren't involved in politics -- of which there are none here today, I might add. Everybody who is here today -- I think the committee outnumbers the number of people we had, when you count staff members and committee members. The actual members of the public who are really interested in being here to talk about this are few and far between. Only the people making presentations and the politicians who have to be here are here.
The blurring of political lines -- when you go out into the street and you talk to people, only a few people, who are involved at the core of one political party or another, really know where the boundaries are, the people who have worked in those areas. I see Gilles shaking his head, but I can tell you, travelling back and forth in the riding of Timmins-Chapleau and in Cochrane South and in Cochrane North and in Timiskaming and Nipissing, as I have over the past few years, a lot of people who pay the taxes in Ontario really are not too sure of why the boundaries are the way they are.
That is why I'm saying I applaud this. I definitely think that yes, it will make the MPP's work harder; yes, he will have difficulty getting around, but when you talk about communication, you're talking about a guy who had to learn Morse code telegraph in order to get a job when he came here. We've come a long way.
I disagree with you that the north is far behind people in the move to cyberspace. I think if you look through this community and you look at the number of computer outlets we have and the number of areas that we have to link up with the Internet, we have three or four: We've got ONLink, we've got NTnet, we've got ViaNet, just to mention a few here in the north and in Timmins. There are a lot of people who are heavily involved in the expansion of communication through the north. We in the north often cry poor about our ability to communicate, but I think it is growing much quicker than people realize.
Mr Bisson: I appreciate your coming to this committee and bringing your views. For those of you who may not know John, John has been involved not only at the local level of politics but tried to take a run federally for the PCs in the last federal campaign and has a lot of respect in the community. I want to thank you for coming.
I have to take this opportunity just to make a couple of points. One of the reasons I think we don't have a lot of people here, and I heard it leading up to this hearing -- and I don't mean this to be combative -- is that a lot of people feel that they cannot affect or influence a Conservative government and say, "Why should I get involved?" I think that's a real problem in a democracy now. Every government has suffered from that and I don't want to be specifically tough on you guys, but I think more so today, for a number of reasons, people are feeling that way. I think we're missing the whole boat when it comes to what we're doing through this bill by just reducing the seats. I think the issue is that we need to reform our system of Parliament so that we move to a system of Parliament that may indeed in the end have fewer seats but that takes a look at how regions are properly represented, number one.
Number two, how do you give voice to the elected representative at Queen's Park so, as one person said before, if you're a backbencher or you're an opposition member, you have more voice at Queen's Park so that you can play a more important role on behalf of your constituents? Maybe we should be looking at what's happened in New Zealand and what's happened in Germany and look at the system of proportional representation, where we're not governed by the tyranny of the majority. In our system of Parliament, if the NDP wins a big majority, we do what we want. If the Conservatives win a big majority, they do what they want. That's what people are really opposed to. I think we're missing the boat. If Harris was as commonsensical as he puts it, we'd be looking at changing Parliament so that it more reflects the needs of the citizens and the citizens feel more connected and more franchised, then, to their government. I think that's the real issue.
Mr Murphy: If I could just respond to that, I really think, though, Gilles, that this move towards adopting the same boundaries is a very real move to that. We can sit down and we can now talk with the federal government about that very thing.
Mr Bisson: I hear what you're saying.
Mr Murphy: Proportional representation for an area --
Mr Bisson: It's not rep by pop I'm talking about here. Proportional representation is totally different. But let me finish the point I want to make and you can comment after. All I'm saying is that we need the reform --
Mr Murphy: I thought you had finished.
Mr Bisson: No.
Mr Murphy: You stopped for a breath.
Mr Bisson: The other thing is that I think in northern Ontario most people on the street know who their federal MP and their provincial MPP are. That's not because we're brighter; it's because we have smaller communities, there is much more connection with people within their ridings. If I go into Cochrane, most people will know their federal and provincial members. If I go into Chapleau, they will know that as well. To say that they don't, I think is a bit irrelevant.
The other thing I want to say just in the last part is when it comes to telecommunications, we might be doing very well in Timmins when it comes to the Internet and when it comes to telecommunications, but move down the road about 30 miles to Shillington. They can't use fax machines; they can't use modems because the phone system will not accept it. We had given money through ONIP when we were in government in order to upgrade that system so that they could move to this technology. Unfortunately, that was one of the things that your government cut. But there are many communities like Shillington across northern Ontario that can't even plug a fax modem into the telephone because it won't work. To simply say that technology will deal with how democracy works better, I think we're kidding ourselves.
I agree with you, John: We need to find ways to make our system of government more effective; we need to make it more efficient. I have absolutely no argument with you, but I think we are totally missing the boat on this bill. We should be talking about reforming Parliament itself and reforming our system of elections so it makes more sense.
1140
Mr Murphy: Let me correct you on a couple of things. I didn't say that the people in our communities didn't know their representative.
Mr Bisson: Oh, okay.
Mr Murphy: I said they didn't know the riding lines, the boundary lines, and were for a great part unaware of what area it took in. They know that Thalheimer represents here -- and that too is questionable -- but they don't know that he also represents Wawa and White River and Dubreuilville and Chapleau and those other areas. With the way it will now be, it will make it easier for people to understand the process.
What you're talking about, Shillington not being able to plug in a fax machine, you're probably right. But with ONLink, if they have a computer, they can dial a number locally and they can hook in with a fax modem.
Mr Bisson: No.
Mr Murphy: Yes, they can, absolutely.
Interjection.
Mr Murphy: It is now.
Mr Danford: Thank you, sir, for coming here and sharing your time this morning so that we can have your input as well. First of all, I think it's important to know, as was said earlier here this morning, that many of us here represent rural ridings, so we have a lot more in common with the north and the size of the areas and that sort of thing than some people wish to recognize.
One of your points that has come up here before with other presenters as well as through this conversation is about the areas and how we correspond with the MPs in the ridings. Certainly in my own riding, and I'll use it for a reference, we have three MPs whom I work with representing the same area as I do provincially. Quite frankly, there is confusion in my riding. The public has difficulty trying to relate their issues, who to contact. I know who gets the issues, I guess because we represent the area, and we deal with them that way.
Is it a real concern in this area? I've heard other speakers mention it, and you talked about the areas and the members. How much of a concern is that? I'd like to have it clarified again.
Mr Murphy: Are you talking now about the boundaries?
Mr Danford: The fact that the boundaries would be the same and therefore you'd know exactly who's the MP and who's the MPP.
Mr Murphy: As I said earlier, I don't think it's really much of a concern to the general public; I think it's people with vested interests or people who have been involved with political parties, who are here today, myself included. As Gilles said, I've been a Tory. I've been a Tory since the Timmins-Chapleau riding came into effect. When Ernie White first ran, I ran his nomination. That was, I believe, in 1980. Before that, I voted Liberal. I've been tempted a few times to vote NDP, but I've never succumbed.
Mr Bisson: I'm still working on it.
Mr Murphy: Maybe if I moved to your riding -- oh, God, you're a Liberal. I'm sorry.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for coming in today, Mr Murphy, and presenting your views in such a humorous and enlightening way.
Mr Murphy: It's my pleasure.
TAMMY LYNN GOUCH
The Acting Chair: Our next deputant for this session is Tammy Lynn Gouch, who is replacing the mayor for the town of Valley East.
Mr Hardeman: She's not the mayor of Valley East?
The Acting Chair: She could be some day. You never know.
Ms Tammy Lynn Gouch: No, I'm not.
The Acting Chair: Welcome. You have 20 minutes to present your views.
Ms Gouch: Mr Chair, I was wondering if it would be okay to share my time with Mike Doody, who would also like to speak.
The Acting Chair: If that's the will of the committee.
Mr Bisson: Could I suggest, just to be helpful, Mr Chair, I don't think the representative from the United Steelworkers is here. Maybe we can lump it together and put the two of them up and that would work fine. Take a little bit of extra time.
The Acting Chair: Is the rep here for the United Steelworkers? He isn't. Do I have unanimous consent that we have Councillor Doody here? Agreed? Councillor Doody, would you like to come up and represent NOMA?
Mr Tascona: Mr Chairman, you're not making a decision on the USW representative yet?
Mr Bisson: We can come to that when the time comes.
The Acting Chair: No. Maybe somebody could try to find him.
Okay, folks, you have 20 minutes. Split it as you will. If you are brief enough, we can have some questions as well. It's up to you. Proceed.
Ms Gouch: I'm Tammy Gouch. I'm from Iroquois Falls, a small community on the other side of Timmins. I was originally from Matheson. Iroquois Falls has always been a part of Timmins. When you go shopping, you always come to Timmins. When you want to see a specialist or doctors, you have to come to Timmins. Now with the new redistribution of the boundary lines, Iroquois Falls and Matheson are going to be two small communities involved with larger communities like New Liskeard and Kirkland Lake and Cobalt.
I'm worried that Iroquois Falls, Matheson, Raymore, Holtyre, small communities, are just going to be left out or forgotten or are not going to be paid attention to the way our member pays attention to us now. I'm worried about the one-on-one contact with our MPP, being able to call him during his office hours, being able to talk to him and speak with him, whereas with the redistribution, the MPP that you're going to have in the Timiskaming area is going to be more worried about his constituents either in Kirkland Lake or in New Liskeard. They're going to be missing the one-on-one an awful lot, being in Iroquois Falls or Matheson or Raymore or Holtyre. That's my major concern, being left out by being from a small community.
The Acting Chair: Councillor Doody, would you like, for the record, to state whom you're representing.
NORTHEASTERN ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION
Mr Mike Doody: I'd like to take the opportunity to welcome you all to the city of Timmins. I'm a councillor with the city of Timmins but I am here really as the chair of the Northeastern Ontario Municipal Association. To give you an idea of the size of that municipal association, it takes in the boundaries of Moosonee, Moose Factory, over to Hornepayne and the whole district of Cochrane, and Timmins to the south.
I was first elected as a councillor for the old town of Timmins in 1970. I was mayor for two terms, from 1977 to 1980, in the city of Timmins, retired in 1980 and came back in 1985. I'm not enjoying it as much as I used to, being a municipal councillor anywhere in Ontario.
Being a councillor from Timmins, it would have been very easy for me to come here and go along with the status quo -- downsizing, rightsizing, politically correct, to say that whenever you're getting smaller we can do it more efficiently. But what price do you put on representation?
If I may say to Ms Ross, she mentioned that in her area in Hamilton, maybe as opposed to another borough close by, that they feel they're different. Let me tell you why we in northern Ontario are different. Let me tell you why. Let's say you knew a former golf pro who lived in North Bay and, for whatever reason, he moved to Toronto. When he was in Toronto they said to him, "Well, we'd like you in the Bay; there's a golf tournament on." He couldn't get a flight, so he drove to North Bay and it took him four hours. When he got to North Bay, they said, "You know, we're not going to play here. The NOGA is being held up in Timmins. We'd like you to go up there and play with some of the pros."
So he drove another four hours to get to Timmins, and when he got to Timmins, they said: "You know, there's a charity pro-am up in Kapuskasing. We'd like you to go there. Do you mind?" He said no, so he drove another hour-and-a-half to get to Kapuskasing, and when he got to Kapuskasing they said, "They're offering a big purse in Thunder Bay. How'd you like to go and play there?" He said, "That sounds good." So he drove for another eight hours.
Reversing that, you could be living where Mr Fontaine said. Let's say you went to the doctor, if you were lucky enough to see a doctor, and they said, "You have a form of cancer but we'd like to be sure. We'd like you to have an MRI," and the only place you could get that is in Toronto. If you're lucky, you either get on the bus and you drive down, but if you could afford it at one time you'd take a short flight, which is not available now, by norOntair from Kapuskasing to Timmins. When you get to Timmins, naturally husband and wife, it's $1000 return to Toronto. If you couldn't get a place at Princess Margaret next door where they put you up, you'd have to stay in a hotel and pay $85 a night.
1150
With what Mr Gilchrist said, if there are two million more people who are voters in the GTA or in southern Ontario, do you really believe, if presented in the right way, that the editorial pages of the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail and the Sun would be upset by saying, "We want these people to be properly represented"? Maybe we have to make eight or 12 more representatives, but at the cost of taking it away from northern Ontario, four fifths of the land mass of the province, the natural resources jewellery box of Ontario?
Do you know that in the district of Cochrane, Moosonee, Moose Factory, population of let's say 200,000, there are two psychiatrists? Two psychiatrists. Let me tell you something else we have to put up with. Some people can't get a doctor. The taxpayers of Ontario are putting these people through university and when they come out they say: "That's an area that's overserviced. We'd like you to go to Timmins." I notice when they want to speak, the doctors say, "I don't want to go to Moosonee." Not just Moosonee -- Hearst, Kapuskasing, Cochrane, Valley East. That's how we're different.
Did you notice here in Timmins today the pricetag of gas? Did you notice it? It's 65 cents. Go to Hearst where Mr Fontaine lives, 75 cents. To live and work here, to do business costs us more.
Mr Gilchrist, you said the media spews out misinformation. I came here from Val d'Or, northwestern Quebec, in 1959 to work for the Thomson people in radio, then went to television. Let me tell you about television: one television station, a local television station, a private television station covering the largest land mass in the world. What we consider a local story is to go up and cover a story that is happening in Kapuskasing. We send a reporter; it takes him three hours to get up there with all his equipment. Does the story, comes back. We do all of that to get that one story, a local story, on television. That's what the people of this community have to deal with.
The Acting Chair: Councillor Doody, we have about four minutes.
Mr Doody: I appreciate that. I have attended but I just want you to know also something else. It's easy for people to say municipal councillors, members of Parliament, don't work hard, and it's easy for editorials to say that because you're in public life those people should be diminished, we shouldn't pay them the going rate.
I'll say one other thing to the difference: I understand that provincial members of Parliament, no matter who you represent, we understand the work they do and they truly are the people who are close to the people, next to the municipal councillors. Federal members of Parliament work on another level. We understand that. We understand that it's the provincial members who come and meet with the councils of the day and help us get through our problems, no matter of what stripe you are.
But let me say this: You can't put a price on representation with what the people think, because in Temagami, when we get the feeling in northern Ontario we've been alienated, that people from the south continue to make legislation and try to tell us what to do, and when they fill an arena and a politician that nobody knows of in Ontario, especially in the south, gets up and all he says is, "Maybe it's time we separated," the people go wild with applause, cheers and whistles.
You may think it's the right thing to do to go the same way with the feds. Listen, if there's more representation needed for these two million people, give it to them. Integrity is what people say they want to see from all politicians. But don't take it away from us, because let me tell you, you're going to chip away at the democratic cradle that's northern Ontario. We are different.
The Acting Chair: Three minutes, one minute for each caucus starting with the NDP.
Mr Len Wood: I know the time is limited, but I just want to put on the record a quotation from the mayor of the town of Cochrane. He's a Conservative by choice, but he said this legislation, the Fewer Politicians Act, does not make any sense. It's a slap in the face for northern Ontario and he's sick and tired of Mike Harris and his cabinet slapping northern Ontario on a regular basis, by the attack on the MNR employees, MTO being shut down and one thing or another. His quotation on this particular piece of legislation was that it's a slap on the face. I just want to know if you want to respond to that.
Mr Doody: There's no doubt probably jobs are tough all over. I have two boys working in Toronto. Both of them happen to be working, by chance, at Richardson Greenshields. They were taken over by Dominion Securities. One was given a handshake, the other one was asked to stay on. In northern Ontario jobs are few and far between.
Let me say something else, if I may, just very quickly. Mr Gilchrist makes a good point and I concur with him that over the last five years -- we did a study through the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities -- our young people are leaving. They're not coming back. The only municipality in all of northern Ontario that has seen a small increase in its population is here in the city of Timmins, so there is concern. We all want a job. Especially in northern Ontario, they're few and far between. If you don't have one, where you going to go? Whose door are you going to go knocking on?
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Councillor. I appreciate your coming forward. I believe we are sensitive to particularly the geographic issues that face what are proposed to be the four rural ridings. Just for Mr Wood's benefit, because he was not with us in Dryden, not all of the mayors and reeves in the north are --
Mr Len Wood: Excuse, Mr Chair, I was in Dryden.
Mr Gilchrist: Forgive me.
Mr Len Wood: I was in Dryden the full time. I want to correct the record.
Mr Gilchrist: You're right. Sorry, it was Mr Bisson.
The Atikokan reeve, Robert Davidson, supported this bill and said it was time to look at doing things more efficiently, given the current financial climate. I'm sure Mr Wood will remember that presentation. I think it was the first one Thursday morning.
Very simply, I wonder, though, if we can separate representation from the service delivery. You're the first person who has mentioned the health issue, and I'm glad you did because I'm somewhat surprised at the lack of feedback we've had here in the north. We've tried to cobble together a deal that will prompt newly graduating doctors to locate in underserviced regions, particularly the north. We came up with a program earlier this year for 70 communities that would guarantee pay up to $194,000 a year plus a $25,000 performance bonus if they stayed for three years, and only eight graduating doctors of last year's class of 450 took it.
I think every member on this side agrees with you. We have to deal with the service issue, but I think that's a bit removed from representation. After a year and a half, I believe most people who call our office call on the basis of things in government that went wrong and that if everything was working well we'd have very few people calling on us. If we can solve the health issues, presumably that's going to be that much less work for the members, not just on that side of the House but on this side of the House as well. I appreciate very much your raising that issue here today.
Mr Bisson: How do you think we get the services?
Mr Gilchrist: We don't interrupt you, Gilles.
The Acting Chair: Monsieur Bisson, let's be a little more polite and civil with our guests and pay attention to them. Councillor Doody, would you like to respond very briefly?
Interjection.
The Acting Chair: Monsieur Bisson, please.
Mr Bisson: Watch your gavel.
The Acting Chair: I can buy another one quickly. Lots of wood around.
Mr Doody: I appreciate the comments by Mr Gilchrist. Certainly in Timmins, when there was the talk for a little while of some doctors not taking on any patients, the doctors in the city of Timmins, the Timmins and District Hospital, said for them it would be business as usual. I think that says volumes about how they think.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to thank you both for your presentation. To Michael first, just to say probably nobody could say it any better. We really appreciate around this table your impassioned plea for northern Ontario.
Tammy, I'd like to say to you that if I am successful in the next election and have the honour of representing you, I will do whatever I can to make sure that Iroquois Falls, Matheson and Cochrane, besides the rest of the riding, gets the proper representation they deserve.
One of the things I want to see happening here, if this bill does go through, is that the MPPs have the proper resources to have a physical presence in all areas of the new riding. I think it's very important that I do my best to have some sort of office in the new north end of the riding. I will certainly endeavour to do that so I can take the time and spend some time in that office and in the neighbourhoods and the communities. It certainly won't be the same. It's going to be a little more challenging, for sure. They won't see me as much in Kirkland Lake and New Liskeard if I'm successful, but all areas of the riding will deserve equal representation. I think that's going to be very important so I'll certainly endeavour to do that.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Councillor Doody, for your very impassioned and enlightened view and your very eloquent stance.
Is Mr Yee here, the Steelworkers gentleman? Okay, we'll try this afternoon. We'll be recessed until 1:05.
The committee recessed from 1205 to 1312.
The Acting Chair: Our first presenter this afternoon is the corporation of the township of Nairn. Would those folks come forward if they are in the house. Anybody from the corporation of the township of Nairn? No.
JIM THOMSON
The Acting Chair: Then we'll go to Mr Thomson.
Mr Jim Thomson: I'm here today to speak in support of the concept of fewer ridings in Ontario and thereby fewer MPPs and a major savings for the taxpayers of Ontario. When as an immigrant I came to Ontario in 1952, one of the things I first noticed was the large number of MPs and MPPs it took to govern the country and the province of Ontario. I came from Great Britain, which is also a parliamentary democracy but has only one government, the one in Westminster. Considering that there are close to 60 million people in Britain, there is only one cabinet, one education minister and so on.
When I voiced this opinion it was pointed out by a friend that Canada was a much larger country than Britain geographically and that the extra representation was needed. At the time I accepted this rationale as travel was slower and visiting the outposts of a riding was a difficult job. However, much has changed in the means of travel and communication.
A very good example of this is the fact that Laurentian University in Sudbury, which is 300 kilometres from Timmins, put on a course last year leading to a master's degree in business administration. The professor never left Sudbury and the class in this case never left Timmins. The entire course was done by videoconferencing and was a very good example of communication over long distances. I myself took an English class at Laurentian with a professor in Sudbury and the pupils scattered all over the north. This was done by teleconferencing. I was in South Porcupine.
Another good example of this communication I witnessed was in the Timmins and District Hospital where a doctor had a baby diagnosed by someone in Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto, all done by television. We were also treated to an example of how something as delicate as fingerprints could be examined over long distances.
So some of the objections I have read in newspapers by the critics of riding redistribution are simply misleading. Indeed, it may be a further saving for the taxpayer if the government would insist on less travel and more communication by MPPs with their constituents using the modern techniques such as those above.
It is worth noting that several other provincial governments are reducing the number of ridings in their provinces. The best example was the recent reduction in representation in Prince Edward Island, all done by a Liberal government then in power. The same reduction is planned by another Liberal government in Newfoundland, perhaps a sign that people are beginning to accept Henry David Thoreau's admonition, "They govern best who govern the least."
We must not lose sight of the fact that riding redistribution was originally the idea of a Liberal government in Ottawa, a decision made after many years of hearings and study. If an MP can represent a riding such as Timmins-James Bay, then why not an MPP? Of course, by copying it the Ontario government is effecting further savings. We also have the accompanying reduction in support costs of the present system, all of which comes out of the taxpayer's pocket. There have been times over the past 10 years when I've wondered if governments have forgotten that there is only one source of revenue: the taxpayer.
One of the best arguments for riding redistribution is the fact that the reform was in the publication known as the Harris Common Sense Revolution, printed long before the last election was called. The voters of Ontario supported it by electing the Harris government. Since 1984 we have witnessed a succession of governments that have brought the province to the brink of bankruptcy by a series of tax increases and spendthrift ways and seriously crippled Ontario's attractiveness as a good place to do business.
On April 25, 1996, Tony Silipo of the NDP introduced a bill into the Legislature to change the electoral system. Among other things he acknowledged that he would support a reduction in members in the Ontario Legislature. The cynicism noted by Mr Silipo was echoed and confirmed by Mr Bisson, who in the same debate said the following: "All it will do is reduce the number of seats by some 20-odd members, saving you a few bucks." The dictionary defines a cynic as one who believes the worst about people, their motives or outcome of events. If the saving of millions of dollars is a few bucks in the eyes of Mr Bisson, then I am a cynic.
The Acting Chair: We have about 10 minutes for questions, starting with the NDP.
Mr Len Wood: Thank you for your presentation. As you've probably heard, this is the fifth in public hearings that have been held around the province, in Ottawa, London, Dryden and Sault Ste Marie, and now in Timmins. In some of the presentations, especially as we've been going through the north, has been the concern that the member of provincial Parliament will be farther away from the constituents and it will be more and more difficult to be in personal contact with them if you add on another 25,000 or 30,000 constituents, and extra miles, in the new Timmins-James Bay riding. From one end of the riding to the other is 760 kilometres, I believe.
Even though there are about 10 airports within that riding, there is only a budget at this point in time that would allow for one charter flight into some of the remote communities that don't have water and sewers, don't have telephones. If they have telephones, they are all public telephones. They don't have the technology and they want to have the personal contact.
Nobody has been arguing that there shouldn't be redistribution, but if you're going to do redistribution, make sure there is a proper voice at Queen's Park. One of the arguments that has been made is that if you reduce it by 33% in northern Ontario, whether they be Liberal, Conservative or NDP members who are elected, are they going to be able to bring that voice to Queen's Park and be the watchdog of the bureaucracy and at the same time serve their constituents?
1320
You've covered a lot of area here. In one item you're asking, if the Timmins-James Bay representative at the federal level can do it, why can't the provincial member? That hasn't been tested yet. I mean, we're only going to have the first election probably next year to see if that federal member is going to be able to get around to those particular areas in a proper fashion, which is going to be a lot different from what it is right now. We haven't experienced any representatives in Ottawa under the new boundaries.
You're saying that it's a Liberal government that introduced the federal changes. From what I understand, it was the Tory government under Brian Mulroney that introduced the federal changes. Then it got stuck in the Senate, and as a result of it being stuck in the Senate the committee went back out again and did some further amendments to it, but that was not completely satisfactory even though they're increasing it by four members. In northern Ontario I don't believe that a lot of the areas are completely satisfied because they're going to have one less voice in Ottawa as a watchdog over what the federal members do.
Once again, I'm pleased to see your presentation come forward. There are different views. One of the reasons for getting the committee to travel around through the province is that we're hoping that all three political parties on the committee will listen to the hearings -- people are making presentations -- and listen to any amendments that might have to be done, whether it be financial, giving more resources to the local members, or whether it be changing the boundaries slightly, whatever. With that, I'd just like to say thank you for coming forward with your presentation. It's good to hear points from all different sides on this issue.
Mr Thomson: I think that a lot of this is done on trial and error. I was very much involved in some of the hearings that the federal government held on riding redistribution. It was in the mill for a long, long time before it emerged in the form it is today. My point was that in this age of teleconferencing and videoconferencing perhaps governments and MPPs in remote areas like this have to start looking at that as an option. Rather than travelling from here to, let's say, Moosonee, have a central point in Moosonee where you could call a meeting of your constituents in Moosonee. You could remain in Cochrane and do the whole thing by television.
There was a baby in Timmins who was diagnosed by a doctor in Toronto without the doctor leaving the hospital. This is the day of magic communication. Surely this is seriously a way to do it. Rather than the MPP travel all the way to Moosonee every now and again, set up a videoconference.
Mr Len Wood: I respect your view, but as I said in some of my comments, there are a lot of areas in the riding that take their politics more seriously than that and want to have personal contact with their MPP. They're saying, "We don't have telephones; we don't have TVs." There are at least four of my communities that I represent right now that don't have electricity, other than diesel generation. These people want to have contact at least once or twice a year with their MPP and they want to have a voice as to what is being translated back and forth. As I said, it doesn't matter if it's a Liberal government, a Conservative government or an NDP government; they want to have a voice.
Of the three members before me, two of them were Conservative members and one was a Liberal member, and one of them was here today making a presentation this morning, saying that it's something that is very unfair. It's a slap in the face for northern Ontario that any government would consider reducing the representation by 30% in northern Ontario.
Mr Thomson: So you're including the Liberal government in Ottawa on that?
Mr Len Wood: The Liberal government in Ottawa just imposed those boundaries. There were no public hearings after the Liberal government took office. They just imposed them, with the exception of one minor change in a federal riding: They took Elliot Lake out of the area. There were no public hearings on it.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Thomson. I think you're the first person in the five days outside Toronto and one in Toronto, six days of hearings, who's brought a perspective, or at least articulated their views, in the context of other parliamentary democracies. We've heard people suggest many times that the geography is greater than many European countries, leaving aside the fact that many of the countries they cite have populations of 60 million or 70 million people. I hope they really aren't suggesting that the number of representatives you need from 70 million isn't the same as the number you need from 780,000.
A couple of things you've touched on I think really speak to the heart of what representation could and should be. There's no doubt as we look at the numbers. Going back to 1955, for example, there were still 85 MPs and 90 MPPs. Since then, the federal government has increased it to 14; it's proposing to add another four, but it's added 14. The provincial government added 40. Obviously the population increase was exactly the same for both the federal and the provincial members to deal with, but the federal government, obviously handling whatever different tasks it has, has been able to assimilate that increase by adding only 14 more members in all those years. The provincial governments, on the other hand, all three, saw a dramatic increase in the number of representatives.
What we're suggesting now is moving back to something far closer to parity, that in this case identical boundaries is appropriate. One of the reasons you can do that is because of new technology. Would you agree with me that rather than being concerned about or dwelling on the failings of service in the north right now, or anywhere else in Ontario for that matter, we should be looking to address those concerns rather than suggesting that MPPs should not adapt to reflect the changing times?
Mr Thomson: I think they have to adapt. Education has adapted, and I think the example of the master of business administration degree from Laurentian University is a perfect example. The one that I took, an English course, was done by teleconference. There were people in Parry Sound, people in Kirkland Lake, people in Timmins and people in two or three other places, plus a bunch of them in Sudbury, and this was all done by teleconferencing. This is magic.
Mr Gilchrist: It's astounding. I'm sure Mr Wood did not say this intentionally, perhaps he wasn't aware, but all of the sittings were in fact after the Liberal government was sworn in. They took place in Timmins here, May 4, 1994. That was seven months after the federal election. I'm sure that was an unintentional slip there, Mr Wood.
Mr Thomson: I made a presentation on behalf of the Timmins-Chapleau riding, as it was at the time, in Sudbury. That was just before the election of 1988.
Mr Gilchrist: Oh, the previous one?
Mr Thomson: Yes, 1988.
Mr Gilchrist: Yes, that was the previous redistribution. The most recent one was done in 1994, and the hearings throughout the north took place in early May of that year.
We've heard from many people that the federal boundary commission somehow used different logic as they went through, even though in their mandate -- and it's spelled out right in their report here, and I'd be pleased if someone wanted to read it; I know we don't have the time to do it verbatim -- they have exactly the same considerations that they have to keep in mind when they cobble together their boundaries.
Would it be likely, if you appeared before a federal boundary commission and a provincial boundary commission, that you would make two different submissions or would you tell them exactly the same thing?
Mr Thomson: Highly unlikely.
Mr Gilchrist: If we were to spend the money on a duplicate provincial boundary commission, we would likely hear exactly the same concerns from exactly the same number of people as the federal boundary commission, and presumably we'd make the same decisions.
Mr Thomson: It's also interesting to note that there is a decline in the population in northeastern Ontario. I can't remember what the numbers are, but it used to be around 100,000. Now it's down somewhere around 93,000 or 94,000 people, so there really is a decline.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mr Thomson, for your presentation. As an MPP for 11 1/2 years, I bring to the job, I suppose, a certain style; it may be unique, it may not. But I don't look at my job as boiling down to just numbers of people I represent but as really trying, when I can -- and as I get older, it gets a little harder -- to put names to faces and to deal with people in a very personal way. In fact, in many of our ridings the job becomes very personal because of the nature of the problems that many of my constituents have. A lot of my job is not being the legislator at Queen's Park but a mini-Ombudsman in the particular area I represent. Yesterday, for example, I was in my constituency office in Haileybury, one of two that I have, and the nature of some of the cases I handle really requires that sort of personal one-on-one meeting.
1330
I've been on the teleconferencing link at Northern College because just actually three blocks up from my office is a wonderful teleconferencing centre out of the Haileybury school of mines satellite of Northern College, and it is a wonderful facility. I have communicated with people throughout the Cochrane North area when they wanted to have some information on a course about how the government worked and certainly have used it.
But I find, with the nature of some of the issues I deal with, whether it's a mother coming in because she doesn't feel the local school board can handle the special education needs of her child or a woman coming in concerned because of the abusive relationship she's been in with her spouse and she finds the services that she requires inadequate in our area, and sometimes people talk about the psychiatric care they've had, that doing this sort of thing over teleconferencing, with technicians in the room or even if there was nobody in the room and absolutely nobody else could hear, there really needs to be, for this sort of work, that sort of human contact.
You gave reference to Great Britain, which has really only one level of government besides the local councils and the 60 million population. I think what we're talking about here in the north, while all of us are not disputing the need for riding realignment, is the density of population. What it requires of us in the north here is to travel, because we don't have a high-density population. Our populations are spread out over great distances and, with these proposed changes, will even be more so.
In this age of high technology and cyberspace, while there are tremendous opportunities to communicate on them, and in fact I have an e-mail address and I do communicate with a few of my constituents through e-mail and have a cell phone and try to update myself and upgrade myself as the technology allows, there's still a need in this job for that sort of personal contact with folks, for them to know they can actually not only talk to in person but reach out and touch their elected official and, through that, feel sure that I've received the message of what they're saying to me.
I don't know how far this is going to go. Maybe some day somebody is going to propose that we no longer have representational democracy and maybe we'll all just stay home and push a button when a vote comes up. Maybe it's going to come to that some day, but I think that'll be sad, because there is something to say about this sort of system, and you can only stretch it to a certain point before it will no longer work.
Mr Thomson: I think you're right, Mr Ramsay, on a few of your points there, that there certainly are individuals who require individual attention, but I think if we don't take a leap forward and try some of these things, we'll find ourselves so far from reality one of these days that we'll never catch up.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Thomson, for your considered presentation.
MARC LACHANCE
The Acting Chair: Is there anybody here from the town of Iroquois Falls? Calling for anybody from the town of Iroquois Falls. Okay, then we'll go on to Monsieur Marc Lachance from Hearst University College.
Mr Marc Lachance: No. I'm just a citizen.
The Acting Chair: Okay. You have 20 minutes to present your views.
Mr Lachance: My name is Marc Lachance. I'm an unemployed worker who's very concerned about the northern riding redistribution. I do not accept the argument that this is necessary to reflect the population shift which has occurred since the last census because it does not take into account the special needs of the north, which have been clearly expressed by the majority of the people here today.
The population shift from north to south is a symptom of a larger problem, which I see as a vicious circle. It begins with a largely undiversified economy of single-industry communities, which are very vulnerable to the boom-or-bust cycle of the mining and forestry sectors, which leads to an unusually high unemployment rate. In this area the unemployment rate is 15.8%, and that's just the people who qualify to collect unemployment insurance; it doesn't factor in the people who are on social assistance or young graduates who are living at home with their parents. I think if we factor all that in, we'd be at an unemployment rate of over 30%.
This lack of opportunity forces our youth to move south, which is creating what I call "the great northern brain drain," which weakens the north and which is responsible for the population shift. I know personally, because three quarters of my friends don't live up north any more; they live in Ottawa, they live in Toronto. Personally, I moved away for four years and lived in Sarnia, Brantford, Hamilton and Toronto. I moved back because I love the north and hope to be able to continue to live here. Unfortunately, I may be forced to leave my home once again. I have to go where I can find a job.
I have nothing against redrawing the boundaries, but I feel that preserving our northern representation of 15 MPPs at Queen's Park is vital to deal with the real causes of problems in the north and not just the symptoms. With less representation, the MPPs will only be able to fight fires, with no time to establish a long-term strategy to meet our needs.
In conclusion, I just wonder what happened to the promise which was made in 1983 by the Legislature to the boundaries commission, which told them to ensure that representation in the north would not be less than 15 constituencies.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Lachance. I think we have some questions. We start with the government. We have about 15 minutes, if you want to go that long, five each.
Mrs Ross: Marc, thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation. Can I ask you something? We've heard a lot of comments here that northerners want to see their MPP face to face. I'm new at this business, and I have to tell you that I would love to see all of my constituents face to face, but it's almost impossible, even in southern Ontario.
We also hear of the terrible conditions up here with respect to the weather and everything. MPPs are in Toronto from -- well, we're sitting now, we'll probably sit through January and into February, we're not quite sure, but then we sit again in March, and we sit till mid-June, and we have the last half of June, all of July, all of August, half of September. Those are months when the weather up here is going to be much better than it is currently, and I think there's lots of opportunity for MPPs in the north to contact people. I need to know, how often do you need to see your MPP face to face?
Mr Lachance: To answer that question, I could speak from personal experience. I've contacted Gilles, my MPP, I'd say about three or four times relating to personal problems, and then another time I was president of a committee to establish a francophone day care, and in that case it wasn't for me. But I found that an actual meeting face to face regarding the establishment, let's say, of a day care, you would need that contact because it's not just something where it's a problem, let's say, with a government bureaucracy. There were a lot of meetings. Especially up north I find, why should it be that you just contact your MPP when you have a problem? Maybe it's to discuss a good idea that you have or something where you want to know who you could talk to. To me, the technology part is good, it's a tool to help provide better service, but it shouldn't be the only way. We have 15 right now, and that's out of 130. Even if, let's say, they reduce the number to 103 but we could still keep our 15, it's not like we would be overrepresented from a northern perspective, because I think the north has a different view of the south.
When I lived in southern Ontario I lived in four different communities. They were all different, but the geography was so close. To go from Sarnia to Toronto was three hours. For people in Sarnia, that seemed like a long distance, but it was pretty short for me.
1340
Mrs Ross: I would say, and I'd like to suggest to you, that perhaps someone like you who contacts your MPP as often as you do is rather the exception than the rule if you look at the overall population. For example, before I became involved in political life I never contacted my MPP. I never picked up the phone to contact him. My husband's a local politician, a municipal politician, and he receives far more calls than I do. I've never received a phone call at home in a year and seven months. Even the number of calls that he gets, I still look at it and think that the majority of people, at least 90%, don't contact their politician.
I'll give you an example of one instance. A friend of mine who's a politician was contacted, was tried to be reached for about two weeks by this one particular constituent. I'm not trying to minimize this, I just want to give you a small example. He tried to contact his MPP and couldn't reach him. He didn't want to leave a message other than, "Please have him call me; it's very important." Two weeks later this MPP returned the phone call and apologized: "I couldn't get back to you sooner. What can I help you with?" He wanted some Ontario pins. That was something that a constituent assistant could have handled quite easily.
Mr Lachance: I agree.
Mrs Ross: That's a minimal thing. I realize there are very important concerns that people raise, but oftentimes staff look after the bulk of what comes through my office for sure. Would you suggest that a lot of things you call about could be handled through the staff?
Mr Lachance: I can only speak for myself because I don't know what other people do, but from my personal experience, especially with the day care project, there's no way that project could have gotten off the ground. I had to speak to Gilles, because Gilles was in a position then to speak to the minister responsible for day care. That's just an example of a project. That particular project created six jobs. It's something that contributed to the community.
I'm thinking more of the long term. As opposed to the MPP just being a person who solves little problems, why not have the MPP play a leadership role within a community to get people or groups together to build the economy? To me that would be a very good thing, especially in the north. I find if you reduce it to 10 -- it's already hard enough, I'm sure, to do a good job representing all your constituents given the geographical distance, but if it's reduced to 10, they'll have less time to concentrate on the long-term strategies, and they'll have to fight fires, like little things.
The Acting Chair: Mr Stewart, you have one minute.
Mr Stewart: One minute. That's pretty difficult to do.
I guess one of the perceptions is the fact that up here it's great distances and long hours to travel. In the last six weeks, in the riding that I represent, I have been back home three times each week. It's my understanding up here that many of the representatives go down on Monday, or whatever it might be, stay until Thursday, come back and spend the weekend. I drive four hours a day to get home three times a week.
I hear this word "unique." The uniqueness up here in many cases is very similar to down there. Because we're closer, we have to drive home more often. I represent industrial, rural, commercial; I represent the aboriginal community in my area; I represent agriculture; I represent forestry and a big tourist industry. I guess what I'm trying to say is your uniqueness here, I believe, is not a great deal different other than weather. But it doesn't matter whether we make smaller ridings or larger ridings, weather is something we can't control, and thank God we can't, because if we politicians tried that, we'd really screw things up. I'm not trying to be controversial. It's uniqueness here, but the uniqueness is much the same down our way.
Mr Lachance: You would think that, maybe because we're here in Timmins and it seems to be the same as in Peterborough, but I know that they're proposing for Timmins, let's say, to include James Bay. That blows me away, because it doesn't really make any sense. Moosonee -- there's not even a road that goes up there. The only way to get up there is either by train -- you take the Polar Bear Express -- or by plane. Let's say I have to go to Moosonee from Timmins -- I've never even been to Moosonee myself and I've lived up north for most of my life.
Mr Stewart: Why wouldn't we do it differently? When you go to Moosonee or when you go to an outlying area, why wouldn't you put on a town hall meeting so you can get a number of the groups in? What I'm saying is, you've got to do something a little different than what we've been doing.
Mr Lachance: If you went to Moosonee today -- let's say you took this commission to Moosonee -- I think you would see that the people are totally different. The majority are probably aboriginal.
Mr Stewart: I understand that.
Mr Lachance: Their concerns are probably totally different than the concerns, let's say, of the people here in Timmins. I don't think it's so much an issue of the boundaries -- for myself, the actual boundaries don't matter -- it's the number of representatives at Queen's Park. Given the north, the land mass we represent, and given also the contribution the north makes to the province's economy, to then say, "You have the voice of 15 people," it doesn't matter the ridings, it doesn't matter if this town is part of this riding or that riding, it's just the number 15, especially since in 1983 it was said, "At least keep 15." If this continues, what I see happening is a population shift. It's a vicious circle. We're going to have less and less population.
Mr Ramsay: Marc, thank you very much for your presentation. I think through your presentation and your answers -- and I hope for some of the members who aren't as familiar with the north as others -- it's been educational for the members, because there really are a lot of differences, and I'd like to add on to those differences, if I could.
One of the reasons you don't get as many calls in your offices as some rural and northern members might is because we don't have the community services in place that many more built-up areas have. My experience is that in the north constituents rely more on the MPP office as a sort of information centre, to get help on how to access government or community services that might be in place, and that's the first place they tend to go to. Also, I find that because of the lack of and the greater distance from government offices, northerners tend to go to their MPP, whereas if you're in Burlington, you pick up the phone and there are ample offices in the 905 area code and you tend to call just directly yourself to the local government office. So again, I've found for the last 11 years that people tend to call the MPP's office.
The other thing too, and you mentioned it with your attempt to develop a child care centre, is that I find the MPP has a facilitator role in the north. Constituents look to us as social and economic development officers, if you will, especially before there were such programs in place, and probably more so now that the funding has been cut off. They look to us, as leaders in the community, to work with other community leaders, to go to bat for them at Queen's Park, to try to develop services that you, for instance, have identified to your member, Monsieur Bisson. It's almost like a different role.
When some of the other members talk about the travelling, you can get to Peterborough today four-lane all the way. The reason northeastern Ontario has twice the traumatic deaths as the provincial average is that the distance, the weather and the two-lane highway mean, unfortunately, we have twice the death rate on our highways in northeastern Ontario than the provincial average. I wish that weren't the case and I wish I had the answer. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make that disappear. But it can't disappear and I'm afraid it won't disappear overnight, and with the funding restraints that we have, we're not going to be able to readily solve that problem.
We do have other challenges here. I guess what we're saying is that, out of 108 members, if we were to retain our 15 seats, I don't really think that 15 out of 93 seats would be an inordinate amount of representation for 90% of the land mass of this province.
I really welcome your presentation and hope maybe through these hearings and when we get into clause-by-clause back in Queen's Park, we might be able to convince the government members that while we're not against totally restructuring, we really feel very strongly about northern representation and we'd like to see it retained at 15 seats.
1350
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Marc, for coming forward and giving your presentation. I've got two questions, but first I'd like to apologize for not being here at the beginning. I had to take care of something for a constituent and it ended up taking a little bit longer than I figured, so sorry that I'm a little bit late.
The question I have is in reference to some of the comments that were made by the Conservative members, and it's twofold. The first question is, there's a suggestion that somehow if you make a riding larger -- let's say Timmins and everything north up to Attawapiskat -- and somehow we're able to accommodate for that as MPPs by having organizations like yours, la garderie Clin d'Oeil, or whatever other organization or group or individual thing you belong to, to coordinate all their events around my schedule, how practical is that from a community perspective?
Mr Lachance: I don't think it would be very practical. I know myself, if I wanted to meet with you, we had to schedule a meeting at least a month in advance, because there were other people you had to talk to. Even Attawapiskat, that's so far up, there's not even a road to go there. I can't see it myself. I couldn't see that it would be a practical thing.
Mr Bisson: But if I were to call you and say, "Listen, I've got a larger riding," and you have an opening, let's say, or you have some sort of a function at Clin d'Oeil, and I was to suggest, "Change all your dates around to fit my schedule," do you think the majority of groups would do that?
Mr Lachance: Maybe they wouldn't be able to do that. The thing is, I've noticed, let's say, on a grand opening of something, you expect the member of the provincial Parliament to be there, but you also expect the member of the federal Parliament. You also expect the mayor to be there. Sometimes at this present time, just getting all those three people to agree on a date is difficult enough, given that there are three different schedules or agendas. But with a larger riding, it would make it even that much more difficult.
Mr Bisson: The second thing is, the member opposite's point of view was that he drives four hours a day to be able to get to Queen's Park and back to his riding. He might be able to do that, being that he's in around Barrie or Peterborough, whatever it is. How practical would it be for a member from Timmins or a member living in Kapuskasing to try to drive from Queen's Park to their riding to get to an event?
Mr Stewart: I didn't say that.
Mr Bisson: I'm asking him a question, that's all.
Mr Lachance: From Timmins it would take eight hours and from Kap I guess it would take 10.
Mr Bisson: I guess the question that follows from that is, would you expect the provincial member to do that?
Mr Lachance: To drive?
Mr Bisson: Yes. As a group or as an individual, would you expect, if the House is in session -- and as was pointed out earlier, we go there Monday and come back Thursday.
Mr Lachance: No, I wouldn't expect them to drive up just, let's say, for a grand opening or maybe to say a few words at a ceremony of some sort.
Mr Len Wood: Thank you for your excellent presentation. I agree with you. I've got experience in southern Ontario as well and I'm still shocked at some of the questions that are coming from the members from southern Ontario, because I lived and worked there for about 18 years and now I've been up north for over 30 years. It's very easy to get around to all those areas, whether it be Hamilton, Mississauga and other areas. You can go into how many different ridings? You can probably go through about 50 or 60 of these ridings in a day and still get back and have a good night's sleep at night, but it doesn't happen in northern Ontario.
The time I use from my home to the airport, and the airport in Toronto and around, I'm talking about 10 hours of flying time and taxis to the airport. So that's 10 hours of time that I don't accomplish a heck of a lot, and then being at Queen's Park for four days.
I'm going to let you make a comment afterwards, but now they've made the announcement today that they're going to keep everybody down in the Legislature through Christmas and January and February and right on through. I don't understand why they haven't been able to manage their affairs, that they can't get their legislation done during the calendar which adjourns on December 12 and starts up again at the end of March. If they're so incompetent that they can't get their work done without taking the time away that a member needs in his constituency, it's time to get a new government if they're that incompetent that they can't get it done.
I'd just like to say thank you for your presentation. I understand what you're saying, even though they don't.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Marc, for a very personal and interesting submission today.
SOCIAL ACTION COALITION TIMMINS
The Acting Chair: Who's our next group? The Social Action Coalition Timmins, Raymond Séguin.
Mr Raymond Séguin: I thought I was on at 2:20.
The Acting Chair: You're on right now, sir.
Mr Bisson: Can we just take a two-minute break and let him get set up? We'll grab a coffee and come back. He just walked in.
The Acting Chair: A one-minute break. Go get your coffee or a glass of water. No smoking, though.
The committee recessed from 1356 to 1357.
The Acting Chair: We're going to get back on track here. Welcome, Monsieur Séguin, to the committee for a submission. You have 20 minutes you can use yourself or, if it ends shortly, then we can ask you some questions. Proceed.
Mr Séguin: I want to start by thanking the committee today for letting me have the opportunity on behalf of SACT to present a brief regarding the distribution of our ridings. I'll spare you the benefit of reading what the Social Action Coalition Timmins consists of and also the past history of its existence, which you'll find on the first page of the brief. I'll leave you some questions. If you want questions about that, I'll answer that after.
My purpose today is to speak about the Fewer Politicians Act, 1996, that is being proposed by this government, and in my view will become law, as the government fully intends to pass this legislation.
Our organization is very much concerned with the direction this government is taking on many issues. The cuts this government has introduced since it has been elected have forced many people to seek help from others, which at one time was not necessary for those people to do. We can sum this up as being self-reliant, or the term that we call self-reliant. This is not as easy as it seems for some people as they require assistance with whatever particular problem they are faced with. Of course this leaves the most vulnerable in our society in a situation that is unpleasant for them to be in, without any representation for them to depend on. Then we have those who simply require the help because they are at a roadblock and only political interference will resolve the matter.
This is what this government will do for the people of Ontario: reduce the services available to them at a time when everything from children, women, workers, education, day care, legal aid, public housing, workers' compensation, seniors, health, aboriginals to the poor are being attacked by this government in the form of cuts, only to provide a tax cut for the rich. They are now going to take away a source of representation that is free to those who cannot buy it. This takes away representation and is very destructive for our society as a whole, especially at this time.
We will see this government in the near future implementing its privatization plan which will further erode the standard of living for many of us. There will be those who will be unable to afford the very necessity that one requires to live a life that is considered appropriate in our society.
In the Common Sense Revolution document it indicated that there is an approximate saving of $11 million as a result of this change. It is too little of a saving for this to be appropriate legislation at this time. When more and more people require help as a result of this government's cuts, increasing MPPs would be the most appropriate thing to do. We know that the federal government increased the number of MPs, not decreased them. The organizations that we represent have all told us the same thing: They cannot keep up with the demand that is put upon them by their constituents. We know that the same thing can be said for most MPPs as well.
The size of this riding is grand. It will be bigger than some 70 countries. This is not acceptable. The geographical area that our representatives must cover is absurd. Some committee members might say, "If the federal government members can do this, why can't the provincial members do it?" Everyone knows, certainly those who have been involved in politics long enough, that federal members of Parliament are not faced with the same kinds of possible issues that can be faced by a provincial member of Parliament. The issues cannot be compared.
Finally, we have the process this government chose in order to implement this legislation. It certainly is not in keeping with tradition. In the past, other governments have appointed a commission to deal with the process of redistribution. Of course, the commission was given terms of reference and people were allowed to appear before this commission. This allowed the government to be seen as more neutral to the process, and the people were comforted by the fact that they contributed to the new democracy that was adopted at that time. Unfortunately, we lost our democracy in June 1995.
The process is a sham, and the result of the redistribution is based on a study that demonstrated the need for more representation. However, this legislation reduces representation to the people of Ontario. Also, it is unfair to the north, as they will lose their voice to Queen's Park. That voice is already in need of assistance when facing the obstacle of distance to Queen's Park.
I am providing you with a copy of an article from the Toronto Star dated November 6, 1996, and the title is, "Having Fewer MPPs Won't Save Any Money."
I say shame to a government that does not recognize the need for minorities within a society. One day you will see these minorities come together and expel this undemocratic government.
I'll end by quoting one of the Conservative strategists, Tom Long, when he said, "We didn't come here to represent those people." This was his comment following the days of protest in Toronto. If you did not come here to represent those people, whom did you come to represent?
I ask that you reconsider this legislation and recognize that studies upon studies are suggesting that representation be increased, not reduced for the mere sake of a tax break.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Séguin. There will be 10 minutes of questions, three each. We'll start with the Liberals.
Mr Sergio: Thank you for coming to make a presentation to our committee. I have a few questions, and we'll see how many we can squeeze in this afternoon.
Something that has come up quite a few times is, "If the federal members can do it, why can't you do it?" So far, we haven't tried that out. We have no idea how the federal members are going to acclimatize themselves and render that service with the new reconfigured boundaries. So we have no idea, because we haven't given them that opportunity yet. They didn't have that opportunity yet. Given that, do you think we should be having the same resources as the federal member will have in order to serve the new enlarged area?
Mr Séguin: I'm not sure exactly how much resources the member of Parliament has compared to a member of provincial Parliament. However, I am aware of the many issues that a provincial member of Parliament faces in comparison to a federal member. There are a variety of issues that are of provincial concern that accumulate a lot more than, say, a member of Parliament would have.
Mr Sergio: Just one more question. Again it's on the fact of effective representation, or whether we can do it with less resources and stuff like that. How can we do that more effectively if we don't have the same resources as the federal member? When we heard from some of the other people here that, yes, you can use telephone and fax and so forth, we also heard that the human touch, the human appearance is important. It's not demeaning my own federal member, and he happens to be a minister of the crown, which makes it more difficult, but if you are a minister, then your time is much more limited as well -- very limited.
Mr Séguin: That's correct.
Mr Sergio: The fact is that when I attend events in my own riding, be it political or social or going to church or going to a Knights of Columbus dinner or seniors fund-raising or the hospital fund-raising, whatever, most of the time the federal member is not there. They're either up in BC or in Europe on a conference or somewhere else. It's because the job is demanding. So while the issues may be slightly different, they are very demanding as well.
Mr Séguin: I'm not suggesting that they're not demanding, but the government members have been quoted and have been using the term, "If the members of Parliament can do it, why can't the members of provincial Parliament do it?" There is a difference when you compare the two of them.
Mr Sergio: The fact is that more or less, bigger or smaller, they still have the same number of committees they have to attend, some of the things they have to do up in Ottawa and so forth. It is not that, even if they have a little bit more resources, they will have less things to do; they will have the same number of things to do, perhaps on a different scale and so forth, but the issues are going to be there. And you can't have any more time allocation; that's the time. When you make the riding so much bigger -- I'm talking northern Ontario now -- you have to give some allowance for that. I'm asking you, what would you do to make that representation more effective?
Mr Séguin: I guess if I were a member of Parliament or a member of provincial Parliament, it's difficult because the time that is demanded of you is constant and there are only so many hours in a day.
Mr Sergio: So you have to pick and choose, right?
Mr Séguin: That's right.
Mr Sergio: And sometimes you're being told, "We don't see you any more" or "We didn't see you last Saturday over there. What's the matter, you don't like us any more? How come?"
Mr Séguin: That's right. So reducing the amount is not going to fix that problem, obviously.
The Acting Chair: Monsieur Pouliot for a change. Why not?
M. Bisson : Monsieur, vous me blessez.
Le Président suppléant : C'est bien.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much. I want to give you a scenario. Ray didn't get into this in the beginning but he represents an organization called the Social Action Coalition Timmins. I think the title describes that they're a group of people who have come together, from representatives of women groups to representatives of battered women shelters, people who work with the less fortunate in our community, in many cases. They have come together to try to figure out how you deal with the community and how you deal with the effects in the community of the cuts that the government has done.
I want to ask you this question and I'd like you to respond: I had some constituents come into my office yesterday, basically an elderly couple in their late 50s. She was cut off her benefits from MCSS on the basis that her husband, when he originally got separated from his ex-wife in 1985, had sold his house, got $18,000 of money from that house and then bought a mobile home in one of the local trailer parks. For whatever reason, community and social services figures he got that money after the trailer was bought in 1989, so community and social services saw that as an asset that he didn't report, because she got benefits in 1990, he bought the trailer in 1989, sold his house in 1985. For some reason, community and social services said he got that money after 1990, when she got her benefits, therefore, "It's an asset that wasn't reported; we're cutting you off." So she lost her benefits last month. They're now living, the two of them, on a total income that's about $600 a month.
She came to see me because she had been all over the community trying to figure out: "What do I do? What happens? I know the money my husband got, he got it before he ever met me and actually he bought his trailer with it." But, for whatever reason, community and social services was given a tip by one of the hotlines that this guy somehow was trying to defraud the system. So her benefits are gone.
After sitting down with this couple for about an hour and a half yesterday morning -- it took a long time to figure out what the details of the case were because they're not the most educated people, they're not as articulate as some, and all they know is they've been done wrong. They were so agitated and crying and mad for an hour and a half, it took me that long to try to figure out exactly what the nature of the problem was. As it turns out, we'll probably be able to fix the problem because we can prove that the house was sold in 1986 and we can prove when the trailer was bought and we can trace the money to show indeed it is what the gentleman says it is.
1410
The point is, this woman was without any benefits. If she couldn't come in and see her provincial member in a riding like Timmins -- and I don't care if it's New Democrat or Tory; Alan Pope, the previous member of this riding, did a lot of this work as well, so this is not a party thing. The question I have for you is, knowing the community, if she had not been able to get to me because of the size of the riding -- and let's say the future member happens to come from Kapuskasing and comes into this part of the riding every couple of weeks and she couldn't get in -- where would she go to get this problem resolved? How would she do it?
Mr Séguin: She would probably land in a government office somewhere trying to discover how she can manage or get help or would probably get some volunteer organization out there that focuses on those areas, helping the poor and the people who have been cut off.
Mr Bisson: But in this case, she did all of that. She had been to all the government offices.
Mr Séguin: Oh, then if that's not there, she wouldn't have anything else except the streets or whoever is willing to provide a donation or take them into their home. That would be the only avenue that this person would have.
Mr Bisson: That's one of the things that you need to recognize, that in communities like ours -- and I don't say this trying to put us up on soapboxes, because Alan Pope, our previous member, who was a Tory member for 14 years, built a great reputation doing constituency case work for his riding, and he was a Tory. I do the same. I'm a New Democrat, and I do the same kind of work that Alan did, and so did Bill Ferrier before him, and so did Grummett and Spooner before them, because in our communities, as Mr Ramsay pointed out, there's not a multitude of government offices that you can go to to get the services. Often, and in the case of this particular constituent, because they were not articulate and they were agitated, MCSS had barred them off the property and they were not able to even get in and try to resolve the problem. All she knew was that she had lost her money.
The point I'm trying to make is, we play a double role more so than other communities. We're both legislators, but also we do a lot of constituency case work in our ridings, probably more than most places. It's just the nature of the geography that we find ourselves in. One of the reasons we're adamant about that is that people who lose access to members will end up, quite frankly, in some cases in a pretty desperate spot.
Mr Séguin: I just would like to add to that that this organization is only a year old, so it does intend to grow in that area, where we will provide certain services that perhaps were provided at one point and were no longer providable due to the cuts of this government. We'll be looking at that in the future.
Le Président suppléant : Merci, Monsieur Séguin, for coming in and presenting your views today. Our next deputant is Mr Fred Poulin.
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: My apologies.
Mr Séguin: I didn't get any questions from government members, no.
Mr Gilchrist: You're just overly anxious. They took so long, I guess you just figured that was it.
The Acting Chair: Do you have a question, Mr Gilchrist?
Mr Gilchrist: Very briefly, just to follow up on Mr Bisson's comments, because, again, the dynamic in every riding is different. There is nobody who denies that. I'd be the first to admit travel time is something very different than what I face in my riding. I hope Mr Bisson would admit that in my case, for example, just to pick a comparison, not to affect the northeast, between my riding and, say, Howard Hampton's riding, I have over four and a half times the population. I also asked how many Ontario Housing units were out there. There's one seventh. There are fewer people on government assistance. There are fewer people affected by every aspect of provincial government.
With the greatest of respect for his travel, I hope he would agree that, let's say, if there was something that changed Ontario Housing, I would be more likely to have a phone call or a visit than somebody who has next to no Ontario Housing in their riding. That just stands to reason. So there's a different dynamic there.
The thing I'm having difficulty wrestling with here is, only ever having sat on this side of the House and so I don't have the ability to have the two points of view, given that it's the government members who have to maintain quorum and given that we are required to be on any number of other committees that deal with the formulation of policy and the research behind that, over and above legislative committees, I think I could make a pretty good case that government members need to be at Queen's Park more than opposition members, particularly for the full day. If that's the case, I have a problem with why their House leaders would not be sympathetic in those four rural northern ridings that would exist, or even the nine that exist today, and why they wouldn't have a lighter workload at Queen's Park already, recognizing the extra travel time here in the north.
My question to you is, if the worst-case scenario was the merger of two ridings -- let's use Algoma and Algoma-Manitoulin, because that's one of the proposals -- if each of those members, Mr Wildman and Mr Brown, only spend one day in their riding currently, does it not stand to reason that the new MPP, presumably either Mr Wildman, Mr Brown or maybe someone else, if they spent two days in the riding would be able to give exactly the same service as is currently being delivered? All other things considered, if they each have only one day for personal visits and now they have two days -- instead of two times one, we have one times two -- is it not an obvious fact that they would have the same amount of opportunity to meet personally?
Mr Séguin: But again, you're speaking about the dynamics. Mr Bisson gave you a description of the dynamics historically in the north. It's a pick-and-choose situation. Obviously, with less time -- because Timmins-Chapleau will have only one member now, which is equivalent to the same riding of Cochrane North and Cochrane South.
Mr Gilchrist: But again, let's say that their member -- and they do; Mr Silipo, for example, is an NDP member from Toronto. Why wouldn't it stand to reason that because Mr Silipo can get home to his riding, as I can, in an hour and so we could do things Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday night, and we do, whereas the members up here, we absolutely agree, can't get up here for a ribbon-cutting or 50th anniversary during the weekdays --
Mr Bisson: Or a constituency case call.
Mr Gilchrist: They could take phone calls, but they're limited in other personal visits. Why wouldn't all parties recognize that the members with the greatest geographical problems offset those who are close to Toronto and Mr Silipo spend four days at Queen's Park and allow Mr Bisson or Mr Wood to spend only three days? Would that not be a practical tradeoff to every party?
Mr Séguin: I'm not sure if I understand your question, but I guess the only thing I can say to that is that study upon study is demonstrating that there's a need for more representation. Also, your legislation is suggesting reducing the representation based on a study that has demonstrated the need for more. That's the only thing I could answer.
Le Président suppléant : Merci, Monsieur Séguin, for coming in today and presenting your views.
Is Mr Fred Poulin available from the Cochrane North Coalition Group?
CITY OF TIMMINS
The Acting Chair: Okay, here is an opportunity, members of the committee, if you want to consider it. We have in the audience the mayor for the city of Timmins, Vic Power. He would like to have an opportunity to say a few words. Is it agreed by the committee members that we hear from the mayor for the city of Timmins? Okay, Mayor Power, you have 20 minutes in which to make your remarks. If you leave some time, then we can have a good question exchange.
Mr Bisson: Can I just ask a question of the committee members?
The Acting Chair: Point of order?
Mr Bisson: Yes. I know that the city of Timmins had asked for standing, and I noticed they weren't there this morning, so I'm just wondering --
Clerk Pro Tem (Ms Donna Bryce): I'm not familiar with that at all; I just took it over.
Mr Bisson: He's here anyway. I'm just wondering what happened.
The Acting Chair: They may have; I don't know. Lynn didn't say anything about it, Monsieur Bisson.
Welcome, Mayor Power.
Mr Vic Power: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak here this afternoon. I want to welcome you to Timmins, which, by the way, is the biggest and the best and, as you can see also, the warmest city in Canada. When I mention the biggest, that brings me to the point about size of a riding. Would you believe the city of Timmins is larger than the state of Rhode Island? So, when we're talking about size, I think that's a very big factor with respect to the matters that are on the table here this afternoon.
I know that the map was redrawn based on a decision made by a federal commission on redistribution. But quite frankly and with the greatest of respect, I don't think copying someone else's mistake is progress. The federal commission on redistribution, in my humble opinion, did not do a good job. I spoke before them on May 4, 1994, when they were in Timmins, and made a number of points on behalf of our city and I think on behalf of people in northern Ontario generally. When the number of seats is reduced, when the size of a riding is increased, I don't think you're doing any favour for anybody in northern Ontario when this happens.
1420
I can see where it may not apply the same way to southern Ontario. Someone was just talking about a riding in downtown Toronto where the population is compact and it's easy to get by streetcar to Queen's Park and so on. But when we're talking about the vast area of northern Ontario, where one city itself is bigger than the state of Rhode Island and that city is only a small part of the riding, I think size is a very important factor. I know there are a lot of components that make up a decision on redistribution, but certainly size has to be one of them.
Another component has to be the resources. The wealth that has been generated in northern Ontario is very great in relation to its size and in relation to its population. For example, just one example, as you drive by the Hollinger mine, as you may or may not this afternoon or you may have yesterday -- the Hollinger mine is no longer operating, but it's the forerunner of Hollinger Inc -- that one mine produced, in its 58 years of production, gold equivalent, at today's prices, to $15 billion. That's just one example. Within the same 20-mile radius, the McIntyre mine, the big Dome mine, which is still going and going strong, Kidd Creek, formerly known as Texas Gulf, and then a whole host of smaller properties have produced phenomenal wealth for this province and this country. To think that we're going to be losing out in the representation process is really, frankly, a sad thought. I think it puts us at a great disadvantage.
The only other point that I would like to stress is community of interest. Cochrane South has a community of interest among Timmins, Iroquois Falls and Matheson. By that, I mean people in Matheson and people in Iroquois Falls and the surrounding region do their shopping here in the city of Timmins, they seek professional services within the city of Timmins and, while we're not out to annex them, because we're already big enough, it is true to say there's a greater community of interest within that region than there is in the proposal that is designated as Timmins-James Bay.
So I mention those points. They say there's an old rule that you should not mention too many points in any case, because they're going to forget them. I've made three. I bring them to your attention. I don't want to speak for too long because I always remember watching Joey Smallwood at a federal-provincial conference a number of years ago; he was going on at great length, and finally he had to apologize to the chairman. He said, "I'm sorry, sir, I didn't have the time to prepare a short speech." I'll be pleased to answer any questions if I can be helpful to the committee.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mayor Power. We do have some questions for you. We'll have five minutes for each caucus, starting with Monsieur Bisson from the NDP.
Mr Bisson: You touched on three points, and we'll stick to those three points. You, I know, were quite active, as mayor of the city of Timmins and a concerned citizen generally -- you've been involved in politics for a long time -- in trying to get the federal government of the day to recognize those synergies that you talk about in regard to the new boundaries that the federal government was proposing.
The federal government made proposals for redistribution. They gave basically what they thought the boundary descriptions should be. You and many others across the country had an opportunity to present to the commission on electoral boundaries at the federal level. Did they, through that process, make some changes to what originally was proposed?
Mr Power: I think they might have made some changes, but really the end result is what counts and the end result is not satisfactory. First of all, I think the big mistake was they reduced the number of ridings for northern Ontario, because as soon as you reduce the number of ridings, obviously size becomes more of a factor than it has to be.
Really, what I'm interested in is the outcome, and I don't think their outcome -- mind you, they had some very learned judges on the panel. I don't doubt that for a minute. But I don't think they had a familiarity with northern Ontario, and there's no surprise in that. A lot of people spend their lives within the boundaries of Metro Toronto and I don't fault them for that. It's just that I don't think they had the background in what our region is all about.
Mr Bisson: Succinctly put, what's been left in the end in regard to the final boundaries, you're not quite happy with those to start with.
The second question I have is because you bring a unique perspective. John Murphy was here earlier, a former member of your council whom you know quite well. John has been active in the community a long time. He talked about our going through the amalgamation process some 20 years ago in our community, and we went from more politicians to fewer. If I was to go to you or somebody was to suggest -- I wouldn't want to suggest this, because I think I would probably get the wrath of the voters, but if somebody went in and said, "Listen, we're going to reduce the representation in the east end of the city from the representative for South Porcupine and the other one for Whitney down to one," do you think that would be a move in the right direction?
Mr Power: My only direction, if I were to make that move, would be to head to some other part of the country, because I would have a very difficult time getting through the city of Timmins.
Mr Bisson: The point I'm getting to is the government is saying you can do more with less. I think nobody disagrees that governments have to be more efficient and have to keep up with the technology and have to find better ways of doing things, but in the end the city of Timmins would not contemplate reducing the representation on council for the east end by one in order to satisfy some political --
Mr Power: No. To give you the factual background, we did it for the entire city in 1980. As a matter of fact, I moved the motion. We had a referendum on it and we reduced the number of aldermen from 14 to eight. We did that long before anybody was talking about downsizing. A 14-member council, plus the mayor, we felt was unwieldy, so since December 1, 1980, we've had an eight-member council.
Mr Bisson: The point I'm getting at is that in the case of the city of Timmins, you still have eight elected representatives, plus the mayor, who are there representing different wards within the city that people could go to. To suggest that somehow you'd go to one for the east end or one mayor and one councillor for the whole city, that wouldn't make a lot of sense to you.
Mr Power: No.
Mr Bisson: Okay. Do I have time for a last question, Chair?
The Acting Chair: You have 30 seconds.
Mr Bisson: You talked about communities of interest and I think that's something that is lost in this debate. Iroquois Falls and Matheson are going to be carved out of Cochrane South, and they will be put in with Timiskaming, whatever it's called. Cochrane is going to move into that new riding as well. What does that mean for those people?
Mr Power: The words "community of interests" tells it all. I don't think they'll have the same relationship to their member that they should have. That's my feeling. For example, quite frankly, there's more community of interest between Kirkland Lake and Timmins than there is, say, between Timmins and Hearst, because Kirkland Lake is a mining camp from way back and we have the same feeling towards the mining industry.
Mr Bisson: Is Iroquois Falls best served being part of the Timmins riding, or would it be better served the other way?
Mr Power: I think Iroquois Falls is still better with the Timmins riding, but they're not going to be, of course, in this setup. Iroquois Falls people come here, as I say, every Friday night to do their grocery shopping.
The Acting Chair: Mr Tascona. Mr Stewart and Mr Hardeman also want to share your five minutes.
Mr Tascona: Thank you for coming here today. Would you agree -- and I'm talking about the riding boundaries, because they'll be the same now -- that the federal and provincial members serving the same constituents and municipalities will be better able to focus on projects and develop a team approach with their municipal partners to achieve better representation?
Mr Power: I'm not certain of that. I don't see a lot of contact between the federal and provincial members at the present time. That may be some time in the future, but I don't see that as a plus that could be identified right now, anyway.
1430
Mr Tascona: I know in my own riding I work very closely with the federal member. I think having the same boundaries, if we worked together in terms of trying to achieve the best for the riding, we could achieve that, if we worked knowing that we were serving the same constituents.
Mr Power: You could very well be right, but I think that could be said whether the boundaries overlapped or whether they were contiguous.
Mr Tascona: If you're serving different people, it wouldn't work that way, but if you're serving the same, I think it could.
Mr Power: What I'm getting at is, let's say the federal riding overlapped two provincial ridings. There is nothing to stop the two provincial members from working with the federal member or what have you.
Mr Tascona: That's true. I agree with that. As you would be aware because you're a municipal politician, obviously there's an infrastructure in place set up by the provincial nature of our politics. We have boards, agencies and commissions that hold and exercise delegated powers by the provincial Legislature; for example, school boards, municipalities. Wouldn't you agree that network provides a greater opportunity for input into provincial issues than, for example, the federal member, who doesn't have that infrastructure?
Mr Power: The federal member would have no contact, for example, with the school boards or the police commission. But I still don't quite get the question.
Mr Tascona: Basically we have an infrastructure in place where the MPP is assisted by these agencies and municipalities. We work together to try to solve issues.
Mr Power: That's true.
Mr Tascona: I note your comment with respect to the amalgamation of Timmins, that you went from 14 to eight. You said that it was unwieldy. Did you find that when you went to fewer that maybe the member had a greater opportunity for input into the municipal issues?
Mr Power: I will admit that and we had frankly better council meetings following that, but proportionately the representation stayed the same. In other words, half the representation is from what we call the old town of Timmins and the other half is from the outlying areas, so proportionately nobody lost anything.
Mr Tascona: But the members had a greater chance to give input into the areas they represented.
Mr Power: There's no question the meetings were better from that point on.
Mr Stewart: Are you finding it was working well too? In 1980, what was the population here? Has it grown much since 1980?
Mr Power: It hasn't grown a lot. It was about 42,000 at amalgamation in 1973 and it's about 47,000 now.
Mr Stewart: So it hasn't made any appreciable change.
Mr Power: It hasn't grown a lot, no.
Mr Stewart: I guess one of the concerns I have, and we've heard it a bit today, is the fact that the north is sending their resources down south, that they help pay the bills. But I think what we all have to agree with also is that we're all Ontarians.
Mr Power: That's right.
Mr Stewart: Certainly the agricultural community and the industrial community of the south I think contribute quite well to the north. I would hate to go out of these hearings -- and I have that feeling that they're trying to pit the north against the south. I believe we're all Ontarians and I think we should work together, not saying this is mine or that's yours or we're putting a whole bunch of tax dollars in and you're giving us nothing back. I think we're all part of the scenario and I would hate for any of us to feel that it's a north-south issue. Just a comment.
Mr Power: In relation to that, I happen to believe -- in fact I know -- we live in the best city in the best province in the best country in the world. For example, I am not a Toronto-basher. I'm just amazed at the way they run Metro Toronto and the --
Mr Stewart: So am I, sir.
Mr Power: Regardless of what we read about the sideshows, I think they do a tremendous job running a huge city of two and a half million people. We don't have that feeling that we're against anybody. It's not an us-against-them situation.
Mr Stewart: I appreciate that and I think I wanted to get that on the record.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you for the presentation. I noticed in the presentation you mentioned you spoke to the non-partisan independent commission that did the boundaries for the federal government.
Mr Power: That's right.
Mr Hardeman: It's been suggested to the hearings that we should do the same thing for the province; rather than adopt the federal commission's report, we should do another one. If that was to be done and you were to make a presentation, would you have said much different than you said to the commission that did report?
Mr Power: I probably wouldn't have said a lot different from what I did today or what I did in 1994 when I spoke to the commission, but if you, for example, Mr Hardeman, were on this commission, maybe I would have made more headway. I think the learned judges, with all due respect, really didn't have the background of northern Ontario that they should have had.
Mr Hardeman: Is there any reason to assume that those learned judges would not be the same learned judges on a provincial commission?
Mr Power: No, because probably the government would be appointing a completely different panel, I would imagine.
Mr Sergio: Mr Mayor, I appreciate your coming down and making a presentation to our committee today. We have heard practically the same concern and more or less the same questions and the same answers, so I want to try a couple of new things that we haven't really dwelt on too much. Between your level, which is the municipal level, and the province, is there another level of government in the north?
Mr Power: No, because here, for example, we're a one-tier city. This is unique. Sudbury, for example, has a regional council; here, we do everything under one umbrella.
Mr Sergio: Just in support or in defence of the northern quest, if you will -- not that I'm speaking against my own Metro representative or the system we have down there but just to offset a little bit what is being said with respect to the increase in population in the Metro ridings and, yes, the concerns down there vary from social assistance to housing to a number of major problems. But let me say what we have, what we say, in support of the quest of the northern ridings here. What we have in Metro, I have to deal with the local MP, and I'm lucky because we cover exactly the same area. I have the local mayor; we have the Metro mayor or supermayor. We have two Metro council representatives, because the way they are divided at the moment, we split corners here and corners there. So I deal with two Metro councillors, two mayors, two local councillors, again because of the way the area is divided. I have to be in contact with all those people on all different issues. I deal with two school trustees, separate school and public school. Of course, then there is myself, and then we have a slew of ratepayers' organizations and so forth.
My problem is this and my question is this: It's something that is totally overshadowed, totally unforeseen. I don't think this was taken into consideration by the federal commission, I don't think this is something that we are taking into consideration now, and I don't think it's something the provincial government has taken into consideration when proposing these changes to us. Saying it's easier for administration purposes sounds good politically. Yes, sure, it may save some dollars, even though we haven't seen it, but they haven't really told the people up north, not as much as we in the south, the difference between the north and the south.
We are making some of your areas much bigger, very difficult to govern. In the south, sure, we have more presentation, but we also have a lot more help, even though some of the same problems may overlap. They may be calling me for a broken sidewalk because they may not know who is the local councillor. But if we have this type of assistance in Metro, down in the south, in Toronto, let's say, the representatives up here don't. They have to rely solely on their office staff or their own staff from Queen's Park if they happen to be in the city. So do you feel that the people up north are not receiving the same service as we in the south are offering to the people in Metro?
Mr Power: Put it this way: Once the riding becomes larger, I would think that whoever the provincial MPP is, he might as well stay at Queen's Park and run everything by fax machines and telephone and whatever other communications devices are going to be invented by Ma Bell and these people in the next few years, because he's going to be almost as close, really -- you know, they say you're only a telephone call away. He's going to be as close to people in James Bay, being in Toronto, really, as he would be in Timmins; maybe not geographically, but in every other way.
Mr Sergio: Although I have a fairly good idea of Ontario geographically, we are being repeatedly told here today that the north starts at Sudbury. We can't think that all the communities have available to them those fax machines, telephones and computers and agencies and --
Mr Power: Oh, yes, they do now, and certainly that will be even more in place as the years progress. Telecommunications have come a long way. Ontario Northland, which is a crown agency, has put forward quite a program as far as telecommunications are concerned.
Mr Sergio: My last question to you, if I have the time: Do you really think if the legislation goes through as it is being proposed, the people up north, especially in the large ridings, will receive fair representation; more effective with less representation?
Mr Power: No, I don't think they'll be getting better representation. As I say, their member might as well stay at Queen's Park. They won't see him very often. Whether they call it Cochrane South or Timmins-James Bay, I can't see how that member is going to travel to, say, the coastal communities in James Bay and then try to be at a function in Timmins the same weekend, that sort of thing. He's going to have to go where the majority of the people are, which is right here.
Mr Sergio: Are we going to be saving any money? Sorry, I don't want to cut you short.
Mr Power: I can't imagine that you --
Mr Sergio: Worthwhile?
Mr Power: If you were to save money, it might be penny wise and pound foolish. I don't think it would be a lot of money.
Mr Sergio: So it's more foolish.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mayor Power, for coming and making your views known. We've enjoyed being in your city. It's nice, cosy and warm.
Mr Power: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and I extend my appreciation to all members of the committee.
1440
COCHRANE NORTH MUNICIPAL COALITION
The Acting Chair: Our next deputant is the mayor of Smooth Rock Falls, Mayor Fred Poulin, representing the Cochrane North Municipal Coalition.
Mr Fred Poulin: Thank you very much, sir. I apologize. I just came in.
The Acting Chair: That's fine, Mayor Poulin. You have 20 minutes. Your presentation, I see, is brief, so we'll probably have about five minutes of questions from each of the three caucuses, and that will pretty well conclude your presentation. Proceed.
Mr Poulin: As you can see, I'm representing the Cochrane North Municipal Coalition. This represents the municipalities all the way from Cochrane to Hearst, which include Smooth Rock Falls, Kapuskasing, Moonbeam, Fauquier, all the way through to Hearst. I'm referring to Bill 81, the Fewer Politicians Act, and the proposed legislation to eliminate five electoral ridings in northern Ontario.
Members of the legislative committee, on behalf of the Cochrane North Municipal Coalition, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee today to express the concern of its 10 member municipalities located in the provincial riding of Cochrane North with respect to the provincial electoral riding changes being proposed under Bill 81, the Fewer Politicians Act, 1996. Under this proposed legislation, the riding of Cochrane North, one of the larger ridings as far as land mass, will almost double in size.
The coalition member municipalities recognize the fact that despite population increases elsewhere in the province, many of our northern communities have suffered population decreases due predominantly to the economic difficulties facing many of our single-industry communities. This should however not neglect the responsibility of the provincial government to ensure that there is effective representation for all citizens of Ontario, whether they choose to live in northern Ontario or southern Ontario.
At a time when we are faced with numerous closures and restructuring of provincial government offices, oftentimes resulting in a decreased governmental presence, it becomes even more essential to be able to address our concerns directly with the local member of the provincial Parliament.
Members of provincial Parliament make every effort to be accessible to the electorate they represent. This task becomes more onerous in northern Ontario where geographical locations of communities within ridings are prohibitive distances apart, resulting in extensive travel, more times than not in hazardous conditions and in some instances only by air transportation.
I might comment that the reason I was late today is because of our highway conditions in northern Ontario. I allowed myself two hours and I made it in an hour and a half.
The coalition considers effective representation --
Mr Bisson: Hang on a second. You allowed yourself two hours and you came in an hour and a half?
Mr Poulin: Yes.
Mr Bisson: Because it's usually the other way round.
Mr Poulin: Oh, yes, pardon me. I allowed myself one and I made it in an hour and a half.
The Acting Chair: You got here safely, sir.
Mr Poulin: And I also had the OPP behind me.
The coalition considers effective representation to be important to residents of our area as an effective voice in government. We rely on our members not only in this capacity, but also we turn to our members as the resource people who are able to access and obtain information or resolve concerns. In the past this worked well because of the affiliations and cooperative networking between Cochrane North municipalities, as our concerns and matters of interest are often shared by our member municipalities.
The Cochrane North Municipal Coalition strongly opposes changes to the riding and believes factors such as communities of interest, geography, historical patterns and effective representation must be given consideration.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and please consider the consequences these changes will make as far as equitable representation. Thank you very much.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mayor Poulin. We have some questions for you, starting with the government.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor, for your presentation. Just quickly, on the second page, on the question of, "At a time when we are faced with numerous closures and restructuring of provincial government offices, oftentimes resulting in a decreased government presence," it's appropriate to be able to deal with your local members.
I'm wondering, as an organization representing municipalities -- and municipalities have been telling the provincial government for some time that they should be recognized as a third level of government -- is it appropriate to suggest that, as the government moves to more local autonomy, to have municipalities dealing with the issues they are responsible for and not have to get the permission or the assistance from the provincial government? Will that not help the situation, that you would spend more time making your decisions rather than asking the member what he thinks the province will allow you to do?
Mr Poulin: I certainly tend to agree, Mr Hardeman, to a certain extent. In larger municipalities, for example, Timmins, where they have the manpower and the staff available to cope with these changes in government resources, yes, I do agree, but in smaller municipalities such as Smooth Rock Falls, we have reduced our staff to practically nil and the only other source is to contact our member of Parliament and his staff on many occasions, because we haven't got the resource people available.
Mr Hardeman: Not to be facetious, but could you give me one or two examples of the type of information we're talking about that you would previously have had from your own staff, but because of downsizing of your municipality, you now get that information and your local member would have that information?
Mr Poulin: This goes on on a daily basis. For example, as you know, northern Ontario's biggest tourism industry today is snowmobiling, and on many occasions I have people come to see me at my office in regard to roads being put through by the forest industry, eliminating skidoo trails. What avenue does that give me with the resources I have? The only avenue I get is to go to my provincial member and have him bring these issues to the forest industry or mining or whatever industries in northern Ontario. This is only one example.
Mr Hardeman: On those occasions that you just mentioned, Mr Poulin -- I am trying to get this straight -- and you say they happen daily or could happen daily, as you contact your local MPP's office, on a percentage basis how often do you speak directly to the MPP?
Mr Poulin: I speak to my member of Parliament at least once a week on different occasions, Mr Hardeman.
Mr Hardeman: I want to commend that member who is in his office on a daily basis enough to get caught once a week by the mayor.
Mr Bisson: The staff gets the messages. We deal with the municipalities.
Mr Hardeman: The other thing is, I guess I can take from your presentation the fact that your organization is set up as a group of municipalities so you can effectively deal with these types of issues as they relate in general to each other and again to the MPP too, to deal with the provincial government. Is that something that should be looked at, in your opinion, on a broader basis, so that if an MPP represented a greater area, you would also become a greater group of municipalities to cover off the difference?
Mr Poulin: I agree with you in a sense, but we must keep in mind, Mr Hardeman, that we have greater municipalities and smaller municipalities. That's why you can see, unfortunately, I'm here alone today, because other municipalities could not be along with me today. This is just why we're all united. We are too small to be a large group, so we have the coalition group, like I said earlier, which represents all of these small municipalities along the Highway 11 corridor.
Mr Hardeman: Would you not agree, though, that this is a good example, that you can come before this committee or it could be your own MPP, that you can come here and speak on behalf of nine other municipalities, representing their views?
Mr Poulin: I certainly commend the government for coming to the city of Timmins and allowing us to make our presentation known. I listen to the House every day and I noted yesterday that the government has had hearings on rent control. Unfortunately, to my disappointing news, the minister did not get the message from the public. I'm hoping that you people can go back to Toronto and bring your message across at Queen's Park that we are very concerned, not only North Cochrane but all of the Cochrane district. I'm glad to see that my good friend His Worship Vic Power was here prior to me sitting down. I think we all have a common goal. Even though our population base is small, the area is huge.
1450
Mr Stewart: Just a question. You were saying that you talk to your MPP once a week. I assume that's done by phone?
Mr Poulin: Yes.
Mr Stewart: Why would that change if the area became larger? You're still going to have the same contact with him, I assume.
Mr Bisson: You've got more municipalities.
Mr Stewart: Let me ask the gentleman.
Mr Poulin: Thank you very much, Mr Stewart. Yes, with today's communication system you can contact anybody at any hour of the day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, I agree, but in our condition we need to see our member of Parliament and we need to see him around the area.
Mr Stewart: Well, you see him here today, but normally, does he go to all your coalition meetings and all your council meetings, three, four, five or half a dozen times a year? I'm just trying to get a feel for it, that's all.
Mr Poulin: Mr Wood is in my office --
Mr Stewart: Oh, so it's Mr Wood. Sorry.
Mr Poulin: Yes. He's in my office periodically. Just to give you an example, at 6 o'clock tonight I have a chamber of commerce meeting in Smooth Rock Falls. I've tried to contact Mr Wood. Unfortunately his schedule doesn't make it, but I will have to apologize on his behalf and be present at that chamber of commerce meeting and explain to the chamber what's going on in the Cochrane district.
Mr Stewart: My wife's doing a couple for me tonight too, sir, if I don't get back. Can I ask one quick question? The northern development officers -- and I see there are a number of them in the Timmins area or in this area -- do you use them regularly or very often or will they assist you in things if you can't get a hold of Mr Wood?
Mr Poulin: We are in constant contact with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Just for your information, they have a representative in Cochrane, Mr Yvon Charette.
Mr Stewart: They're helpful as well?
Mr Poulin: Yes, they are, because they're in the district.
Mr Sergio: Mr Mayor, thanks for coming down and making a presentation today. Just before you, Mayor Power, on one of my questions, I was questioning how much savings we would have with the implementation of this plan.
Mr Poulin: I apologize. I couldn't quite get that. Could you start again, please?
Mr Sergio: Yes.
Mr Poulin: Thank you very much.
Mr Sergio: I was questioning Mayor Power before you as to the possible savings by implementing this particular legislation. He thought about it and I don't think he saw savings coming. He said, "I think we are being penny wise and pound foolish." Do you think we're going to have any savings with the so-called elimination of 27 MPPs?
Mr Poulin: In the eyes of the government, yes, but in the eyes of the municipalities, no, because definitely it'll be more of an expense for each representative, each municipality, to contact their member of Parliament and be able to reach him. For example, it's like going down south and telling the people of southern Ontario, "You'll have one member of Parliament representing the corridor from Windsor to Quebec City," and I'm using that as an example. As I read in Hansard -- I read Hansard quite often -- it's like telling Moosonee that they'll have a member of Parliament in Sault Ste Marie. In order to contact their member of Parliament they'll have to go by air and land in Sault Ste Marie, which is very costly to the municipalities, and it's that way throughout the riding.
Mr Sergio: I'm sure you keep abreast with events coming out from the provincial government, from our leaders there. They are moving towards privatization, if you will, and yes, allowing more autonomy, more power, to the local municipalities. How are you going to get the two of them together? In one way, they're going to give you more power; in another way they're going to privatize some of the things that you could be doing yourself, and stuff like that. Do you see that this is a benefit to the local municipalities?
Mr Poulin: I'd say it's a disadvantage to the municipality. Let me give you one example. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs announced recently that they will give the municipalities more power in their planning, zoning amendments, the zoning bylaws and so forth. Smooth Rock Falls, as I said, being a small municipality, we have to send our administrator down to Toronto. We had made arrangements during the Ontario Good Roads convention that he would be going to school for one day in Toronto just to study the Planning Act. That's one example of the extra cost to municipalities that the government has burdened us with.
Mr Sergio: So if there are indeed any savings whatsoever, it wouldn't really be worth eliminating that little bit of layer of democracy left, if you will, towards the northern ridings by taking away some of the representation?
Mr Poulin: I don't quite understand your question, sir.
Mr Sergio: What I'm trying to say is that the north will be reduced by five members, the representation of the northern ridings here. Whatever savings there may be, do you think it's worth eliminating five representatives?
Mr Poulin: No, honestly I don't think it's worth it, in comparison to the extra cost that will fall on to the municipalities. All we're doing is taking a dollar from here and putting it over there, and the consumer down the line is going to pay. Whether the consumer pays the province or whether the consumer pays the municipality, it's going to come out of their pockets, either way.
Mr Sergio: Do you see it more as a political move?
Mr Poulin: Yes, I would say so.
Mr Len Wood: Thank you very much, Fred, for coming forward. I travelled on the same road as you did this morning. It was white-knuckle driving since they put a freeze on the amount of money that can be spent on plowing and sanding, and as well hiring contractors to do the work now. But I appreciate very much that you're here all in one piece, and I hope it's a safe drive back tonight. I appreciate the comments you made in terms of speaking, because we do have a chat in the office and talk over the issues.
I'm very much concerned, because the presentation before you made a comment that the federal boundaries didn't make any sense, that the commission that was out there did not listen to the people, that they did not react to the new federal boundaries, and as a result of the new federal boundaries being imposed, whether it was Brian Mulroney or Jean Chrétien, whoever it was, they don't make any sense; they're flawed. Now we see the provincial government of Ontario going to adopt the same flawed boundaries that don't make any sense. I know you were involved in the federal arguments as well. I'm going to get you to make a comment on that, but also on some of the local issues.
1500
I mentioned roads. I understand that the citizens of Smooth Rock Falls are very scared, basically petrified now that the provincial government froze the amount of capital funding going to the public school system. As a result, there's a fear that the public school in Smooth Rock Falls is going to shut down and you'll have to bus children as young as five years old 40 miles either way, either to Kapuskasing or to Cochrane, for their education if this funding is not freed up. We know the reason it was frozen was to make sure they could do their campaign promise of giving a 30% tax break to the wealthy bank executives and in the large corporations who are probably going to get a $200,000 rebate.
Those are some of the issues. We know your views and we know the views of all the mayors along Highway 11, that the Fewer Politicians Act doesn't make any sense, it should be scrapped, it shouldn't proceed any further.
The other question I have is, do you believe, from what you've heard so far in these hearings, that the Conservative members are listening and are going to listen to amendments and changes to this legislation so it does make sense for northern Ontario?
Mr Poulin: I certainly agree, Len, that I have confidence in the government of the day; otherwise I wouldn't be here. If I knew it was a waste of my time and the north Cochrane coalition group's -- the reason I'm here today is to try and convey a message to the Conservative government, and I'm sure the reason they're here is the same thing: to hear our views on northern Ontario.
When it comes to education, we all know what's happened throughout the province, whether it be education, whether it be health care, whether it be highways. We know what the government is doing and we realize that the government has to do it, but what we disagree with is how they do it and when they do it. For example, in restructuring a riding -- I can go down to southern Ontario and go through my riding on a bicycle, and I'm sure some of you will agree that there are ridings around the Metro area that, if you're a good cyclist, you could do on your bicycle. I challenge anybody around this table or anybody in southern Ontario to even attempt to go to Smooth Rock Falls from Timmins on a bicycle, and this is only a small margin of our riding.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your comments and, Mr Chairman, for your time.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mayor Poulin, for coming in and making your views known through the Cochrane North Municipal Coalition. I'd just like to let you know that as a southerner I once upon a time, just a few years ago, mind you, almost took a secondary school teaching position with Smooth Rock Falls high school. We southerners -- and I've been up here to the north several times -- don't know it intimately but we do know it reasonably well. Our members of the caucus here on this committee have travelled up here many times -- Mr Stewart etc. So while we don't absolutely know where each pothole is that Palladini should know about, we appreciate your coming here and letting us know your views.
Mr Poulin: Thank you very much, Mr Hastings. I'm glad you didn't take that position with the Smooth Rock Falls school, because down the road you might have been out of a job.
The Acting Chair: That's true. We're into downsizing.
TOWN OF CHAPLEAU
The Acting Chair: Mr Ken Russell, reeve of Chapleau, we're ready for you, sir. You have 20 minutes. You can use it all for your own --
The Acting Chair: Yes. Good customer service here, sir.
Interjection.
Mr Ken Russell: Well, the two-and-a-half-hour drive from Chapleau is an example of crossing about one eighth of the proposed riding, so to travel the other part you're looking at 10 and a half hours, ladies and gentlemen.
To the committee members on proposed provincial electoral boundary changes, my thanks for affording me, on such short notice, the opportunity to present this brief today on behalf of my community and the north as a whole.
Were it not for the local television media, I would not be here today to express my views. No notification regarding this hearing crossed my desk in the municipality of Chapleau, an oversight, I am sure.
As the reeve of the municipality of Chapleau, I present this brief on behalf of the north, and please do not misconstrue its contents to be partisan. I am normally very apolitical. I've been in the municipal field for 14 years.
History and terms of reference: Boundary changes were made and reviewed in 1962, 1973 and 1983. Historically, the decision on the new boundaries and riding names rested with the Legislature. It would then normally follow the traditional and regular route that any bill does in the House. Why, then, has the present government broken with tradition and it has now been forced into a public hearing process such as today?
In 1973 the number of ridings was established at 125 and in 1993 was re-established at 130. The boundary electoral commission of the day must have had valid criteria and reasons for their decisions and recommendations. In 1996, the government appears to be taking a regressive measure. Federally, we were known as the Timmins-Chapleau riding, and on January 1, 1997, we become a member of the Algoma riding. Council and our small northern community strongly opposed this change, with, of course, no success.
Committee members, Ontario municipalities do realize and fully understand that financial restraints and cutbacks are a reality of our times. Common sense dictates that we must support this concept both for economic and social stability.
Community position on boundary changes, from my community: In the proposed riding of Nickel Belt, the distance across is about 300 kilometres. That is the same distance from Toronto to Cleveland, Ohio. Over 80 countries and 45 US states are smaller than the northern riding of Kenora-Rainy River, and this same comparison will hold true to the proposed Algoma riding.
I am sure that today many northerners have already expressed concern about the treatment of the north which it has received from the government with the proposal to eliminate five electoral ridings in northern Ontario. Over decades, our community has been well served by our provincial elected members in Nickel Belt. Will we receive the same regular visits and dedication with the larger riding of Algoma? Not likely.
Distances travelled in most ridings in southern Ontario by elected representatives are, under most circumstances, frequent and relatively easy. What about the north? We as Ontarians have just as much right to meet with our provincial members, expressing our concerns and grievances. With larger ridings and fewer provincial government members, this reality will fade. Travel distances, weather conditions etc will only force curtailment of visits that are vital for the northern voice.
Although we in the north only compose 10% of the population, you must remember that we provide 90% of the natural resources. Chapleau itself is rather unique, as for many years we were not sure to which area we belonged, and at that time we were referred to, even in the House, as an illegitimate child. There was another term, but I didn't want to use it in this speech.
Federally, we were associated with Timmins: UIC etc. Provincial services such as Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing were from Sudbury. The Ministry of Transportation office was in Sault Ste Marie. One can easily see what a quagmire existed. With riding redistribution, the past scenarios will again recur. Our ties are with Sudbury and Nickel Belt, not Wawa, Sault Ste Marie or the Algoma riding.
Committee members, Chapleau and the surrounding communities and the north as a whole are strongly opposed to the proposed riding changes. We cannot afford to lose our parliamentary representation. Hear this voice in the north, please. Your input for decision-making we know will carry a great weight. One remembers, a few decades, ago a movement to separate north from south. Let us not have tunnel vision again. We are proud of Ontario, and being northerners of this great province makes us feel a belonging second to none.
Due to such short notice and forced by time restraints and due to poor notification and communication once again, this brief was prepared this morning. The required 30 copies will be typed and faxed early next week -- or the required one copy, as we've just discussed with the secretary.
1510
I do not propose to be a statistician, but I think something is drastically wrong with the analysis of the distribution of population and distances, with losing five ridings in northern Ontario as compared to the 20-plus in southern Ontario. I have had my treasurer work today, and hopefully Monday I'll come up with statistical figures to prove that it does not seem fair when you take distribution, population and area to distribute according to the five lost seats in northern Ontario and the loss of 20-plus in southern Ontario.
I wish again to thank you for the hearing to express our concerns on this brief. In closing, please let us be progressive in the north, not regressive. I thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank you, members, for hearing my brief.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Reeve Russell. We have about 15 minutes for questions. We'll start with Mr Sergio for the Liberals.
Mr Sergio: Mr Reeve, thanks for coming down and making a presentation to our committee here. Much has been said with respect to the federal commission and the federal government making recommendations and so forth. That commission took a couple of years before it came to a conclusion and made its recommendations, and even after that time, quite a few areas were showing some concern. To that effect, the commission of the federal government allowed some seven or eight months for appeals and for possible changes. Though I'm not familiar myself with it, I believe some changes and amendments were made during that seven-month period.
Having taken your concern that you just got wind of the hearing here through TV, do you really think the changes proposed are that important that we could have perhaps a three-month period during which you people can absorb these changes, the government will absorb what we have heard, and come back in three or four months and make a recommendation? Do you think that would be beneficial?
Mr Russell: I certainly do. As they say -- excuse the expression -- I was basically caught with my pants down yesterday when I received the information to be here today. It is a very close concern to my community. Agreed, we're only 3,000, a catchment area of maybe 7,000 to 8,000, but I think the citizens have a right to input.
We have been very fortunate -- please understand I'm not being partisan. We have the longest-sitting member, I believe, in the Legislature. He, or whoever it happens to be, has always been available and has travelled to Chapleau. An example of today is that it took me two and a half hours to get here; I don't know how much getting back. But he has always been here every month. I did hear the question faced by the Chair, I think, from John before, about using telex, using fax, using this and that. Face-to-face contact is the best. I don't care what electronics you have or what you use, the face to face and the sit-down to understand the problems or grievances -- and they're not always grievances; there are a lot of positive things to this too, please. Don't misunderstand me.
Mr Sergio: I'm trying to get another question, although I enjoy your comments.
Mr Russell: I'm sorry. I think a time element would be very wise.
Mr Sergio: Thank you. I also come from a municipal background, and I'm sure you've heard of Mr Mayor Lastman. We would never dare hold a public hearing during summer months, that is, July and August. I'm asking you as a reeve of a municipality if this is the most appropriate time to have a public hearing on such an important issue. This is the last day of public hearings. People are already in the winter holiday mood and Christmas spirit, whatever, and I wonder if this is the best time, especially in the northern area, to expose this, if you will, to as many people as possible. Even someone like yourself just got to know about it by accident. I wonder if this would be the most appropriate time to hit the road and bring this as a public hearing.
Mr Russell: I'm going to sit on the fence on this one. If the concern is strong enough in the communities representing on a change such as this, I feel we'd get a car or we'd take our snowshoes or we'd ski. Summer recesses, to me -- I've had meetings in the summer with provincial representatives -- don't seem to be most ideal. Your statement, when you started, about a three-month period to go in -- if the committee would be looking for that type of recommendation now it would be in January or February -- I still feel strongly that if you want it bad enough you'll get there. That's my answer.
Mr Sergio: Even if the highways are closed.
Mr Russell: I can always call Al. He's been pretty good for the north today. The road was nice.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Sergio. Mr Bisson?
Mr Bisson: I have two questions. First, this committee has travelled to communities which probably will be least affected by redistribution, namely Timmins, Sault Ste Marie, and I believe Dryden is the other place it went to. It seems to me that the communities most affected are like yours: Chapleau, Wawa, Hearst, Smooth Rock Falls, Kapuskasing and the list goes on.
Shouldn't you have had some sort of mechanism, rather than doing it this way, an electoral boundaries commission that at least went to those communities so that people like yourself -- you drove here; you took two and a half hours to come here. That tells me you're interested, but I'm sure there are other people in your community who are equally interested. Do you think maybe the government should send this back and say, "Throw this to an electoral boundaries commission, allow the people in communities across the province to have their say and then come up with some sort of a boundary change that makes sense"?
Mr Russell: If I'd had more notification this week I could have filled the room behind me, even if it was to get a bus. It is very sensitive to us. We have known it's in the works; there's no question about that, because we receive notification. To answer your question, Mr Bisson, I really think it should have gone through the commission process, as the federal did.
We met with the federal representative. I came and met with them. They listened. They didn't do anything about it, but they listened. At least you felt secure that you were performing your mandate on behalf of your citizens in the community, and I felt secure that way.
Mr Bisson: I think one of the things committees should take into account is that many of these communities don't have an opportunity to come and present. Timmins is not going to be as affected, and I would argue we need to hear more from the Chapleaus and Wawas in this world.
The other thing I would say is that there were some changes from what was originally presented by the boundaries commission based on the hearings. They weren't perfect and they weren't what I wanted, but at least there were some changes, and I don't have the feeling that will happen.
Second, you come from a community, Chapleau, which has been affected quite a bit by what's happened with this government with regard to cuts. I want to preface that in the question of separation you talked about. I remember Mr Ed Deibel and Mr MacKinnon and others who went around the province and signed many petitions and urged people of northern Ontario to separate and form their own province. Other people, like myself, didn't think that was a good idea. None the less there was a lot of support in northern Ontario for the idea of separation. Why? Because people felt alienated from their provincial government.
The government of Bill Davis, then the government of David Peterson, followed by the government of Mr Rae moved to try to include northern Ontario in this province that we call Ontario, so this feeling of secession on the part of northerners has subsided to a certain extent.
You come from a community that's been drastically affected: You've lost many jobs in the MNR, your fire station is shut down and you lost norOntair. I don't even know if you have any air service left.
Mr Russell: We have Pem Air, but I'm a pilot and I don't want to buy the airplane; I just want to fly on it.
Mr Bisson: Your bus deregulation is coming. You're going to lose --
Mr Russell: We have no bus.
Mr Bisson: Exactly. That's the point I'm getting at.
Mr Russell: We have no other transportation at all.
Mr Bisson: Is there a danger with this, coupled with all the cuts, that the whole feeling in the north of saying, "Let's separate," may become much more of a viable option for people in the north rather than trying to work within the provincial system we have now?
Mr Russell: I'm in the same position as you, Gilles. I would not like to see any of that situation happen. I mentioned it because maybe some committee members were not aware that it existed with Mr Deibel and the rest.
I was in Sudbury on the school board at the time that gentleman was going around, and Sudbury really wasn't as strongly supported as put in Queen's Park; Geraldton, I believe, was the proposal. There was a tremendous amount of support. I still am very strongly supportive of whatever government is in power. Chapleau has been rather unique too, because we've had the federal representative in power but we've always had the opposition in the provincial government and vice versa; it keeps switching. One of these days we're going to get it right and have both in.
1520
But to answer your question, no, I wouldn't feel and I can't feel that in the community. It was mentioned to me this morning that this did exist. Certainly I think the community is wholly behind the provincial status quo the way it is. We are happy to be in Ontario. We're not happy with some of the ways they're dealing with us.
Mr Bisson: Just to clarify, I know that you, as I, believe in being part of Ontario, but the question is: Is there a danger that groundswell will build again with everything happening?
Mr Russell: It's possible.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Reeve, for coming before us this afternoon. We genuinely appreciate it. I must say, though, that if Mr Bisson genuinely believed that the cities that have been visited were the ones less affected, we're not presumptuous enough to suggest which three cities in the north; we left that up to the opposition. I can tell you we would have been quite content to go to Chapleau and Manitouwadge or any other town or city he wanted to go to.
The question I have, based on your submission, is very much one arising out of your comment that there was a federal boundaries commission. I appreciate that they did not accede to all the requests. I think that's understandable. Everyone who appears before your council doesn't necessarily get what they want, but that doesn't make it less democratic. I'm sure you would agree with me.
I've read in great detail the complete report from the boundaries commission. They note in here that they struggled mightily with the thought of trying to keep Chapleau in the same electoral district as Timmins but that the population imbalance that would have created was just too great.
There's no doubt that with the $100-billion debt we face and the fact that municipalities are not supposed to go into debt either, we have similar restrictions on our ability to be free spenders these days. In the context of that, knowing that the federal commission already went around and heard from 300 people and that they acceded to some suggestions and didn't accede to others, what would be served by having a provincial commission go around and make the same stops and presumably get submissions from the same people? Would it be safe to say you would make the same submission you made to the federal commission?
Mr Russell: Yes.
Mr Gilchrist: Okay. If that's the case, since we can't look inside the minds of people who are appointed to these sorts of bodies, there would be every chance that three people appointed by the provincial government would have made exactly the same decisions as three people appointed by the federal government. Would you accept that as a possibility?
Mr Russell: That's possible. As you say, it's federal, so it's a little different from the provincial situation.
Mr Gilchrist: But the people the federal government appointed certainly didn't live in Chapleau. They were taking your submissions at face value and they weighed those against the other realities they had. They weighed it against something else too, and that's the mandate of the commission. Just to read it very briefly, it must "respect the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district and maintain a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province."
Unlike the provincial boundaries commissions in the past that, to be perfectly blunt, could be influenced to gerrymander because there were no numerical quotas applied, the federal government says that once you've established what the average would be -- you take the number of ridings, divide the population, and that comes up to the quota, they call it -- you can go 25% above and you can go 25% below. Every rural northern riding is 21% to 23% below the quota. Taking a particular village would make the difference of that 1%. So, without splitting hairs, they went to the maximum of the quota they could legally go. Obviously, to then maintain the provincial average, all the ridings in the south, or the majority of them, have to go above the quota. Some of them are considerably above as well.
Given that the two commissions would follow the same guidelines, they're driven by the same mandate and the same legislation, and given that the federal government goes one step further and prevents abuse by a government that would allow -- for example, Mr Hampton's riding right now has 19,000 voters and Mr Palladini's riding has 129,000 voters -- six and a quarter times the workload, which is impossible under the federal commission, would you not agree with me that whichever way they ruled on any specific request, to waste the money -- to spend the money; I'm not going to use a pejorative term -- to spend the money on a duplicate provincial commission would achieve nothing and would, again, if they followed the same guidelines, in all likelihood have left us with exactly the same map, not just in the north but across the province?
Mr Russell: I don't think I'm highly qualified to answer your question specifically, but I think the tune sung by the provincial system around this is a little different from the tune that's sung by Ottawa. You gave me 20 minutes today, very nice; before I only had six. I don't think we were heard, honest to God.
We have had a problem with distribution of representation in this area. I have to give credit to Mr Rhéal Gervais, who was a representative from this area; he came to Chapleau. Our other association with the federal government was our own doing. Our community along with Wawa, Manitouwadge, White River and Dubreuilville worked hard on that. They didn't listen.
I think the commission has to listen to the north. Going back, you mentioned statistics of 150,000 and 19,000 etc, I still cannot buy the statistic of losing five northern seats to 20-plus in southern Ontario on the question of statistics, democratics, population etc.
Questions were asked about expenses before. I don't think you're going to save any money, not if that MP is dedicated, but you might burn him out.
Mr Gilchrist: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that because we're reducing 27 members it stands to reason we'll certainly save their salaries, their rental of an office and their staff, and that would work out to $11 million per year. If we cooperate with the federal government on things such as voters lists, the mapping of the ridings and the designation of polls, that is estimated to save another $36 million per election, one-time savings, obviously. So in every four-year term we would save $80 million.
In a perfect world we could address all things. Given the reality you have right now, would the town of Chapleau rather have $80 million spent on MPPs, largely at Queen's Park, or would they rather have $80 million spent on transportation infrastructure, education infrastructure or social services?
Mr Russell: That's nice if that's a possibility, that you could give us the money back, but right now my small community is being informed that you're taking another $230,000 and $109,000 last year. My town has, again, an unfortunately unique situation that was under supervision twice by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I fought six years to get us out.
We are working with the government; we are cutting. We have three options right now that we've been given in our township, when you talk about the cutbacks: to glean the fat out of the budget, which was done, $109,000, last year; to look at all services, curtail services; no garbage pickup now every second week; closing the arena three days a week; our fire department, we had to increase the contracts in order to get more money. Next to discuss, which I'm going to discuss with you tonight, is layoffs, because that's the next step down the line. The third option is tax increases. I'm one who's going to put the tax increases, I'm afraid, ahead of the layoffs because I can't see people losing their jobs because of cutbacks by the provincial government. We're not here to discuss this.
Mr Gilchrist: No, and Mr Hardeman is one of the people who could, as an ex officio member of the Who Does What panel, I'm sure, talk to you for hours about this. But I'm confident that in the next few weeks you're going to see a rationalization of some services that hopefully will allow you greater flexibility in being managers of your own affairs, and the impact of the old habits of transfers back and forth will be far less relevant in the future.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mayor Russell -- mayor? I guess you're Reeve Russell.
Mr Russell: If that goes on your new recommendations, I don't particularly care what I'm called as long as --
The Acting Chair: People should always look for promotions. Thank you for coming down from Chapleau and presenting your views to us today and for a vigorous and thoughtful representation.
Mr Russell: I really appreciate it. Thanks very much, Mr Tascona, Mr Stewart, Mrs Ross, Mr Hardeman, Mr Gilchrist and Mr Danford. I thank you for hearing us, Mr Chair, and I hope it develops something. We'll get our report to you on Monday, I promise. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr Len Wood: Just briefly, based on the comments we've heard from Mr Gilchrist and a number of mayors and reeves, I would like to make a motion that we spend another five or six days in the north taking a look at the boundaries, because we've heard all kinds of comments, including Mr Gilchrist saying that he'd just love to travel more around the north.
I would like to move that we spend more time travelling around through the north into some of these communities that are being drastically affected as a result of the flawed legislation, because we've heard that the federal government has said the legislation at the federal level was flawed. Nobody listened to the boundaries that were being brought. I think it's very important that we get it right this time around and not go on a flawed federal system. In order to do that, I think we need more tours into some of these communities and maybe even up the Hudson Bay and James Bay coasts to listen to the concerns from the remote communities.
1530
The Acting Chair: Mr Wood, would you be amenable to leaving this to the next session of the committee?
Mr Len Wood: Well, we're in the north now. I think we should deal with it in the north.
The Acting Chair: Do we have a seconder?
Mr Bisson: I second the motion, Mr Chair.
The Acting Chair: Debate?
Mr Bisson: Well, I just --
The Acting Chair: Debate? Wake up, gentlemen.
Mr Gilchrist: It's a good thing Hansard actually comes out in a written form, Mr Wood, because what I said was, "Which three cities in the north were selected was up to the opposition." I did not say that the taxpayers of this province have empowered us to continue to have the kind of expense we're incurring to do this, particularly when we've seen today already representatives come in from such a diverse area. We saw it yesterday in the Sault and we certainly did in Dryden, from Thunder Bay to the Manitoba border. A number of people, I think representing every riding or darn near every riding, except maybe the urban ones of Sudbury and North Bay, have made representations before us here today. We know the volume of comments that are coming into our office. It's been on the parliamentary channel now for over two weeks.
Quite frankly, all three parties voted for the agenda, sir, and that is the agenda we have now fulfilled. We look forward to clause-by-clause next week.
The Acting Chair: I just want to remind members, if you want to leave here today some time -- Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: I don't want to lengthen the debate but, as Mr Gilchrist said, for the purpose of Hansard and for the purpose of the debate, so I hope we can influence the outcome, I would like to mention a couple of things.
As I said earlier, communities like Timmins and Sault Ste Marie, although affected by the decision to redistribute the ridings down by five, are not going to be most severely affected. I think it would only be fair that the committee at least try to go to communities such as Kap or Hearst or Chapleau or Wawa, or whatever it might be, to give those people an opportunity to have a say because clearly they're going to be the most affected. I think it would only be fair to do so.
This bill will not be before the House for at least another couple of weeks. I understand there are public hearings yet to happen in Toronto in regard to this particular issue.
Mr Danford: No.
Mr Bisson: There are no public hearings in Toronto?
Mr Danford: We had one.
Mr Bisson: You had the Toronto ones? Okay. Then it's even more pressing. I would strongly urge the members of the government, in order to accept to do this, if I could have your attention just for one second -- having had the opportunity to sit on both sides of the House, there have been occasions where I've sat on committee on the government side where opposition members from the third party have made requests to extend public hearings into other communities, extend the length of time in communities to allow for additional presenters, and as a government member I've always supported that. We did that on the select committee on Confederation, we did that on the OLRA bill, we did that on the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. There were different cases where we've allowed more presenters to come before us because there were particular facts we wanted to get, and certainly as a government we wanted to make sure we didn't give the impression that we wouldn't be hearing certain people. I would ask you to vote for this on that basis.
Many people who presented here today said, and you should remember this, "I was kind of late because of weather conditions." We had a sprinkling of snow last night and unfortunately the highways are not salted the way they used to be so it's difficult for people to drive the two and three hours to get here. Quite frankly, many people who might like to have been here didn't get a chance to come.
I would ask the members to consider that as a friendly motion and that we decide to go to a couple of communities at the very least, one in the northwest, one in the northeast, other than the major centres. I would ask the government members to support the motion.
The Acting Chair: Further debate?
Mr Stewart: Call the question, Mr Chair.
The Acting Chair: All right: The question be put that there be further meetings held in smaller communities in northern Ontario.
Mr Len Wood: A recorded vote.
The Acting Chair: Those in favour of the closure motion? Opposed?
Mr Bisson: Was that a closure motion? I thought he was going on.
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Stewart moved closure.
Mr Bisson: Oh, I didn't hear closure. When did that happen?
The Acting Chair: Just now.
Mr Bisson: Why would it be closure? You would have a separate vote.
Mr Gilchrist: I was voting on the motion. Let's just hold the vote again.
The Acting Chair: Let's backtrack.
Mr Gilchrist: Yes.
The Acting Chair: On the closure motion.
Mr Gilchrist: No, we don't need a closure motion. There's been no further debate. You asked for further debate and there was none.
The Acting Chair: Mr Stewart, will you withdraw that?
Mr Stewart: It was not a closure, Mr Chairman. I asked to call a question. You asked for more debate and there was not. I asked you to call the question, sir.
The Acting Chair: The clerk says that's a closure motion. Just withdraw that one and we'll have the motion to --
Mr Stewart: Do you want me to remove that so we can grandstand some more? I'll remove it.
The Acting Chair: Mr Wood has a motion that there be consideration given to holding further meetings of this committee in the smaller communities of northern Ontario. I think that captures the essence of the motion.
Mr Len Wood: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Bisson, Sergio, Len Wood.
Nays
Danford, Gilchrist, Hardeman, Ross, Stewart, Tascona.
The Acting Chair: I declare the motion lost.
Mr Bisson: Can I just thank those committee members, in closing, before everybody leaves? Unfortunately we didn't get that vote. I won't debate it; it's done. I want to thank members of the committee for having come to Timmins. It's not every day that we have an opportunity for a standing committee of the government to come to our fair community. We want to thank you for that. For the people who came and presented, on behalf of those citizens we thank the committee for the opportunity to have our say.
Mr Len Wood: I would just like to add my thank-you to everybody who came to all of northern Ontario.
The Acting Chair: I declare this standing committee adjourned till next Thursday, November 28.
The committee adjourned at 1537.