Hansard Transcript 1986-Jan-06 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members to join me in welcoming the third group of legislative pages to serve in the First Session of the 33rd Parliament. They are as follows:

Paula Arrindell, Downsview; Elise Brady, Burlington South; Dawn Brodack, Port Arthur; Michael Buckborough, Niagara Falls; Mark Crow, Wellington South; Kip Daynard, Perth; Susan Docherty, Leeds; Ali Ghiassi, Lakeshore; Amy James, Simcoe Centre; Justin Kropp, Hamilton Centre; Anjeanette LeMay, Oakville; Tifanie Levy, Kingston and the Islands;

Kimberly MacDonald, Cochrane South; Christine Makuch, Lambton; Jaime Marasigan, Scarborough North; Annamie Paul, Brampton; Mark Popov, Essex North; Francis Savage, Humber; Andrew Sneyd, Dufferin-Simcoe; Andrea Stach, Fort William; Patrick St. Onge, Sudbury East, and David Willer, London South. Please join me in welcoming these pages.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOB EVALUATION PLAN

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I wish to inform the House that the Management Board of Cabinet and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union have signed a memorandum of understanding whereby the union has agreed to recommend to its members a new job evaluation plan for office and clerical jobs in the public service.

The new plan, when implemented, will be of benefit to many employees in the office services and clerical services categories. Representing more than 14,000 employees, these categories are primarily made up of secretaries, clerks, typists and receptionists, jobs that traditionally have been filled by women.

The plan reflects the changing work environment within government. It also reflects a concern on the part of both this government and the union to simplify and strengthen job evaluation systems in the Ontario public service. This simplification of the job evaluation system should in turn make it easier for this government to achieve one of our primary objectives, namely, implementation of pay equity in the public service.

I am looking forward to ratification of the proposed plan, a process which will take approximately six weeks to complete. Until the ratification process has been completed by the members of OPSEU, I am not at liberty to report details of the plan. However, it is my sincere hope that the plan will be ratified by the union's membership, following which I will have an opportunity to make a detailed report to this House.

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The advent of the equality rights provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has cast a new light on many of the laws and practices in our society. The debate that has been precipitated by the charter is truly encouraging. This continuing review of Canada's legal framework will lead to significant reform as well as the affirmation of important social values.

One established employment practice which is under scrutiny as a result of the charter is mandatory retirement. The Ontario Human Rights Code affords protection against discrimination in employment until 65 years of age, after which individuals may be required to retire. The opponents of mandatory retirement have submitted that the limit on age protection in the code deprives individuals of their right to equality under section 15 of the charter.

Counter-arguments have been made justifying mandatory retirement as a socially desirable practice, permitting individuals to leave the work force with dignity and facilitating effective personnel planning and employment opportunity for younger workers. In early jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of Ontario has held that mandatory retirement is a reasonable limit to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter.

But the legal analysis is only one aspect of the issue. Clearly, any decision to alter existing retirement practices would have profound social, economic and labour-market consequences. Accordingly, the government has decided to establish a task force to examine existing laws and practices that permit mandatory retirement at the age of 65 and to assess the implications of any change in the existing laws which would restrict or prohibit mandatory-retirement practices.

Specifically, the task force will be asked to consider the conflicting interests of older and younger workers; the appropriateness of automatic nondiscretionary practices flowing from pension plans and/or collective agreements; the ramifications of the abolition of mandatory retirement for personnel and human resources planning practices, and the funding and design consequences for pension plans should mandatory retirement be prohibited. A public dialogue will assist the government in addressing this important issue.

I am very pleased to announce that Dr. Ronald Ianni has agreed to serve as the chairman of the task force. Dr. Ianni, a distinguished academic, is the president of the University of Windsor and formerly the dean of its faculty of law. He is an individual of strong social commitment, having served on a number of community organizations. He is a member of the advisory board of the Hospice of Windsor; he was co-chairman of the mayor's committee on services for the unemployed, and he was appointed chairman of the Windsor community adjustment committee by the federal government to implement its industrial labour adjustment program for Windsor and Essex county in 1981 to 1983.

I know Dr. Ianni will bring great skill and enthusiasm to his duties as chairman of the task force. I expect to be announcing other members of the task force in the very near future.

SUNDAY TRADING

Hon. Mr. Keyes: A number of questions have been raised about the government's intention with respect to the Retail Business Holidays Act. Questions have been raised as to the status of the case now before the Supreme Court of Canada, the prospective policy pending that appeal and the government's intention with respect to any review of the present legislation.

The legislation involves a number of ministries, including those of the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, Labour, and Municipal Affairs.

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a number of convictions under the present act and generally upheld the constitutionality of the Retail Business Holidays Act. The appeals by the convicted merchants to the Supreme Court of Canada will be heard as soon as possible and an application will be made to have the matter heard early in March.

Pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the police have been advised to continue to enforce the law and lay charges. Crown attorneys have been advised to take all appropriate legal steps in the prosecution of these matters.

It is unlikely that a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada will be handed down before early summer.

2:10 p.m.

The present law involves questions of widespread social and economic issues that affect people throughout the entire province. There is a need for a thorough, public review of these issues. However, it would be premature to begin this review before the Supreme Court of Canada judgement that will determine the legal validity and constitutional framework of any provincial legislation in this area.

Therefore, after receipt of the Supreme Court of Canada judgement, I propose to refer the entire issue of holiday closing to a committee of the Legislative Assembly to undertake a review of the issue, providing the opportunity for full, public discussion and the expression of the entire range of public concern directly to the members of this assembly.

In the meantime, I invite the municipalities to consider their roles in this issue and the various options available to them. They are free to consider the options open to them under the current legislation.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention that the Honourable Robert Kaplan, a former Solicitor General for Canada, is in the gallery? I know the members would like to join in welcoming him.

PRESS REPORT

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to correct a statement that was attributed to me last week by the press over the wire. A report came out saying Dave Cooke, MPP for Windsor-Riverside, opposed sections of legislation that had been passed dealing with drunk drivers, particularly the one-year licence suspension.

I would like to point out that the letter criticizing government policy was sent out by the government member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), not me.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In the absence of affordable liability insurance coverage, many municipalities, including many smaller communities, have indicated they will now be forced to self-insure. The recent court award against the city of Brampton was in excess of $6 million. Can the minister explain to the House how municipalities the size of Listowel, Kingsville or Goderich, where the entire municipal budgets do not exceed $6 million, will be able to pay such a settlement if they find themselves in the same circumstances as Brampton?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The Leader of the Opposition has brought forward a problem we have been addressing for some time. He should be aware that various groups are meeting to try to resolve it. There is no doubt a $6-million award would cause a great problem for any municipality.

We are hoping to establish a pool whereby the larger municipalities can pool money to help the smaller municipalities. Very shortly, I will be announcing a task force that will refer recommendations back to an all-party committee on how to solve this problem.

At present, the self-insurance process seems to be working not only for municipalities but for school boards. It is a solution with which I am not happy, but we are dealing with the problem in a way that, in the short term, is working. It is not satisfactory but it is working.

Mr. Grossman: We are six days into the new year. It remains to be seen whether the alleged system the minister has in place is working.

I think the question is not, are we going to wait until there is an award, until a task force reports, which, like testing Ontario wine, could take six months or a year? What are we going to do for these municipalities, some of which want to go out today and get additional coverage? Specifically, is the government prepared to say to those municipalities that if they can get insurance, the province will cover the cost of the increased premiums, or is the minister prepared to say to them that it will immediately establish a government liability pool?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am not prepared to make a commitment to either of them. We will do what we are continuing to do. We will monitor the situation and, as a problem develops, we will address it.

Mr. Grossman: Is the minister suggesting that he is saying to the municipalities, whose entire year's budget could be eliminated by one award, that they should go on a wish and a prayer, and if there is a settlement, the province will perhaps come in and help to some degree afterwards? Is that the circumstance he is prepared to tell municipalities and school boards to live with, or is he going to take some action today to alleviate their concerns?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We have taken action. We have met with the municipalities and the school boards. At present, there is not a school board or municipality that is not covered. When we have that problem, we will address it.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I wonder whether he could update the House on the offer made by the Can-Car employees' group in Thunder Bay to purchase the Urban Transportation Development Corp.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am aware of a letter that I think was received by the ministry just this morning. I understand there was some involvement with the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). There is no offer.

Mr. Hennessy: What about me?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I have not yet received a communication from the member for Thunder Bay, but I am sure it is in transit.

Mr. Hennessy: Fort William, not Thunder Bay.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Sorry about that.

There is only a letter indicating some degree of interest and nothing further.

Mr. Grossman: On December 19, a communication was made between the lawyers acting for the Can-Car employees' group and Mark Larcatt-Smith, assistant deputy minister, office of the special adviser to the Premier (Mr. Peterson). That letter was sent on December 19, and I presume it was received shortly thereafter by the now famous John Kruger.

I wonder whether the minister could give an assurance to this House that no offer to sell will be approved or signed by the government or anyone on the government's behalf until the Can-Car employees have been given a full and complete opportunity to make a complete offer to purchase.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The Leader of the Opposition is correct. The letter was dated December 19, but as I said in my previous answer, it was received in Toronto only on Friday. The answer is yes, we will certainly entertain any complete offer from the organization in that letter.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister give his assurance that he will inform the group seeking to make this offer that it has full access, the same access Bombardier and other competitors have had? Would he mind making public, because it has not been made public, what it is he is offering for sale?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I give the member the assurance that any interested purchaser, whether it be the employees of Can-Car or any other interested purchaser, will have equal access and opportunity to acquire the full assets of the corporation in question and that the member for Port Arthur will be the first to hear about it.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Hennessy: I would like to remind the minister that I am a member of the Legislature and I would appreciate some courtesy in that respect. It is all right to have an accord, but he should not show it so publicly.

I say to the minister and the Premier that the employees and management are a group of people who are concerned that if the plant is sold to Bombardier, they will lose their jobs. I have to agree with them to some extent because I do not think Quebec is going to put up money to provide jobs for Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Hennessy: I would like to ask the minister to keep that in mind, to protect the jobs in Thunder Bay and Fort William, and in Kingston and these other areas concerned, because they do not know where they are going at present. Will he keep that in mind?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: If I follow the question, I assure the honourable member he will get all the respect he so richly deserves from this minister, and we will make every effort, as we have said repeatedly, to ensure jobs are maintained in Thunder Bay.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and concerns the same matter first raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman).

It is of great concern to me that in the midst of an insurance crisis affecting our municipalities, all the minister can think to do is to hope and to meet and to monitor. Does he not realize that as of today, January 6, the cities of Toronto, Etobicoke and York, the borough of East York and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto have no liability insurance and that they are self-insured? Is he not concerned about those municipalities' budgets? Is he not concerned about the property taxpayers --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister.

Mr. Reville: -- and is he not concerned about individuals who may be exposed to risk in the city today?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am very concerned about it. The honourable member should realize that all those municipalities had an option to have insurance but they were not happy with the rates. They made the decision that they would rather self-insure than pay the rates and look after it that way. If the member had been noticing some of the premiums, he would have seen some of the municipalities were being asked to pay $400,000 for $1 million worth of coverage, and they decided they would rather self-insure than pay those premiums. They had the option, and they have made the conscious decision to self-insure.

Mr. Reville: The minister will know it is of little moment to cite back the details of the problem as a solution to the problem. Will the minister not immediately pick up the phone and summon the Association of Municipalities of Ontario or leading municipalities and work out with them a municipal public liability insurance program, to which they and this government will contribute?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) tells me he has been doing this, and they are meeting next week. We have been having ongoing discussions with them. This is not something that happened today or yesterday. We have been aware of this for some time, and we are working on it.

Mr. Grossman: Perhaps the minister can tell us whether he is now taking the position, pursuant to his last answer, that all municipalities have coverage, which was his answer to me a few minutes ago, or is he taking the position that some municipalities do not have coverage and that it is their problem because they would not pay the premiums? Which is his position?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: My position is that all municipalities and all school boards are functioning. If they do not have coverage -- they either have insurance or they have decided to self-insure

Mr. Davis: School boards cannot sell insurance.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: No. They either have insurance or they have decided to self-insure. It is self-insurance, but it is insurance.

Mr. Reville: Surely the minister will know that one catastrophic loss will wipe out the entire fund the Metro insurance group has set aside for self-insurance. Will he tell us what day this program will be in place to protect municipalities, property taxpayers and individuals who are exposed to risk? I want to know when the program is going to be in place.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I cannot tell the member the exact date. I can tell him that AMO is meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs next week, and we will come to a resolution.

Mr. Foulds: I have a second question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Can the minister tell us what concrete and practical steps he and his government will take immediately to protect Ontario motorists from the huge increases in auto insurance premiums they face this year?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The automobile premium rates are a factor of the marketplace, and at this point we have no intention of interfering with that marketplace.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell us why the marketplace in the province is such that the Ontario motorist faces a whopping increase of 15 to 25 per cent -- one of his own officials qualifies that as "soaring" -- while other jurisdictions in this country, such as Manitoba, are able to increase services to the consumer and hold the line on premium increases?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The premiums are set by insurance experience. Anyone would realize that the chances of having an automobile accident in Metropolitan Toronto or in any other builtup area in Ontario are far greater than those of having an automobile accident in some northern community in Manitoba. As a result, Ontario has a higher rate only because it has a higher risk factor. That again is a factor of the marketplace.

Mr. Runciman: The minister says this is simply a factor of the marketplace and he is prepared to sit back and let this kind of price increase be inflicted upon the consumers of the province. Is he not prepared to initiate an investigation or to take some action, for a change?

Mr. Speaker: Was the minister able to hear that?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: No.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked whether the minister heard the question; he said he did not.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: The member does not wish to place it again?

Mr. Foulds: If it is a factor of the marketplace and a factor of high density, can the minister tell me why the rates in northern Ontario and in Kitchener are higher than those in Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I just told the member the reason: Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton are not in Ontario.

Mr. Grossman: I will ask another question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As the minister has indicated, there was a lot of advance warning of this problem; on November 24, I raised the case of the Ontario Motor Coach Association, whose members were predicting bankruptcy because of the skyrocketing insurance costs. I pointed out at the time that some of those increases would be as high as 1,000 per cent.

I asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) whether he would be kind enough to meet the Ontario Motor Coach Association, which was very concerned about this upcoming problem. The association flagged it and the minister was aware of it. Can the minister explain why, to date, the Premier has not met with these people and why no action has been taken to help the motor coach association?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I respectfully submit that the honourable member should address the question to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the minister wish to redirect the question? No?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member did not ask me a question, and then I redirected it. The member asked me why the Premier had not responded. I do not understand why I should have to answer for the Premier.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: The Premier has to answer for the minister. Fair is fair.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I understand the minister to say he wanted it redirected?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: No.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

Mr. Rowe: Give him a multiple choice. Maybe he can answer that.

Mr. Grossman: He cannot have more than three choices.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: The minister is doing very well in his valiant attempt to help the Premier out of this problem. When he does get a chance to talk with the Premier, will the minister ask him why the president of the Ontario Motor Coach Association wrote on September 18, on November 8 --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Monday is laugh day.

Mr. Grossman: The minister should listen to this one. On November 8, the president of that association wrote to the Premier, with copies to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On December 2, he wrote again begging for some action.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: He has heard nothing from the Premier, he did not get a meeting with the Premier as he requested and he has not had the phone call the Premier offered to make.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: When he gets a chance, will the minister ask the Premier when he will fulfil the undertaking he gave in this House to meet with these people, who have been seeking a meeting on this issue for two months?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will be delighted to do that.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell us whether he and his ministry are willing to take any steps to protect the consumers of this province, whether they be consumers of auto insurance as individuals, the Ontario Motor Coach Association or the municipalities that my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) referred to?

Mr. Wiseman: The answer is no.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The answer is yes, we will. We are doing that now. We are looking at the total problem. I hope to be making some recommendations to my cabinet colleagues, and that will be happening as soon as we can get it resolved. We are working on it now.

EMISSION DISCHARGES

Mr. Laughren: My question is to the Premier concerning the new emission standards his Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is imposing on Inco.

Is the Premier aware that if Inco is required to build a new smelter as a result of those new standards, that could create thousands of jobs in the construction industry when it is doing so and reduce dramatically the sulphur emissions? The excess acids could then be used in conjunction with phosphate deposits to build a fertilizer plant in the Sudbury community.

Will the Premier assure us that he will personally intervene to pursue this matter because of the enormous boost it could give to the Sudbury economy?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure of the question. Is the honourable member asking me to put those arguments that he put so eloquently and well in this House to the chairman of Inco? Is that what he is asking me?

If that is what he is asking me, I can tell the member that I have already put those arguments to Inco. As he knows, the chairman of Inco was not particularly pleased with the new emission standards set by my colleague. We did put the proposition to Inco that we feel it is very important in the interest of the whole province and we are prepared to work with the company. I hope, over the time it has to work on this matter, it will find viable commercial and economic ways to do that. We are very hopeful that everyone will win with this new control order put on by the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Laughren: With all due respect, I do not believe the Premier understood my question. Perhaps he did not hear it.

What I am asking is, as a result of the new standards, since there will be excess acid taken out of the ore before it goes up the stack and that excess acid must be used in some way, will the Premier ensure that excess acid will be used in conjunction with phosphate deposits up in Cargill township, north of Timmins, to create a fertilizer enterprise in the Sudbury basin?

We have an enormous opportunity here, a real once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create jobs for the construction industry and ongoing jobs to replace the jobs that have been lost in the mining industry over the past few years. Will he personally intervene in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said, I have already discussed that. One of the arguments put forward at the moment is that there is getting close to an excess capacity of sulphuric acid now as a byproduct of the process. Everyone is looking for other commercial uses of that. One of them obviously is the fertilizer business, and we are prepared to work with whoever is interested in taking up that excess sulphuric acid in conjunction with reducing possible causes.

The answer is that we are prepared to work with Inco or any other enterprise that is interested in that. It is certainly one worth looking at, but it is ultimately going to be a commercial decision, as I know the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) knows. It is going to be dictated by the marketplace and not by the whim of some government. Let me say again, we are prepared to work with anyone who is interested in exploiting that commercial possibility.

Mr. Timbrell: Will the Premier undertake to pull from the files the existing proposal, which was reviewed by government officials about eight months ago, submitted by Hatch and Associates --

Mr. Foulds: The Tories had that destroyed.

Mr. Timbrell: No, it was not.

Given the latest control orders imposed on Inco, will he see whether that proposal, which was deemed not to be feasible in the spring of 1985, might now be feasible and could become a viable new industry for the Sudbury basin?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am most interested in pursuing any good ideas, and if by chance we have found one the previous government has not burned, we will take advantage of it -- or any files that have not been destroyed; we will search for those files. Anything we have that is of value we will share with Inco, with the honourable member or with anyone else. If it is a viable proposition, I thank the member for bringing it to my attention. If by chance the file has been destroyed, perhaps the member will give me his copy and I will pass it on to the minister.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. Partington: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development, who has stated the government would spend $133 million to provide support to 56,000 hard-to-employ young people under the Futures program. As of December 24 there were 7,000 applications and only 1,200 placements; by now there may be 1,500 placements.

The minister's bleak Futures program leaves 54,500 young people dangling. Will he admit his program is off to an inauspicious beginning, is a dismal failure and needs a complete rethinking?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I will not admit anything of the sort. What I will say about the Futures program is that, in our estimation, it has been a marvellous success. What we attempted to do in the Futures program, and what we have succeeded in doing, was to take all the good parts of the previous government's programs -- because there were some good elements there -- consolidate them and make them even better, to stress in the Futures program the element of on-the-job training and to bring the program to virtually every community in Ontario.

As for the figures the honourable member is quoting -- I do not know where he got them -- my understanding is that applications to the Futures program and the continuation of the employment programs under the predecessors of Futures have been far greater than our original expectations, and we anticipate applications for next year will be even greater than we originally estimated.

Mr. Partington: To date there has been one application for every eight of the 56,000 hard-to-employ young people identified by the minister, and under this program only one placement for every four or five applications made. How can this be considered anything but a failure? Will the minister at least do what he can to expedite the placement process so those few people who do apply -- more than one in five -- can get some relief from their plight?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Brock is attempting to cast aspersions on a program the previous critic over there acknowledged was an excellent program. If he wants to play politics on the first day back, this is a very good time to play politics with an extremely successful program. The fact is that placements are being made at a very rapid rate and my understanding is that virtually every applicant in the Futures program is placed immediately or undertakes the pre-employment preparation if it is seen that such is necessary.

The program is delivered by 22 community colleges throughout the province and 55 youth employment counselling centres. In each case, an applicant who goes to a youth employment counselling centre may be involved in the Futures program, but there are a number of other programs the youth employment counselling centre delivers to the local community. I suspect the member for Brock is confusing placements that happened in other programs delivered by youth employment counselling centres with those placements in the Futures program delivered by the youth employment counselling centres.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister could show me on the record where I ever said the Futures program was excellent.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: Since the minister now admits the program is simply an amalgamation of what the previous Tory government had tried to accomplish -- and it, too, was a failure -- would he be willing to remove one of the serious barriers he has put in place for people who are prepared to hire apprentices, and that is to allow rates above minimum wage so that he does not undercut the unions and the union contracts, and allow employers the opportunity to hire apprentices through this program?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I did no such thing. I would never admit -- and the suggestion is repugnant to me -- that we simply dealt with the program of the previous government. What I did say, and what I reiterate, is that there were certain elements in the programs of the previous government which we found effective and we incorporated those into the new program. The new program provides on-the-job training and offers young people a full year of guaranteed employment that is relevant employment because it has an on-the-job training component to it.

As for the business of a supplemental wage, it was our decision, and we think it is an excellent decision, not to allow a tagging-on, because the purpose of the program is not to provide employers with an opportunity of using Futures participants for jobs they would hire others for. That is not the purpose of the program, and in fact that is prohibited in the program. The program is designed to give young people on-the-job training and one year's guaranteed on-the-job training. It is not designed simply to allow employers an easy access to the labour market.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Education concerning the gap between the elementary and secondary per pupil grant ceilings, which now stands at $879 per student and amounts to a total of one third of the total grant for the elementary students in the system. The minister is aware this gap creates considerable problems in the funding of elementary education concerning the provision of an adequate number of teachers, adequate numbers and quality of textbooks, computer purchases and so on.

Would the minister tell us why elementary students in our school system are worth $879 less than secondary, and what is his government's commitment to funding of the elementary panel in such a way as to be fair and equitable to those students?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to make it very clear that in the view of this government no student is worth less than any other student in the educational system of this province.

As the honourable member knows full well, there has been developed over the past number of years a funding formula that took into account certain costs that were prevalent in the secondary panel that were not to be found in the elementary panel. Those issues have been addressed over the past number of months by the Macdonald Commission on the Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education, which commission will report publicly, I expect, in the very near future, and which report will provide a timely and important opportunity to review the very question the member has raised.

Mr. Allen: I know the minister would not want to hide behind the Macdonald commission. He is quite aware, I believe, that the answers given by officials in his ministry in recent years pertaining to the differences in the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the two panels, the different scale and nature of the plants entailed in elementary and secondary education and the differential in costs that school boards in their consolidated and more expanded bureaucracies entail for one system or the other, all are now past arguments that are no longer valid.

Will the minister, knowing those facts, now make a commitment that his ministry and his government will close the gap by 1990 by moving significantly in the coming year?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am sure my friend the member for Hamilton West would want me to take this opportunity to congratulate the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) of this new government once again for the important and positive steps he took in his first budget of last October to address some of the real concerns in the area of education finance. In addition, I say to my friends the member for Hamilton and the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) that this government is committed to the equitable financing of both panels of education, elementary and secondary.

I am sure my friend will read with much interest the wide-ranging recommendations that are expected to come from the Macdonald commission, and I know that he, like other members of the assembly, has very carefully pored over the recent submission of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, which has also addressed these issues.

We as a new government are committed to affording genuine equality of educational opportunity and we will move forward in a sensible and practical way during the coming months and years to address the kinds of inequities that have been raised over time by this member and by others.

Mr. Davis: The Minister of Education hides behind shadows and mirrors when he suggests the Treasurer has increased education budgets.

I have a very straight question for the minister with respect to the $879 difference between secondary and elementary funding. Would he give a commitment to this House today that he will take half of that, around $450, and give it to the elementary panel for primary education, where it is needed now, and not after we spend six months looking at the Macdonald commission report and not after he tries to bring in a new budget in April? Would he make that commitment now if he is really committed to equitable education funding?

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Scarborough Centre can be assured that, in the interests of genuine equality of educational opportunity and program in this province, this government will proceed in a thoughtful and deliberative way to address the inequities that developed in the previous administration.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Given the rather shocking information provided by the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) on the rate of placement in Futures, where it appears that about one in five of the applicants to that program has been placed; and given the fact that for the first time in six or seven years the budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) contained not one single job-creation-incentive program for either large or small business, particularly for those people who are over 25 and unemployed, what specific recommendations is the minister making to his cabinet colleagues with respect to job creation to attempt to stimulate employment in the industrial sector?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: First, I congratulate the minister for the great job he has been doing in the area the honourable member talks about. If not only the member but also the rest of his party were to look at the record, which shows that 180,000 more people were employed in Ontario during the year, that 51,000 more people were employed from the end of October until the end of November and that we had more than 29,000 more people employed in the previous month, he will see that this government is indeed doing a great job in employment creation in the province.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Andrewes: I really did not expect the minister to be an apologist for the inadequacies of the programs of either the Minister of Skills Development or his government; nor did I expect to be reminded of the job creation that went on in this province as a result of the previous government's initiatives.

If the minister will cast his mind back to the recent election campaign, he will recall that his leader proposed a program to assist and help small businesses to hire new employees. He proposed a 25 per cent wage subsidy. That was aptly illustrated in an article --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Andrewes: -- in the Toronto Star where his leader was trying on lamp shades and other things. The minister will know that we made a similar proposal during the debate on the budget bills. That proposal was rejected by the government as being premature, too expensive and unnecessary at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Andrewes: It was rejected by the government and it was rejected by the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member please place his supplementary?

Mr. Andrewes: In the light of the failure of the government to do anything about unemployment, to do anything about employment stimulation for those in this province who are over 25, is the minister prepared to recommend immediate implementation of this proposal, which was part of a Liberal promise during the election campaign?

Non. Mr. O'Neil: Besides showing the great number of jobs that have been created over the last few months, I would also like to elaborate on a few other things in answer to the member's question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) have a question on Toyota?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes, we could mention Toyota, a plant that has brought in more than $400 million, and the $100-million increase in Honda's expansion.

Let me go into a couple of others. Export sales from 1984, which amounted to $142 million, have increased in 1985 to $167 million. This is for June 26 to October 31. That is an increase of 18 per cent. As to new plant facilities in operation, from June 26 to October 31, 1984, there were 14 plants and in 1985 there were 21 plants, for an increase of seven plants or 50 per cent.

The technology centre contracts will also be of interest to members. In 1984 there were 157 contracts for a total of $2.7 million, but in 1985 there were 229 contracts for a total of $2.9 million.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Surely the minister must recognize that the continuing high unemployment rate is particularly severe in northern Ontario. Related to this question of the need for industrial encouragement and industrial growth, we particularly need it in northern Ontario for workers over age 25 as well as for those up to age 25, which is what many of the government programs have been oriented towards.

What action has the minister taken to encourage industrial development and the broadening of the economic base in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: That is a very good question. As the member knows, being the critic for his party and being from that area, he and I have met and discussed it. I, along with the minister from the north, hope to give him and all the members from the north our full co-operation in putting together the committees that will do something to give us job creation in the north.

REGULATION OF REST HOMES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to ask the Minister of Health. The minister might be aware that on September 21 of last year, an 86-year-old woman died after falling from a rooftop at Regency Park Lodge in Windsor. Also in September, an 84-year-old diabetic wandered away from Bruce Rest Home of Windsor Ltd. and was found dead a couple of days later. The minister will certainly be aware of the fiasco in Ridgetown where 34 residents were moved into an unlicensed rest home in the middle of the night by another rest home operator in a nearby town.

When is the minister going to bring in legislation to regulate rest and lodging homes in this province to make sure the residents of these homes are protected?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the member for his question. I think he knows, as do the other members in this Legislature, that for some time there has been discussion about bringing rest homes under regulation in this province. I would be very pleased to have that member provide me with his outline of ideas as to how that might be developed in relation to the ongoing steps that are being taken by my colleague the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne). Together we could fashion a very good program to ensure that seniors in this province will have very good places to stay even though they may not be in the nursing home field, which is certainly under my jurisdiction.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We are waiting for the government to do something on its own and not always wait for us to give it our ideas.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: "Does the minister not believe that the time has come for the province to undertake immediately the drafting of comprehensive legislation and the integration of existing legislation with respect to the licensing standard, funding, monitoring and jurisdictional responsibility as it relates to adult residential facilities?"

I would like to point out to the minister that was a direct quote from Hansard from the former Community and Social Services critic for his party, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye). He said at that time the government should bring in legislation immediately.

Has his government changed its policy?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I would like to wish the member for Windsor-Riverside a happy new year too. I really do like to consult with him and other members of the Legislature with respect to policies and I am not going to be deterred from doing that.

The exercise that is now going on through the auspices of the minister without portfolio, my colleague the member for London North, is a very important one. We are taking steps to address all concerns which have been raised by the member in that question and other issues which have come up with respect to services for seniors in the province.

We have not changed our commitment to the betterment of the lifestyle of the seniors in this province one bit. We have and are resolved to put in place the best services possible for the seniors in this province and, together with the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) and the member for London North, the Ministry of Health intends to take steps very shortly.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. McFadden: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. At a public meeting at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced recently that the government had an intention to rationalize Ontario's universities.

Since the Treasurer has declined to define what he meant by his remarks, could the minister outline to the House today what rationalization of Ontario's universities is now under consideration by the government, either on the part of his ministry or any other ministry?

An hon. member: Thank you for the question.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Happy new year to the member too.

I am not sure whether the member is asking me to define for the Treasurer what the Treasurer means by rationalization, but let me say that we in this ministry and in this government believe that post-secondary education is an absolutely primary and vital component of the successful continuing development and enhancement of the quality of life in this province. Rationalization simply means that we need to be able to deliver post-secondary education in an even better way and more efficiently because the costs are very severe, it is very expensive. There are no particular plans to rationalize any particular element of the system, but we are looking at ways to deliver post-secondary education in an even better way and to do it as efficiently as possible at the least possible cost.

Mr. McFadden: Could the minister confirm or deny that the closing of Brock and Trent universities is under consideration now as part of the rationalization?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: We are really getting silly now. It is absolutely not under consideration and never has been and I cannot contemplate that it ever will be.

Mr. Allen: I presume the previous questioner was dredging up a memory from the past Tory caucus and some of its contemplations.

May I ask the minister if he would be a little more explicit with us about what rationalization means? In this House we have been through several years of trying to get a previous minister to define what was meant by it. We could never get an answer and the universities could not get an answer. That kind of vague bafflegab is not good enough at this time in history on that issue. Will the minister please define what he means by rationalization?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I did not use the word, so I am surprised to be asked to define it. Let me use the example of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education to explain rationalization somewhat. It was our government's belief that the union of two institutions operating as one would be a better way of delivering the services and the program that OISE had, has and will have. We think that is an appropriate example.

As for the suggestion of the critic in the Conservative Party about the closing of Trent and Brock, it is absolutely ridiculous. We are not in the business of closing institutions. We are in the business of enhancing the ability of every one of the institutions to do the job it is mandated to do and to do it even better than it has in the past.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Can he tell the House what role his ministry is playing in regard to the employees at Ellensweig Bakery in Hamilton, who will all be out of a job as of January 17?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I can take the question as notice. The member knows there are a number of closures. I assume efforts are under way in the normal course of events to ensure those workers are getting all proper severance and termination notice payments and, as we usually do, that we have offered them the opportunity to get new job placements.

Mr. Mackenzie: I ask the minister again to take serious consideration of what has happened in this plant. At the end of September, we had what one might call a sunshine letter to the employees from Weston after the purchase of the plant, then a follow-up letter which said there might be some problems with respect to some layoffs. Six weeks later, the entire work force was notified it was finished. The company has totally refused to give anything over and above the minimum requirements under the law. We are dealing with employees who have 25 or 30 years of seniority.

Surely to goodness we are not going to let a meaner, leaner approach on the part of the companies mean that the people who always pay are the workers, like throwing an old pair of socks down the drain. What is the minister going to do in this matters?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As I said, if notice was given and there are more than 50 employees, I assume those workers will receive any payments under the severance pay provision, although I would note that any of those payments would be deducted from unemployment insurance payments as a result of the federal regulations now in place.

I will take a look at the circumstances involved in the closure and at the letter the member suggests was sent by Weston and see whether anything can be done in addition.

Mr. Gillies: The minister will know that this is by no means isolated to the Hamilton area. There have been other plant closures and layoffs. Could he not see his way clear to getting together with some of his cabinet colleagues and initiating the type of action he is attempting in the Sudbury area? Does he not think Hamilton is worthy of some of that same type of attention?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is unfortunate and at times tragic that there are layoffs and plant closures announced almost on a daily basis. I have not seen the latest employment statistics as they pertain to the Hamilton area. In some of the situations, comparisons can be made with respect to the major employer having diminishing capacity of employment. We are constantly reviewing our policies in terms of initiatives. I am glad the member joins with the government in supporting the initiative I and my colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) announced recently for the Sudbury basin.

If we believe further initiatives are needed in Hamilton or any other area, those will receive consideration by the government.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mr. Runciman: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Given the minister's obvious indecision in July of last year with respect to the future of the Ontario Film Review Board, can he indicate to the House today whether the summary dismissal on New Year's Eve of seven well-qualified members indicates a hidden agenda to do away with the board, or is it simply a purge to replace those members with Grit hacks?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There was no summary dismissal of seven employees on New Year's Eve.

Mr. Runciman: That is not the information I have been made aware of. There were seven members, including three vice-chairmen, who were given their notice and dismissed effective New Year's Eve. Obviously, the minister is not aware of what is happening. He is too busy counting his cars.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Runciman: A few weeks ago in a speech to Brockville Liberals, a rare breed indeed, the minister's colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes), urged area Liberals to send their Liberal résumés for appointments to provincial agencies, boards and commissions.

Did the minister personally review the qualifications of people being dismissed, people such as community leader Austin Clarke, before deciding to replace them with Liberals?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member does not hear very well. I said to him in reply to his first question that there were no dismissals of seven members on New Year's Eve.

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Premier. In the past number of weeks we have seen a number of stories in the papers about various groups that have sprung up around the province helping the poor and feeding the poor, such as food banks, culminating in the last few days with the whole public school system in Toronto talking about giving food to the poor in the city of Toronto.

What is the Premier's response to all these initiatives that are taking place? Is he pleased this is happening or does he see this, as I do, as some kind of major failure at the moment of our safety net which needs major repair?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member raises a question that is very troubling to every one of us as we travel across this province. On one hand, one could say there has been a community response, measured by many volunteer agencies as well as by government help. The member will be aware we increased our support for those groups.

Any time one sees a community response of volunteers such as that, one has to derive some satisfaction. On the other hand, the fact that it is necessary is even a greater source of disappointment to everyone.

3:10 p.m.

The member will be aware that the minister has looked at the income support program. He would argue, I assume, that it should be higher. It was increased this year. We have a number of exceptional circumstances, to which these food banks cater. We are worried from some points of view that they will become an alternative system of welfare delivery and be too bureaucratic.

On the other hand, when I visit one of these places -- and I am sure the member is like me -- and I see a young family, a mother with two or three small children at the end of the month, and it is the only place to get hot food, then I say, "Thank God they exist." However, I get no joy from that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I do not intend to demean the work they do at all; just the opposite. I am asking the Premier whether he does not see this as a reflection of a major failing within our system. We are supposedly in the middle of a recovery, and yet this kind of dire need is greater than ever.

I therefore ask the Premier, along with the minister, who is not present today, to please consider a major review of all the social assistance programs in this province. It should be a public review and it should look at them in very large terms. While we increase payments and provide this emergency help to people, something is wrong when we are supposedly recovering and the rest of us are doing well, yet these people are suffering so badly.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not wedded to the past in any sense with respect to the delivery of our programs. If the honourable member or others have better ideas, I will be delighted to work with them. I would like to hear the member's specific ideas on what the review should encompass.

He and I have, I am sure, heard discussions in the policy groups of all three parties here of things such as a guaranteed annual income and other ways of dealing with the situation. My colleagues and I are amenable to any kind of constructive suggestions to get the moneys to where they are needed to make sure they are spent effectively for single mothers and for kids who do not have enough to eat, because those are realities today. Whether it is one system breeding another system or how we can make the delivery of services more efficient, we are struggling with it, we will continue to struggle with it and we will welcome every constructive idea in that regard.

Mr. Gillies: Will the Premier undertake at the very least to consult with his colleague the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) to ensure that the unemployed help centres will not be impeded from operating food banks if they wish? Officials of his government have told some of those unemployed help centres they cannot operate food banks. Would the Premier agree that this is mean-spirited and that he should reverse this stand?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This government would never condone anything that was mean-spirited. Obviously, we have been great fans of the unemployed help centres, as the leader of the member's party will be aware. We encouraged that party, when it was in power, to proceed and create more. One of the objectives of the budget of the former Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), was to create 100 of them across the province in order to help deliver the programs that now exist.

We are prepared to help people in responding to community needs in the most appropriate role possible. Obviously, we have to avoid duplication; there is no point in having seven different people do the same thing. However, we would be prepared to consider any suggestions the member has.

Mr. Speaker: There seem to be a lot of private conversations. Some may be necessary, but I do not think they all are.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Morin: I have a petition, signed by 191 members of the Coalition for Public Education, in opposition to the extension of public funding to the Roman Catholic separate school system.

Mr. Brandt: I have a petition from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 3, Lambton county, from the same organization that was indicated by the previous member, the Coalition for Public Education. It is signed by 187 individuals and indicates their opposition to the extension of funding to Roman Catholic separate schools.

Mr. Villeneuve: I also have a petition, which is signed by 164 individuals and presented by the Grand Knight of the North Stormont Council 6809, Crysler, Ontario, to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and which supports the funding of separate schools.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Andrewes: Before we go to orders of the day, I wish to give notice under section 28(a) of the standing orders of my dissatisfaction with the response to my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil).

[Later]

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it is an opportune time before five o'clock to advise the members that pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) concerning job creation programs. This matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: Just before we recess, I inform the House that earlier today the member for Lincoln gave notice under standing order 28 of his dissatisfaction with a response to a question.

At that time, the chair indicated that would be heard this evening at 10:30. However, under standing order 28 that is impossible. That discussion will take place tomorrow evening at 10:30.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the answers to questions 101, 105, 117, 136, 137, 138 and 140 in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Friday, January 10].

Mr. Speaker: There are quite a few private conversations again. I do not feel they are necessary in such great volume.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 47, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS REDISTRIBUTION (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for consideration of objections to the report upon the redistribution of Ontario into electoral districts.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I rise to speak about redistribution in the electoral district of Niagara Falls.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Before we listen to the honourable member who is on his feet, I understand the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) had not completed his remarks.

Mr. Jackson: In my comments at the last sitting on this subject, I was in the process of referring to some statements made by members of my community who wished their comments read into Hansard.

I wish to quote from one who said: "I wish to protest against the recommendations of the commission to make Elizabeth Gardens part of an Oakville riding. It seems to me that if we have to vote with an Oakville riding, we will not only be alienated from Burlington but also from Oakville. This is a time to bring people closer to government, not move them further away."

This message, like many others, comes from east Burlington. It is from Mr. and Mrs. Fabok. They have lived in Burlington for 21 years and have watched their children grow up in Burlington. They are concerned that the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission has taken very little notice of them, has simply satisfied population quotas and has artificially ripped them out of the Burlington South riding and planted them in Oakville.

There are comments such as that from Violet Dalton, who worked for the East Burlington Homeowners Association for many years. She said, "We do not have much chance of getting anything done if we are just a little bit of land at the end of Oakville."

The Coltons wrote: "We are Burlingtonians and wish to be treated as such. We feel that if this recommendation goes through, we will not have a voice in either community."

On and on the people of east Burlington have written to make it clear they are residents of Burlington, constituents of Burlington South and see no reason they should be ignored in the fashion suggested by the commission.

Specifically, the council of the city of Burlington has written to me and to the commission on more than one occasion to express its continuing concern about the proposal to put a section of east Burlington known as Elizabeth Gardens into Oakville merely to balance population figures.

3:20 p.m.

"This, it would seem, goes against the grain of remaining criteria contained in the terms of reference," the city says, "particularly those related to the community of interest and respect for existing ward or municipal boundaries. The position of east Burlington singled out has always been included in a Burlington-only riding, so major problems in voter identification could be expected to result.

"In the spirit of the city's earlier submission, this report recommends petitioning to retain the integrity of the eastern boundary of the Burlington South riding and that city council resolve that the Legislative Assembly be petitioned through the city of Burlington's elected representatives to request the commission to restore Burloak Drive from the Queen Elizabeth Way to Lake Ontario as the eastern boundary for the Burlington South riding. This, as you know, was originally proposed by the commission."

As I said before, the commission has generally done a good job, given the complexities of its mandate. It has maintained the integrity of Halton's boundaries, and in most of Burlington South it has recognized the Highway 403-Queen Elizabeth Way transportation corridor as the natural boundary line marking the communities of interest. Having done so much, it is unfortunate the commission could not have followed through logically with consideration for all of its mandate on all the criteria for riding boundaries.

The southern Ontario ridings all have an average population of 68,267. Under the proposal as suggested, Burlington South would have a population of 66,457. The commission has endeavoured to keep all the Halton ridings within a few thousand voters of each other. This is certainly a laudable objective, but not when it means tinkering with established historical boundaries, as is proposed for Burlington South.

The people, the city and I have all asked that the boundaries be restored to Burloak Drive rather than cutting out an integral part of east Burlington and adding it to the proposed Oakville South riding. In fact, the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) has stated that the wishes of east Burlington residents should be respected by the commission in its final report. It is a move that fits all the criteria for the commission.

It has been the historical boundary for the riding since 1874, and the south has been intact as a voting area. It adheres to the natural means of communication, which is very important. The local newspapers serve these individual communities. No Oakville newspaper or cable TV station has coverage in the affected area of east Burlington. That area is served by the Burlington Post, the Burlington Gazette and Burlington Cablenet, all of which are well known and respected in the community as providers of community news and information for the people of Burlington.

As stated in my petition, "The commission failed to give due consideration to the means of communication by failing to recognize the absence of any significant communication that exists between and in any way unites the area known as ward 8, currently in Burlington South and proposed by the commission for inclusion in the Oakville South riding, thereby rendering more difficult adequate representation for its people in parliament."

Burlington South would be a slightly larger riding by population than some of the others in Halton, but as I have said, I am not afraid to represent more people in Burlington South. They are my constituents, and I am very proud to represent them.

I should add that it would be only slightly larger than the norm, using the Ministry of Revenue's own figures for the October assessments. Restoring the Elizabeth Gardens area to Burlington South would give the riding a population of 75,111. That is exactly 10 per cent larger than the average riding, well within the bounds acceptable to the commission and close to what the commission considered acceptable for Burlington in its first proposal at 73,141 constituents. It would be closer to the average than 55 of the riding proposals currently being debated in this House.

We must also look to the future. South of the Queen Elizabeth Way, the city of Burlington is established and stable. Without exception, there are no plans for growth, nor is there room to accommodate it. In fact, in the planning district the commission proposes to take away from Burlington South there has been a net decline in population over the past three years, according to the provincial assessment figure.

While it may be larger now, the other ridings in Halton will very soon catch up. It only makes sense to make the more stable areas and ridings larger than the potential growth areas so that changes we make now will remain equitable for five or 10 years. Why should we remove people from a stable riding if it means creating imbalances in a couple of years as the growth areas in Halton catch up in population?

I urge the electoral boundaries commission to follow all the criteria of its mandate when determining the final recommendation for the riding of Burlington South, to acknowledge the traditional riding and municipal boundaries of Burlington as the rightful boundary line for the east end of Burlington South, as it has recognized traditional boundaries and communities of interest throughout the rest of this great riding.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I rise to speak to the change of boundaries in the city of Niagara Falls. I would like to bring a couple of things into perspective as to why I am opposed to change on the southernmost boundary line of the electoral district of Niagara Falls.

When I came to the Legislature in 1975, it appeared as though we were making a major breakthrough in serving the people of the various districts with constituency offices. I thought that step was a long time coming and much needed in that the prime responsibility of most of us here is to represent the people from a given district.

The change that has taken place in this boundary is going to transfer some 4,000 or 5,000 people from the riding of Niagara Falls to the riding of Erie. I point out, without going into too much detail, that what is happening here is that it is taking four or five city blocks in width from the southern boundary and transferring it to the city of Fort Erie.

My main contention is that this does not change the numbers enough to warrant the inconvenience those people are going to suffer in having to go to Fort Erie to visit constituency offices, rather than being able to go to an office that is now serving them very well within the bounds of the city of Niagara Falls. I am very disappointed that it would even consider such a change, taking into account that it is some 12 miles removed from the city of Fort Erie and is part of the city of Niagara Falls.

I will not dwell too much longer on this, but the fact is they have had to go to a major indentation of my district to make this change and the southerly limit now is one with which I do not concur. I hope it will be given the kind of consideration it is due so I can properly serve those people who are being taken out of this district. I hope the serving of my constituents will be taken into account as the highest priority in the dividing or arranging of districts for the electors.

Having said that, I hope due consideration will be given to referring that line. If some minor changes have to be made, I hope that at least those people who reside within the city of Niagara Falls will be left within the electoral district of Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wiseman: I am pleased to be able to speak on the redistribution bill.

I noticed Mr. Bailie was in the Speaker's Gallery a few minutes ago -- he may still be up there; yes, he is -- and I am glad he is here to listen to all the members. I thank him and the other members of the commission who travelled to the hearings in Ottawa to listen to many of us from eastern Ontario.

As it pertains to Lanark county, I am pleased that he and the other members of the commission listened to some of our suggestions and reduced the area that Lanark would take in to add four more townships and the town of Arnprior. That would give me, under this proposal, 17 townships and five towns, or a population of 57,400.

3:30 p.m.

My concern as a member from a rural riding has always been that we be able to serve that riding as it has been accustomed to being served in the past, not only by this member but by other members who have gone before me. The people in rural Ontario want a little more and expect a little more of their members because they feel closer to them.

One can think of a rural member as being almost like the old country doctor. I am sure every rural member in the Legislature will agree that as long as one's car is in the garage or in the driveway, people will come in and say, "I should not bother you at home, but ... ." They feel free to be able to do that because over the years one has built up a working relationship with them.

This is no reflection on the members from the city, but many times I ask people who come from the city who their provincial or federal member is, and many of them cannot tell me unless he is a high-profile person, either a cabinet minister or somebody who is rocking the boat quite a bit and gets in the press. They think they are in the riding of such a member, but when one questions them a little bit further, lots of times one finds they are not in that riding at all. Unless they have worked for a provincial or federal member, they do not know which riding they are in or who their member is.

However, that is not the case in rural Ontario. I am sure most members are the same as the member for Lanark. Many times when I go to a parade or a fair, I run into seven- or eight-year-olds who say: "Hi, Doug. How are you today?" The parents will grab hold of them and say, "He is not `Doug' to you. That is Mr. Wiseman." I feel a bit of gratitude in knowing they know who I am. The example I gave of the city members certainly is not true in rural Ontario.

By the same token, many of us in rural Ontario -- like some in the city, I am sure -- attend a lot of 50th or 60th wedding anniversaries, 90th or 100th birthdays and so on. When a member is from a rural riding and his constituents get to know him, he is like one of the family and he is asked to go to many other functions that I am sure city members wish they could get in on but do not because they lack the closeness.

Let us look at the areas to which many of us have to drive. Lanark under present conditions is 50 miles long and about 40 miles wide. I can honestly say that on a Saturday when I make two or three stops and end up at the north end of my riding, which is a good hour and 15 or 20 minutes away from home at the current speed limit, when I go home, if my good wife did not drive I do not think I would make it lots of times. It certainly is not from the influence of alcohol or anything like that; it is sheer exhaustion at the end of a long day.

The report speaks of widening the territories. I talked to the present member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), and I looked at the riding that will encompass his, the riding of Parry Sound-Nipissing-Renfrew. When one looks at that on the map -- and I speak now to Mr. Bailie and his commission -- if the members of that commission were the member and had to serve that; or look at the riding of the member for --

Mr. Guindon: Cornwall.

Mr. Wiseman: Cornwall is not too bad. Look at the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, which comes right up to the border of Lanark county, a little east of Merrickville, and takes in everything from Merrickville right through to the Quebec border. I am sure it will not be humanly possible for him to give the kind of service he has given in his time around the Legislature, and others before him such as Osie Villeneuve have given to that area. When one sees the size of that area, I am sure the electoral boundaries commission will want to take another look at it.

Another area I am concerned about in the proposal to go to 130 seats, and have been right from the start, is rural Ontario. I am familiar with it and hate to see it eroded any more than it is. It is going from 32 seats to 28 seats. Urban Ontario jumps by nine seats. We all expect that where there is growth in the cities the number of ridings will grow, but we do not want to see the voice of rural Ontario eroded from the present 32 to 28. Goodness knows what it will be a few years down the road when redistribution comes in again. Rural Ontario will be squeezed, as it is now, into larger pieces of the pie and probably will drop to 20 seats so the voice of rural Ontario will be heard less and less.

We who represent rural municipalities would be doing a real injustice if we do not stand on our feet and say we have had enough of this; we want the 32 seats to remain. However, if the electoral boundaries commission sees fit to adjust it to keep those four rural seats, I am sure all the people in rural Ontario will appreciate it. I hope all the rural members who have not spoken in the Legislature will get up on their feet so Mr. Bailie can take back to his counterpart the strong objection we have to the voice of rural Ontario being reduced. Our children who are coming after us will not have the same representation we had over the years as young people, growing up to where we are today.

With those words, I would ask the government and Mr. Bailie to look at those and to give us areas that are humanly possible to serve, because the rural people demand more service from their members. I wonder how many people in the Legislature have talked to one of the people from a city riding or some place close by, who have often said, "You fellows from rural Ontario are a couple of hundred miles away; you have to be here anyway." They go home and have their constituency office hours a couple of times through the week. I see the odd one from rural Ontario shaking his or her head. If we could do that, it would free up an awful lot of time on the weekends. They expect us to be here. We are a couple of hundred miles from home, so we cannot run home for meetings or constituency office hours. I do not think it is too much for us to ask to be considered and to have the 32 seats reinstated.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Cordiano: Over the past 10 years, a sense of real community has developed in what is now known as the riding of Downsview. Under the proposed boundary changes, the existing riding of Downsview will basically be split in half. Highway 401 is used as an artificial boundary line to divide the riding in half.

The section north of Highway 401 retains the name of Downsview, while the section south of the 401 becomes part of a newly created riding. The section south of the 401, representing better than 50 per cent of the present riding of Downsview, is sectioned off and becomes the better part of the new riding of Lawrence. The southern section of what is now the riding of Downsview is really an integral part of the community that makes up the present riding.

The people north of Highway 401 are well served by various institutions south of the highway, such as churches, schools, libraries and various community centres. The cultural links are very strong. As I say, the community has really developed over the last 10 years. Drawing a line at Highway 401 arbitrarily cuts off those cultural links. It cuts off the people south of Highway 401 from electoral expression in the riding of Downsview.

In its attempts to draw lines on the map, the commission no doubt has given a great deal of consideration, as has been pointed out by numerous other members, and has a very difficult set of decisions to make. Nevertheless, it is a question that must be dealt with. I might make a few suggestions regarding the riding of Downsview and I hope the commission will consider them.

First, I believe the section of the proposed riding of Downsview as described in the present arrangement, bounded on the south by Finch Avenue West, on the east by Keele Street, on the north by Steeles Avenue and on the west by Black Creek, should be retained in what is now the present riding of Yorkview. This area includes York University and has long been an historical part of the riding of Yorkview; an integral part of it.

Second, I would recommend the commission consider including the area west of Jane Street and bounded on the north by Sheppard Avenue and on the south by Highway 400 in the riding of Downsview.

Third, and last, I also recommend retaining the portion of the southern section of what is now the riding of Downsview; namely that area bounded on the east by the Canadian National Railway tracks, on the south by Lawrence Avenue, and the western boundary should be Black Creek Drive and the Highway 400 extension.

In addition, the commission might consider including the area north of Highway 401 and just south of the Downsview airport, bounded on the west by the CNR tracks and by Dufferin Street on the east, as part of one of the other neighbouring ridings immediately to the east.

Those are my recommendations. I hope the commission will take them into consideration.

Mr. Turner: I would like to take a few minutes to address some problems arising out of the redistribution of the electoral district of Peterborough. Before I get started, I would like to wish everyone a happy new year. No doubt it is going to be a great year.

Mr. Sargent: Having said that.

Mr. Turner: Be careful. I also want to pay tribute to the electoral boundaries commission for the task it has assumed. It is a very difficult one. Undoubtedly the commission's members see it perhaps somewhat more objectively than we do. Yet I think we, as members, have a more complete understanding of the local areas and boundaries and of what disruptions can be caused by what may appear to the commission to be a minor variance, if you will.

When the commission was formed in June 1983, it was asked: "That for the purpose of the distribution the commission shall take into account: (a) the community or diversity of interests; (b) means of communication; (c) topographical features; (d) population trends; the varying conditions and requirements regarding the representation as between urban and rural electoral districts; existing boundaries of municipalities or wards thereof; the existing and traditional boundaries of electoral districts; and special geographical considerations, including in particular the sparsity, density or relative rate of growth of population in the various regions of the province, the accessibility of such regions or the size and shape thereof."

In its final recommendation, the commission recommended that the Otonabee River, which runs roughly north and south through the city of Peterborough, be used as a boundary or dividing line.

Mr. Mancini: That sounds logical.

Mr. Turner: Not really, if the member will just stop and listen for a moment.

The area that lies east of the Otonabee River was, up until the turn of the century or shortly thereafter, a separate community known as Ashburnham, now popularly referred to as East City, but for the old-time residents who remember the separate municipality the name is jealously guarded.

The original population of the electoral district of Peterborough was 89,435. In its first recommendation, the commission made a division which reduced the electoral district to 74,299, which was approximately nine per cent over the recommended size.

Keeping in mind the terms under which the commission was appointed and asked to take a look at these various regions and ridings, it was, I believe, allowed a 25 per cent plus or minus variance. We were nine per cent, and there were objections to that. There were hearings held in the city of Peterborough at the courthouse, which I think emphasizes some of the problems that I will deal with a little later.

The hearings were held in May 1984 in the county courthouse in the city of Peterborough, at which time various submissions were made by various people, including myself. I made a very strong point that the commission should give very serious consideration to recognizing the existing municipal boundaries and providing as little disruption as possible.

Mr. Speaker, you are going to have to bear with me, sir. As well organized as I was, I have misplaced some notes, and I know that in the spirit --

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Give it off the cuff.

Mr. Turner: I do not want to take up too much time. Here it is. Thank you very much.

The electoral district of Peterborough, as currently defined, includes the townships of Ennismore, Smith and Douro, the village of Lakefield, the townships of North and South Monaghan, the township of Cavan, Otonabee township, the village of Millbrook and Indian reserves 35 and 36.

Despite the fact that the population figures are on the high side, there is no doubt the actual boundaries of the riding are quite compact.

3:50 p.m.

In its subsequent recommendation, the commission recommended in 1984 that the electoral district should consist of the villages of Millbrook and Lakefield, the townships of Cavan, Ennismore, North Monaghan, South Monaghan and Smith, and Indian reserve 35 and that part of the city of Peterborough lying westerly of a line defined as follows: commencing at the intersection of the southerly limit of the city of Peterborough with the Otonabee River, thence northerly along the Otonabee River to the southerly prolongation of the course in the northerly limit of the city of Peterborough oriented in a northerly and southerly direction and situated immediately west of Champlain Crescent, thence northerly along the said prolongation to the northerly limit of the city of Peterborough.

Keep in mind that when we made the submission to the commission in Peterborough, we emphasized the lines of communication were centred on the city. The county seat of government is located right in the centre of Peterborough. It is the centre of all our media and communications facilities. The radio stations, television stations and local newspapers are all centred in the city of Peterborough and they serve the whole rural outlying area as well as, I might say, some of the bordering ridings as well.

The main bone of contention in meeting with representatives of the city and representatives of the county seems to be the suggestion or recommendation of using the Otonabee River as a boundary. Trent University, which was mentioned earlier in this House under somewhat different circumstances, lies on both sides of the river. One can imagine the confusion and difficulty in having two representatives being of service to that one institution. It would be a very difficult situation for the members involved and a more difficult situation for the institution itself.

The Quaker Oats Co. of Canada, which is based in Peterborough, lies on both sides of the river. If they have a problem, with which member do they deal? I can foresee the rather complicated set of circumstances that would evolve from that.

St. Joseph's General Hospital lies on the eastern part of the river and thus would be divided from the city of Peterborough as a political entity. Do they deal through the district health council; through their local member, whoever that may be? It creates all kinds of problems from social, economic and political points of view.

The way the riding of Peterborough is now constituted, from boundary to boundary, either east and west or north and south, at the maximum would be about an hour's drive. There would be no difficulty in servicing it and I have never heard anyone complain about the level of service or indeed the lack of service.

Interjection.

Mr. Turner: I am being provoked. I have an article taken from the Thursday, December 13, 1984, Peterborough Examiner wherein it states, "Trent and the NDP Protest Proposal." By Trent they mean Trent University.

Mr. Gillies: And by the NDP?

Mr. Turner: We all know what they mean by the NDP.

Mr. Gillies: That is what Mike said when he was there.

Mr. Breaugh: They used to be in opposition.

Mr. Turner: You just wish it were so. I refer to an editorial taken from the Peterborough Examiner of November 28, 1984, that states very emphatically that East City is indeed Peterborough. As has been noted before, Mr. Bailie is sitting in the Speaker's gallery taking copious notes and paying close attention to what is being said.

Mr. Breaugh: He cannot take notes up there. That is highly illegal.

Mr. Turner: No, he is not. He has a very benign smile on his face. I know he will give every consideration, keeping in mind, if I may take a few more seconds and quote from the commission's --

Mr. Wiseman: Take 20 minutes.

Mr. Turner: I will continue, with the indulgence of my friends -- and I use that word advisedly -- to the left.

Under the latest revised proposal, the population would come out at 70,813, which is a plus variance of 3.7 per cent. However, when I read the commission's recommendations in its own documents, I see a Mississauga riding at 76,000 for a plus variance of 11 per cent. There is another Mississauga riding at 80,000 for a plus variance of 18.2 per cent, and there is another Mississauga riding at 77,000 for a plus variance of 13 per cent.

Mr. Breaugh: What about Oshawa?

Mr. Turner: Oshawa; I am glad he asked that. Oshawa is at 76,805 for a plus variance of 12.5 per cent. I will not bore the members with the details because I know they can read as well as I. Do they want me to go on?

Mr. Gillies: Brantford.

Mr. Turner: Brantford?

Mr. Breaugh: Brantford is not on the map any more. There used to be a member in Brantford, but not any more.

Mr. Turner: Yes, it is. For heaven's sakes, Brantford is at 74,315 for a plus variance of 8.9 per cent. I submit, and I hope Mr. Bailie is tuned in, as I know he is --

Mr. Wiseman: He is smiling; he is listening.

Mr. Turner: Good. I just wonder why we in the great riding of Peterborough are discriminated against to the point where we are held down while more urban metropolitan municipalities are allowed, for whatever reason -- I would not want to second-guess the commission and I would not want to impute motives either.

Mr. Breaugh: It sounds as if you are trying to suck them in.

Mr. Turner: No; I just ask myself what is wrong with the great riding of Peterborough when we are being held so close to the recommendations, with a variance of plus three?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The former Speaker brings up a good point, but this is a case of Tory gerrymandering that has backfired.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Turner: I am not going to be provoked at the beginning of the year by my good friend the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), but if I may refer to this, I see they have a plus variance of --

Mr. Breaugh: They do not even have a riding any more. They put him totally out of business.

Mr. Turner: As a matter of fact, the member is quite right. I can find Grey -- but anyway with all respect --

Mr. Breaugh: How many can that guy represent? Zero.

Mr. Ruprecht: We will find room for him in Parkdale.

Mr. Breaugh: We know about your rooms in Parkdale.

Mr. Gillies: We know about your rooms.

4 p.m.

Mr. Turner: Wherever. I would like to be serious for a moment and ask the commission to give very serious and thoughtful consideration to looking at the proposed electoral boundaries of the riding of Peterborough as they affect the city of Peterborough. It is totally unfair and unwise to try to divide a municipality. The commission was asked to honour, respect or recognize existing municipal boundaries as much as possible. I respectfully ask the commission to give very serious consideration to including the whole of the city of Peterborough in the riding which is named after that great city and that great county.

Mr. Sargent: There is this big flap about redistribution as if it were the end of the world. Henny Youngman, the comedian, said, "I have all the money I need for the rest of my life as long as I die by four o'clock this afternoon."

This is not as serious as we think it is. This is only a commission we have appointed and there is no statute in place dealing with this subject. For this reason, we can be very flexible. The member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner), great Speaker that he was, should know there is no one in a better position to advise about the boundaries for Peterborough than the member himself. I am advised that every one of these deals can be negotiated --

Mr. Turner: What kind of negotiations?

Mr. Sargent: The member should wait and see. This is only a commission we appointed.

Mr. Turner: What does the member mean by "only a commission"?

Mr. Sargent: We appointed a commission to bring in recommendations, but they are not carved in stone. We are a democratic group of people who know our own ridings and what we need for boundaries. The member for Peterborough spoke about his riding. He should know what the boundaries should be, not a couple of appointed commissioners, as good as they may be.

I admire both of them for their backgrounds in serving the public. They are John Thompson and Mr. Justice Sam Hughes. There are no set, firm guidelines. They should be established now. For a man in my position -- I have been here about 100 years -- to wake up and find I do not have a riding any more.

Mr. Turner: The member is kidding.

Mr. Sargent: Grey disappears. That may be good in the eyes of a lot of people. Custom has it that every 10 years a legislature -- American, Canadian or provincial -- has the option to redefine the boundaries as changes may warrant, but there are no set, firm guidelines. At the outset, it would seem to be the desire of the commission to try to run this show on a county guideline basis. That does not work. Some ridings, such as Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, have three county names.

We have great disparities in the population. The basic concept of democracy is representation by population. We sure as hell do not have rep by pop here. Scarborough North, for example, has 161,000 people; York Centre, 118,000; and York North, 100,000. The game plan there might be to have a net increase of two seats. Brampton has 149,000 voters; Mississauga North, 140,000; and Mississauga East, 100,000. Most ridings across the province have around 50,000 or 60,000 people; so we have to do some very intelligent manoeuvring and negotiating.

Mr. Breaugh: It is called gerrymandering.

Mr. Sargent: This party is not a party to gerrymandering. We do not have to do that. There is a map here. Let us lay this out on the floor so we get a good chance to look at it. The exciting thing about this whole map, members will note, is that there are a lot of red pieces on it. We used to see a lot of blue around Toronto, Ottawa, Carleton East and London; now it is mostly red.

Mr. Sheppard: Does the member want a pointer so that he can point out what he is talking about?

Mr. Sargent: We are not gerrymandering. We are talking about intelligence here.

We have heard about the craziness of having 161,000 voters or 118,000 voters in one riding. That is not good business on anyone's part. The House can pass a resolution at any time setting up this commission, as it has done, for a negotiated deal.

Mr. Turner: It does not say anything about a negotiated deal.

Mr. Sargent: The member had better think about that.

The bottom line is that we can change five seats in rapidly growing areas and leave all the rest of the province alone. That is the bottom line. All this hocus-pocus about going through this exercise every 10 years is not carved in stone. We have a good case to be intelligent and break down those ridings of 150,000. There will be a gain of five seats in those major ridings that will settle the whole issue.

Mr. Sterling: First, I would like to pass along my understanding of the problem the commissioners must face in dealing with a very difficult situation in trying to satisfy the wants of members like the member for Grey-Bruce, who has just spoken, who would see his riding disappear or would see three ridings become two. That same problem exists in the Ottawa area with the ridings of Lanark, Renfrew North and Renfrew South.

I appreciate the problems that exist. Perhaps I view it a little differently from some of the other members, not being as concerned with my own longevity or with that of any other MPP in a personal sense. I am more interested in how this chamber operates and in how each MPP operates after the next election.

4:10 p.m.

In that regard, I would have changed two things in the instructions given in the resolution of 1983. I know the commission is not supposed to do this according to that particular resolution, but perhaps I could urge the House leaders to amend the original charge, if that is possible within the framework of the legislation.

The commission was asked to look at drawing the lines on the basis of the 1981 census. We have much better information available to us now. The electoral enumeration lists of the election of May 2, 1985, give us a much better picture of the number of voters in each riding.

I know the lists do not give the population, the basis on which the commission was responsible to divide the ridings. I would rather it divide on the basis of electors rather than population anyway. It should look at the 1985 electoral lists and draw its resulting boundaries from those. Instead of looking at a population of about 70,000, it should look at a voter base that comes in somewhere between 45,000 and 50,000 electors.

Second, although the instructions given to the commission were to tie the commission, the instructions were that there should not be fewer than 125 seats nor more than 130 seats on redistribution. If we are going back to the drawing board, if that is a consideration of the government, I would like --

Mr. Hennessy: The member is not suggesting 90 seats, is he?

Mr. Sterling: I am suggesting 94 seats actually.

I suggest we take a fairly radical move to 94 seats, which is the number of federal members of Parliament in this province, and that the ridings be coincident with the federal riding boundaries. That would mean a larger population for each and every one of us to represent, but for the population it would make politics or its understanding of the situation much easier. That would mean we would go from 125 to 94 seats. It would eliminate some of our usefulness around here after the next election, notwithstanding the change in the winds of our ability to get elected.

This is not the first time it has been done since 1867. In 1867, 82 ridings in this province were carved out. This grew to 112 ridings for the election of 1926. Between 1926 and 1934, the ridings were reduced to 90; they went from 112 to 90 ridings. It is not an impossible situation to face.

As I said, the most important reason for my wanting this would be to try to make the political organization easier for all the parties to organize within each riding. Also, it would make it much easier for the population to understand there is a provincial member and a federal member for Grey-Bruce or whatever riding one picks.

It would also elevate the importance of an MPP in relation to his federal colleague. In some ways we are viewed by the public as the junior legislature. If one views our Constitution and our powers within this Legislative Assembly, one will find we are not junior in the effect we can have on the population in making rules.

I know it is not within the commission's mandate to consider that suggestion, but if that were done in the future, it would be of great benefit to the electorate.

Next, I would like to make some general remarks regarding the factors the commission has been instructed to take into account, with particular regard the riding of Carleton-Grenville which I have been honoured to represent for the past eight and a half years. At the outset, nothing would please me more than if the commission found it would leave the boundaries of Carleton-Grenville intact. If it looks at the criteria, the existing situation in Carleton-Grenville is almost perfect in terms of the population and the number of voters. The only question about Carleton-Grenville is that it is growing very rapidly in the north end at this time, in the city of Kanata and the township of Goulbourn.

I recognize that Carleton-Grenville is touched on seven sides by seven different ridings. Because of the elongated nature of Carleton-Grenville, I was prepared for the fact that in redistribution Carleton-Grenville would be under attack, if one might say that. However, I do not feel that at the Grenville county end in particular the commission has paid close enough attention to what it is charged with in terms of community of interest.

In community of interest and diversity of interest, the two have different effects when one talks about the elected representative or about the population. With respect to representative, as the member for Carleton-Grenville I have enjoyed and benefited greatly by representing the high-tech centre of Canada, the city of Kanata, and by representing a very industrial area at the other end of my riding along the northern shore of the St. Lawrence River. In the north, the area represents a stable employment situation; whereas in the southern end, in Grenville county, that unfortunately is not the case.

As an elected representative, I say the commissioners should not be as concerned about the elected representative as about the concerns of the people of the community and with whom they want to be joined. I do not care much; in fact, the more kinds of people I have the privilege to represent the stronger I would be as the member for all those communities.

The major objection I have to the second submission is the severing of Grenville county down the centre. At Confederation, Grenville county was roughly equivalent to one and a half ridings. There was a riding for southern Grenville, a riding for southern Leeds and a riding for the northern part of Leeds-Grenville.

That association between Leeds and Grenville has gone on for a long time. Under the present makeup, in terms of population and voter density, Grenville county now equates to about two fifths of a riding. It represents about 40 per cent of the riding of Carleton-Grenville, which I said before probably represents about the ideal population the commissioners are trying to achieve in their redistribution. That association with Leeds county, as I will exhibit later --

Mr. Mancini: Take your time.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Sterling: I submit to the member for Essex South that it is a very important matter to Grenville county and to the people of eastern Ontario that the commission be properly informed. This is the only route my people have to the commission as set out in the legislation, and I will speak for as long as necessary to put that forward.

If the pattern of community interests is changing in Grenville county -- and, as I say, the ties are very strong with Leeds-Grenville -- it is going to the north, if anywhere, rather than to the east, and this is happening because of a number of factors. As members know, and as I am certain the commission knows, Grenville county, I guess from the last redistribution in 1967, was joined with Dundas county, which is to the east.

Also during that period, until the election of 1979, there was a federal riding of Grenville-Carleton, the provincial riding being the flip-flop of it with respect to its name. Grenville-Carleton was represented by a very notable politician. Of course, I am talking about the late honourable Walter Baker, who forged a tremendous association between the Ottawa-Carleton area and the southern part of Grenville county.

However, since then there have been other events which have meant that at least the northern part of Grenville county is turning towards the north rather than to the east or even the traditional neighbours to the west. I am not sure whether transportation could come under the heading of communications, which is part of the commission's considerations. I guess one could put it within it.

Highway 416, which basically runs up the gut of Grenville county, recently has been extended by 10 miles from the Rideau River, as members might be aware, from the edge of Grenville county down through the township of Rideau to the edge of the city of Nepean. The route for Highway 416 has been designated in Nepean to bring it into the Queensway, and it is expected construction will take place within perhaps five years if the promises the former government made are fulfilled by the present one, and I hope they are.

That road is drawing the Grenville county area very much to the north, and in fact Highway 416 now is used by a number of Ottawa residents to come to Toronto as a shorter route, not in distance but in time. If members want to put it this way, Grenville county is getting much closer to the city of Ottawa as these highway and transportation improvements take place. It is quite interesting to note that, if Highway 416 also becomes a four-lane highway through Nepean, which was the plan of our previous government, that will again increase the access to the Ottawa area.

I might also outline to the commission that there are other outlying communities not within the Ottawa-Carleton area which relate very closely with Ottawa-Carleton at this time. They are communities such as the village of Winchester in the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; the town of Rockland and the township of Russell in the riding of Prescott-Russell; the towns of Carleton Place and Almonte in the riding of Lanark; and the town of Arnprior in the riding of Renfrew South.

All those communities have been growing and gaining more importance in the Ottawa-Carleton area; many of the people who live in them work for the federal government and drive to work each day. In essence, the Ottawa-Carleton area is expanding outward. Members will see my reason for bringing this forward when I make some recommendations about how the commission might approach the problem of looking at the boundaries when it brings forward its final suggestions in the form of an act before this Legislature.

One other matter I would like to mention concerns community of interest and diversity of interest. I represent both urban and rural communities and both fast-growing and older, more established communities. While I recognize no community likes to see lines splitting it in two, the trauma associated with doing so is greater in the rural community, because in a lot of cases I have found they are more politically aware and have to utilize their member of the provincial parliament to a much greater degree than do some of the urban centres.

Therefore, I would suggest that if the commission has the choice between dividing a smaller rural or an older, established community and dividing a younger community, the younger community would be better able to adapt to the change than would the older community. I have both older and newer communities to deal with.

An example of this is the splitting of the city of Kanata between the ridings of Carleton and Carleton-Grenville. I represent the majority of the population, but the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) represents the majority of the geographical area. The only objection I have ever heard to the fact that two members represent the 27,500 people who now live in Kanata is that it is difficult to delineate the boundary because it is on an old township line.

If the commission found it still had to split Kanata, that would not be a great problem for a lot of the people in this community, because they are new to the community and are perhaps more accustomed to change than are some of the other people I represent in rural or small-town areas.

I have a number of documents I would like to read into the record. I know this is a bit slow and tedious for some of the members. Unfortunately, however, this is the fashion in which I can get these matters before the Legislative Assembly, and I intend to do it this way.

First, I would like to read from a resolution by the county council of Leeds and Grenville. I will try to read only those parts that are pertinent to the debate this afternoon. This is dated January 28, 1985, which was close on the heels of the second --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. Speak to your colleagues, not to the gallery.

Mr. Sterling: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned only with those who are going to be making the decisions on the words I might be saying today. I will make another speech, I promise, when the bill is before us. I will go through all of this again for your benefit in case you have missed any of it.

4:30 p.m.

"The council" -- this is the county council of Leeds and Grenville -- "goes on record objecting to the splitting of the county of Grenville riding for the Legislature seat.

"Our first preference is to leave the riding as Carleton-Grenville. However, if changes must be made in the riding, this council would strongly feel that a new riding should be established comprising totally Leeds and Grenville. The counties of Leeds and Grenville now jointly provide municipal services such as education, health services, homes for the aged, roads, etc. Grenville has no mutual interest with the counties to the east, and it would seem more acceptable to be joined with a county that has common interests and service-sharing with Grenville."

On December 10, 1984, the town council of Kemptville passed a resolution:

"In view of the proposed boundary changes announced by the electoral boundaries commission, this council is not in favour of these announced changes whereby Grenville county would be split, with our eastern portion being added to the provincial riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry."

Attached to that resolution was a letter from the clerk, M. R. McIntyre, who was instructed to do so. I will read from four paragraphs contained in that letter, which is dated December 12, 1984.

"The mayor and councillors are irate over this matter as Kemptville has absolutely nothing in common with Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

"Kemptville is a part of the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, with land registry office in Prescott, functions within the Leeds-Grenville County Board of Education, the Lanark-Leeds-Grenville Board of Health, the Lanark-Leeds-Grenville assessment office, as well as all other boards, courts and public groups in the two counties.

"Council strongly opposes any change that would divide the county of Grenville. It is of the opinion that the mathematics of the changes may be in order, but the effects of the change in regards to human feelings and historic background of the area may not have been sufficiently understood.

"Council would support leaving as is our Grenville county being incorporated with Leeds county so that there is a continuity in the management of the services for the people concerned."

That was a letter from the town clerk of Kemptville, and a resolution, which I read in full because the council of the township of Edwardsburgh also passed a resolution supporting that resolution. On December 27, the council of the township of Edwardsburgh passed a resolution supporting the resolution of the town council of Kemptville.

The township of South Gower basically supported the town council of Kemptville in a resolution as well. Grant Christie, the then and present reeve of the township of South Gower, wrote to the then Premier, William G. Davis at that time. I think it is important that his letter be read into the record as well because it also has a flavour in it, the part about the association with the north.

"If this proposal takes effect, South Gower would be amalgamated with the counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. The sitting member of the Legislature would be Mr. Noble Villeneuve, whose centre of activity is in Cornwall, Ontario. While council is sure Mr. Villeneuve is a fine representative" -- and I can attest to that -- "he should be so distant from our local township and its concerns that, with the best will in the world, he would not be able to represent our interests, nor should he be expected to do so."

I am not sure whether that is correct. I am sure the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry would be capable of doing a very good job. However, I am reading the letter of a reeve in this instance.

"It is also clear to council that many of our residents commute to work in Ottawa, and South Gower's interests lie northward with Ottawa, some 30 miles distant, and not with Cornwall some 90 miles away. The current electoral boundaries recognize this reality."

I hesitate to read the following paragraph, but I will:

"I might add that our provincial Conservative member is Norm Sterling, whose good offices are readily available to us and for whom we have the highest regard. The council has no desire to change this relationship."

In addition, I received a letter from Wesley Baldwin, the clerk-treasurer of the village of Cardinal. This is a letter to me:

"Please be advised that it was unanimously agreed by all members of the village of Cardinal council at their regular meeting held on Monday, December 3, 1984, that they oppose any boundary changes to the existing riding represented by yourself."

The council of the township of Augusta passed this resolution, dated December 10, 1984: "That this council goes on record objecting to the splitting of Grenville county. Our first preference is to leave the riding as Carleton-Grenville. If changes must be made in ridings, this council would prefer that the new riding be established and made up totally of Leeds-Grenville. The counties of Leeds-Grenville now jointly provide services such as education, health services, homes for the aged, roads, etc. Grenville has no contacts with the counties to the east and it would seem more acceptable to be joined with a county that has everything in common with Grenville."

There were many editorials and articles in the local newspapers, the Kemptville Weekly Advance and the Prescott Journal. Both those papers expressed the view that there was little interest between Grenville county and those counties particularly to the far eastern end of the riding of the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Those editorials expressed outrage, I guess, not only at the splitting and joining with the east, but also -- and I hope the commission members remember this -- at the fact that Grenville county has been bounced around in both federal and provincial riding redistributions to a very great extent over the past while. Federally, I think it was Leeds-Grenville first, then it was Grenville-Carleton and now it is back to Leeds-Grenville. Provincially, it was Grenville-Dundas, then Carleton-Grenville and now it is going to be half one way and half the other. I guess they feel they are caught in a squeeze to satisfy everybody else's needs and their needs are down at the bottom.

In summary, in terms of the priorities dealing with Leeds and Grenville counties, I guess their first priority would be to stay as one, their second priority would be to try to move to the west, if that is possible, and I would say the third priority would be to move to the north.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I realize the difficulty the commission is faced with. I suspect that when the commissioners were deciding on the boundaries for the ridings in eastern Ontario they probably started at the Quebec boundary thinking they could not go any farther east and they had to start from there and come west.

I would suggest that an alternative way of approaching the problem of dealing with eastern Ontario would be to start at the centre of population. As we know, the centre of population for eastern Ontario is the Ottawa-Carleton region. The Ottawa-Carleton region has half of the population of eastern Ontario.

4:40 p.m.

Currently, in the Ottawa-Carleton area -- if we start in that area and move outwards, which I would like the commission to consider as an approach -- we have six full ridings plus parts of Prescott-Russell and Carleton-Grenville and a small part of Renfrew South. The two ridings that cause the greatest problem are Carleton and Carleton East; in particular Carleton East because of its large size, and it is still growing at a rapid rate. My riding of Carleton-Grenville and the ridings of Carleton and Prescott-Russell are also growing at rapid rates. If any ridings in eastern Ontario are going to be undersized, they should be in those areas in the fringe around Ottawa-Carleton.

I propose that the commission create six or seven inner Ottawa-Carleton ridings that will have limited growth in future. I suggest it use not only municipal boundaries but also the National Capital Commission greenbelt as a possible boundary, because of communities such as Barnhaven and Bridlewood. While part of the city of Kanata they are outside the greenbelt. There is a natural boundary there as well as the municipality's boundaries, even though both sides are in the city of Nepean. Nepean and Gloucester will have to be split and I suggest the greenbelt be considered as a good partition.

Those are the inner Ottawa-Carleton ridings, and if they can be made to correspond as much as possible to the existing ridings, that would be appreciated by the existing political structures that are there and I am sure by the existing members. It would then create three or four outer ridings, which is not the way the commission has put it forward.

I suggest the commission look at creating three or four outer Ottawa-Carleton ridings. These ridings would be in communities that are growing rapidly. I recognize that in the next redistribution after this one, if we ever get to it, they will require another change. However, there are six or seven inner ridings that could probably stay intact the next time around.

Outside the Ottawa-Carleton outer ridings, I suggest the commission try to create ridings that are as closely associated as possible with the federal boundaries. Leeds-Grenville would be created to be as close as possible to the federal riding. Prescott-Russell would be made as close as possible to the federal riding by rotating it around a little into Glengarry county.

I know my friends the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) and the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry would not agree with me, but a Cornwall-centred riding would be created that would stretch into the rural riding to a greater extent. The commission would make up the deficiencies for Lanark county or Renfrew South by creating spokes into those four transitional ridings that slop in and out over the Ottawa-Carleton boundary.

That is where towns such as Arnprior, Winchester, Almonte, Carleton Place, Kemptville, Merrickville and Rockland are. Those people are the ones going in and out, and therefore I think they are more suitable for a riding that spokes out into eastern Ontario.

Lastly, I would like to say that in terms of the representation out into the rural areas, it is my feeling the Grenville county feeling is so strong in this circumstance that it would probably put up with a lesser degree of service from its MPP if the commission saw fit to join it with Leeds-Grenville than be joined to the east. They feel that strongly on this issue.

I think the commission can come forward with a more innovative plan than its last existing plan. I accept, acknowledge and understand their difficulties in dealing with the problem, but I would hope they would look at my suggestion of how to approach it and perhaps come up with some different resolutions in the act.

No doubt, as the member for Grey-Bruce indicated, we can negotiate for the final boundaries, but that is going to have be done after the act is brought in. Those negotiations are going to be difficult because what may be good for the seven other members around me may not be good for the communities in Carleton-Grenville. Therefore, I say Godspeed to the commission and thank members for the opportunity to speak on this matter.

It is extremely important to Grenville county that it be unified or go to the north. If the commission has to split it, I suggest it be split on a north-south basis rather than an east-west basis. I do not submit to any splitting at all, but that would be more logical in the present circumstances of the social and economic situation of Grenville county.

Mr. McGuigan: I am glad to enter this debate. I would like to say that redistribution and change to the boundary is no stranger to Kent-Elgin. Going back to pre-Confederation, the riding of Kent covered most of southwestern Ontario. It reached up into the Georgian Bay area. In those days it was probably the largest riding in the province.

It has had a rather storied history in that one of the very first members from Kent was captured in the War of 1812. There was a series of books distributed to each member about three years ago giving the history of the various ridings. The article never said what became of the gentleman, but he was captured by the Americans in the War of 1812. I presume that when peace came he was released.

Looking over that history, another member was elected but could not find time to come and sit in the Legislature. We complain about those members who spend a good deal of their time working in their ridings, but this gentleman never once attended the Legislature because he was too busy acting as the Indian agent. He apparently had a great number of duties. It did not say whether he ever collected his pay or what happened to his constituents, but he did not attend the Legislature. Of course, the location would not have been Toronto in those days, but he did not attend.

4:50 p.m.

In the late 1800s another member by the name of Ferguson was elected by acclamation, a gift any member would rather envy, not having to go through the trauma and hard work of an election.

Any member here who believes in the history of this great province and in the history of the democratic process in general has to support the idea that we have representation by population. I do not oppose carrying through those great aims. When we look upon the great variance we currently have in Ontario, I think each and every member recognizes that some changes have to come about. I do not have any great opposition to the changes in the riding of Kent-Elgin, apart from those that disrupt the relationships that every member builds up during the course of his incumbency.

At the eastern end of my riding in the county of Elgin I am privileged to have an area largely populated by Scottish people. If we go back to Colonel Talbot, when he was a land agent responsible for distributing land to new settlers, he put the Scottish people all in one township, Dunwich. I do not know whether he had any racial bias or just what it was, but he managed to put these people geographically as far away from himself as he possibly could. It has been a great pleasure for my wife and me to become acquainted with those Scottish people, because my wife is of pure Scottish descent and I have a great deal of Scottish and Irish blood in my veins.

Before I joined the Legislature back in 1966, on a trip to Britain I indulged myself with a set of kilts and the complete costume. We have great fun at the Scottish games that are held in Dutton every summer; and during the winter, usually close to January 25, on Bobby Burns's anniversary, we attend the Burns supper, wear our Scottish clothing and show our Scottish heritage. Given the climate of southwestern Ontario, I would have preferred that Bobby Burns had had his birthday at some other time than January 25, which is normally the coldest week of the year in Ontario. It is tough on the knees to wear a kilt at that time.

If I may digress a little, I will tell members about the experience of wearing a kilt. Members may have noticed they wear a big pin on the right-hand corner of this garment.

Mr. Lane: What do they wear under it?

Mr. McGuigan: There is an answer to that, but I will not give it, because it is unparliamentary. I will give the member for Algoma-Manitoulin the answer to that on some other occasion.

They have a pin that puts the two folds together -- or so I thought. So I pinned them together. Then I wondered why the backs of my legs were being chafed so badly -- as a matter of fact almost to the point of drawing blood, all the skin having been rubbed off the backs of my legs at a very tender point, the back of the knee joint. I discovered that one is not supposed to join the two folds of the kilt together; that the pin goes through only one layer, because otherwise, when the two are put together, one does not get the proper swing of the kilt and it chafes one's legs.

Anyway, it has been a great pleasure working with those people and getting to know them, and I really hate the thought of having to lose the two townships in Elgin, Aldborough and Dunwich, where we have done so much work.

I believe I am correct when I say the town of Dutton had never voted Liberal since Confederation until this past election. It was some matter of comfort to think that electoral change had come about to make that historic shift.

The other change that would be made in the riding would be that we would lose the two townships and three towns in Elgin and we would take over areas in Essex county, up to Leamington and beyond. That is an area in which I would be perfectly comfortable running as a member because it is a horticultural, fruit-growing and farming area very similar to my own type of farming. I feel I would be quite comfortable and could serve them well. Nevertheless, I hate to see those personal bonds changed.

That brings us to the major point I have against the present plans for redistribution, the point that was touched on by the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) a few minutes ago. He pointed out that Ontario would lose four rural ridings.

It is important for a number of sociological reasons. Rural people do not move their homes. They do not move around from place to place as city people do. The figure given for the cities in Ontario is that about 25 per cent of the people move during the course of a year. Young people move into town and acquire an apartment, after a few years they buy a starter home and then perhaps a few years later they move to a larger home in the suburbs. This brings about a great deal of instability and movement among those people.

In rural areas, unless families are forced off their farms they will stay there for generations. They bring a stability of character, politics, religion and business that is, in many ways, of great benefit to Ontario. These people are not stampeded by the vagaries of politics, economics or the winds of change that happen. They take them philosophically, in their stride, as much as possible. There is a value there that is beneficial to this province and I would hate to see it change.

There is one element in rural Ontario I want to point out. The present economic climate of agriculture is probably one of the worst periods the farming community has been subjected to since the Great Depression of the 1930s. This is due to the many world production conditions that have changed. Many countries to whom we sold grain are now producing their own, so the market has shrunk. At the same time, the production capacity of the land has increased. So we have the spectre today of a surplus of food in all but the continent of Africa, where we have a shortage.

There has been a great deal of stress put upon the farm community. Over the years, government after government has said the answer to this is simply to reduce the number of farmers. The latest farm bill that was just passed by the United States about three or four weeks ago has taken the position that if it cuts down the number of farmers there will be a greater return for those who are left, a bigger slice of the pie, and the problem will be solved.

5 p.m.

The former government of this province took that position with its report in 1969 called The Challenge of Abundance. One of the major conclusions of a big study of the report in the province was: "Why do we not simply get rid of a few farmers? Those remaining would be better off." This has never worked out, because as long as we have greater physical production and those goods are seeking a smaller and smaller market, there are going to be low prices and those will affect the people who are left in the system just as badly as those who were forced out.

As we gradually eliminate the number of rural ridings, as suggested in taking the 32 current ones and bringing them down to 28, we allow more and more impetus on the side of the non-rural people to buy the argument that one simply solves the problem by getting rid of the people. By maintaining as many ridings as we possibly can, we have a chance to counter that argument and point out that the problem is not the numbers of people in agriculture but the lack of markets and the tremendous overcapacity in this industry.

Those rural people have an obligation, one they take seriously, to guard the agricultural resource, guard the land, maintain its quality and fight the erosive factors there are in Ontario, such as wind, soil and water erosion, which are contributing to problems of flooding, shoreline protection and all of those matters that are becoming very serious today. Agricultural people have a concern about the quality of our air and the damage chemicals coming from industrial factories and automobiles are doing to the crops we grow.

Those agricultural people have an interest in keeping the rural landscape of Ontario beautiful. When city people decide to go into the country for a drive or a visit or simply pass through it to go from one point to the other, they are going to see a landscape that is aesthetically pleasing to them and one that is healthy for their children and for generations to come. By reducing the number of rural ridings, we reduce the number of people who are willing and able to fight for retaining and improving the rural resource.

I would like to see changes made in those ridings that have such vast numbers. Mention has been made of a riding in Toronto that has more than 200,000 people. If one believes in democracy, one has to believe that riding should be changed. It seems to me we could make some of those changes in the city ridings without upsetting the complete landscape by changing rural boundaries throughout this great province.

I am happy to have taken a few minutes of the Legislature's time to speak on this important matter. I attended a meeting in Windsor a couple of years ago. I spoke at that time about the necessity of retaining the rural riding of Kent-Elgin as it was, and apparently with some success because the first proposal was to eliminate the riding completely. It has been retained in the sense that instead of being Kent-Elgin it will now be Kent-Essex.

I simply add my weight to that of other members to try to resolve this problem as equitably as possible.

Mr. Leluk: I am delighted to take part in this debate on the proposals for the redistribution of electoral districts in Ontario as submitted by the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission in its two reports of February 1984 and November 1984. I wish to commend the commission on its most difficult task of revising the present boundaries of the 125 electoral districts, made necessary as a result of an increase of approximately one million people in the population of Ontario as reflected in the 1981 census.

I can personally attest to the difficulties the commission may experience in arriving at a final decision and, further, the difficulties some members of this assembly may have with accepting that final decision. When the last redistribution of boundaries took place in 1975, I was one of two Metro members who lost their riding in its entirety. However, I moved a little further west and have been representing the present riding of York West in this assembly since 1975. At that time, it was difficult for me to accept the commission's decision, but no doubt it was an equally difficult decision for the commission to have to make. The member for Grey-Bruce might call that "Tory gerrymandering."

The city of Etobicoke has a population of some 299,000 people at present. The riding of York West is in the western segment of that city. It is a stable and relatively middle-class riding, inhabited in the main by home owners and families. There is a core of high-rise apartments which dominates the centre of the riding, but many of the units are condominiums. Only 33 per cent of York West residents rent their homes.

The present population is 80,320. The boundaries are the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway -- or Highway 401 as it is known -- on the north, Kipling Avenue on the east, Etobicoke Creek on the west and the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks just south of Dundas Street West on the south. The riding is divided north to south by Highway 427. We have four electoral districts at present: the riding of Etobicoke in the northern segment of the city, the riding of Humber in the eastern segment, my riding of York West in the western segment and the riding of Lakeshore in the southern segment.

As the elected member in this assembly representing the riding of York West, I object to the proposed boundary revision set out in the publication entitled Proposed Redistribution of Electoral Districts within Metropolitan Toronto, 1984, and in particular to the proposed boundaries for the riding of York West. The proposed change of the southerly boundary is from the existing boundary of the CPR tracks to a new alignment along Bloor Street West in the city of Etobicoke.

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. There are three conversations going on in the caucus of the member who is speaking. They are disturbing his speech.

Mr. Leluk: They are obviously very interested in what I have to say.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: I noticed you looked around a couple of times. Will you please give the member your attention or carry on your conversations elsewhere?

Mr. Leluk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Although this first proposal would reduce the present population from 80,000 to approximately 73,000, it creates some serious problems. The area concerned is a residential area bounded on the west by the Etobicoke Creek, on the north by Bloor Street West, on the east by Kipling Avenue and on the south by Dundas Street West, containing some 7,000 persons.

5:10 p.m.

The reason for the objection is mainly the disruption of the existing community of interest affecting Markland Woods, which has been a long-standing community. The residents of the area in question currently enjoy a community of interest and close ties with those north of Bloor Street, the proposed new boundary. They have many interests, consisting of sharing common libraries, school facilities, recreational and park facilities, commercial and shopping facilities. A Bloor Street boundary would divide the area serviced by three home owner associations, about five home and school associations, about four major sports leagues and various social clubs, such as bowling leagues, bridge clubs and a golf and country club.

The area in question is totally isolated from the residential areas to the south by a sizeable industrial area that discourages any sense of community with the existing Lakeshore riding. The area does not share any common interest facilities with the other residential communities in the Lakeshore riding. In other words, the southern part of the Markland Woods community would have very little relationship, if any, to the Alderwood community, for example, which is to the south and just south of the Queen Elizabeth Way.

I was pleased to see that in the second report, Revised Proposals for Redistribution of Electoral Districts within Metropolitan Toronto, 1984, the commission in its wisdom went back to the original southern boundary of the CPR tracks and took into consideration those submissions made by three or four groups that appeared before it during the public hearings after the first report was tabled in this House.

It has proposed new boundaries on the east by having Martin Grove Road as the eastern boundary down to the Westway, across in an easterly direction to Kipling Avenue, while Kipling Avenue would remain the boundary on the east all the way down to the CPR tracks at Dundas Street West. This makes a lot more sense to me, because the community in that small section, which numbers about 4,500 or 4,600 persons, has closer ties with the community on the east side of Kipling Avenue than where the original proposal would have had it fall.

I was pleased as well to see that a number of representations were made with respect to the change of names of the four districts in the city. For some time there has been confusion. As an example, in the last provincial election one of the major Toronto papers -- I was not going to name it but I will -- the Globe and Mail, which seldom makes mistakes in its reporting, had an accurate map of the riding showing the exact boundaries: Highway 401 on the north, Kipling Avenue on the east, Etobicoke Creek on the west and the CPR track to the south.

However, in the content of the story it talked about the boundaries of the federal riding of York West, naming the boundaries for the provincial riding as being the Humber River, Lawrence Avenue West, Keele Street, Highway 400 and Steeles Avenue West.

There has been considerable confusion in the past between the boundaries of the federal riding of York West and the provincial riding. When one notes that the riding of York West federally does not even exist in the city of Etobicoke, but is found in the most northwestern section of the city of North York, it is confusing.

In speaking to many people, when one mentions the riding of York West they seem to be at a total loss as to where that particular electoral district is situated; so I am delighted the commission has seen fit to propose in this second report changing the names to Etobicoke North, Etobicoke West, Etobicoke East and Etobicoke South.

I would have accepted it personally if they had wanted to retain the historical name of Humber, which is associated with the river that forms the eastern boundary for the riding of Humber. They could have named that riding Etobicoke-Humber, and if there was an interest in retaining the name of Lakeshore, they could have renamed the southern riding Etobicoke-Lakeshore. That would have been quite acceptable.

As far as I am concerned, the boundaries of the present riding could have remained as they are. We do not foresee any sizeable increase in population over the next five-year period. The present population is around 80,000. We would anticipate the population, which is fairly stable, would remain approximately the same over the next five-year period, or even take a slight dip by some 500 persons. However, that might cause an inequality in the population in the riding to the east. Therefore, we are not unhappy with the proposal put forward by the commission in this second report with respect to that change in the northeast section of the riding.

I do not believe I have any other comments to add. I know there are some others who would like to speak. Unlike some of our other colleagues in this House who like to go on at great length, I will take my seat.

Mr. Polsinelli: It is my pleasure to rise and participate in this debate regarding the redistribution of the Ontario electoral districts. I would like to say at the outset that I am generally happy with the work the commission has done with respect to the riding of Yorkview, which I am pleased to represent. However, I have a few remarks I would hope the commission would take into consideration in any plans it may have to alter the new boundaries of Yorkview.

First, dealing with the area lying north of Finch Avenue, east of the Humber and west of Weston Road, which was formerly part of the electoral district of Etobicoke, I am happy to see that the commission has decided to include that in the new riding of Yorkview. This area is part of the municipal city of North York and properly belongs to a riding wholly bounded by the municipal boundaries of the city of North York. I compliment them on that recommendation.

5:20 p.m.

Second, dealing with that area of the old Yorkview riding, now in the new riding of Downsview, lying north of Finch Avenue, west of Keele Street, east of the Black Creek and south of Steeles Avenue, that area basically comprises two distinct and separate communities, one of them being York University, which is a self-contained university and which basically can form part of any of the electoral districts that abut it.

The second community, commonly referred to as University City, consists of rental apartments and condominiums. It has a considerable degree of isolation and is bordered to the north by York University, to the east by Keele Street, to the south by Finch Avenue West and to the west by the Black Creek. That area has developed a unique sense of community. It also has a self-contained shopping plaza and a very active tenants' group and community council. In fact, it is another self-contained community that could reasonably form part of any electoral district that abuts it.

Third, I want to deal with the commission's use of natural boundaries when dividing the new riding of Yorkview. Generally, as I indicated earlier in my comments, I am very happy with the decision to use the Humber River as the westerly limit of the new riding of Yorkview and Highway 401 as its southerly limit.

With respect to the easterly limit of the new riding, I would suggest to the commission that Jane Street and the Black Creek are appropriate boundaries. I would further suggest that if the commission has any intention of expanding the new riding of Yorkview, it should take into consideration expansion along the Black Creek, which I believe it has done in the area of the new Yorkview riding lying north of Finch Avenue.

The new area, which lies east of Jane Street, north of Sheppard Avenue, south of Finch Avenue and west of the Black Creek, is in effect its own community. It basically consists of a subdivision of new homes that have been erected within the past four or five years, and there is much in common between those new homes and the homes lying to the west of Jane Street.

If the commission intends in any way to expand the new riding of Yorkview, I request that it consider using the natural boundary of the Black Creek and extending that boundary south to Sheppard Avenue.

Mr. Sheppard: I would like to rise and make a few comments. I am quite happy to congratulate the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission because my riding is not going to change. It has 67,000 people and about 47,000 eligible voters in 15 municipalities: nine townships, two villages and four towns. It goes from Trenton to just west of Port Hope and is bounded by Rice Lake on the north, the Trent River to the east and the north, and by Lake Ontario to the south. We have a mixed riding -- half rural, half urban -- but I am sure that when the electoral boundaries commission looks at this it will leave it unchanged because it is an A-1 riding, well represented here at Queen's Park.

I have been talking to several of the rural members, and I want to say that I question whether any of the rural ridings should be changed at all because we are getting fewer and fewer in Ontario. The electoral boundaries commission should take another look at the big ridings in all the large centres to see what happens when a riding is changed.

In Victoria-Haliburton, for instance, where the commission is thinking about taking Manvers out of that riding, there are two different counties involved. Northumberland is one county; it has been one county since 1974. We elect a warden each year, as do Victoria and Haliburton. However, if we look at a riding to the east of us, Hastings-Peterborough, we see that the member for that riding has to go to three different wardens' elections each year. I know his population is not quite as large as mine, but I cite that as an example to show that as many of the rural ridings as possible should be left the same and that the biggest change should be made in the large urban centres where it does not cause upset.

If we take out one or two townships, especially when they are all in one area -- for instance, if we take out one municipality, the school buses for the Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education might have to run in different directions. In the area of fire protection, in the great riding of Northumberland we have what we call a co-ordinator; all 15 municipalities have fire protection, but he is the key. It would be disruptive if we were to lose one municipality to Quinte riding to the east or one municipality to Durham East riding to the west.

I recommend to the electoral boundaries commission that it take a hard look at redistribution and leave as many as possible of the rural ridings as they are at present.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Mr. Elston has moved, seconded by Hon. Ms. Caplan, that the House consider motions 1 to 36 standing in Orders and Notices and further notices filed with the Clerk of the assembly relating to the provisions of the Report upon the Redistribution of Ontario into Electoral Districts, such further notices to be published in the notice paper on a day prior to the conclusion of the debate on this resolution, and notwithstanding its previous terms of reference, the commission is hereby authorized to give consideration to all motions so filed and to all submissions reported in Hansard during the discussion of this resolution.

Motion agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has assented to certain bills in his chambers on Tuesday, December 31, 1985, and today, January 6, 1986.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented on Tuesday, December 31, 1985:

Bill 48, An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act;

Bill 49, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act;

Bill 50, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act, 1981;

Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour assented today, Monday, January 6:

Bill 47, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

ONTARIO LOAN ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 43, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mr. McFadden: I rise with some trepidation to discuss the borrowing of $2.8 billion. I have never had a chance to debate anything of that scale before with respect to borrowing and debt. It is something like entering a fantasy land of a financial nature. When my wife and I sit at home discussing major expenditures, we often have a lengthy debate about $280. To be rising here to discuss $2.8 billion and where it is going to come from is really something.

Mr. Ashe: It is peanuts to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon).

Mr. McFadden: Somebody mentioned it is peanuts. That is an awful lot of peanuts we are going to be borrowing from pension plans. When I first got Bill 43 --

Mr. Breaugh: The Tories used to spill more than that.

Mr. McFadden: I was not here in those days.

Mr. Foulds: How soon they forget.

Mr. McFadden: We have not forgotten. When I first got Bill 43 I looked and thought perhaps I had missed about three zeros.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: The good old days; reduce the deficit.

Mr. McFadden: That is right. One thing the governments in this province, federally and in the western world have worked their way to is that the debts currently being built up are so large they are beyond the average person's comprehension. I think they are well beyond the comprehension of most business people as well.

In fairness, when one compares the amount of borrowing and the level of debt in Ontario to that in Ottawa, Ontario is the very model of modesty. I can see the Treasurer blushing. In the current fiscal year, Ottawa is looking at borrowing something in the order of $37 billion to $38 billion, figures that are incomprehensible to almost anyone.

In fairness, I should point out that the current federal government is the first government in many years to be working seriously to try to bring the deficit under some control. To some extent that is in contrast to the current situation where the latest budget is witnessing an increase of some $400 million over the previous fiscal year, something approaching $500 million.

Mr. Gillies: A $700-million tax increase.

Mr. McFadden: And a $700-million tax increase, as my colleague so accurately points out.

One thing that is overlooked by those in the media and by most members of this House is who is going to pay for this deficit we are now involved in approving the borrowing for; and who is going to pay for the accumulating deficits, in Ottawa, here and in other provinces? Future generations of Ontarians and Canadians will not see the benefit of most of this borrowing but will be paying the tab in more than one way. They will pay in terms of their taxes but, more to the point, they will pay in terms of services they will not be able to have because we chose to borrow and deficit finance to the point where generations in the 1980s, 1990s and on into the 21st century will have to pay.

Ontario's overall picture is dramatically better than Ottawa's because of the kind of total budget planning that was done by the current leader of our party, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), together with our former leader, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), and successive previous Treasurers who exercised a great deal of restraint and effective budget management through these many years.

I am very concerned about the direction indicated in the current budget. I mentioned that we are looking at a budget deficit increase pushing $500 million. More worrisome is the section in the budget which basically downplays the importance of the province's credit rating. The deficit increase is bad enough, but the policy direction indicated by that section which tends to downgrade the importance of credit rating is a disturbing change, one that should disturb the people of Ontario.

We do not know how much of this $2.8-billion authorization will be used up by the province. It is a general enabling provision that allows borrowing of up to $2.8 billion. This kind of bill in itself is disturbing in the sense that one would almost think we were authorizing someone to buy a new hat or new shoes and saying not to spend more than $100 or $200 on that expenditure. We are effectively allowing a government to spend up to that amount and telling it just to let us know, when it has spent it, how much it has spent.

I know the old hands in this House find this a suitable way to carry on, and perhaps if I am here for a while and have a chance to deal with one or more of these bills I will become immune to this as a way to carry on financially. However, as somebody who has had some experience, at least in business and in running community agencies and groups, I find this whole method of carrying on to be something that would not be generally satisfactory to most people in the community, in the business community, in social agencies and elsewhere.

I find this whole debate contrasts with the kind of thing one would expect to find, for example on the board of a United Way agency where they fight to balance budgets and they cut and make changes. They work through the agony of making sure their agency can deliver its services within the budget they have, a process I have gone through myself on many occasions.

What do we find here this afternoon? We are approving a $2.8-billion deficit through general enabling legislation with no specifics. If I were on the board of a United Way agency and were authorizing deficits like this they would throw me off; the United Way would stop giving us money because it would regard us as a group that could not be responsible for the kind of spending it was undertaking. The whole process of budget management and how we handle it requires a major revamping and review, because it is not the kind of process we would tolerate in a business, in a community group or even in municipalities.

I know this is a time-honoured way of doing it, as I have already said. It is a method that has become the practice over the years, not only in Ontario but also in other provinces. However, it is a method that should be reviewed. While we are clearly not going to stand in the way of getting on with raising the money required to meet the expenditures of this province, I believe it is necessary for us to think seriously about how this is being done and about the amount of the deficit, and to make some serious attempt to bring down the deficit and to bring our spending into line with what we can afford.

That completes what I wish to say other than to simply point out in conclusion that in the budget which I assume the Treasurer will bring forward this spring I hope we will see some significant attempt, either through suggestions in the budget papers or in the budget itself, to find methods of bringing down expenditures and deficits in a way that would be manageable, sensible and in line with good budget management, not only in a way that the average man would consider adequate but also in a way that any person with sophisticated business judgement would think was adequate.

Mr. Foulds: I rise to speak on this piece of legislation and to indicate this party's support for it. I have listened with some care to the thoughtful remarks of the previous speaker because, for all the heckling we engage in in this House, occasionally one does have to give his remarks some consideration. I thought it unfortunate, however, that his colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) saw fit to heckle him during the course of his remarks.

Mr. Gillies: I was helping.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: I think it was most useful that the remaining members of the Tory caucus did restrain the member for Brantford. This may be the first time on record in this House that the member for Brantford has been restrained.

Having put that aside, I obviously have some concern that government deficits in this country, particularly at the federal level, have risen. However, I do find it contradictory, if I may say so, that if one seeks the origin of the current deficit in Ontario, one can plot it back to the budgets of the late 1960s and 1970s. If one actually plots a graph of the deficits incurred that led to the accumulated deficit, one will find a most peculiar thing. One will find the largest deficits occurred under those models of fiscal restraint the Honourable Darcy McKeough, the Honourable John White, the member for Muskoka and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. Surprisingly, the largest deficits occurred in the year leading up to the calling of a provincial election.

The accumulated deficit we wrestle with in this province, which is relatively modest in comparison to our overall budgetary figures and so on, accumulated in that way. That is a most surprising thing, when one examines it closely. Because we are not allowed to in this House, I would not want to attribute any political motivation to any member, but I would certainly attribute political motivation to that budgetary process and the resulting deficit with which our successors will have to deal.

The fact of the matter is that every government needs to borrow money. It would be silly to withhold that authority from this Treasurer or any Treasurer. We do borrow largely from pension plans, and I frankly think that is a particularly good use of those pension plans, provided the money is eventually repaid and those pension plans are made actuarially sound so that the individuals contributing to the pension plans are not hit with undue increases in the future or suffer any possible drain that may exist on them. For all those reasons, I support this bill.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the comments made by the members, both in this brief debate and the more lengthy one that took place in 1985. Members know the purpose of the bill. We are about to run out of borrowing authority, probably at the beginning of February. That it is passed now is timely, and my officials will be able to sleep more soundly tonight if it goes forward as I expect it will. I appreciate the fact the members understand the purpose of this and that any leftover borrowing authority is not cumulative, as it was some years ago.

I remember undertaking this debate some time ago, and it became apparent that our borrowing authority had been building up to the extent there was substantial authority available to the then government. That was stopped. It is interesting, some members would recall, that the public accounts committee reviewed this procedure and indicated that, rather than establishing borrowing authority for a fiscal year, it would be better if the authority from the beginning of the fiscal year to the end of September were included and that the Ontario Loan Act come under that sort of cycle so the approval for the $2.8 billion would include authority to borrow through to September 1986. God willing, I will be back discussing this matter with the same erudite participants some time later in 1986.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 44, An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The purpose of the bill is to implement proposals that were put before the House in the budget of October 24, 1985, which are designed to improve the effectiveness of the business development corporations program. This program is generally recognized as a very effective one. It was brought in by my predecessor. I believe the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) was Treasurer at the time the bill was brought forward. I understand other jurisdictions, including a number of provinces, have reviewed this and adapted it to their own use. It is something of which Ontario can be proud.

The measures in this amendment are directed particularly to small business development corporations investing in northern and eastern Ontario as follows:

The minimum capital requirements for corporations investing in northern and eastern Ontario will be reduced from $100,000 to $50,000. Arm's-length provisions for investment in small business will be relaxed. Investors in these corporations will continue to remain eligible for grants or tax credits at the rate of 30 per cent of the investment, whereas for those investing in other areas tax grants or credits will be reduced to 25 per cent.

There is an oversight in the commencement section of the bill as it now reads. I intend to move an amendment to clarify that the provisions reducing the grant to 25 per cent in areas outside northern and eastern Ontario were effective on budget day. As a matter of fact, that was the intention. Applications made following budget day were based on the understanding it would be a 25 per cent grant and not a 30 per cent one.

The definition of eligible small businesses in which small business development corporations can invest will be expanded to include corporations primarily engaged in the development of computer applications or systems software programs that are for sale, lease or licensing by the small business. This change will be effected by regulation, so it is not directly spelled out in this bill.

The bill also contains certain administrative amendments. Some of these are required as a consequence of the enactment of the Business Corporations Act, 1982. For example, the bill changes a statutory reference to the Business Corporations Act, 1982, which replaced the previous act. The bill brings the definition of equity share and some other provisions in conformity with the Business Corporations Act, 1982. Other administrative amendments provide for the effective administration of the statute.

We feel this has been an effective instrument to assist small business. The justification, if any, for reducing the participation from 30 per cent to 25 per cent outside of northern and eastern Ontario has been partially to assist in the payment of the enriched programs in the north and east, and also to recognize in some smaller measure that other programs of this government and its predecessor have had an impact on the central part of the province that has been more effective than in some other areas. We can see that some large industries have been able to see their way clear to decide to locate in the central part of the province.

We felt this gradation was justifiable since it was the aim of the government, and particularly the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine), to undertake a program that would emphasize the development of small business in those particularly important areas of the province.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Barlow: I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words on Bill 44 as it amends the Small Business Development Corporations Act. I believe all parties are in general agreement. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has mentioned this is one of the more successful programs in existence to assist the development of small business. He also gave recognition of the fact it was brought in by the member for Muskoka when he was Treasurer of this province in 1979 when it was first introduced.

It is a program that has been exceedingly well received by the business community and by the investors of the province, those who wish to assist small business, and by all the small business associations. I think it was in February 1985 that the Clarkson Gordon review was initiated by the present leader of our party, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), when he was Treasurer. He asked Clarkson Gordon to review the entire program. They lauded it and commended its initiators.

We should also commend the new Liberal government for following up on our recommendations for continuation and expansion of the program. The recommendations were made in the throne speech of June 4, 1985. On page 20 it said, and I quote:

"Improved access to venture capital in all our regions must be a priority if economic opportunity is to be shared fairly across Ontario. In this regard, the budget will increase the regional funds of the small business development corporations program and will broaden eligibility for SBDC investments in northern Ontario."

I am glad to see that the Treasurer kept those thoughts in mind when he wrote the budget he read to us back on October 24. Not only did he assist in broadening the eligibility for northern Ontario, but of course he included eastern Ontario as well. We have no problem with that and we support that initiative.

The program was originally designed to increase the supply of equity capital to small business, thus encouraging individuals to take risks through equity investment in small business, to provide managerial advice to the small business and to encourage new business ventures in Ontario. We wanted at that time to prevent bankruptcies, create jobs and encourage regional development; and to achieve these goals the SBDC program was designed to stimulate small business development through a combination of private sector investment in eligible small businesses. The program has been well received by both the participants and the major small business organizations.

To ensure that the program was meeting the needs of business, the Clarkson Gordon report was commissioned and a report called An Evaluation of the Small Business Development Corporations Program was brought forward.

I believe our friends across the way were guided somewhat by the recommendations of that report. There is some divergence from it, though, and we will have to look at the rationale for changing, and in some cases ignoring, some of these recommendations. For instance, I wonder whether the Treasurer can answer in his summation why he chose to ignore one recommendation on page ii of the executive summary that said:

"The SBDCs have invested in small business in all regions of Ontario. However, the manufacturing sectors in northern and southwestern Ontario have received disproportionately lower amounts of SBDC investment."

It recommended southwestern Ontario as a possible area. The Treasurer and I, who both come from southwestern Ontario, might like to have a response as to why that was overlooked.

There are a few other recommendations I would like to point out. It said, "The SBDC program has successfully met its objective of providing new equity funding for the small business sector of Ontario." We all realize that and agree with it.

Another point it made is this: "The SBDC program has facilitated managerial expertise being provided to small business and, of the SBDCs that were surveyed, 70 per cent provided managerial assistance for their investee companies and over 85 per cent of the investee companies found that assistance helpful."

It goes on to say: "There is still some need for government support in equity investment in small business in Ontario. No other existing government program, either federal or Ontario, is providing significant amounts of equity funding to the small business sector served by the SBDC program."

It then concludes that part of its talk by saying, "Given the success of the SBDC program and small business needs for equity investment, we recommend that the Ontario Small Business Development Corporations programs be continued," and they are being continued.

The Clarkson Gordon report recommended, and our party concurred, that Ontario should continue to support these programs. However, Clarkson Gordon did look at and realize there was a 30 per cent tax credit allowance. The Treasurer explained to us why he cut it back to 25 per cent in all but northern and eastern Ontario; that is, to help support the program in those parts of the province.

There is concern among the eligible companies in both central and southwestern Ontario as to why they are helping to fund those companies in eastern and northern Ontario. The Treasurer should rethink and look again at that one point of cutting back on the 30 per cent. It is recognized that it is a way of helping the province and small business grow. I am not suggesting for a moment he should change the formula for eastern Ontario and northern Ontario, but I am suggesting he change it back to what it was for the balance of Ontario.

The investors who responded to the 30 per cent tax credit felt it was worth while taking a risk at that rate. I hope they do not back off when they find it has been cut back to 25 per cent.

All in all, I commend the Treasurer on the program. If there is any other thing I would like him to think about it would be the possibility of expanding the base. I realize we are expanding it now to the computer software sector; that was part of Clarkson Gordon's recommendation. Some of the other sectors might be considered at some point.

I know that is done by regulation as opposed to legislation. Perhaps at some time the Treasurer could consider leaving the door open a crack for some of these other service organizations and sectors to which it might be of assistance, some of the service sectors that have a big investment in Ontario and provide services in other areas that are not eligible at present.

With those words and at this point, Mr. Speaker, you might like me to adjourn the debate.

Mr. Speaker: It is not necessary to adjourn the debate as the discussion will continue later. Do you wish to continue your remarks?

Mr. Barlow: I will think about it over the supper hour.

The House recessed at 5:59 p. m.