FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS
CONTENTS
Thursday 28 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
Labour Union and Employees Association Financial Accountability Act, 1996, Bill 53, Mr Gilchrist / Loi de 1996 sur la responsibilité financière des syndicats et des associations d'employés, projet de loi 53, M. Gilchrist
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 TedChudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC) for Mr Danford
Mr SteveGilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC) for Mr Flaherty
Mr JohnHastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC) for Mr Hardeman
Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC) for Mr Young
Mr GaryLeadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC) for Mr Maves
Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC) for Mr Tascona
Mr JohnParker (York East / -Est PC) for Mr Maves
Mr DerwynShea (High Park-Swansea PC) for Mr Danford
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
Clerk Pro Tem /
Greffier par intérim: Mr Todd Decker
Staff / Personnel: Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Ms Cornelia Schuh, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1009 in committee room 1.
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 Chair (Mr Jack Carroll): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to clause-by-clause discussion of Bill 81. We now have a quorum, so we can begin. We will move right into section 1.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Mr Chair, before we get going, we've just been distributed a motion by Mario Sergio. Will this motion be discussed after these proceedings?
The Chair: I understand that it was his intention that this motion be introduced at the end of the clause-by-clause discussion.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you.
The Chair: Any discussion on section 1? Shall section 1 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 1 is carried.
Are there any amendments to section 2?
Mr Grandmaître: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(1.1) Section 7 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
"Cross-appointment of federal returning officers
"(13) Despite anything else in this act, the person appointed as returning officer for an electoral district shall be the returning officer appointed under section 14 of the Canada Elections Act for the corresponding federal electoral district."
If it's the purpose of the government to reduce the number of politicians and to save money, we think that having the same returning officers would be a saving for the provincial government. That's why this amendment was introduced.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): We have an amendment here that is going to change the legislation. Our position is that the legislation we have here, and you'll hear more as we go through it, is based on flawed federal redistribution boundaries. The federal government under Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell set up an election commission to set up boundaries, it was stalled in the Senate and they went back, and when the new Liberal government came in there was some minor tinkering with it. But the overall feeling, on 85% of the land mass in Ontario, is that the federal redistribution, the first one, was flawed and the second one is still flawed.
Although we're supporting the amendment that the Liberals have brought forward, no number of amendments can be made to the existing legislation that are going to satisfy the general population out there. If you're bringing in legislation, you're trying to amend this piece of legislation, which is based on flawed federal redistribution boundaries, no number of amendments or tinkering with this is going to resolve the dilemma we're faced with.
Most of the mayors and reeves and the general population throughout northwestern and northeastern Ontario -- as we heard throughout the hearings, there were a lot of presentations, a lot of letters written to the Premier saying to him, "Please don't proceed with this bill the way it is, because it does not take into consideration the accessibility, the diversity of the area in northeastern and northwestern Ontario, the uniqueness of the province." It is flawed, and there's no amount of tinkering or changes to it that it is going to mean we're going to have democracy in Ontario.
What happens at the next federal election if we get Preston Manning as the Prime Minister of Canada and he decides that Ontario should have 200 MPs in Ottawa? Does that mean Ontario will have to go along with a redistribution where you double the number of representatives in Ottawa?
This whole piece of legislation is at the mercy of whatever government is in Ottawa. It's throwing away the right of this government and any future government in Ontario to say how the Ontario Legislature should be represented, whether it be fewer politicians or more politicians.
It's flawed, and in all fairness to democracy in Ontario, the bill should be withdrawn and a proper election committee set up for Elections Ontario to go around the province and listen to people before legislation is brought into the Legislature. This did not happen in this particular case. You have one party that was represented with -- 60% of the population in Ontario says they did not want a Conservative government in Ontario but they're stuck with it and they're going to live with it. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to go along with all of the legislation that is being brought in, when only a minority of the population is being represented by this particular government.
It's a concern I have, and I don't know how much discussion we have to have on this bill before we can get it right so that large groups of people in Ontario are not going to feel left out. We've heard where a few years ago petitions were being passed around trying to form another political party which, in its own right, would form a separate province within Ontario.
We heard again during the hearings that the movement is starting again now, where if Mike Harris and his Conservative people in Toronto are not going to listen to the people in northern Ontario, a movement is coming out of Geraldton; we heard two or three presenters in northeastern and northwestern Ontario saying it's an attack on democracy from within Ontario, that the large geographic masses are going to lose their democratic vote and right in the Legislature and that they're very unhappy with this. They've asked us to do whatever we can with this piece of legislation, which is flawed, that no amount of amendment is going to make it right and make it fair for Ontario and that it should be withdrawn.
But I congratulate the Liberal caucus for bringing this particular amendment forward. I'm sure we'll have more discussion on this and other amendments as we proceed.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wood. Any further comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Any further amendments to section 2? Shall section 2 carry?
Comment, Mr Marchese?
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Chairman, I want to speak on the whole section.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Marchese: This is the most important section, in my view, in this act. I want to, for the record, put my views at this time. I just remind the Conservative members of the motion that M. Villeneuve had introduced in this House a long while ago which reminded us, the Liberal government at the time and the NDP and Conservatives, that Ontario is very diverse and that we should reflect that diversity in the way we establish our boundaries, that we shouldn't diminish the representation of rural members or of northern members. That's something M. Villeneuve stated at the time. Mr Eves, of course, was supportive of that, as were many other illustrious members of the cabinet.
1020
It is a sad reflection of politics that you have a number of now ministers, then MPPs, who held these views, believed them to be correct and held them firmly. While that was the case then, they have now gotten into power as cabinet ministers and they have been effectively muzzled, as I can see; not only muzzled, but their voices have been literally taken away. They have been cut away, asunder. I think that's a problem for them. It's a problem for this Conservative government to deal with.
I'm not sure Mr Villeneuve or Mr Ernie Eves could ever live with the fact that at one time they thought this was very important. Now that Mike Harris believes this not to be important, those voices have been lost and the opinions they held then are no longer opinions they hold now. I think it's a problem. I think it's a problem for them, as ministers, as members of those ridings, and I think this government will have to somehow live with that. That will become more and more public in their own ridings. They will have to talk to their own public about how they have readjusted the reality, how reality readjusts itself when you're in power versus when you're in opposition. Is that the way it works?
People will not be able to continue to trust politicians when they can change their minds so easily one way or the other. I understand that from time to time politicians can change their minds and need to. I understand we do that and all political parties do that. Some things are very major and some things not so major, but I believe this to be an issue of major proportion.
In representing our Ontario in different ways, I believe we should not say: "Because we have a greater population, we need more politicians, and those who have fewer numbers in their areas, like the north and rural areas, should have fewer, because that's just the way it should be. It's based on one vote per person." We have adjusted that reality in Ontario, in Canada, as a way of making sure that the representation of the rural areas and northern areas is not lost and that their voices are equal to those voices in southern Ontario. I think that's a good reflection of our reality.
How M. Villeneuve squares with that reality now is difficult for me to conceive; how he defends it with his own constituents is difficult for me to conceive; how he has either expressed a view one way or the other in cabinet is again difficult for me to conceive. I'm wondering whether Mr Villeneuve and Mr Ernie Eves had any opinions when this matter was discussed in cabinet, or in fact in their own caucus if caucus had an opportunity to discuss this. I'm not quite sure.
What is clear in my mind is that the Premier made up his mind on this. It was the Premier who decided, "This is what we're going to do, boys," and it got done. It didn't matter that Mr Ernie Eves had an opinion, and it didn't matter that M. Villeneuve had an opinion; it's what Mike Harris thought was important that mattered.
Traditionally where we had commissions to give us opinions about how to do redistribution since 1960, all of a sudden this Conservative, Reform-minded government decides to change that tradition, because they're now in power, they have power absolute, and they can decide how best to do it for the rest of the population. "We don't need a commission that is arm's length to give us advice, which we take or do not take; we're just going to do it," and Mike decided to do it. So these fine members are on this committee today, and cabinet ministers have simply decided, "Okay, this is what the Premier wants."
Of course, there might have been some discussion, some disagreement from some of the members: "Mike, gee, how do we deal with this? This is going to be tough, because when we were in opposition we said one thing, now we're doing another. How do we deal with this, Mikey?" Mikey said: "Well, we promised. It's in the Uncommon Sense Revolution and we have to do it. Boys, you've just got to go and tell the rural folks: `This is something we're doing for you. We're going to save $11 million for you and your children and the future of their children.'"
So the poor MPPs buckle down and say: "Yeah, Mike, you're right. It is tough but we're going to do it for you and defend this to the very end. How do we do it? We're going to defend it on the basis that we're going to save you $11 million in perpetuity, and isn't that good, because we're going to deal with the deficit. But Mike, what about the issue of representation, the issue of access, the issue of democracy, the issue of process in terms of how we make these decisions? How do we deal with that?" "Just go back to the constituents and tell them you're going to save $11 million. Forget about process. Forget about an arm's-length commission. We've had plenty of those commissions. We don't need them any more. We're just going to do it because we believe it to be right."
Mike Harris -- omnipotent, omniscient Mike -- decides for the rest of the public, for cabinet and M. Villeneuve, for these other fine MPPs who are here that this is the best course to take. So these poor guys, in their little package of messages to the constituents, have to go back and defend, in my view, a very unwise, dumb move that they are taking.
What have they done with this particular bill? They have satisfied two constituencies: One, Mike Harris and the hirelings he's got, the gunslingers --
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Gunslingers?
Mr Marchese: -- gunslingers, yes -- and the other constituency they have satisfied is the Reform-minded constituents who are their supporters. What do they want? Well, they want to get rid of politicians, because they have an antipathy to governments and, to a great extent, an antipathy to politicians. How do they satisfy them? They satisfy them by simply saying, "We're going to get rid of politicians," because that's what they want.
This is really the group of Ontarians they're satisfying: It's the Reform elements of Ontario. As far as they're concerned: "As long as we satisfy this particular constituency, we've done our job. It's irrelevant how we affect the democratic process, how we've changed it. It is irrelevant. It is irrelevant how we deal with the whole issue of whether people will have access to us or not, whether people will reach us or not, whether we will be able to reach them." All of those considerations have become, for this government, irrelevant, because the only consideration they want to satisfy is the consideration of how we please the Reform in Ontario. That's what this thing is all about.
In my view, this is the most politically crass thing to do. It puts away and undoes so much of what we value when you do something because it will satisfy people in the electorate who have no liking for politicians, no liking for government. They not only mistrust government but they see it as an excessive load they have to carry. These Reform people carry this vision that governments are simply in the way of their own lifestyle and what they need to do. So the more we cut away at politicians and the more we reduce the civil servants in Ontario, the better for them.
That might be all right for those interesting individuals who are out there in Ontario, but a lot of other people are very unhappy. There are many people in Ontario, different sectors -- economic, cultural, linguistic -- who will be very, very unhappy with what this government is doing today. I think when they cater to the Reform in Ontario, they diminish democracy for the rest of the population.
They have diminished the role of politicians. They have diminished their role as politicians in particular, but our role generally as politicians, because it creates in the minds of many that we don't value what we do. The only thing we value as politicians is: "Oh, we have all cut, so we've got to show them that we can cut too. We're going to cut politicians and offer them on the alter as well." In my view, that's poor logic, poor reasoning.
I think they believe their logic will make sense to the public. When they say to them, "Everybody else has cut. We've cut in government, and we need to cut too," they think that will be bought, but I believe they have diminished themselves tremendously. As you make these cuts, they are irretrievable. We will never be able to retrieve any of the losses you will have achieved in this term. All of the losses that we will see, witness, experience, will be irretrievable, and this is yet one of those other things that will be lost forever.
1030
They will argue of course that it's okay, that it's probably a good thing, but I think it's a terrible thing. When they cut $8 billion out of the economy, $3 billion to be announced soon -- they have a problem with that. Poor folks, they just don't know what to do. The cash isn't coming in so they had to postpone the economic statement. They have a problem. This $11 million you're cutting away from politicians is not going to solve your problem. The sad thing is that you've introduced an income tax cut to satisfy your passion to please your wealthy friends. The favourite one for me is the bankers, where the five of them earn -- well, they all earn more or less $1.6 million each, and at the end of the 30% tax cut, they're going to make $120,000.
The poor, regular Joe, the Reform-minded Joe out there who supports you will soon realize that the first tax cut you gave him, the 7% tax cut in July -- if someone is earning $25,000, $30,000, they're looking in their chequebook and they're saying: "Jesus, I thought this government said we were getting a tax break. When is it coming? Is it coming yet?" What they don't realize is that, yes, it has come already. That was last July and it was 7%, but it's not there. They may have gotten seven pennies, so they look through and maybe they might check back to see whether or not there's a vast difference between the old cheque and the new one, and there's no difference because it's in the pennies, maybe in the dollars.
Most Ontarians whose wages are going down and who are making a lot less -- and will under your government year after year -- will not even see the next 7% cut. So 7.5% and 7.5% is 15%, right? Your banker friends are going to be delighted that you've given them a few extra bucks, because they need it. They're only making $1.5 million, some of them $1.9 million, so they want a little more and they thank you for giving them a little more. But the other poor guys, those who are making $25,000, $30,000, they're not going to see it, and the next 7.5%, they're not going to see that either. That 20 bucks they might get will have disappeared in all the user fees they've got to pay. The poor seniors will have to pay it in the drug plan.
When you give this tax cut, you will have lost $6 billion to $10 billion. Some people say $20 billion -- I think it's exaggerated -- but $6 billion to $10 billion will have been sifted away from our coffers to give to people who don't need it. The real people who spend are the ones who make $25,000, $30,000, $35,000, $40,000. Those are the people who spend. They're not going to see it. So you've got a problem. You have created chaos in Ontario with a tax cut, in particular with the elimination of your $8 billion away from our coffers generally.
Mr Hardeman: What part of the bill is this? I thought we were talking about Bill 81, Mr Chair.
Mr Len Wood: It's on section 2 of the bill. That's what he's addressing.
The Chair: Mr Marchese has the floor.
Interjection: He is addressing that?
Mr Len Wood: Section 2 of Bill 81, yes.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I think we're talking about Bill 81.
Mr Len Wood: Bill 81. He's right on topic.
Mr Marchese: Absolutely. I'm linking it in.
The tax cut you have given away will just sift away in this big Tory sift. It will just sift away into oblivion, but mostly to the rich. Mikey has discovered in his own logic that he can say, "That's okay, because however the money gets out there, it's going to be reinvested." What a guy. He's helping everybody out. "It doesn't matter" -- he says -- "how that money gets out, it's all going to be invested." So we on this side say, "Yes, if you gave it to the poor, or the working poor who are making $25,000, $30,000, they would spend the money, but if they're not going to get any money, they're not going to spend it on anything." What does the wealthy banker do? Do you think he needs a new fridge?
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Hell no.
Mr Marchese: I don't think he needs a new fridge. Do you think he needs a new stove? I don't think he needs a new stove.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): It's the Liberals who get the new fridges.
Mrs Pupatello: Let's talk about the Office of the Premier and the increase in the cost of the Office of the Premier.
Mr Marchese: I won't have time for that.
Mrs Pupatello: Make sure you link that in.
Mr Grandmaître: Now, now.
Mr Marchese: The bankers already have all of their --
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: I didn't hear that, Joe. You should make sure I hear.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): Just for the record, Mr Chairman, there seems to be a conversation between Ms Pupatello and Mr Marchese.
The Chair: Yes. Mr Marchese, I'd appreciate it if you'd direct your comments to the Chair.
Mr Marchese: Absolutely. It was just a side remark. It was just momentary, really.
Mr Young: He was asking her advice, Mr Chair.
Mr Marchese: She's linking things for me and I appreciate that.
We've got a problem of this income tax cut that's disappearing to the wealthy, and it will not come back. Mike says it will; we say it won't. Now, all of you can smugly say, "It will come back and don't worry," but it's not coming back. The unemployment rate is at 10%. The bond folks love it, because the higher the unemployment, the greater their profits.
Banks: Have you noticed the banks? They have made record profits. Every four or five months, they keep on coming back with greater profits, using our money yet, because 90% of the banks' money is ours. I invest in a credit union, but the public invests in banks. Ninety per cent of their money is ours and they're making more money with our money, and they say, "It's the private investor that's doing that." No, it's the public sector that's investing that money.
The bond people are happy, banks are really happy, and look at this: The banks are now giving to charity. Isn't that nice? They're giving more money to charity. They're looking good, the CIBC. They look nervous about making such huge profits and not giving some back.
The point I make is that we are in a real sad state of affairs where this government is dragging the economy down even more. Unemployment is high, wages are going down, rents are going up -- I'll talk about that in a second, if I can link it in. How does this income tax cut, to link it in here, help the economy? I'm arguing that it's not helping the economy. It's not. In January, when we get the 7.5% cut as well, we will see that it will be a greater drag on the economy.
Because of this income tax cut, this government has come up with all sorts of loony ideas to get some money. They come up with this Bill 81 to make a few extra bucks: $11 million. Just the money we're giving to the bankers would have dealt with that; if we didn't do that, we wouldn't have needed this bill. We have to come up with these loony ideas to deal with the deficit. We say to them, if you've got a deficit problem, why are you giving money back to the wealthiest Ontarians? Whose needs are you satisfying when you give an income tax cut? Because you have created an economic disaster in this country, you come up with loony ideas like this. They're going to cut 27 MPPs to satisfy, largely, this problem of the income tax cut to satisfy the needs of wealthy Canadians.
I tell you, it's laughable, but usually when I laugh it's tragic, because it's not just laughing at something that's funny. It's a tragedy we're witnessing here, and a play will be written about this government, have no fear about that.
Anyway, boys, with this particular move you're disfranchising the north. You are giving them very little representation, less representation. You have created constituencies in the north that are greater than many countries in the world. That's what you've done. No doubt some of you have some suggestions about how to help these poor northerners from now on, but you are creating ridings that are incredibly huge. I'm not sure how those members are going to be able to service the needs of those constituents. I'm not really sure how those constituents are going to be able to reach you.
The beauty of it is that they won't be able to reach them. The beauty is that this government won't elect any Conservative members up there and they'll continue to elect either NDPers or Liberals, so in their minds, it doesn't really matter, because they won't have to worry about representing the north or all those constituencies, because they never get elected anyway. This will make sure that they never get elected, so if they don't get elected, they don't have to worry about the fact that those poor constituents are never going to be able to speak to those members.
1040
That's really what has happened. When the Chair or the clerk ask, "Are there any amendments?" -- how do you amend an act that's loony, not just flawed but loony? You can't amend it, except to repeal the loony act. We could have done that amendment, actually: repeal the loony act. That would have made sense.
This government has done some loony stuff, so what do they say then? They say: "The federal government has done their redistribution of boundaries. We're just doing what they're doing." That's great logic. Federal governments do their redistribution based on their own needs. Provincial governments should do the same. Replicating it or using it as a front or a foil to make their loony changes is not a very intelligent thing to do. It doesn't go well with most of the public, that I'm aware of. I think most people realize that it's foolish to argue, "Because the feds have done this in this way, we're just doing what they've done, and why do it again?"
Well, we are a province. We're a province that has its own needs to take care of. Why should we stupidly say, "The feds have done this, so we're going to do what they've done just to make it easy for ourselves"? That doesn't take care of the north. It doesn't take care of rural Ontario at all, and it decimates Metro too in terms of the loss of seats.
We have fewer representatives in this assembly than do most other provinces in Canada, in spite of their numbers. We have greater numbers and we will have fewer representatives. Other provinces have fewer people and more representatives. How do you square with that? "Ah," say the Conservative Reform-minded members, "we're leading. At some point we need to lead."
Mikey has led this great charge with this great loony bill to show the public that sometimes you're just going to have to take the bull by the horns and lead, and that's what Mikey has done with this particular bill: He's leading, he's showing the rest of Canada that you can cut the numbers, that you can reduce politicians. "Don't worry, representation is not lost. Access is not lost. Democracy is not lost, because we can serve you well. We're going to run this as a business." That's the new slogan of this government. "We're going to run this as a business."
Well, we say business doesn't care about people. Most of the time, it cares about profits. That's really what it cares about. If it has to fire people, it's going to fire them in order to make its profits. This government says, "In order to deal with the deficit, we're going to have to fire 20,000 people." And what's next? What's coming next is a reduction of people's salaries. Not only have they fired up to 20,000 people -- I say it'll be in the range of 25,000 by the time this government leaves -- but they're also going to take money away from them, again to deal with the deficit, again to deal with that stupid income tax cut they have implemented to satisfy the needs of their ideology and their wealthier friends.
They're acting as a business. Business, in my view, might suit the Tories, as it does, in terms of what they're doing, but it doesn't suit the needs of the population. Business doesn't give a damn about the needs of poor people, about the needs of children, about the needs of the unemployed, about the needs of the terrible working conditions that people might be in, about the fact that wages are going down while their profits are going up. Business doesn't give a damn about them. But this government is acting consistently like a business, because that's who they are. By and large, most of these folks here are business people, and their ideology is very much the same.
This will give more power to Mike Harris, the Premier, not less. Mr Tascona argued this on a program we were on together, and other members here argue that they're going to have more power, that because their ridings are going to be bigger, they're going to have more power. Well, the only power they're going to have is to represent 20% more of a riding. If they feel more powerful with that, that's great, but it gives them no power vis-à-vis the Premier, it gives them no power vis-à-vis the cabinet and the gunslingers they hire. You will have less power, and you know now you have no power, you know it now -- quite true. You'll deny it, because that's the public persona you've got to give us, but you have no power at the moment, and when there are 27 MPPs fewer you will have less power. Power will be more concentrated in the hands of the Premier and his staff, by and large, and some cabinet ministers.
When you go out to the public and say, "No, we're going to have more power to represent you," it's a big deception, because that will not happen. It isn't true. More and more power will shift away from MPPs into the hands of the Premier's office.
I could go on a little longer, but I think I've put my views for the record in opposition to Bill 81. I'm looking forward to some discussion from the other members because I'm interested in hearing what they have to say. I would like to engage them in that dialogue and I hope it happens.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Marchese. Mr Wood.
Mr Marchese: No response?
Mr Len Wood: On section 2, some of my comments might be directed strictly for your benefit, Mr Chair. I know you would have liked to be up to hear some of the presentations in northern Ontario, but another person took your place as Chair. I think it's important that we get some of the comments on the record because they might not have been related to you as accurately as some would like.
The feeling throughout not only northern Ontario but a lot of places throughout Ontario is that this is not "one size fits all." It's not one shoe size that all the electoral boundaries can be changed to and is going to fit. The federal system, as I said before, was flawed. The feeling was that the population had grown in BC and they needed a couple more representatives in British Columbia, and in southern Ontario the population had grown and they were going to put three additional members on in southern Ontario to compensate for the increase in population. They decided, with all the lobbying going on in front of the electoral commission, "We should have four in southern Ontario, so we've got to take one out of the north," and now we see the same system being followed in the redistribution of the ridings here.
We heard all kinds of presentations from all across Ontario, especially in the north that simple representation by population -- we heard some of the comments from some of the Conservative members that we should get closer to representation by population. It's not happening at the federal level; it's not going to happen under Bill 81 at the provincial level. Representation should not be based on population alone. There has to be the geography and the demographic -- all the democratic system has to be taken into consideration when you talk about representation.
On This Hour Has 22 Minutes on TV the other day, they said that Mike Harris's shoes are too tight and his head is screwed on the wrong way. This is basically the way this legislation seems to be put together. There was no consideration for the land mass, the resources or the geographic area of the province. It was strictly a matter of saying, "Well, the Conservatives in Ottawa started the process, the Liberals finished the process, and now we're going to do exactly the same thing in Ontario."
We think it's flawed and wrong. You're talking not only the land and the population in northern Ontario; millions and millions of dollars every week are coming out of the renewable resources into the coffers at Queen's Park. We not only have the renewable resources putting in millions of dollars but we have the non-renewable resources from mining that are putting millions and millions of dollars back into the coffers at Queen's Park. In this particular case you're talking about a saving of possibly $2 million or $2.5 million by reducing the representation in northern Ontario from 15 members to 10 members.
1050
The representations that we heard throughout the north were saying, "Don't do it; it's wrong." If you take away five of the watchdogs that are up there -- and they're helping to manage these resources. It doesn't matter which political party they come from, whether they're Conservative, Liberal or NDP, they have an obligation to oversee these resources to make sure they are there for generations to come.
If you take that few-million-dollar saving out of northeastern and northwestern Ontario and you put it all in Mike Harris's office with additional staff -- and I understand that this is what is happening. He's increasing his staff because he's finding the workload is just too great. He had to move out of the north, from North Bay he moved into Toronto, and even with that he's got to add thousands of dollars in extra staff.
You're taking the rights of the legally and democratically elected representatives and you're turning that over to paid staff. How do the mayors and reeves and the general population get their concerns heard if they can't speak to the democratically elected representatives the way they've been able to do in the past? They were led down the garden path back in 1992 by quite a few people making representations from the Conservative Party at that time, saying that geographic areas have to be taken into consideration, northern Ontario is special. "If we get elected as a Conservative government, we're going to be a voice for the north."
Now they're saying, "The voice for the north is not there; it's gone." Nobody's listening to the people in northern Ontario. All the money that was supposed to go up there from the heritage board -- we see announcements coming out, "There's $210 million that's going to be spent over four years in the heritage money for northern Ontario." We've seen one announcement in 18 months, which deals with some $940,000 for promoting tourism. That's the only money that has been spent.
All previous governments since the heritage board was implemented put $25 million or $30 million back into northern Ontario from the heritage fund to protect existing jobs, to create new jobs, so that the north would grow. Now we see all of the money coming down to promote and to be spent on whatever Mike Harris feels is important. A lot of it, as my colleague has said, is being spent on a tax break for the wealthy and powerful people in Ontario who paid big dollars to the Conservative campaign to get members elected, and a lot of that money is coming from the poor.
It's basically Robin Hood in reverse. Robin Hood used to take from the rich and give to the poor. Now we see taking from the poor and giving to the rich. It's just completely different from what was happening years ago. I've talked to all kinds of people who found their food and their clothing allowance and their rent allowance, 22% being taken away a couple months after this government was elected. They say, "The wealthy and the rich and the upper-income people got a 7% increase, and yet I didn't get one."
I'm hoping that you, Mr Chair, will use some common sense and get the word back to Mike and his people, that there is a lot of uneasiness. There are a lot of hard feelings that a bill is being brought forward with a phoney or a silly name on it. The short title of it is the Fewer Politicians Act. When people think about fewer politicians, they think about democracy being eroded. The watchdogs that are out there to look after and keep an eye on the bureaucracy and what the Premier is doing, if you took away those people then you're slowly ending up whittling that down to a point where you're going to have two or three people dictating what they can do in Ontario and not listening to anybody. To me, that's wrong; it's not the democratic way to go.
People feel that they want proper representation, no matter where they live in Ontario, and they do not want representation by population alone. We heard that loud and clear from representations from everybody around the province. It's not by population now; it never was by population; it never will be strictly by population in the future. Nobody is going to be able to do that. If you go with population, eventually you'd end up with one or two members in northern Ontario and the rest all centred around a little bit of southern Ontario, which was all clear-cut years ago to make room for population expansion in the large urban cities.
In northern Ontario we don't have that. We have a kind of uniqueness, a beautiful part of the province, and we need more democratically elected representatives to continue their role in government. I don't know how much time is being set aside for debate on this particular piece of legislation, amendments and debate in the House, but the people in this province feel that it's flawed no matter how many amendments are brought forward unless the legislation is rewritten and control is brought back within Ontario.
We don't allow Ottawa to call the shots in Ontario. Ontario is a special province; it's one of the most populous provinces in Canada. As I pointed out earlier, if Preston Manning were to become the Prime Minister of Canada and decide that after the next election he wants to have 200 people from Ontario in Ottawa, does that mean we're going to have 200 people representing Ontario at Queen's Park?
This is what the legislation says. Whoever the Prime Minister or the people in Ottawa, no matter which government is there, we're going to do exactly what they're doing. I think it's wrong. I think Ontario is a special province and we shouldn't allow this control to be turned over to the federal government when you're talking about the peanuts -- we're talking about peanuts, a few million dollars -- that are going to be saved.
Some are arguing, "Well, it's going to set an example if we cut out the politicians." The message I'm getting is that it's not going to show an example. It's going to show that there are fewer watchdogs out there watching what's happening with the bureaucracy or the paid people at Queen's Park. If you continue to lose more and more elected representatives, what kind of democracy are we going to end up with in Ontario? With that, I'd be curious and interested to hear some of the comments from the Conservative members as to why they think this legislation might be good for Ontario. I haven't heard any arguments as yet, so I'll leave it at that for now.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wood. I appreciate your bringing me up to date on what I missed by not being able to get up north last weekend.
Mr Grandmaître: I'll be very brief. I want to show my disappointment to the members of the government for not addressing this amendment, for voting against this amendment without any real reason. I think I gave you an opportunity to save more money. The reason why this legislation is before us today is to not only reduce the number of politicians in the province, but it's also to make savings. I didn't sit in, Mr Chair, on every one of your meetings but some members have a lot to say about this piece of legislation. I realize there was a promise made by the government when the Common Sense Revolution was introduced. We were told at that time that the number of politicians would be reduced to 99, and now it's 103.
1100
I am told that the federal government, on January 7 or 8, if I'm not mistaken, will again bring in some amendments to some ridings in Ontario. My riding will be affected, not a great deal, but again the fact is that the provincial government didn't consult with the federal government. This was done in spite of all the objections of provincial politicians and people from my own riding objecting to this kind of, let's say, forced change, with very little consultation. When I look at representation, it doesn't matter at what level, even at the municipal level, I think it's very important that we think about people. After all, we do represent people and we have a responsibility towards our people. Now, with this kind of legislation that's before us, we will have less representation and maybe fewer dollars to respond to the needs of our taxpayers. I think it's very unfair.
I know that later on an amendment will be introduced to make sure that if this piece of legislation goes through -- and I'm sure it will go through for the simple reason that the government has not introduced any amendments and they're determined to go through with this thing. What you see is what we're going to get, and this kind of attitude is unacceptable. I want to show my disappointment towards the members of the government for not showing any interest whatsoever in improving the legislation. We realize it's a majority government, but at the same time I think we have a responsibility to represent our people in the best way we can. We feel that reducing the number of members does not reflect the democracy that has been around in this province for so many decades.
I think we should carry on and do whatever we have to do this morning, and let's hope that some members of the government will at least address some of the amendments.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Grandmaître. Any further discussion on section 2? All those in favour of section 2? Opposed? Section 2 is carried.
Are there any amendments to section 3?
Mr Grandmaître: We have an amendment, but I would ask to stand down section 3 at this time and we'll bring it later.
The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to stand down section 3? Okay.
Are there any amendments to section 4? Any discussion on section 4? All those in favour of section 4? Opposed? Section 4 is carried.
Are there any amendments to section 5? Any discussion on section 5? Shall section 5 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 5 is carried.
Are there any amendments to section 6? Any discussion on section 6? Shall section 6 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 6 is carried.
We now move into the schedules. Are there any amendments to section 1 in the schedule?
Mr Grandmaître: I move that the Representation Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Representation Act, 1996
"Provincial electoral districts
"1. (1) For the purpose of representation in the Legislative Assembly, Ontario is divided into the following electoral districts:
"1. In northern Ontario,
"i. the electoral districts of Kenora, Rainy River, Fort William, Port Arthur, Lake Nipigon, Sault Ste Marie, Algoma, Algoma-Manitoulin, Sudbury East, Sudbury, Nickel Belt, Cochrane North and Cochrane South as described in the Representation Act,
"ii. the electoral district of Timiskaming, consisting of the territorial district of Timiskaming, and
"iii. the electoral district of Nipissing, consisting of the territorial district of Nipissing, except that part of it that is assigned to the new federal electoral district of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke by the representation order of 1996 published under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Canada).
"2. In southern and eastern Ontario, the electoral districts of Parry Sound-Muskoka and Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and the remaining electoral districts to the south, as described and named in the representation order of 1996 published under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Canada).
"One member per district
"(2) One member shall be returned to the assembly for each electoral district."
Basically what this amendment is all about is that at the present time northern Ontarians have 15 ridings, and we would like to maintain those 15 ridings. I'm sure that my colleague Mr Gravelle has quite a bit to say on this amendment.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): This amendment, in essence, gives all members of this committee, and particularly the government members, to basically recognize that in the public hearings that took place in northern Ontario in Dryden, Sault Ste Marie and Timmins representation was made very strongly to try to explain, particularly to the government side, what the realities are of being a northern member and how, in terms of fair representation and giving people an opportunity to be fairly represented, reducing the number of ridings as recommended in the bill that is now before us is simply something that needs to be changed.
You can go through it riding by riding. Probably the best example of a situation that needs to be changed is the two ridings of Kenora and Rainy River being essentially amalgamated into one riding. The distances are extraordinary. I think everybody knows about the fact that this riding will be essentially one third the size of the province. May I say too that the riding of Lake Nipigon, a huge riding already, essentially is disappearing, in fact is disappearing, and will be amalgamated largely with the Port Arthur riding.
Among the members who did travel to the north, I want to believe that there was a serious intention, certainly on behalf of the members of the government, to listen and to learn and recognize what it means to represent a northern riding; the fact that you can be in a situation where you are representing perhaps not the same number of people but people who require representation just as fairly as anybody else but who are 300 kilometres away.
The Lake Nipigon riding is an example that I'm probably most familiar with simply because they have spoken to me very strongly. I think it's unfortunate that we didn't get the opportunity to having hearings in the Lake Nipigon riding. I was very keen for us to get up to Geraldton or Longlac or Beardmore or Nipigon or Terrace Bay or Schreiber, Red Rock, Marathon, Manitouwadge, just so people could recognize what the realities are.
All members here who know the job they're doing recognize that it's a big job representing the people, because people do want to have access to their members of Parliament, despite the fact some of the members of the Conservative caucus seem to think that things can be done by telephone or by fax. They need to recognize that in northern Ontario there are constituents who literally, in unorganized territories, don't have access to those particular means, including telephones. They also need to recognize that those of us who represent the north are very conscious of the fact that the constituents want to have personal contact with the member. Certainly I feel strongly about that; I know that all the northern members do. I know Mr Wood certainly feels that way, and all the northern members do, and certainly I think all the members of our caucus, and presumably the Conservative caucus as well, want to do that as well, have as much access to their constituents as possible.
1110
The fact is, if you look at the riding situation now with the 15 ridings, there are huge ridings already, and there is an extraordinary effort put out by all the members to try to be in as many places as possible.
One of the examples that was used when we were in Dryden was the situation on Remembrance Day, where the attendance of the provincial member is certainly desired, if not required, in Kenora, Rainy River, let alone in the new riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, if that's what it will be called. There are 12 different communities that are having 12 separate ceremonies, and obviously the member would have some difficulty getting to all 12. In fact, it's impossible.
Mr Young: You can't go now.
Mr Gravelle: I'm sorry?
Mr Young: You can't go to all of them now.
Mr Gravelle: Well, quite frankly, Mr Young, that is my point.
Mr Marchese: It will be worse.
Mr Gravelle: That is exactly the point: We can't get to them all now. I thank you for making that interjection, because quite frankly that simply speaks to the amendment. In the amendment, we're not asking for more ridings, we're asking to maintain the ridings. As I said, Mr Wood will certainly back me up on this and all the northern members do, as well as our colleagues who understand that reality, the fact that you can't get there now. It seems to me that, having been up in Dryden, as many of you were, and being in Sault Ste Marie and Timmins, these facts should have some effect on you.
In essence, there is no question that a lot of the points that Mr Wood made earlier are completely valid as well in terms of what northern Ontario brings and offers to the province and the resources that go down and the money that goes down to the provincial coffers.
The fact is that you may view us as being members who make a lot of noise and speak our minds very clearly about our feelings on this, and that is because we see the situation that is developing with this bill, where what you're saying to the people of northern Ontario is: "We don't think you're as important. We don't think it matters as much. We think your ridings, which are large already, we can just double the size of them. What's the difference?"
As Mr Young just said, you can't get to all the events you want to get to now. What's the difference? Well, the difference is that it's important to us to try and get to them. I appreciate that some members approach their jobs in a different fashion, but it is important to us and it's certainly important to our constituents that we have communication and a relationship with those constituents.
This amendment, quite frankly, allows the government an opportunity to basically amend this bill in a fashion that will recognize that indeed the situation now is that there is the north, and one would argue it's underrepresented, but certainly the north needs to be treated in a manner that recognizes that the distance and the travel and the ability of people to get to meet their provincial member is already very difficult.
There were many examples used at the hearings, and one of them was the whole question, literally, of bus transportation. Just simply being able to take the bus from Marathon, Ontario, to Thunder Bay, Ontario, which is a distance of 300 kilometres -- and Marathon is a major community in northern Ontario, you know; there are 5,000 people, it's near the Hemlo gold mines, it's got a pulp and paper mill. The fact is that Marathon is an important community, and the representative of that community would very much want to spend as much time there as possible. But if the constituent needed to travel from Marathon to Thunder Bay, it's an $80 return bus fare. Obviously, as the member, it would be difficult to get there a lot. I've certainly spoken to the present member, Mr Pouliot, a great deal about this, and we have a very common understanding of the difficulties in trying to meet all those needs as it is.
I hope this amendment will be taken seriously, and I hope there will be some comment from the government side on this, because although we recognize that restructuring or redistribution as a process should legitimately go on, probably after every second census or the full census, recognize the need for changes, the fact is that there's always been a recognition by most fairminded people that indeed the north is not overrepresented. Northern members are well known for expressing their viewpoint very strongly, but that is because we have to do that in order to be heard.
To take away one third of the seats in northern Ontario and to basically not acknowledge what the realities are for the people who are representing those ridings, let alone the constituents -- there was a point made, in Dryden again I recall, and it was a question of MPPs trying to basically preserve their ridings. The point needs to be made that the ridings do not belong to the MPPs. This isn't about me or my colleagues or maintaining the seats; what it's about is the fact that the ridings belong to the people of the province, certainly the people of northern Ontario. The members are simply temporary occupants of that position.
It's incumbent on us to do our best to convince the government members today that indeed this amendment, which would simply maintain the number of seats in northern Ontario, is one that would be responsible and is one that would recognize the realities and the difficulties there are for constituents to basically feel they're well represented.
The fact is that all of us will continue to work hard and represent our constituents as well as we can. In some ways I think we will probably be more tenacious in our feelings if this amendment is not passed. But I do hope, based on your experiences in the north and previous experiences on other committees, there would be some recognition, at the very least, that this amendment and what it stands for has some real legitimacy. It's not a question of asking for more; it's a question of asking for simply the appropriate level of respect from this government.
There is a very strong feeling developing across this province, and certainly in northern Ontario, that this government does not care about the interests of many of the people in this province, that everybody is divided up into interest groups. I really hope, again based on the experiences you had at the hearings and the people you listened to, who I think spoke in an objective manner about how seriously they take this process, you seriously look at this and you recognize that the need for representation in the north is one that should not be diminished and at least recognize that if it is diminished, it is perhaps one of the flaws in this bill.
We all know, and probably many of you would agree, there are a lot of flaws in this bill. There's no question the process should have been done on a provincial basis rather than simply following the map of the federal members, recognizing, as again so many presentations made clear, that the kinds of cases, the kinds of businesses that come forward to a provincial member are really quite different than those that go to a federal member of Parliament, and I certainly mean no disrespect to our federal members.
I have worked for federal members of Parliament in the past, and I ran a constituency office. I recognize what the activities are. Having been a provincial member now for a year and a half and having had some experience with the kinds of cases and interests that come forward in terms of health, education, and the list goes on and on, I think it's true and it's very clear that, generally speaking, the people you represent feel closer to you than they do to their federal member in terms of the issues at hand. That case was brought forward. That case was made very strongly in the public hearings in Thunder Bay and in the north, in Dryden, Sault Ste Marie and Timmins. I hope there would be some recognition.
One of the things that makes people feel rather cynical about the process is to hold public hearings and to, in advance, say that there will be no changes as a result of these hearings. I know that one particular member was quoted in exactly that fashion, which did offend people in the north because I think we wanted to believe that, indeed, there would be some flexibility based on what they heard at the hearings.
1120
Certainly this amendment very much responds to what was heard in those three communities and only the three communities that you were able to go to. Obviously, if we had had the opportunity we would have wanted the committee to travel to many more communities, although I can pretty well assure you I think the message would have been the same. It was, in essence, a plea from the people of northern Ontario that to maintain their number of ridings is the right thing to do. It's something that elsewhere in the province would be considered a fair thing to do, and I hope you will take this amendment very seriously and support it.
Mr Len Wood: Mr Gravelle has made a good description of what he sees happening in the north, and I noticed during your presentation there were a lot of long faces and sadness, looking on the Conservative members on the other side, so they probably will support this particular amendment.
In any event, I want to add a few comments to this particular section of the bill. We were up through the north and I spent time in Dryden and in Timmins, and the presentations that were being made were a plea for somebody that would listen. I can remember, I believe it was, the reeve of Chapleau calling the names around the table and saying: "How come the government doesn't have any representatives on the committee from northern Ontario? How come these people are all from the heavily populated area in southern Ontario and they're coming up here to northern Ontario and being very aggressive in their comments against the presenters?" I'm still getting feedback from that. Some of them felt they were being attacked by the government members in their presentation.
All they were doing was giving an emotional plea: "Please, don't keep slapping us around any more, as we've been slapped around for the last 18 months, by the reduction to municipalities of dollars, reductions to health care, reductions to education, further reductions coming up again." Some of the municipalities are saying, "We're down now. We don't have any more staff left. We've laid off all the staff. What do we do? Do we just declare bankruptcy in the municipalities?"
Now we're not going to have any proper representation at the provincial level. We had what we considered to be a minimum amount of 15 elected members from all different political parties over the years. It wasn't always just represented by Liberal or NDP members. I can recall a number of years ago where my riding was represented by two Conservative members. One represented the area for about 25 years. So it's not because most of these ridings are represented by Liberal or NDP now. I'm sure we've had former members of Parliament that came in front of the committee and made representation and said: "Please, don't ram this bill through the Legislature because it's going to reduce the amount of watchdogs that are there. It's going to create problems for the elected members."
It doesn't matter which political stripe you have when you leave Queen's Park on a Thursday night and you are heading into your riding but you end up in Ogoki or Peawanuck, and you get a snowstorm and you can't get out of that area until Sunday night or Monday morning, and you have to end up back down at Queen's Park, and in the process you leave your wife and a couple of small kids at home, probably for two weeks, or it could end up three weeks, at a time.
Now they're saying, "We're going to increase the area that these members are going to have to represent," and it's very unfair that this is happening. As I said earlier, it's not representation by population; it's strictly a matter of adding on more land mass to these particular areas. We know that the difference in representation, even with this bill, is going to be as much as 50,000 or 60,000 voters difference between some areas of southern Ontario and northern Ontario because, based on the census reports, we know that some areas are really exploding in population. The redistribution at the federal level is probably not going to happen for another 10 years, so you're never going to end up with representation by population, but in northern Ontario it's very difficult.
I lived in southern Ontario for quite a few years, and I know personally going around to visit just my family, brothers and sisters and cousins, I can drive through a large number of ridings in a day and still have time to have a visit with the family and get back to my home in the same day. You cannot do that in northern Ontario. When you're talking about the new riding of Timmins-James Bay, which is going to replace Cochrane North, it's 760 kilometres from one end to the other, and it's physically impossible to be able to do that in one day and be able to talk to people.
Some of the people have called me and have sent me faxes saying: "Does this saving mean I'm going to have water and sewers installed in the community so that we can get rid of the outdoor houses that we have right now for the treatment of sewage? Does that mean I won't have to go down to the river with a pail to pick up water that I need for cooking and eating?" If you're going to save $11 million in MPPs, are these conditions going to change for some of the people in the towns within my riding? Because these conditions exist.
When you go into some of the communities and you want to make a phone call, you end up with some areas where there are eight, nine, 10 or 12 people on a party line. You finish your conversation and you just keep the phone to your ear and you hear all the other phones hanging up at the same time. We had that in southern Ontario when I lived there on the farm for a number of years, but it still exists in a lot of parts of northern Ontario. The technology is not there.
Is some of the money that's being saved going to go back in to improve these conditions, or is it just going to go to add extra staff to Mike Harris's office at Queen's Park so he can send his paid workers out to spread his message? Others are saying, "If it's going to the tax break" -- which we think it is, a 30% tax break, borrowed money, about $5 billion a year -- "what benefits are we going to have by losing our representation, all that money going to a tax break?"
Are the conditions going to improve in some of these areas? You can't use a fax machine. You can't use the technology that you have by hooking up a computer to the lines because we don't have Bell Telephone as they have in southern Ontario. We have Northern Telephone and, in some cases, we still have municipalities that have their own telephone systems. Is that money going to improve those conditions and improve the telecommunications?
We've heard some of the members of the Conservative caucus saying, "You don't have to go out and meet with your constituents. Just talk to them on the Internet or get them to fax back and forth," and it does not work. We have to go out and meet with these people individually or as groups and, as I said before, talking to them on a party line when you know there are six or eight other families, whether it be teenagers or whether it be the parents themselves, listening on the line, you don't feel comfortable talking about personal problems that they need assistance with through the bureaucracy. These are concerns.
We're moving on this particular legislation to please one particular person in Ontario, and it seems like a lot of the other Conservative backbench members are saying, "If I don't agree with Mike Harris, am I ever going to get into cabinet?" So everybody seems to be saying: "Yes, it sounds good. It was a promise that was made during the election campaign."
It doesn't make any sense to attack northern Ontario or attack some of the rural areas in southern Ontario and slap these people around where you're going to end up with constituents farther and farther away from their member of Parliament. Now some of them feel that they're far enough away, probably too far as it is. This was the feeling of the Conservative caucus back in 1992 when they had 18 or 19 members in the Legislature. The resolutions that were coming forward said: "No, we don't want representation at Queen's Park strictly by population. We want to do it by geography and we want to make sure that that happens."
1130
I support the amendment that's being brought forward and I think, in all fairness, we should be getting support for this particular amendment because even if it only affects northern Ontario you're talking about $2.5 million. It doesn't make any sense to shut people out of the system and not allow them to have their voice with their MPP as often as they would like, all for the sake of saving $2.5 million or $3 million and, on the other hand, turning around and giving about $5 billion to the wealthiest people in Ontario, the directors of banks and the people who are making $1 million.
They get a big tax break, but the people who are making $20,000 or $25,000 a year, by the time they pay the increased user fees on garbage, the increase in the parking meters, the increase on all the user fees that are out there, the seven pennies that they get are used up along with some more. Even if they do get another 7.5% reduction in income tax on January 1, it's not going to compensate for the less representation that they're going to get, it's not going to put money in their pockets and it's not going to improve their living conditions.
Even when we were in government during the five years, I used to get into arguments with some of my own colleagues when they would say, "I want to get the sidewalk improved in a certain area and I want to get pavement." I'm saying: "You've got sidewalks? You've got pavement? You've probably got water and sewers running along the streets. In my area we have towns where you have a community tap out in the middle of the street that freezes up six months of the year." These are towns within northern Ontario. Are the savings you're saying you need going to go back in to improve the living conditions in some of these communities, or are they going to continue to exist the way they are?
Mr Young: Is this anything to do with the bill? Are we talking about Bill 81?
Mr Len Wood: I know some of the Conservative members may want to speak on this, so at this point I'll give them an opportunity to voice their concerns with Bill 81 and this particular amendment.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wood. Any further discussion on the proposed new schedule?
Mr Len Wood: Oh, silence on the other side.
The Chair: All those in favour of the proposed new schedule? All those against? That proposed new schedule is defeated.
Mr Gravelle: I just find it incredible that the government members would not respond in any manner at all to a very serious amendment. I just think it shows the absolute disregard and lack of respect they have for --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gravelle. Mr Grandmaître, did you have another proposal for the schedule?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes. I move that the Representation Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Provincial electoral districts
"1. (1) For the purpose of representation in the Legislative Assembly, Ontario is divided into the following electoral districts:
"1. The electoral districts of Huron, Bruce and Grey as described in the Representation Act.
"2. The electoral district of Simcoe West, consisting of the part of the county of Simcoe that is assigned to the new federal electoral district of Simcoe-Grey by the representation order of 1996 published under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Canada).
"3. The electoral district of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington, consisting of the county of Dufferin and the parts of the country of Wellington and the regional municipality of Peel that are assigned to the new federal electoral district of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey by the representation order referred to in paragraph 2.
"4. The remaining electoral districts of southern, eastern and northern Ontario, as described and named in the representation order referred to in paragraph 2.
"One member per district
"(2) One member shall be returned to the assembly for each electoral district."
Arguments that were espoused for the protection of the 15 ridings in northern Ontario also apply for the districts of Huron and Bruce and Grey. It seems like the members of the government are willing to listen but not add their voice or even improve what is before us, so I will let my colleague talk to the amendment. Also, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, who just left, would like to address this amendment.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm not going to comment on every one of them. I just want to generalize a little bit and I want to bring the attention of the members of the government side to the title of the bill itself, which deals with two particular questions. One deals with the boundaries of provincial electoral districts identical to those of their federal counterparts, the federal government, and subsequent to that to make some amendments to statutes concerning electoral representation. This one and most of the others deal exactly with that, changes to the electoral representation, and the motion Mr Grandmaître has just read deals exactly with that.
If we don't support something like that and also, as we have seen with the other amendments which have been proposed -- the government side has not proposed any amendments to the bill as it has been proposed by the government. Are we to assume that the title of the bill before us, before this committee and the House, is misleading, is confusing, that it is improper? I would like to hear, for our benefit, what changes the government is contemplating other than just saying, "We are going to make our districts the same as their federal counterparts." What are they proposing to change to make amendments to the electoral representation?
That is missing from the bill, and it's something we heard during the hearings but we haven't heard coming from the government side. I'm not saying that to blame the government side, because perhaps they have not been given that information themselves, Mr Chair. Perhaps you yourself have not been given that information, as we have not and the public has not. What are those changes the government is thinking of? If the government is not thinking of making any changes whatsoever other than making the boundaries identical, then I would say the bill is totally, improperly, inaccurately misleading in its intent. That's what it is.
We could have said, "We are going to make the changes to our boundaries the same as the federal counterparts," period. That's it. But the bill, as it is titled, goes further: "to make consequential amendments to statutes concerning electoral representation." How are we going to make those electoral changes to the representation?
I would hope we can find some understanding and sympathy from the government side. I'm addressing this particular part, and I have no idea where this is going to take us. Perhaps the members are willing to say: "Gee, we never thought about that. What are we proposing here? What kind of changes are we proposing to the electoral representation, as the title of the bill indicates?"
If there are no changes, nothing coming from the government side, we will have to conclude that it was just a façade, if you will, to introduce this bill, eliminate some of the representation, make it the same as the federal boundaries and just get on with it. Without expanding too long, I would seek a response from the government side. If I have missed something, either through the bill or the presentations, I would invite, I would kindly request some of the government side to tell us, to tell the committee, where those electoral representation changes will or might be made.
1140
Mr Len Wood: Once again we're talking about trying to get the attention of the government in maintaining some of the ridings the way they are right now as per counties. As was said earlier in a presentation, the counties Huron, Grey and Bruce that were there seemed to be in an ideal situation. When you start changing the boundaries to exactly what the federal government has done -- and I might point out that I'm not an expert on the hearings that took place in southern Ontario during the electoral commission process, but I know that the representation and the presentations that were made in northern Ontario they didn't pay any attention to.
If you talk to some of the advisers and people who were involved in the process, they were saying: "We have a problem in British Columbia because the population has grown and we have a problem in southern Ontario because the population has grown. In northern Ontario we'll jig around a little bit here and there, but northern Ontario is going to go from 11 to 10 members because we need one more member in southern Ontario in addition to the three they needed because of the population growth."
As I said before, the system was flawed. It would be ideal for this legislation to be pulled out of the House and have us go back and draw up something that fits Ontario, rather than using a pair of Ottawa shoes that don't fit and trying to get those shoes to fit Ontario. It doesn't work. It doesn't make any sense.
Even the short title they're putting on the bill, the Fewer Politicians Act, 1996, is a joke to all the people in northern Ontario, and I'm sure it's a joke in some of these other ridings. You put a name out there and say, "We're going to save a few million dollars." That's all it's about, just to save a few million dollars so it can all be put into the kitty either to add extra staff to Mike Harris and his group at Queen's Park or to give a tax break to the wealthy people. It doesn't make any sense.
It is an insult, and we've heard that time and time again. Even mayors and reeves -- it doesn't matter if it was northwestern Ontario or northeastern Ontario -- were saying: "Where are those few dollars going to go? Are they going back into the communities?" We had reductions last year in transfers to municipalities, to school boards, to hospitals. Now we're going to see less representation at the provincial level, at Queen's Park. When you reduce from 127 to 103, where's that money going to go? We see now that it's strictly going to go to the wealthy people.
And even though going to fewer politicians might not be taking money out of the constituents' pockets, it's taking their representation away. They're getting farther and farther away from their politician. The same thing is happening in some of these areas in rural Ontario.
As we were going through the hearings in Dryden and Timmins -- people are still phoning me and saying: "I thought I was making a fair representation and a fair presentation, and all of a sudden, I was being attacked by Conservative members on the committee. Why are they attacking me? Why were they not listening and taking notes and preparing for amendments to the legislation instead of mouthing off and attacking my presentation?"
The feeling is still there. Even the media is writing these stories in the newspapers saying there didn't seem to be anybody listening from the government benches on the committee.
I don't know what has to be done to make sure that Ontario is represented the way Ontarians feel, rather than an electoral boundaries commission that was set up for all of Canada. When you're redrawing the boundaries for all of Canada, it is different from doing it for just Ontario. It's different altogether. Nobody should be told, "We're taking into consideration Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, the Atlantic provinces, because they've got a small population and that's how the representation is going to be in Ottawa." We're not faced with those concerns when we're drawing up boundaries in Ontario.
I'm sure the people in rural southern Ontario are saying, "Why am I being bound by these federal boundaries?" that don't make any sense to a lot of them. There is no confusion. When people have a federal issue, they know who to call. When they have a provincial issue, they know exactly who to call. There is no confusion. There has never been any duplication or overlapping as far as representation is concerned. In my particular area, the federal member who's sitting there right now has been phoning my office looking for provincial issues to deal with because now he's got to run in a new federal riding which he isn't familiar with, and he's out there doing these things.
Mr Gravelle: They're not listening now.
Mr Len Wood: They're not listening, no. My colleague was not with us in Dryden or Timmins.
Mr Marchese: Sadly.
Mr Len Wood: It was sad to see some of these presenters who came forward and felt like they were being slapped across the face. In Timmins, we had people who came to the hearings and their knuckles were still white because Palladini had cut all the snowplowing and sanding, and it took them hours to get there, where it normally would only take them half an hour. They were just petrified, and some of the people did not make it because the roads were slippery, they were icy and --
Mr Gravelle: In Dryden, Iain Angus went off the road, went into the ditch.
Mr Len Wood: I didn't go into the ditch getting into Timmins, but I had to drive for two hours. Other people had to drive for up to three hours or three hours and a half. We had one person who made a presentation in Timmins: He drove from Thunder Bay to Hearst, he dropped his wife off, because she's getting chemo for cancer, and he got home at three o'clock in the morning, then at five o'clock in the morning he got up and drove to Timmins to make a presentation to the committee. During his presentation and the questions afterwards, he found it unbelievable that nobody seemed to be listening to him other than the NDP and the Liberal Party.
He said: "Why are we doing these things, putting my life at risk? I've already driven for eight hours in icy conditions from Thunder Bay, but I felt it was important, having represented that riding for seven years, to explain to the committee and maybe convince them that it's wrong, dead wrong, to increase the size of these ridings in northern Ontario so that the people are going to be farther and farther away from their representatives."
And who will be the watchdogs over the mining resources and the trees that are used for the sawmills, pulp mills, paper mills? Who are going to be the watchdogs over these resources if you're going to make politicians so busy and spread their time so thin that they can't see what's going on out there and not have the time?
We know that Mike Harris is not going to do it from Toronto, because he didn't feel northern Ontario was important. He moved out of northern Ontario and moved to Toronto. Northern Ontario has been neglected as far as Mike Harris is concerned.
1150
Chris Hodgson has done nothing for northern Ontario. We call him the deadbeat northern development and mines minister because he's done nothing for northern Ontario other than fly into Thunder Bay, fly into North Bay, do a press conference and fly back out. That's all that he's done in 18 months, and it's shameful that --
Mr Young: Do you remember what bill we're talking about?
Mr Len Wood: We're talking about Bill 81, fewer politicians. All of these things come into play, because if we don't have a government that cares about northern Ontario and it keeps slapping the faces of the constituents and reducing the number of politicians, reducing the transfer payments to health care, education and everything else, all for the sake of bringing in a tax break to the wealthiest people, as I said earlier, it's Robin Hood in reverse, and this bill is all part of it.
That money's not going to go back into northern Ontario, the money that they're going to take. It's not going to go back into these southern communities. The farmers and the small store owners are going to get very little benefit from a tax break, yet they're going to have their whole representation changed because of Mike Harris making a silly campaign promise, not ever expecting to get elected but making a promise that seemed to be popular out there: "If we reduce the politicians, if we have fewer politicians, if we give a 30% tax break to the wealthiest people in the province, this will get me elected."
Now that he's elected, we find out that even the finance minister is staying awake every night, scratching his head, figuring out how he's going to deliver on all these promises that were made. He's even going to have to postpone the announcement of the reduction in transfers to hospitals, schools and all that. He's probably going to postpone that until January or February, because some of the caucus members, I understand, are starting to get very vocal now and they're starting to attack Mike Harris, Ernie Eves and the cabinet ministers. I'm glad to hear that those things are happening but it's going to have to happen more. It's not happening on this particular bill but I'm sure it's going to be happening.
I know for a fact, having lived in southern Ontario for a number of years, that in some of the areas their representative is being followed around and shouted at on a regular basis. I saw a situation in the town of St Marys, in Perth county, where the Deputy Speaker was accused of not representing the area properly by refusing to speak up to stop a hospital from closing down. So people are being vocal and they're speaking up. They're telling them very clearly: "Don't you come back to us and ask us to re-elect you, because you're finished. We asked you for representation, to speak out on our behalf, and you refused to do it. That's it. You're gone." I know from my relatives and friends in these particular areas that people are starting to speak up.
In this particular piece of legislation, it seems we're not able to get the Conservative members. I'll be asking for your assistance, Mr Chair, maybe during lunch, to try to talk some sense into these people so that we can get some good amendments through, so that democracy is not destroyed in Ontario, and throughout northern Ontario, southern Ontario and rural Ontario it's protected. Thank you, Mr Chair, for being so patient.
The Chair: Any further discussion on the proposed new schedule?
Mr Stewart: Mr Chairman, on a point of privilege --
Mr Gravelle: Oh my God, they're awake.
Mr Stewart: I'll tell you, on a point of something, because I'm getting real fed up with getting insulted here on what happened up north. I would like for you, sir, to show me your notes that you took up there. You did absolutely nothing. You didn't have a bloody piece of paper in front of you. For us to say that we attacked people, I don't care what the rest of the committee did, but for me to attack people -- I did not, and I take exception to that remark being made from you, sir.
Mr Len Wood: On the same point of privilege --
The Chair: It's really not a point of privilege, but he did have the right to make a comment.
Mr Len Wood: As I said during the hearings, when we have written presentations that are being made, I took my own notes. There was a lot of concern. People felt they were being attacked.
Mr Stewart: Where are they? Why aren't they at this meeting?
Mr Len Wood: I have all the written presentations. I have my notes.
Mr Stewart: Let's see them.
Mr Len Wood: This is the exact attitude we had in Dryden and in Timmins and in some of the other areas: attack after attack from the Conservative backbenchers against the presenters.
Mr Stewart: No, it isn't, and you know it.
Mr Len Wood: They were not listening and they don't care, and now we hear it again here today.
Mr Stewart: Totally ridiculous.
The Chair: Any further discussion on the proposed new schedule? All those in favour? All those opposed? This proposed new schedule is defeated.
Is there any discussion or any amendments to section 1 of the schedule? Any discussion on section 1 of the schedule? All those in favour of section 1 of the schedule? Opposed? Section 1 of the schedule is carried.
Section 2 of the schedule. Are there any amendments?
Mr Grandmaître: It being very close to 12 of the clock, Mr Chair, do you think we should come back at 3:30?
The Chair: We may as well at least present the amendment, and then when the bell rings we can --
Mr Grandmaître: Very good. I move that section 2 of the Representation Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Exception, Oriole
"(3) Despite subsection (1), the name of the provincial electoral district corresponding to the federal district of Don Valley East shall be `Oriole' rather than `Don Valley East'."
I can read you nine pages of Hansard back in 1975 as to why the name Oriole was chosen and why it should remain Oriole. I understand that the present member, Mrs Caplan, has spoken to the Honourable David Johnson about this name change -- I shouldn't say this name change, but going against the proposal. Apparently there was this understanding and it was agreed that it should remain Oriole. I don't know what you people have heard from Mr Johnson or your House leader, but I'm anxious to listen to your comments, if you have any.
The Chair: Any further comment on the proposed change?
Mr Sergio: We'd like to have your support on this amendment.
The Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Any further amendments to section 2 of the schedule? Shall section 2 of the schedule carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 2 of the schedule is carried.
Section 3 of the schedule. Are there any amendments?
Mr Grandmaître: I move that section 3 of the Representation Act, 1996, as set out in the schedule of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Hearings, resolution of Assembly
"(2) Subsection (1) applies only if,
"(a) after proclamation of the draft representation order under the federal act, public hearings into the impact of the adoption of the new electoral districts under subsection (1) are held in northern Ontario, eastern Ontario, southwestern Ontario and the Toronto area; and
"(b) after the public hearings are completed, the Assembly passes a resolution confirming that subsection (1) should apply."
Again, we would like to have the input of the public on the decision of this committee and also of the government. I think I don't have to repeat what was said most of the morning. I agree with some boundary changes but not necessarily the federal boundaries. I think we are strong enough. This is a great province and we should have our own boundaries, not duplicate the federal boundaries. I hope the government members will support this amendment.
The Chair: Any further discussion on this proposed amendment? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Any further amendments to section 3 of the schedule? All those in favour of section 3 of the schedule? Opposed? Section 3 of the schedule is carried.
Section 4 of the schedule. Are there any amendments? All those in favour of section 4 of the schedule? All those opposed? Section 4 of the schedule is carried.
Section 5 of the schedule. Are there any amendments? Shall section 5 of the schedule carry? Opposed? Section 5 of the schedule is carried.
Shall the schedule carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The schedule is carried.
Mr Marchese: On a different day, I would have spoken to that.
The Chair: We now have to go back to a section we stood down. Section 3 was stood down at the request of Mr Grandmaître.
The bells are about to ring. We will recess until 3:30 this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1201 until 1611.
The Chair: We're back in business. When we last left our friends discussing clause by clause of Bill 81 we were returning to section 3, which we've stood down at the request of Mr Grandmaître. I understand he has an amendment.
Mr Grandmaître: Didn't I read the amendment into the record?
The Chair: I do not believe so, no.
Mr Grandmaître: Then I'll read it again.
I move that the following changes be made to section 44.1 and 44.2 of the Election Finances Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill:
"1. The definition of `anniversary date' in subsection 44.1(2) is struck out and the following substituted:
"`Impact date' means the day that is one year and 180 days after the proclamation date;
"2. Subsections 44.1(5), (6) and (10) and subsection 44.2(1) are amended by striking out `anniversary date' and substituting in each case `impact date.'"
The reason for this amendment: As you know, it changes the timing of the dissolution of the old riding associations. Instead of being dissolved automatically one year after the new federal boundaries come into force, January 8, 1997, the old riding associations would be automatically dissolved after one year.
This will give all parties just a little extra time -- I should have said a year and a half, 18 months -- to create new riding associations and change the party constitution. I think it's very important. It still means that the new ridings can be created earlier and the old ridings voluntarily dissolved before the year and a half deadline. It's a very simple request, a very simple amendment. We simply want to give the old and the new riding associations more time to be more effective.
The Chair: Any further comment on the amendment? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Any further amendments to section 3? Shall section 3 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 3 is carried.
Shall the title of the bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The title of the bill is carried.
Shall the bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Shall I report the bill to the House? All those in favour? Opposed? Okay.
Mr Sergio, I understand, has a motion he would like us to deal with.
Mr Sergio: I move: The standing committee on general government requests that the government House leader refer all subsidiary issues related to the implementation of Bill 81 involving changes to the standing orders, the Legislative Assembly Act, the Election Finances Act and the Election Act to a special committee of the Legislative Assembly with equal representation from all parties. These issues include, but are not limited to: new election finance limits; new members' office support and communications budget; additional office and support budget allocations for northern and large-riding MPPs; new caucus budget allocations; definition of official party status; size and makeup of standing committees.
The standing committee on general government requests that recommendations on all of these issues be put before the House and implemented within 12 months of the commencement of Bill 81. Changes would take effect on the day of the election of a new Parliament.
I think the motion speaks for itself and I don't want to dwell too long, in the hope of not losing some of the support I have on the other side.
Mr Gravelle: It appears unanimous.
Mr Sergio: It may be unanimous at this stage, so I wouldn't want to --
Interjections.
Mr Sergio: I thought I'd try, you know. I think, Mr Chair, this is, what would I call it, a very innocuous motion that would benefit every member that is in that particular situation. It is to benefit especially, as the motion says, some of those ridings, as the members have heard and have agreed, that will not be so easily manageable, especially the ones up north. It's not our members or the NDP side; it could be your members as well who may be in those predicaments and I think we should make provision to see that those members will indeed be given the opportunity to serve the public as well as those in the southern end of our province. In a nutshell, that is the reason for the motion, and I would hope that we find some common ground, common sense and common understanding.
Mr Len Wood: Having travelled through the north, I fully expect that we're going to get support for this particular motion that's come forward because this was some of the comment that was made from a lot of the members there, that extra resources were needed maybe for some of the big ridings that need representation where the member would have a hard time getting around. One of the ways of doing it would be to have an all-party committee with equal representation sit down and work out a plan before the election so the Conservative caucus does not end up in the same jackpot that Kim Campbell ended up with in the last election, where you only have one member re-elected and one new member and they lose party status.
The Chair: Kim who?
Mr Len Wood: We can see this happening with the financial statement and the questions that are coming up there right now. It's like my grandson; I give him a tool to take his bicycle apart and then he says: "Granddad, I tore it all apart but now I don't know how to put it back together."
This is Mike and his group. They've torn everything apart in Ontario and now they don't know how to put it back together. They're going to postpone the financial impact and the amount of money they're going to transfer to the different ridings. I listened attentively. I didn't take as many notes as Mr Stewart has said he took. He wrote a whole book of notes, and yet the only comment he's been able to make today so far is to attack me for not taking as many notes as he has.
Mr Marchese: He wrote a book but he didn't listen.
Mr Len Wood: Yes, exactly. That's all that happened up there. If you wanted me to send out a copy of your book to all the presenters who were there, I'll also explain to them how quiet you've been in the clause-by-clause hearings. He wasn't able to speak up on their behalf because Mike Harris has the throttle on him. I can see all the necks stretching there; if they do speak up, there's going to be a problem. I think with that I've made enough comments on the record now, Mr Chair. Thank you for your patience.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I appreciate having the opportunity to speak to something that we didn't already talk to during the hearings, and Mr Sergio makes a good point.
I must admit that I have two concerns with the motion as it's drafted, Mr Sergio, and the first is, a number of the things you talk about, if I look at your last line, "Changes would take effect on the day of the election of a new Parliament" -- clearly anything to do with the Election Act I would have thought you would want to take place before the election. I think that's a substantive problem with the motion.
1620
Let me just comment, if I may, and if I make any errors as a new member in what I recount as my understanding, I hope someone with greater experience corrects me. First off, the Board of Internal Economy, on an annual basis, reviews the members' budgets and all aspects of the budget. I would expect as a matter of course that all three parties would have their House leaders and their representatives on the Board of Internal Economy make such representations as are necessary to address the issues that we heard in the north about greater travel. I think that would be a very reasonable thing, but I would suggest the forum is already in place and it's the Board of Internal Economy.
Secondly, the aspects of the election finances are also done with equal representation, it's my understanding. I think there are two representatives from each party on the Commission on Election Finances. I know that our party will be making representations to them and I would think that your party as well would be well advised to do that.
I guess the third thing that comes to mind is that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly is already charged with overseeing all of the topics that aren't covered by those first two headings I mentioned. What I would be prepared to say is, speaking personally, and I think I can say on behalf of my colleagues, that we would welcome the opportunity to review all of those things.
I think there was one thing in your original draft that isn't before us here today -- forgive me, it is there; I had missed it. I believe the standing orders themselves say that only the Legislative Assembly committee can review them.
For those substantive reasons, while I can't support this motion, I would be prepared to put on the record that we will be prepared to enter into a dialogue on every topic you've put on there, and in those three respective forums I think you will find that we will reflect what we heard in the north. I genuinely believe that we have those mechanisms, and if all three parties go in there in good faith, I think we'll be able to accomplish all that needs to be done to make sure that there's still a balance in how those dollars are allocated.
Mr Grandmaître: At least I'm pleased that the government is willing and ready to take a second look at what is being proposed, but I'd like to remind Mr Gilchrist that this bill was, let's say, dreamed up by three independent people, Mitch Patten representing your party, Barbara Sullivan representing our party and Tony Silipo representing the NDP.
What we are suggesting today is, why can't we go back to the very same people who came up with this bill and give them 12 months and say, "Come back and see us 12 months from now and tell us what you think are the possibilities financially and so on and so forth." Let the same people work, the same people who had the experience of drafting this bill -- well, not drafting this bill but dreaming it.
I don't know if the government members would agree to this, but I can tell you that the three House leaders have talked about that possibility. I think it's up to the members of the government to pursue this with Mr Johnson and get this independent committee to work on this motion.
Mr Len Wood: I appreciate your comments, Mr Gilchrist, on that and I take you at your word, that there's going to be some effort put into it. I'm not going to be very long, but I would point out that I've talked to a lot of MPs at the federal level since the last election and they were under the impression that even though the Conservative caucus did not get the 12 members they needed in writing to be able to speak and have question period and this and that, nor did the NDP get that status, it was done at the discretion of the Speaker before.
When the Social Credit Party was there, they had five members and they went through the rotation of the statements and questions and this and that, but it depends; if you leave it at the discretion of the Speaker, no matter which political party is there, it might not happen. I think it would be a sad situation if we end up with the same thing that is happening in Ottawa, where traditional parties that have been around for 40 or 50 years, because of GST or free trade or a desire on the part of the populace to make sure that all recognition is wiped out, you end up with 98 out of 99 seats in Ontario going to one political party and there's no voice for anybody else there. I think it would be sad if we allowed that to happen in Ontario, knowing in advance that it could happen very easily. One party could be wiped out, with only Mike and Ernie coming back. It looks like this is going to happen right now. I'm speaking on your behalf. You people should have a voice in the next Parliament.
The Chair: I'm sure the government members appreciate your concern.
Mr Marchese: Just three points: I support the motion. I think it's a useful motion. Mr Gilchrist raises some good points about the fact that the Board of Internal Economy covers most of these -- not all of them; I think you pointed that out as well. Part of why it's useful to have a special committee is to deal with some of the issues that fall from Bill 81. My sense is that some of you would agree there are some areas of concern around this, even though you're committed to the bill. Some of these members could use some extra assistance, no doubt. The definition of the official party status has to be looked at. I think you agree with that.
Maybe you've been given direction to oppose it. I'm not sure.
Mr Gilchrist: No.
Mr Marchese: If you haven't been given direction, then you could probably support a motion that says rather than listing all of these, the motion could look at some matters that flow from Bill 81 and that a special committee should do that. The reason I support that is because when you get into a Board of Internal Economy kind of politics, it can be very partisan, by and large. The point of having a special committee is not to be partisan but rather to find some ways in which we can deal with the consequences that flow from Bill 81 that I think can be dealt with less politically, be less partisan.
While the Board of Internal Economy would handle most of these, it can't handle all of them. I'm not sure it hurts you, necessarily, to agree to establish or support that a special committee look at items such as size and makeup of standing committees, definition of official party status, new caucus budget allocation based on Bill 81. It doesn't bind you, but I think it's a very useful and practical thing for us all to be looking at because we're all affected by this. I wonder whether you might consider that.
Mr Gilchrist: I don't profess, after 17 months, to be at all expert in this but I wonder whether it might be equally effective if we could all go away and at some point in the future, on the assumption that the bill passes through third reading, come back and have a discussion around this table about the strategies you would see in play.
My problem is very specific. The way this resolution is worded precludes any of the things you'd want to do because it won't take effect till the day of the next election.
Interjection.
Mr Gilchrist: No, but we're being asked about the resolution before us here today. I would rather give you an undertaking that we are certainly prepared to discuss all these aspects. You have agreed that there are some where the proper forum is the Board of Internal Economy. If some aren't in there, if it's at all appropriate -- I know at resources we've had discussions that aren't necessarily related to a specific bill -- I would be quite prepared to suggest that might be something we would all want to do, bring back a strategy. If you've got some suggestions on the kind of spending differential, if you've got some suggestions on what the magic number --
Mr Marchese: I think we should talk.
Mr Gilchrist: My point is that your view obviously would be different from the Liberals' and from ours, at least at the starting point. I think we should each have an opportunity to lay out our case. If and when it becomes political, I would agree with you at that point there may be a mechanism we need to break the logjam.
1630
But I would prefer, given that we have a structure in place right now, to leave this room with an understanding that we will deal in good faith on all these issues. If the board is not the proper forum, then I personally am prepared to come back here and at least put all our positions on the table and let that take it where it may. We certainly have a lot of time. It's not like we're under the gun in the next --
Mr Len Wood: You're not expecting a snap election?
Mr Gilchrist: I think you can safely assume, after the success Mr Peterson had, that will not be one of the historical precedents we follow.
Mr Grandmaître: Don't try it.
Mr Gilchrist: I'm sure my colleagues opposite would echo that.
The Chair: Mr Sergio, do you have any further comment?
Mr Sergio: I'm encouraged by the comments, seriously, Mr Chair, and the way the motion has been drafted, it is not to be political; it is plain and simple the way it is. If we wanted to make it political we could have said, "Let's do it immediately," or whatever. The reason for the 180 days is to give this committee plenty of time after the next election. That is the purpose. It is so innocuous that it really doesn't bother anyone. We can only get some benefits after we see, if this is going to pass, the implementation. When we start to have some feedback, then this committee can work out the glitches or whatever they want to attack.
I'm quite receptive at this stage to say it has some merits for all concerned and that we should look at it in due course with much more time instead of at this particular time. I certainly don't want to come back and spend next week dealing with this thing here. But since we seem to have some common ground and there are some benefits in discussing all or most of the items mentioned in the motion here, perhaps we could defer it to a later time -- I don't know if it's appropriate; I have no idea how the committee works, if there is a subcommittee -- and include in the discussion what's proposed in this motion. This way if you want to discuss some, some not, approve it, not approve it, changes, whatever, I would be amenable to deferring it to a later date, to a later time, and have the committee attack this with whatever else may be on the table.
The Chair: Based on what I have heard, there certainly seems to be consensus that these issues need to be dealt with by somebody. The question is, who is the proper body to deal with them and at what time frame? Is everybody in agreement with the fact that we just defer any action on this until some time in the future, as suggested by the mover?
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chair, you say "some time in the future." I realize that we have three or three and a half years before the next election but I would like to get some kind of commitment that within the next six months we will meet again or that at least the government House leader will consider it. But to say forever, well then --
Interjections.
Mr Sergio: About six months.
Mr Grandmaître: I don't know if six months is reasonable.
The Chair: Is it a six-month time frame? Within six months? Is that acceptable?
Mr Len Wood: Just to add to that, I think it's very important that all three parties make representation to their House leaders so that the House leaders try to get this in as quickly as possible and we can deal with it so that it doesn't go beyond the six months or drag on and then we're faced with election and we don't have anything resolved.
Mr Marchese: If we put it on the agenda for discussion, it will assure us that it will come. It's a matter of the Chair at some point bringing it to our attention so the matter gets discussed.
Mr Len Wood: The subcommittee or whatever.
The Chair: We've agreed that this issue will be revisited within six months and we're asking each caucus to have some discussions with their House leader about the issue. Is that the essence of what we said? Is everybody in agreement with that?
Mr Gilchrist: I'm told by the clerk it would be in order at this time, seeing that we still have an hour and a half, to move that we return to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 53, at section 12, where we left off.
Interjections.
Mr Gilchrist: If I could speak very briefly to the motion, I was told the only reason it was suspended is because government bills take precedence, that otherwise it would have been heard as the first thing of our meeting on November 7.
The Chair: Okay, Mr Gilchrist --
Mr Marchese: If he had discussed that possibility, we would have been prepared for it, but we're not.
Interjection: We're almost finished anyway.
Mr Gilchrist: It's just the title of the act.
The Chair: Mr Gilchrist has moved that we return to Bill 53. It is not on the agenda, but if it is the wish of the committee, then we would need to take a short recess for the clerk to get his papers together on it.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, what do we have left on that bill?
Mr Gilchrist: Just the short title.
Mr Marchese: Oh, yes, all right. Is that the loonie bill again? What number is that?
The Chair: Since we just have the question of the title of the bill to deal with, do we need a recess?
Mr Marchese: No recess. Let's deal with it now.
Mr Stewart: Just before we leave the bill we've been dealing with, I would like to offer a personal thanks to my colleagues across the way, the NDP members of this committee, for their support of this bill, Bill 81, because they did not table an amendment.
LABOUR UNION AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE DES SYNDICATS ET DES ASSOCIATIONS D'EMPLOYÉS
Consideration of Bill 53, An Act to Promote Full Financial Accountability of Labour Unions and Employees Associations to Their Members / Projet de loi 53, Loi visant à promouvoir la responsabilité financière complète des syndicats et des associations d'employés envers leurs membres.
The Chair: Returning to clause-by-clause of Bill 53, the final questions: Shall section 12 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 12 is carried.
Shall the title of the bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? All those in favour? Opposed? Agreed.
We stand adjourned until the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1638.