Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT CORP. ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Chairman: When the committee rose at 6 o’clock we were dealing with the proposed amendment by Mr. Deacon, and the hon. minister was going to comment.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): May I say a word or two prior to the hon. minister’s comments, Mr. Chairman? I want to throw my 17 pennies’ worth into the ring with respect to the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon) in this regard. He has asked for a very intelligent thing. And I think what we’re doing on this side of the House, and the minister well realizes it, is testing goodwill, good faith, his confidence in the populace.

That quality of good faith and his belief, if there is any, in participatory features of which he prates, and which are supposed to be in-built features of his government, will be tested on this particular occasion. In other words, he has asked for two representatives from the public out of a potential nine people to be placed on this board, so that right from the word go -- in-built into the system itself and as a way of an ongoing colloquy, in terms of conversation, in terms of being there at the grassroots -- he will have two representatives from that community present, at least two.

But surely that’s not asking too much if he has any confidence in his own system and in the validity of the board that he is seeking to set up here.

One more board! Someday, Mr. Chairman, some member of this House should get out his tote board or his Chinese checkers or some form of abacus, and tote up. If it goes into the trillions, it just might catch the number of new boards, assemblies, tribunals, various forms of committees, instituted by the government during my very short stay in this particular House. They pass the imagination. And this is another one; all right, let this one work.

This is directed to a particular community. It’s coalesced, it’s known. The people who very well might sit on here are people of outstanding merit, considerable acumen, great ability. He doesn’t have to take perhaps the more difficult ones among them; he knows which ones operate in a way that would be found feasible, who would make a contribution and yet who wouldn’t be fall guys, and who wouldn’t simply knuckle under to whatever the minister, by a nod of his head or a wink of his eye, indicates is what he wants.

So why not, if he believes in the fundamental principle that’s supposed to be operative in this assembly and which is something of a new thing in the world, give some lip service to it? Give a budding nod to the acquaintance with participatory democracy and put a couple of people on there along the lines that have been indicated. If he doesn’t do so then I put it to him straight that he is not in good faith, that he is not holding out the olive branch, that he is not standing by the principle that is so often thrown out in this House -- that you participate, that you listen, that you are available; that you know, that you allow the widest possible participation by the citizenry in those things that will affect them and afflict them most. If the minister is not prepared to do that in this instance, then I would say that the government is not prepared to do it at all and the public may as well know what it stance is in this particular regard.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to respond?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for Lakeshore for his very short address. It was one of the most unusual I have heard.

Mr. Lawlor: Get to the point and sit down.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In any event, the member for Lakeshore knows full well that on this side of the House we listen to the people fully at all times. I am wondering how the member for Lakeshore and his colleagues, along with the official opposition, subscribe to this particular amendment of two to four members, when they are saying there is no one in the area, that the area has been --

Mr. Lawlor: You have decimated the area.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, right; these are the words from your leader’s mouth, that we have decimated the area and there is no one there. How can I accept an amendment which says “two to four members from the area” when there is no one in the area?

Mr. Lawlor: It is the principle.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The principle is this -- and I want the member for Lakeshore, the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) and everyone else here to understand this -- that we will accept any reasonable recommendation of a very qualified person on this board, but I am not going to tie the hands of the board down to any particular area.

Mr. Lawlor: Would you permit the opposition to nominate two? I think we will find them.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want the opposition and I want the member for Lakeshore and the member for Downsview or anyone else that wishes to do so to nominate people.

Mr. Lawlor: We could nominate a couple.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would like them to recommend to the minister and to the government who they think in their opinion would be acceptable for this very important job.

Mr. Lawlor: But you won’t write it into the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I won’t write it into the legislation. There is no way we put names into legislation. I was a bit amazed this afternoon when we had the leader of the NDP talking about one or two who could be better than someone else.

Mr. Lawlor: Two members of the board to be nominated by the opposition.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: There is just no way. We have to be factual on this.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Shame!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The board will be comprised of very competent people. If, in that area you are talking about --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port. Arthur): By whose criteria?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- you have in your opinion, and in the Liberal Party’s opinion, one, two or more people, we would be happy to receive those names.

Mr. Lawlor: You are not going to have anybody rocking any boats.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But certainly we want to have people who will --

Mr. Singer: That is not the point.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Put the member for Downsview on; he is against everything.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- make sure the plan is the best plan for the area. But I am not going to tie the hands of the board and they have to have someone from a particular area.

Mr. Lawlor: A total minority.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No way. The board has to be comprised of people who will be able to handle very --

Mr. Lawlor: You want people you know and trust who will do what you tell them to do.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Just a minute now. I think probably the member for Lakeshore doesn’t understand the concept. Were you here this afternoon?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I was.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, I thought you were.

Mr. Lawlor: I understand it only too well.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You understand that the development corporation will be responsible for bringing forth a plan, which will be in full consultation with all the people of the area and with all the municipalities. Don’t tell me that the minister is the one who is going to make the plans; it is the people and the development corporation who will make the plans. Certainly I don’t want you to have the idea that the minority will rule the majority, because that is not going to happen.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh of course not. We just want an objective input.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We will listen to all the people in the area. If there is someone in your area, in the area that you are mentioning, that you think would be very competent, I really would be pleased to receive the name. I am saying to you I think it would be very false on behalf of this government to proceed with a name or two or three or four now at this time, when we haven’t had a chance to look into the competence of other people who might comprise the board.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am very strongly against the amendment. I think the board should have all the rights of a very progressive board and not be one that will be tied down because of restrictions as to where a member comes from. I think this is something which the government must decide and the government will decide.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Deacon has moved an amendment to subsection 1 of section 4 that it he amended by the addition of the following words after “minister” in the fourth line, “of whom not less than two and not more than four shall be chosen from among the residents of the area.”

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr. Singer: No.

Mr. Lawlor: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): You camouflaged that very well.

Mr. W Hodgson: Everybody is against your amendment.

Mr. Chairman: In my opinion the “nays” have it and the amendment is defeated.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): A pretty powerful back bench you have over there.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, criticisms or amendments to any other section of the bill?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds moves that subsection 5 of section 4 be deleted from the bill.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur moves that subsection 5 of section 4 be deleted from the bill.

Mr. Foulds: May I speak to it?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, the hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that at some point we have to start looking upon the duties of the members of the legislative assembly of Ontario as a full-time job.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Well, we’re here.

Mr. Foulds: A few of us are here. This bill is as good a place as any. I see no reason whatsoever why we should proliferate and expand the commissions, boards, corporations and so forth on which MPPs sit and for which they get additional remuneration.

Some time ago I spoke to this House at great length about the number of appointments that all members of this House had to boards, commissions and select committees. I see it, frankly, as a way in which the government of the day buys off members of the legislative assembly. It’s a bit of crass political patronage and it should not be continued. And it should not be continued in this bill.

Surely to goodness there are enough duties for members of this Legislature to keep them occupied. If they are not doing a full-time job, Mr. Chairman, they’re not doing their jobs; and they have no business serving on other commissions that take up their time. Although this is just one small section of one small bill, it’s the principle that is involved. I see no reason why we should allow subsection (5) of section 4 to pass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): Going to speak against it here.

Mr. Lawlor: Come on, Mr. Minister. In this particular regard, I think that you should show a bit more enlightenment. I can’t imagine why on earth the clause is in there. I’m sure, you wouldn’t dare, wouldn’t presume, to appoint a member of this House to that body. I’d like to know really whether that’s your intention. Did you embody it with a specific purpose in mind?

The only other place I’ve seen that particular section of legislation is in a thing like the Legal Aid Act, where members of the House who are members of the legal profession are permitted to take legal aid cases, otherwise they would be excluded. It is understood that a conflict of interest would be involved and they wouldn’t have any role in a jurisdiction if they were not expressly permitted to do so.

So going to the length of embodying that and giving it explicit notice here in the section must mean that you have some kind of growling, glowing, underground intent to bring about such an appointment.

Now you’ve heard what has been said with respect to the numerous supernumerary use of fructuary, excessive jobs performed by people. I sometimes wonder if they perform these jobs after 7 o’clock at night. They must be sitting with the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission right at this moment.

I can see Jimmy Allan over there. His committee isn’t sitting tonight -- that’s very nice -- so he has arrived. Well, he’s a very good member of the House anyhow and I’ll bless him and leave him out of this. But those great, blank spaces over there, even when they are filled with great, blank faces over there -- but I’m looking only at the spaces at the moment and not the faces.

Mr. Foulds: Where is the chairman of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission?

Mr. Lawlor: But to think that any of those blank faces would be filling a role on this particular board or council quite bemuses the mind. I can’t imagine that you have any real utilization to the section in order to foreclose the possibility of such an appointment. I would ask you, too, as a member of this House, to take it out. It serves no function.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister -- I’m sorry, the hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Chairman, I will be quite brief. This section, if it weren’t so serious, would be very amusing. I think one of the first steps this government took when I was elected to this House, and at a time when I was the only woman serving on arbitration, was to ensure that I would not be permitted even to sit on arbitrations which had nothing to do with this House at all.

It is interesting that you would be so concerned to ensure that you could find another job for a Tory backbencher who may have run out of jobs at this point. Surely you are learning something more than this, to present this kind of a clause to this House at this point in time. It is about time we stopped handing out these sorts of patronage jobs to backbenchers and let us get on with running the province without that kind of overtone in the administration of the affairs of this province. So, Mr. Chairman, I support the elimination of this clause at this time.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to comment?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, despite what the hon. members have said, we are not saying this “shall,” we are saying this “may.” I think there is an awful lot to be said about continuity between a board and the government; and if the government decides that it should have a member on that board to relate to the minister then I think that is a very good reason to have it included in the bill. If the government decides there should not be one there, then nothing happens; nothing really will upset the member for St. George or the member for Lakeshore or anybody else who is concerned about this being in there.

What we are saying is that as we go along with the development of the new city or new town, we have to determine how much relationship is necessary between the development corporation and the government. There is no way I’m going to exclude or preclude the fact that we may have to have political relationships between the board and ourselves. Let me read the section to you.

Mr. Lawlor: You know, you are getting to be quite a palaverer.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You are saying they are going to get a salary, we are saying it is just a matter of being on the board, and the government may say that there is just an appointment to be there.

Mr. Lawlor: Your references are really something out of this world. Why didn’t the government send you over to talk to the Arabs instead of Mr. White? You would have done a good job; all those neat twists and turns.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Lakeshore has the great ability of trying to --

Mr. Lawlor: You are getting quite adroit in your old age.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- change the subject we are on. I would think the member for Lakeshore -- you’ve been here for quite a while -- should realize that really there is only one subject we are talking about now and that’s four or five. If you would look at five -- would you please? -- and understand that it concerns the appointment of a member, an MPP, to the board. There is nothing there about the Arabs or anything else; it is a matter of determining who should be there --

Mr. Lawlor: Why don’t you appoint your mother-in-law, then you would be all right?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and I’m saying to you there may be a very good reason in time to have someone there.

Mr. Lawlor: Then you will have some liaison.

Mr. Foulds: Give us that good reason.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: So we are not going to exclude the fact that an MPP has the right to be on that board.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George would like to ask a question of the minister and then we will proceed.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, as a result of the statement by the minister, would he be willing to incorporate in this section -- since he obviously has no intention of withdrawing it -- that any such member would serve without salary or any other perquisites with reference to the office?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well Mr. Chairman, that would be a matter that I suppose would be very difficult to decide right now.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh yes!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In the last few hours we have heard statements by certain members of this Legislature whereby they will not reduce their salary or they will not take a reduction to show leadership.

Mrs. Campbell: Nobody has said that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What I’m saying is that if the government decides that it wants a member to be on that board, the government will say whether it will be with or without salary; and that’s the government’s decision. If we don’t have the faith, which apparently the leader of the NDP hasn’t, that we should show leadership, then it’s too bad.

Mr. Ferrier: The member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) isn’t with you on this one. Neither is the member for Middlesex South (Mr. Eaton).

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think it’s time we have faith in the fact that the government of the day will decide whether it is necessary or not necessary to have an MPP on the board, with or without pay.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, the minister is being extremely provocative and extremely obtuse, if I may say so.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Before the hon. member --

Mr. Foulds: First of all, he says there may very well be a good reason --

Mr. Chairman: Before the hon. member continues, the Chair is having difficulty listening to the hon. member because of the extra conversations and comments from the other hon. members. Would you kindly give the hon. member for Port Arthur the courtesy of your attention at this time?

Mr. Lawlor: He is no better off than anybody else.

Mr. Foulds: I expect no special privileges in this House, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s right. Who do you think you are?

Mr. Foulds: The minister has said there may be a very good reason to appoint a member of the Legislature to this board. Would he care to divulge to us what that good reason might be?

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): He is a Tory.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is pretty well determined right now that it’s going to be a Conservative member, because of the actions of the opposition in the last few months. But in any event --

Mr. Ferrier: Who is it going to be? The member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot)?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If it is necessary for this board -- and I want to be very serious in speaking to the member for Port Arthur at this time -- if it is decided that this board needs to have a very close relationship with the government, and I think it should have, doesn’t it make some sense to have an MPP on the board to relate to what is actually happening and the board’s actions from day to day, rather than reporting, as it says in the bill, every once in a while, maybe once a year or every six months?

I want to make sure, if I am the minister of the day, that I know what the development corporation is doing in the way of relating to the people in the area, in the way of developing a plan which will be appropriate for the new town complex; I want to make sure that there are no i’s that are not dotted, no t’s that are not crossed, and that we have a full consultation with the people in general in the immediate area and the people in surrounding areas. That is why I think it is important to have a political appointment, which will be an MPP, to relate to the minister of the day --

Mrs. Campbell: We know it is there now in the plans.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): There is nobody left!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- to make absolutely sure that the plan is one that the government is very much --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Another $10,000-a-year job.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is asking a lot of the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger).

Mr. Lawlor: Maybe you can give the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Winkler) something positive to do.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- in favour of developing as quickly as possible, because we can run into many roadblocks if we want to. We could still have no plan in two or three years. That is what I worry about.

I want to see a plan developed as quickly as possible so that we have some housing and some commercial and industrial complexes built there. I don’t see any other way of achieving that except what we have suggested here, where we relate to the people within the area and we relate directly to a government MPP, possibly on the board. Wait until we have the board formed up. Don’t prejudge.

Mr. Lawlor: Too late.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Don’t prejudge.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are just looking at the track record.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: I am really flabbergasted, in all seriousness, by the minister’s reply. I don’t know whether he was being ironic or whether he was being serious when he said that the automatic appointment would be that of a Conservative backbencher, I imagine he was being serious. Certainly we don’t expect one of --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I certainly know that we are the ones who can be elected here.

Mr. Foulds: I want to point out to the hon. minister, in case he doesn’t understand the legislative system, that members of this assembly are not responsible to the government, they are responsible to this assembly. And if he wants the connection, there happens to be a very grave and great distinction -- maybe not in his authoritarian mind -- but there happens to be. That is one point.

The second point is he expects this board to have a very close relationship to the government, and he expects it to be a political appointment.

Mrs. Campbell: That is right.

Mr. Foulds: Those are his words. In all seriousness, Mr. Minister, I don’t want to wrench them out of context, but those words should be haunting him at this very moment and they should come back to haunt him time and time again.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Just a minute until you understand what you are talking about.

Mr. Foulds: And thirdly, he mentioned --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is all right for him to stand over there. He hasn’t listened to the debate. He doesn’t know what’s going on.

Mr. Foulds: I happened to be in this chamber during the entire portion of the debate on the clause by clause.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Was he here when it was introduced to the House?

Mr. Foulds: I was here and I read the minister’s statement on the introduction to the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member’s contribution was not too much.

Mrs. Campbell: Well he listened to what was said now. Did the minister?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, you might inform the minister that the whole purpose of the committee stage of legislation is to probe just this kind of specific in legislation. And that is what we are doing right now.

The third point that arises in my current onslaught is the minister’s reference to economy and some slight references about how we could save -- what is the grand total? -- $52,000 in the grandiose pyrotechnics that were floated by the management board last week.

Mrs. Campbell: If they do more.

Mr. Foulds: We are not quite sure whether we are going to accept that in principle or in reality yet. In fact, you could save a helluva lot more, Mr. Chairman, if you abolished every one of the per diems, every one of the yearly rates that you pay to the backbench Tories for the commissions, boards and so on. I mean, just take away John Root’s extra emoluments and you would save the Premier’s salary for goodness’ sake.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s right,

Mr. Foulds: There was, at one point in the history of this chamber --

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): That’s one foot, put your other foot into it.

Mr. Foulds: -- only one Conservative backbencher who didn’t have an additional appointment. I wonder who that man is today? I mean with the additional appointments to parliamentary secretaries the additional pension to the cabinet; my God, I look around and I don’t know who you are going to get. Is it Albert Belanger again? Has he been overlooked?

Mr. Chairman: Order please. I am wondering if the --

Mr. Foulds: I really am quite serious, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. I am wondering if the hon. member would refer to the other hon. member as --

Mr. Foulds: Oh, the hon. member for Prescott and Russell.

Mr. Chairman: That’s correct.

Mr. Foulds: I apologize. Is it going to be that poor benighted member for Prescott and Russell, who was overlooked some three years ago? Has he been overlooked again this year and that’s why they are putting this in?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Foulds: I doubt it, because very seriously, Mr. Chairman, I think this is typical of the kind of thinking that is imbedded in the psyche of this government. They are so used to this kind of political appointment that they cannot bring themselves to see that it is damaging to their reputation as a government; it is damaging to our reputation as legislators; and it is damaging to the reputation of the proposed development corporation.

I suggest in all seriousness that the minister must consider the suggestion I put forward. At least if he doesn’t do that, Mr. Chairman, then he should agree that it not receive any additional remuneration.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s part of his collective subconscious, I suspect.

Mr. Foulds: If all of those public-minded backbench Conservatives want to serve by taking on the added heavy burden of responsibility on additional commissions and boards, let them do it for free, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify one point that the hon. member has made. We are talking about subsection 5 of 4.

Mr. Foulds: We are talking about subsection 5 of section 4.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Of section 4, right?

Mr. Foulds: Right.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Now that is a member of the Legislature. That’s why I said it’s a political appointment. I am not talking about someone outside the Legislature. I am talking about the people who are MPPs --

Mr. Foulds: So am I.

Mrs. Campbell: So are we.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and I hope that you are too, but you seem to leave a little bit of doubt in my mind. I think it’s about time we clarified the fact that we are talking about members who relate directly to the minister in regard to a very serious and certainly a very complicated matter when we are talking about the building of a new town or new city.

Mrs. Campbell: Without accountability to the House.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am saying to you, in all fairness to what you have said, that I really believe that if there is a necessity for a relationship to be maintained between the government and the corporation, then that clause has to be left in. Whether with or without salary will be determined by the government of the day, and that’s what I meant when I made my remarks before.

If I haven’t explained it as well as I should have, I am sorry. That is my feeling in any event, and that’s the way it will have to stand as far as I am concerned, whoever the government may -- and I expect, as I said before, that it will be a Conservative appointment; I hope you don’t take exception to that fact. Apparently you did.

The clause will stand, Mr. Chairman, as it is. I think it’s very important it’s left there.

Mr. Foulds: It went right over his head.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 5 --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to prolong this debate; obviously the minister is adamant about it.

I want to draw to his attention, however, what the provision of the Bank of Canada Act is in respect of the disqualification of directors. I commend it because the Bank of Canada and the government of Canada have a very close relationship -- an extremely close relationship -- through the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada. It doesn’t alter the fact that there is a total disqualification from anyone in the public service or anyone holding an office or place of employment under the Crown from being a director of the Bank of Canada. Indeed the Bank of Canada Act contains the provision somewhat similar to the provision later on in this bill that if there’s any difference of opinion between the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada that the governor of the Bank of Canada will comply with the direction of the Minister of Finance on behalf of the government.

So the relationship is extremely close. The responsibilities are discharged by the government and by the Bank of Canada in very close harmony ever since the days of Governor Coyne, and there is the backstop or safeguard provision to make sure that the Bank of Canada does comply with the policy decisions of the government of Canada. But that doesn’t mean to say that they must have boards of directors which are in any sense composed of persons who comprise either the government or membership in the House of Commons or indeed in the Senate of Canada, that those persons should be permitted to be directors of the Bank of Canada.

I quote the specific disqualification provision contained in section 10 of the Bank of Canada Act, chapter B(2) of the Revised Statutes of Canada. Chapter 13, section 10, subsection 2:

“No person is eligible to be appointed or to continue as a director who

“(a) is not a Canadian citizen ordinarily resident in Canada,

“(b) [and this is the important disqualification] is employed in any capacity in the public service of Canada or of any province of Canada or holds any office or position for which any salary or ether remuneration is payable out of public money, except that a director may performs temporary services for the government of Canada or any province for which he may be reimbursed actual living and travelling expenses.”

Which is a very useful and necessary exception. But I would suggest to the minister that there is a very real need to get away from the conception that the government of Ontario has that every corporation which they incorporate must have the clause which in a reverse way permits a member of the assembly to be a member of the board of directors and on the other hand does not disqualify him from sitting in this assembly.

The arguments have been made and the minister is adamant. I happen to think that the close relationship which is necessary between a corporation such as this and the policy ministries of the government is best exercised through the relationships of the responsible minister with the responsible head of this corporation, and with the safeguard provision which permits a direction to be given to the responsible head of the corporation if the actions of the corporation are not in line with the policies of the government.

I commend it for the minister’s consideration. We’re obviously not going to change it tonight, but one of these days the government would be well advised to adopt a similar disqualification provision as that referred to in the Bank of Canada Act which I’ve read into the record.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I respect very much the views expressed by the hon. member for Riverdale. All I can say is that at the present time I’d like to leave this section in. If the government decides at a later date that the section is not necessary, I would be only too happy to move the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of subsection (5) of section 4 forming part of the bill, please say “aye.”

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Subsection (5) will remain.

Anything further on section 4?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, one comment, if I may, on section 4.

Mr. Chairman: What part?

Mr. Renwick: Just section 4 generally, Mr. Chairman. This whole question of the appointment of a board of directors of these corporations, the pat language which always appears in them, deserves serious consideration by the government. I mentioned the one point with respect to the Bank of Canada Act and I want to mention the other clause.

In the selection of directors of the Bank of Canada the clause which is subsection 1 of section 10 states:

“The directors shall be selected from diversified occupations, but no person is eligible for appointment who is a director, partner, officer or employee of any of the following financial institutions: Namely, a chartered bank, an investment dealer that acts as a primary distributor of new government of Canada securities and so on. Any person appointed as a director who is a shareholder of any such financial institution is required to divest himself of his holdings within a period of time or cease to be a director.”

The analogy again is very appropriate in a bill such as this. Where we’re dealing with a sensitive topic, although relatively inert, such as land in the Province of Ontario, it would appear to me to be advisable for the government not to appoint any persons who are directly themselves interested, by way of shareholding or otherwise, in the kinds of corporations whose business is the ownership and development and exploitation of land in the province. It seems to me to make sense that we should not get involved in peopling the board of directors of this kind of a corporation, at least to some extent, with people from the development industry.

I don’t think for one single moment the expertise and the knowledge are not otherwise available to the corporation, but there should not be any overlapping, and indeed there should be a disqualification from appointment of any person who is engaged in the land development business in the province.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I have no other comment to make, except to say that I think the hon. member has brought forward a very valid point and one which will be considered at the time of the appointment.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 4 stand as part of the bill?

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on section 5 I am simply going to say that while this clause may or may not be adequate for the purpose of the requirement that a director disclose his interest in any transaction into which the corporation is entering. I think from the point of view of this kind of corporation where there will be dealings between the corporation in its capacity as a representative of the Crown and other bodies who may be interested in land development, the clause shall be strictly construed.

I don’t think that there should be the exclusion in the first part of section 5, in subsection 1, which refers to “other than a contract or transaction in which his interest is limited solely to his remuneration as a director, officer or employee.” That shouldn’t be in the clause. There should be a strict liability on the directors of this corporation.

We should not be involved in the very elusive word “material” which appears in subsection 2 and I quote subsection 2: “Subsection 1 does not require the disclosure of any interest in any contract or transaction unless the interest in, and the contract or transaction are both material.”

“Material” is a very elusive and difficult word. I think that subsection 2 has no place in the strict liability of the disclosure of interest to avoid conflict of interest, where the government is concerned and one of its agencies is concerned and where the directors of that agency are concerned.

Thirdly, I think there should be a specific requirement, a specific stricture, upon the director that not only must he disclose his interest and the nature of his interest and refrain from voting, but he should be required to refrain from any participation in the discussion of the board of directors which leads to any decision, being made. Indeed, as I believe is the case in most of the chartered banks in Canada at the present time, any director who is so interested is required to absent himself from the meeting during the portion of the time when that transaction is up for consideration, in addition to disclosing his interest and refraining from voting.

A clause such as this, having been taken over from the Business Corporations Act, appears in many statutes where the government is setting up an agency of the Crown, in the manner of this particular corporation, to transact or perform a particular function on behalf of the government.

In substance, therefore, I simply say that the clause should not have any of the exclusions in it which are presently provided in the Business Corporations Act, and to which I have referred; that in addition to the requirement that the director refrain from voting and that he disclose his interest, the director should refrain from participating in any discussion with respect to the approval or otherwise of that transaction; and if necessary, the further step should be taken that he should be required to absent himself from that portion of the meeting during which the deliberations on the contract are taking place.

In this day and age and with the conflict-of-interest question uppermost in persons’ minds, it would seem to me not to be beyond the wit of the advisers of the government, and the persons who draft the legislation on behalf of the government, to make certain that the conflict-of-interest clauses are very clear, very strict -- indeed make certain that the utmost distance is maintained between any director who has an interest in a contract in which the particular corporation of which he is a director is involved. And to make certain that that sense of distance not only does, in fact, exist but appears in reality to exist by those who are observing the decision-making processes of such a corporation.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, a couple of points may be criss-crossing or paralleling something my colleague has just said. Suppose a director does act contrary to the very wording of the statute on a literal construction, what flows from that? Is there a penalty or sanction invoked with respect to that director within the ambit of the legislation itself? That is my first surmising question.

The second thing is that in subclause 1 you set up the conflict section and then you carve out an exemption and you say, “other than a contract or transaction in which his interest is limited solely to his remuneration as a director, officer or employee.”

I think we understand what that means. Nevertheless, isn’t it possible that at least part of his remuneration might be some gratuity or some benefit or some kind of commission or some kind of monetary benefit that would flow from his participation? If that were the case, if any part of that remuneration occurred, then he’s okay and he’s exempted from the provisions of this statute. I’m sure that runs directly contrary to what you’re trying to bring about. I think that bit of elbow room you’re trying to work into the statute on the remuneration aspect ought to be gravely considered and perhaps deleted.

In other words, what I’m saying is that this conflict matter must be strictly construed. It must be given its full amplitude. You must be very careful indeed about what exemptions you seek to make in this regard, because they will be availed of the minute you do so by those so engaged, or could possibly be, thus defeating the terms of your own legislation. There mustn’t be a whisk of question left in this conflict issue. You mustn’t give any encouragement, so to speak, to preserve a conflict within the ambit of the legislation, loosely worded as it is.

The second thing I would like to refer to is what my colleague has said about the word “material.” We’ve had, in the committee downstairs, in the committee having to do with legal affairs, the word “material” inserted in numerous documents and there has been a fairly omnipresent feeling by all sides of this House and by everyone sitting here that we’ve taken it out almost invariably because it’s a weasel word.

It’s a weasel for two reasons. In order to construe it you sometimes, and very often, have to go to a court. We haven’t given to judges, and we never do, curiously, from the terms of the legislation, any criteria from which you may judge materiality; he has to pluck the oranges right off the tree.

We don’t know whether they’re tangerines or oranges when we’re writing it out here, but the fact is that we expect the judiciary to do what we are unable to do, or at least aren’t disposed to do in the process of writing out the legislation. I think it is a great mistake to insert the word “material” therefore, either as encouraging unnecessary litigation on one side of the fence.

If you’re going to supply the term, then give some indication of what you mean by the word; because whatever a man does in those circumstances, almost by subjective reference, he wouldn’t consider “material.” Yet other people very well might consider that the most material of circumstances. The word has too great a flexibility and too much subjectivity written into it to permit it to stand in objective legislation, as I trust you hope your legislation is as the thing presently stands. I would ask you to reconsider those various matters in the course of putting this legislation through.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments on section 5?

Section 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I just have one small point. In section 6 everybody has to stand up and place their hands over their heart and, Boy Scout-like, say: “I’ll never whisper a word of what goes on here without conferring with the minister first.” Everything must be done secretly, in camera, under the lotus bush, so to speak. Never let the day dawn when anybody in the general public just might know what’s going on with respect to North Pickering or any other place in the province for that matter.

That being the case, I want you to tell me what something means. In the second paragraph of the oath that you take before you enter heaven, the Valhalla of the Tories, it reads as follows: “I further solemnly swear or affirm that I will not communicate or allow to be communicated.” I believe this is in case one of your colleagues said: “I can’t hold myself back. I’m going to run to those New Democratic Party fellows and whisper in their ear.” That we’re then going to torpedo the whole plan. He’ll then have to strangle that NDP member on the spot; or at least place him under some kind of suffocation.

Then it says, “or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled thereto.” That intrigued me, that “not legally.” Are we legally entitled to know or not; that’s my question? I feel perfectly legally entitled, I’ve got the legal qualifications to know. I avail myself, my ears are all open, I stand ready to receive. Are the members of this House legally entitled to know?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, they certainly are. Under section 29 I think you’ll see where the Provincial Auditor will make a report to the House and it will be tabled.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh no, I meant from day to day.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: From day to day? What would you like to know? Would the member or Lakeshore want to know all the very minor details that go on from day to day in any transaction of any corporation? I’m sure he wouldn’t.

Mr. Lawlor: We just might like to know what is going on in North Pickering. Are we entitled to know or not?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the member for Lakeshore is referring to a matter which is not very relevant in this case. We are talking about the development corporation having its annual report tabled in the House. It will be subject to your scrutiny -- and very close scrutiny I’m sure by yourself. Therefore I don’t see there is any problem in that case.

Mr. Lawlor: You know, it is great to be a member of the government, to be a minister over there, with lord high sufficiency over the whole universe type of thing, and say that when all the cattle are out of the barn and the door is closed and the place is burned down, and the opposition receives a report saying that everything is in a highly incendiary state, we don’t have to worry about it.

Come off it, we want to know as it goes on. We want to know what the subdivision is going to be, and are there going to be services installed there?

There are going to be very well determined and laid-out plans put forth here. Some of us particularly interested in the housing market want to know the state of advance and the state of costs, but not after it is all over and the report is submitted here, or somewhere midway between but after everything has been decided. We are not the affirmers of faits accompli over here. We want to have an ongoing relationship. It is our job; it is hat we’ve been elected to do. And you come prating and telling us, “Oh, you will get a report some afternoon.” Isn’t that great?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Don’t get worked up unnecessarily. We are talking about two different things. The development corporation operates in the same manner as any other developer, any other private individual who wants to have a piece of land developed. There is nothing unusual about the development corporation.

Mr. Lawlor: It is a public body; it is using public funds.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It goes through the Planning Act. It has a subdivision approved or not approved. It has it amended, as may be.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s quite different from a private corporation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You, as the member for Lakeshore, would have full knowledge of what is going on from day to day if you wish to. But what else can you expect when it is going through the Planning Act? It is very common knowledge. If you want to be acquainted with what is happening in North Pickering it is up to you to make yourself aware of the individual transactions that go on from day to day.

Mr. Lawlor: All right, we will speak to the board of directors and find out. If they say, “No, you are not entitled to know this,” I will say, “Read Hansard of a certain evening in January, 1975.”

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Just look at the individual transactions.

Mr. Lawlor: Okay, we will see.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps I could pass until the next section.

Section 6 agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, this must be equally tiresome for the minister as it is for us. There seems to be no capacity in the government, despite the fact that they have got expertise in the companies branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, to have up-to-date clauses inserted in a bill such as this.

Here we have an indemnification clause relating to the directors. We don’t have imported into this bill the standard-of-care clause which has been a matter of immense discussion with respect to the standard of care and the duty and responsibility of the directors of a business corporation. We import the conflict-of-interest provision but not the standard-of-care provision. We don’t import the limitation which has been imposed upon the indemnification clause.

I simply point out to the minister that this is an obligatory indemnification of each director and each officer regardless of what le does, even if he acts in bad faith. The normal clause now at least protects him and indemnifies him against any “costs, charges and expenses that he sustains or incurs in or about any action, suit or proceeding that is brought, commenced or prosecuted against him for or in respect of any act, deed, matter or other thing, made, done or permitted by him in or about the execution of the duties of his office.”

At least they must be matters which he has done in good faith. This clause is an obligatory clause to indemnify him regardless of any act of his, done in good faith or in bad faith.

It has to be done by him. He’s not indemnified if it’s alleged he’s done something but not proved. The clause is deficient. And I cannot understand why we are presented time and again with bits and pieces of corporation law introduced into these special private government bills setting up these special corporations. There is no uniformity. There is no up-to-date draftsmanship involved in them. They are just simply deficient and we are expected to stand up each time and draw the attention of the ministry to those deficiencies.

Mr. Lawlor: Just one word in continuity of that point. The select committee of this Legislature on corporations and the Business Corporations Act that came out of the recommendations of that committee four or five years ago went to great trouble to set out in precise terms what exactly was involved with indemnification procedures.

It’s perfectly legitimate to indemnify. It’s perfectly legitimate for them to insure themselves against loss. But the fact of the matter is that you don’t give it to them carte blanche. If they act in bad faith, if there is what is called malfeasance involved in the situation, then why should they be indemnified? They have acted contrary to their oath of office. And yet they are covered completely.

The clauses have been selected carefully after much debate. They were worked out in the Business Corporations Act and we are embodying them in other statutes as we go along. We are dealing with this in trust corporations at the present time. We want to set a standard of integrity in the business community that will be adhered to right across the board of directors -- and which the directors find completely palatable.

We don’t get objections that we are setting the standard too high or anything. They know what terms of honesty and integrity roust be exercised in order to win respect. And yet you come with a section that is cast in this particular way. It kind of gives a sanction to them in advance to do what ever the blazes they please and suffering no consequences therefrom.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, not having the same knowledge of the legal profession as my colleagues, the members for Riverdale and Lakeshore, I would like to say that I would hope all of the board might be in good faith at all times. I have no objection whatsoever in putting in the words “in good faith.” It seems to me that is something which would be necessary to have.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 7 carry?

Mr. Lawlor: Well, I understand he is quite prepared, Mr. Chairman, to insert the words “in good faith” in the section. This at least safeguards some interests in the province.

Mr. Chairman: Where do you want to insert it?

Mr. Renwick: Before the word “made” in the 6th line.

Mr. Chairman: Would you like to write a resolution and present it to me?

Mr. Lawlor: It is before the word “made” in the sixth line, as my colleague points out.

Mr. Renwick moves that the words “in good faith” be inserted before the word “made” in the seventh line in section 7 of Bill 181.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 7 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Has anyone got any comments before section 15 of the bill?

Mr. Renwick: Section 13, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 8 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 13, the hon. member for Riverdale.

On section 13:

Mr. Renwick: As I understand it the answer to ow first question is that obviously no land has been transferred to the Ontario Land Corp. at the present time because it is not in being yet. Having answered the first question, I’ll do my best to pose the second one and answer it as well. What land is going to be transferred to this particular corporation from the Ontario Land Corp., should the Ontario Land Corp. bill pass this assent?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, should the Ontario Land Corp. bill pass this session or the next session, or whatever time it is in operation, the Ontario Land Corp. will, as I perceive it, be in control of all the lands. If certain lands are required by the North Pickering Development Corp. they will be transferred from the Ontario Land Corp. to the North Pickering corporation and it would be a debt which would have to be paid by the North Pickering corporation to the Ontario Land Corp. upon development.

Mr. Renwick: Of the land that will be designated for inclusion in the North Pickering planning area, how much of that land is now owned by the province?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, as the North Pickering planning area has not been designated as of this date, I cannot answer the question definitively, but I would say that when it is designated it will all be owned by the province.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member wish to comment before section 33 of the bill?

Mr. Young: Section 19 -- I am sorry, section 22.

Sections 13 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 22 of the bill. The hon. member for Yorkview.

On section 22:

Mr. Young: On (d), I want to ask the minister in connection with this phrase, “acquire, hold, manage, lease, demolish, alter, improve and dispose of land and other property”; just how much land does the minister envisage will be disposed of by the corporation? I ask the question -- I suppose this is where we differ fundamentally in philosophy -- I ask the minister this because to me it seems that once the land is acquired by the corporation, that land should be held in perpetuity by the corporation as an asset for that corporation.

As one looks at the new towns in Europe, in Britain, one sees corporations of this kind set up there; they do the planning and the developing. The development is done very often by private contractors who may do the building and the putting in of the streets, the services, the shops, the centres, and the homes, but the ownership remains in the hands of the corporation. In the new Coventry, for example, where this was done, in the city centre, all the shops are owned by the corporation. They are rented to private entrepreneurs; they pay the rent, but that rent gradually retires the debt on those properties and then from that point on, except for the expenses, the income goes into the coffers of the corporation. In this way the people of the community benefit very greatly.

In the new towns that are now being developed the attitude of the corporation there is that since we hold the land, and since the land and the buildings and the centres are assets, if we need to borrow in the capital market in the future, this is an asset against which we can borrow. All this adds up to a social asset -- social capital which is held in perpetuity for the people who may be living in that particular community, or an asset on the part of the larger municipality or regional or provincial government.

It just seems to me that this makes sense here and I am wondering what the minister does envisage about this disposal of land; whether he is going to sell the land off, whether the corporation will sell that land to private enterprisers who will build and then sell to private owners of the homes, or when it comes to shopping centres there will they sell it off to entrepreneurs who will build the shopping centres and then charge the rent and own the assets?

There’s a difference of philosophy here, which of course is one of the reasons why ye in this party are not too enthusiastic about the bill. Perhaps the minister could enlighten us to just what he plans in this matter of disposal of land.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to give my views on the particular matter that the member for Yorkview has brought forward in regard to leasing or selling lands. I had the opportunity to visit some new towns, new cities, in England and Scotland this year and the particular philosophy over there at the time was to lease lands only. Before that, they were selling.

I would think, Mr. Chairman, that the corporation would consider very carefully the possibility of doing both, whereby you might enter into long leases on commercial or industrial development and you would probably have to enter into sale of property for residential development. I haven’t any fixed views on it at this time. I would think this is a matter which would come forward at a later date, once we have started into the implementation of the plan. But there is, in my opinion, considerable merit in the province holding on to the title of certain lands and I think this will probably be done; my philosophy might come through in the future.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to hear the minister come that far. This is a change in general philosophy and ifs a welcome one, but it just seems to me that land is being looked upon now in our society as more and more of a public utility. That is, it’s something which, once it has passed out of the public hands and into private hands and increases in value, if we ever want it again, of course, we have to acquire it again at greatly enhanced values.

We have learned over the years that it is not the best policy, once having obtained the ownership of land to have it alienated from the public domain into private hands again. The assets should be maintained for public purposes and if the land, the land at least, in an area such as North Pickering could be retained, then there is the asset there and the increased value of that land and it will increase -- perhaps we would never sell it, so we would never realize on it -- but it is an asset which is there and can be realized upon for credit purposes, for all kinds of purposes; for planning purposes in particular, because it may well be that in 10. 15, or 20 years redevelopment may come and we will want to plan again because of changed circumstances and rebuild and redesign. If we have the land then the public authority can do that without a great deal of difficulty. So it just seems to me it makes common sense that the land at least -- and I could go farther than that, of course, and say the facilities on the land -- should be held in the public domain.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 22 carry?

Section 22 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other hon. member wish to speak or comment on any part of the bill before section 33?

Mr. Renwick: Section 27, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 23 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 27:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, my only comment is on section 27, and it is to support and affirm what my colleague, the member for Yorkview, has stated in his remarks related to the particular subclause that he referred to in section 22; because section 27, of course, is the omnibus power given to the corporation to “dispose of its land, property, assets, undertaking or any part thereof, to any person, municipality, government agency or authority” and that is wide open in its terminology. It’s not limited to disposing of it for the purposes of the implementation of the plan.

One could perhaps understand that if one were able to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the land for the purposes of the implementation of the plan, but this is a clause which is an omnibus power given to the corporation to dispose of everything which they have. I certainly reiterate and support, and this caucus certainly supports, the point made by my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkview, on section 22 and the identical point at that time.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments?

Shall all other sections of the bill carry?

Mr. Renwick: Section 32, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 27 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 32:

Mr. Renwick: Has the minister any idea when he expects this particular Act to come into force, the corporation to come into being, the directors of the corporation to be appointed, and the corporation to engage in the activities which it is presently being authorized to engage in?

Mr. Singer: When Shouldice is available.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I haven’t got a set date. I must say to the hon. member for Riverdale that I do not have a date as to when the board will come into being. We haven’t got any names; I would welcome suggestions, as I mentioned before --

Mr. Renwick: Will it be this year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Oh, yes. Definitely. As I say, I haven’t any firm date. I thought you were asking for a specific date.

Mr. Renwick: Then what would the target be? This summer?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I hope that it will be this spring or early summer.

Section 32 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 181, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report one bill with a certain amendment and ask for leave to sit again.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with a certain amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Clerk of the House: Notice of motion provided by the terms of reference of the electoral boundaries commission dated Dec. 5. 1973, standing in the names of Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Renwick and others.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, before this debate commences might I inquire as to the method in which you intend to handle the debate? It’s my understanding that two groups of members, as is shown on the notice paper, have requested that a debate take place. One would have presumed that one debate would have been the manner in which this might be handled. I understand, however, that it is the intention to have a debate with respect to the fit motion, interspersed with other members who might wish to enter, followed by the debate proposed by the second group of members.

Perhaps we could have some guidance and could be advised if, for example, we are to rotate the speakers in the normal pattern or whatever: then, of course, we would be able to proceed with allowing any member the opportunity to enter into this discussion.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. Speaker, if I may just add to the observations of the House leader of the Liberal Party. I think he’s got a point because inevitable if one has two debates it is going to be difficult not to be repeating at least some of the substance of the debates. I think they can be integrated, but I don’t hold any very strong feelings one way or the other, except to warn you in advance I think you’re going to have a very great problem in avoiding repetition in the second debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. House leader.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I don’t wish to speak at length on the matter before you, but it seems to me that the reason I would desire it called this way is that the subject matter of the resolutions is substantially different, and I think that people wishing to enter either one will address themselves to those questions. I expect there will be no repetition, and it may be wise if we deal with one and dispose of it, then deal with the second in that order.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker has no alternative but to accept it as it is called. So we will proceed with the first resolution that stands under the name of the 10 eminent gentlemen there. Certainly anyone may speak to this one as anyone may speak to the second one. Since they are different debates in effect, there is going to be repetition in the two debates, but they are different debates, so it can’t be helped. Who is speaking first? The member for York South?

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather interesting that there have been two motions presented here. I suspect there is something of a different thrust between the approach contained in the first motion and the second one, though there is a great deal of common ground. Quite frankly, I want to emphasize that common ground, because I think one of the purposes of this debate is to attempt to give some guidance to posterity, namely 10 years hence anyway, when they give some consideration to the establishment of another boundaries commission so that when it is finished its work there won’t be as widespread dissatisfaction with its work as undoubtedly exists at the present time.

There has been a great deal of discussion with regard to the first report of the electoral boundaries commission. I sometimes had the impression that most of it was coming from this party. Quite frankly, I regretted that because I don’t think this should be a partisan matter. But in our view there was such a serious departure from the application of the guidelines that it seemed to me that the objectives of the redistribution were being lost sight of. Perhaps I can provoke a little hit of give and take between my colleagues to the right, both ideologically and otherwise, in the Liberal Party.

As I understand their argument, having listened to it being presented by some of the spokesmen, it was that we had unanimously adopted these guidelines and, therefore, we are in effect stuck with them and should not be critical of an independent commission. Well, we didn’t quite unanimously adopt them; at least we adopted them unanimously but with some qualifications, namely, pointing to the unnecessary tolerance that was being granted in the 25 per cent deviation that might be made up and down from the provincial quota. But my chief objection, as I hope to detail a little bit, is going to be in what I would describe as the perverse application of those guidelines.

Before I get to that, let me try to put this into historical perspective, Mr. Speaker. In my nearly 20 years around this Ontario Legislature I think I have seen the pattern of redistribution procedures run the gamut, at least as far as we have gone now.

In the mid-1950s we were operating on the old style. It was something to behold, or something to weep at as you beheld it, because a committee of the Legislature, with obvious conflict of interest between those who were involved and the objectives of their whole effort, would be engaged in attempting to redraw the boundaries in accordance with the last decennial census. They would be something less than human if they didn’t take into consideration their own interest in their own constituencies or those of their neighbours or colleagues in their own particular party, so much so that we recognized that we had to move toward an independent commission.

We moved toward one in which we made our first mistake, and tragically we repeated that mistake 10 years later, in not clarifying the guidelines so that they were not capable of such sharply different interpretation. In the instance of the guidelines that were laid down for the redistribution in the early 1960s, they were really so broad that one could drive a horse and six through without any difficulty at all. There were three kinds of constituencies: the urban constituency of 60,000 to 70,000; the mixed constituency of 50,000 to 60,000; and the rural constituency of under 50,000. Some of those under 50,000 went down to retaining pocket boroughs like that of Charlie MacNaughton up in Huron with 32,000 population, and there was no excuse or defence for it at all. There were others indeed much less than even the 32,000 where there might have been some more excuse if you take a widely scattered northern constituency. Sony?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): I hope the member doesn’t extend those pocket boroughs to Huron and Huron-Bruce.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): They’d never do that.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Just to the hon. member thereof.

Mr. MacDonald: The result was that coming out of that independent exercise we had constituencies which ranged anywhere from population figures in the 20,000 category to constituencies that were in the 70,000 and, indeed, in a very few number of years, went up to 80,000, 90,000 or 100,000. Indeed, I think my hon. friend from York Mills (Mr. Bales) on the other side of the House ultimately ended up with a constituency of about 130,000 or 140,000 people -- really a ludicrous violation of the basic principle of representation by population.

This time I thought we had moved in the direction of a much more sensible set of guidelines. Just so that we can have them before us and for those who read the record in terms of Hansard, let me put those guidelines on the record again.

There were eight of them; namely, that the purpose of the redistribution shall take into account:

“1. the community or diversity of interests; 2. the means of communication, 3. topographical features; 4. population trends; 5. the varying conditions and requirements regarding representation as between urban and rural electoral districts; 6. existing boundaries of municipalities or wards; 7. the existing and traditional boundaries of electoral districts; 8. special geographic 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 their rate, size or shape thereof.

There were the eight guidelines, Mr. Speaker, and I submit to you that the real import of those guidelines was to list them and then to take account of what followed: “And subject thereto, the population quota for each electoral district shall be based on the average population.”

That surely is the determining part of the guidelines, subject to and with some qualifications from those eight guidelines, that the real imperative should be that you should stick as closely as possible to the average quota for the constituencies in the north or in the southern part of the province.

However, they snuck in a further one and in retrospect I would concede to anybody readily that we should have fought this and attempted to have it eliminated altogether. That was the further qualification that you could have a deviation from that quota of 25 per cent above or 25 per cent below and under certain conditions you could even go beyond that.

In retrospect that was making nonsense of guidelines. I hope for those who are going to be sharing in the shaping of guidelines some 10 years hence following the 1981 decennial census that they will make dead certain that that kind of barn door isn’t left for somebody to start driving the horses through, because that is precisely what has happened.

I repeat, my chief objection to it is not to the guidelines which, if I may say so as kindly as I can, if they’d been intelligently applied, if they’d been applied in a balanced way, could have come up with a good result. But they were perversely applied, and in my view the greatest perversion comes in ignoring what should have been the main guideline, mainly population trends as opposed to historic boundaries of the riding.

What is the point of respecting historic boundaries? You know, God rest his soul, that sounds like an echo from Leslie Frost. He was always talking about respect for the historic boundaries of the province, but if you’re going to respect the historic boundaries of the province there’s no point in redistribution at all. If you give 100 per cent respect to historic boundaries you’ll not redistribute any riding at all.

On some occasions that may be something of consideration, but what happened in this commission was that there were certain historic boundaries, and most of them -- the great majority of them -- happened to be in eastern Ontario where the government has a greater collection of Tory pocket boroughs than anywhere else in the world. It got not only to a 25 per cent tolerance below the provincial quota, but they went beyond the 25 per cent tolerance and there is absolutely no justification for that at all.

I’ve heard arguments that are made in general that there has to be a certain flexibility. I’m open minded on flexibility. That’s why I accepted, without any hesitancy at all, separating off northern Ontario from southern Ontario, because there is a real problem in geography in northern Ontario and we said we are not going to cut down the constituencies in northern Ontario. But the proposition that the government should retain constituencies in southern Ontario where we’ve got the kind of travel facilities that we’ve got in southern Ontario, and other means of communication, below a 25 per cent deviation from the provincial quota, I submit to you once again, Mr. Speaker, is completely without justification.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): It doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t change it within northern Ontario.

Mr. MacDonald: I was going to come back to that. There is a classic example in northern Ontario that just defies any rational reading of the result.

Let me just list five or six. What I’m going to do, Mr. Speaker, is not to go into great detail, because quite frankly I think we have thrashed around in the detail. In my view at least, what we’ve got to do is rescue some overriding principles and get them enunciated in the hope that if the commission takes a final look at them it may do something about the application of those principles, but at least with the rather bad experience we’ve had in these last two commissions that we can improve on it 10 years hence. As I’ve already pointed out, why in six eastern Ontario ridings have we got that kind of deviation, not only to 25 per cent below, but in excess of it?

The argument is that there had to be certain flexibilities and how do you work within those flexibilities? The thing that makes that argument just collapse completely is at least one member of the Ontario commission, our chief electoral officer, was also a member of the federal redistribution committee for the Province of Ontario. Significantly, in the Province of Ontario in the federal redistribution, they had no apparent difficulty in redistributing seats and living within a 15 per cent deviation from the provincial quota. Therefore it can be done and presumably at least one member of the commission learned how it could be done on the federal commission.

Why couldn’t the same kind of an approach, without such a serious violation of basic principles, have been carried over into the redistribution in the province within the provincial structure? Why, for example would the government have urban quotas of 71,500 on an average and rural quotas of only 53,500 on an average? In other words, the urban quota is 14 per cent above the provincial average and the rural quota is 14 per cent below the provincial average. Now why? Why consistently across the board?

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): The member hasn’t learned much in all the time he led that party. He doesn’t understand this province.

Mr. MacDonald: I say to my friend across there, if he has any respect at all for rep. by pop., it was known that in the urban areas there was going to be a significant population increase, and there has been generally speaking a significant population increase, so that the average of 71,000 in the urban seat has become 75,000 or 80,000 or 85,000 -- even 90,000 in some constituencies, because we are operating on the population figures of 1971 -- whereas the rural seat, not always, but usually, was much more static in its population.

Let me make my point this way, Mr. Speaker, to reply to what I suspect is the basic objection of the interjection by the hon. member for Renfrew South. If one had started with all constituencies, rural as well as urban, on exactly the same average quota, based on 1971 figures, inevitably the population increase in the last four years in the urban seats would have opened up the kind of gap that I admit should exist between rural and urban seats.

But don’t start with a 14 per cent above and a 14 per cent below margin -- in other words, a 28 per cent gap -- to begin with, so that by the time you have the first election following the new redistribution the 28 per cent gap has become 35 or 40 or heaven knows what the figure is. Because then we end up with the kind of ludicrous situation of one of his own colleagues, I say to the hon. member for Renfrew South, his own colleague in York Mills sitting with a constituency of 130,000 people. Some of these seats are hallway toward that 130,000 figure, because four years have elapsed from the population figures on which we are working.

I am not one who is arguing that we should have exact identity. I concede that there is a legitimacy in some measure. Some of my colleagues may not agree with this. There is a growing sentiment throughout the Province of Ontario that won’t agree with that kind of thing, but I am old fashioned enough, let me put it this way, I am old fashioned enough and my roots are sufficiently in the rural area to suggest that there is legitimately some discrepancy between a rural and an urban seat. But the government is overdoing it. They are overdoing it, and they have overdone it in this,

Now, let me come to the northern Ontario situation. Basically, I agree that we separated off northern Ontario and said that we are not going to reduce the number of seats. In fact I think a case could have been made for an increase in the number of seats in northern Ontario, However, within the framework of redistribution up in that area, some of the things that happen are just mind-boggling.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Right on.

Mr. MacDonald: How could any group of three sensible, rational people come up with a redistribution of the city of Sault Ste. Marie with 80,000 people in it and two neighbouring constituencies with an aggregate of 61,000?

Mr. Laughren: They couldn’t.

Mr. MacDonald: How can they do it?

Mr. Turner: Quite easily.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, obviously it was quite easy. Quite easily they did it. But how do they defend it? There is no defence for it, absolutely no defence for it at all. Because I submit that all of the qualifications in all of the second factors that should be brought into the picture because of these guidelines are in relation to what should be the basic guideline of representation by population. They should work toward the objective of having, as much as possible, equality of weight in the votes of people, no matter where they live in the Province of Ontario.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Let me ask another question. The chairman of the commission, when he responded to the letters from the leader of the New Democratic Party, said that they had to live by the guidelines that were laid down by this House, as though they were Holy Writ. The fascinating thing is that they created their own guideline when it suited their purpose.

They came up with this guideline that in one constituency, Muskoka, they could take into account summer population. Now, I suppose one could make some sort of a case for including summer population if they were in a high school debate, but if they were going to make a case for summer population and make Muskoka a smaller constituency now than it used to be in the past, why do they not apply that new guideline that they’ve injected into the picture into other constituencies across the Province of Ontario? There are a lot of other constituencies, such as Kenora, where there is a great influx of tens of thousands of people. Why only in one area?

Let me move on, and here is, I suppose, my urban orientation at the moment; I’ve forgotten my rural roots, may I say to the member for Renfrew South, at this point. Why did this commission fly in the face of all of the evidence which has been painfully, carefully, systematically drawn together, to move toward block constituencies in the city of Toronto rather than the strip constituencies? Why did they do that? I don’t know, and they haven’t deigned to explain.

We know, those of us who live close to the city of Toronto, that this matter was thrashed through publicly for weary years. It was finally taken to the OMB as the city was considering the redistribution of its own wards for municipal elections, and the report of the OMB committee -- I am not gong to take the time to quote from it because I think most of the members have seen some of the quotations -- indicated that anybody who had any authoritative information or views to express on the topic said that they should move to block constituencies, which would take into account greater community of interest and sociological conditions.

The fascinating thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the staff of the redistribution commission did draw up maps for a block redistribution in the city of Toronto, and in their wisdom, or otherwise, the commission decided not to accept that proposal and to stick with the old electoral boundaries. This is such a key point that I want to just put on the record a paragraph or so from Brian S. McCool, the secretary of the electoral boundaries commission, written to the secretary of CORRA, the Confederation of Residents and Ratepayers Associations, in Metropolitan Toronto. I quote:

“I think I can tell you without betraying any confidence that the first work of the commission was based largely on the organization of south Toronto by blocks rather than by strips, but various considerations led the commissioners to adopt their proposals of June 8.”

The commissioners adopted their proposals of June 8 in defiance of all the public discussion, in defiance of the OMB’s serious consideration of the report and in defiance of everything else. Why? Would somebody answer that question?

Mr. Speaker, this brings me to my chief objection with regard to the report and the procedures that led to this report, and that is that the commission operated in an atmosphere of Olympian detachment. They got their guidelines, they went off and contemplated on those guidelines; they added to them when it suited their purpose; they dismissed proposals for adding to them when it came from somewhere else and it suited their purpose, whatever may have been that purpose. They came down with proposals which people have objected to -- they made their objections after the first report, and they have made their objections after the second report -- and not yet has anybody on the commission, or anybody on the government side who might presumably be speaking to the commission, deigned to tell the lowly proletariat what the rationale is for the decisions they came to.

I repeat: Why? What was their rationale for a seat of 80,000 for Sault Ste. Marie and 61,000 for two neighbouring ridings? What was their rationale for leaving six constituencies in eastern Ontario more than 25 per cent below the average quota? What was their rationale for throwing out the block plan in Toronto? They haven’t deigned to explain it.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that isn’t the way a commission should operate. Which brings me to the common ground between this motion and the motion that is being put on by a number of government members. One of the main objections of the government members is that when the commission went into their second redistribution, they caused a whole lot of rippling effects into neighbouring constituencies and came np with results that are considered to be much less than satisfactory.

Nobody had a chance to express their views on it. These three people, who don’t have a full knowledge of all the local details, didn’t deign to get those views. Oh, they did in some instances, but how that worked we don’t know. I know of some people who got letters asking specifically about certain proposals that they had in mind. I know of other people in relation to certain constituencies where much more radical changes were made and they didn’t get any letters. I am curious as to how they picked and chose between to whom they sent letters to solicit their advice.

It raises questions as to what really was the objective and the motive of this independent commission. That’s very sad, because I don’t think there is any other way than operating through an independent commission with guidelines that they know they have to live by, and everybody knows what the guidelines are and that they will be lived by. I think we are going to get that only if we make certain (a) that the guidelines don’t have loopholes and (b) that the commission is willing to go out across the Province of Ontario to hold public hearings and to make it possible for people to make representations so that they can have an input from that greater local knowledge and everything isn’t going to be decided from the great wisdom of Queen’s Park.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker -- and I am not going to detail them any more because some of my colleagues will go into more detail -- I just want to remind the House of the three points that we put in our motion, because I have been speaking to them. I can sum up my remarks by repeating them. There has been misapplication of some of the basic guidelines which were given to the commission. The report fails to provide any public explanation for certain obvious violations of those guidelines to which attention was specifically drawn. And, thirdly, the whole report was prepared without public hearings.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on this motion at this time. I will confine my remarks particularly to certain points -- some of which have been raised by the member for York South -- but will also include, I fear, some general comments with respect to the second motion that is before us as well.

We were interested in receiving the first proposals which this commission made and which developed a change within the membership of the Legislature by increasing the membership by six seats from 117 to 123.

Now, the member for York South has commented upon the principles which were important, particularly in the earlier distribution. I think it perhaps worthwhile at this point -- again for the record of those who might wish to look at this debate -- to review the actual terms and the instructions and the terms of reference that the commission used. These were as follows:

First, it was to leave untouched as many of the electoral districts as could possibly be so left, even if this meant in some cases an electoral district might be perhaps larger or smaller than others of a similar nature.

Second, the commission was desirous of giving effect to the various factors specified in its terms of reference -- such as geographical, historical and communication considerations -- as far as its knowledge enabled it to do so. The fact of extraordinarily rapid growth was also considered where this was apparent to the commission.

Third, vacation areas where the summer population is many times that of the census population were given special consideration.

Fourth, so far as northern Ontario is concerned, by the terms of reference the 25 per cent tolerance did not apply.

These are the particular points that led the commission to its initial report which came before us and was the subject of much discussion and consideration at the time of its report.

The second report that arrived on our desks came on Nov. 18, 1974, and set out 125 seats. There had been some substantial changes and the net results were the addition of one seat in the Niagara district and one seat in the region of Waterloo. These two areas, by the addition of those seats, had membership in the Legislature coincident with the boundaries of the particular regional governments -- and that certainly was a definite improvement.

Now, in the Waterloo region, to take the example with which I am the most familiar, the initial suggestions made by this commission were a disaster. The division of the county of Waterloo, which had three ridings, into an area in which it would be part of six ridings, was clearly unacceptable. There were certain changes suggested, not only by the members for the region, but through the internal regional government and the component governments of the region.

The result of these submissions was a change within the area. The result was a good one so far as Waterloo region was concerned. The addition of the seat, particularly with respect to the constituency I represented, would have the effect of reducing the riding of Kitchener, which has 110,000 population, to one of some 72,000 population and creating a new riding to which about 40,000 of the people that I have had the privilege of representing would now find themselves.

Submissions were made; and as the member for York South has suggested, the submissions in some cases -- it so happens in the case that I have just referred to -- were more successful certainly than in the suggestions which other members have made. Well, the result was a good one, particularly in the net edition of one constituency. Whereas I might have divided it into Kitchener East and Kitchener West to have a more balanced growth, the commission in its wisdom decided that Kitchener should be divided between the area encompassed by the expressway and that area on the Outside.

Presumably, the area on the outside, having a smaller proposed population, would be growing more slowly. I think that may be a bit fallacious because, in effect, one new apartment building in the older part of the city can balance a subdivision in the new. However, the change is not unsatisfactory to those of us who are going to be striving either for nomination or election in that area.

In the initial report there was much concern expressed, particularly by our friends to the left, that presumably the placing of the 1971 election result on the 1975 boundaries would have substantial effect on opposition-held seats. Certainly, we thank them for their concern, but so far as we were concerned the computer printouts which we had done, and which developed particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area, showed some interesting changes, some proposals that might be harmful and others that might not. In the end we decided that it was very difficult to compare the apples and oranges of the results of 1971 with the proposals of 1975. So, we were not too concerned on that particular point.

We were not concerned that because of the changes either in the electoral patterns or the fortunes of one party or another, we would be able to dwell entirely upon the constituent boundaries and those voting patterns that were the case some four years ago. Certainly, some of the representatives, at a meeting of the Toronto and District Liberal Association which I attended, were rather pleased with the new boundaries. Others were quite concerned; certain others were somewhat neutral. I’m sure that that may well have been the approach of representatives of each of the political parties that faced the matters of change, particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

However, we did come to the conclusion, as I have suggested, Mr. Speaker, that it was very difficult .to make any useful comparisons between the apples of the 1971 result and the oranges of the 1975 boundaries.

But what are the real complaints? They’ve been alluded to and referred to by the member for York South, but in our view there are three particular areas that we think the commission should concern itself with. First of all, and the most important, ii the lack of public hearings. True, submissions were received after the initial report, and I understand there were some 250 of them. But many of these problems could have been more directly and more usefully resolved in the give-and-take of a public meeting. It’s not sufficient only to bring a submission before the commission. Rather, a question asked by a commissioner at that point, Or certain other information brought forward by a petitioner at that point, might have resolved many of the problems that are still with us as we look now to the second stage of the report.

As I have suggested to you earlier, Mr. Speaker, initially in the Waterloo region we were to have a six-way split. If there had been a public hearing in our area, and the whole matter discussed earlier on, I suggest to you that that kind of an approach of dividing a region, with the hopes that the government has of creating a regional spirit and a relationship between the members at Queen’s Park and the region, would clearly have shown that that initial suggestion was completely unsatisfactory.

I suggest to you that in the other regional government areas of the province the desire for members of this assembly to represent, so far as possible, a regional or a component of a regional government is obviously the best approach. So that kind of problem could probably have been resolved to a great degree through the matter of public hearings.

Perhaps I could just add one further item to the first point, and that is the submission that was sent to all members of the Legislature by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation concerning this matter of public hearings. On the second page of the letter they raise a rather interesting paragraph that I think would be of interest to the members of the House. It is as follows:

“We have noted in recent years the increased importance that the government has placed on public input in the decision-making process. We are disturbed and at a loss to understand why public input has been limited with respect to redistribution, a process which goes to the very heart of equitable representation and government in our province. We are also concerned that the fullest information on materials used by the commissioners in coming to their conclusions be made public.”

So there are the inputs of the requirement for public hearings in circumstances such as this.

The second area is the matter of the differential of size within the ridings as they now exist across the province. In going through a calculation of these various boundaries, I divided the constituencies in the province into four groupings: the first those in northern Ontario; the second those whose populations were larger than 60,000 people; the third those who were less than 60,000 people and. fourthly, those in Metropolitan Toronto. If the members will bear with me for a moment, I think some of the points that come out of this study may be of interest.

The 15 ridings in northern Ontario have two urban, 11 mixed and two rural, a total population of some 764,000 and an average population of 50,936. In the 40 constituencies that have populations greater than 60,000, there are 28 urban, 12 mixed and no rural. Their population is some 2,728,000, an average population of 68,201. The constituencies which have less than 60,000 number 41. Nine are urban, 26 mixed and six rural, with a population of 2,121,001, and the average, 51,731.

Mr. Speaker, when you add together all those constituencies in southern Ontario, excluding Metro Toronto, that is, the 40 that are over 60,000 and the 41 that are less than 60,000, you come out with an average population of 59,864. Agreeably, that is about as close to 60,000 as one can get. When you add together the northern Ontario constituencies and those 81 that I have just referred to, you come out with an average population of 58,469, again pretty close to the 60,000 range. When you look at the Metropolitan Toronto constituencies, those 29, you come up with a population of 2,090,017, an average population of 72,069.

When you divide the total population of the province among these 125 proposed ridings you come back to 61,624, again pretty well close on the mark. You can’t do much better in taking an initial view of this thing than to come up with 40 constituencies that are bigger than 60,000 and 41 constituencies that are less than 60,000, but the average populations, spread across this range, are still subject to some concern. The end result is that the Metropolitan Toronto average seat has 72,069 people; the average seat for the rest of the province has 58,469, certainly a differential that is far too great so far as we look at this kind of a development.

There are certain other points that this size differential makes. Certainly the one raised by the member for York South dealing with the constituency of Muskoka with 31,938 people is, I think, worthy of some comment. When you look at that list of constituencies that are less than 40,000, the smallest two on the list are Muskoka and its adjoining constituency of Parry Sound. It may well be there are reasons because of the distances to be covered that those two constituencies, although they are adjoining, should be the smallest in population in the province. I haven’t heard what the reasons may be but it would be interesting to have the commission advise us as to how they come up to that conclusion.

An interesting point, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the constituencies outside of Metro that are larger than 60,000, is that the largest constituency is Ottawa-Rideau, 76,488; the second one is Ottawa East, 76,396; the third one is Ottawa Centre, 75,713. The ninth largest is Ottawa West and the 14th largest is Carleton. In the 14 largest constituencies outside of Metro, five of them are in the city of Ottawa and environs.

I don’t think that seems to he, especially when you look at the top three constituencies, the kind of balance municipally that perhaps should exist with the more rural ridings in eastern Ontario. It may be that the commission is content with that kind of a division. If it is, surely we should find out the reasoning behind this kind of a change. We would only find out that reasoning if, in fact, public hearings had taken place.

The third area of concern is, of course, the matters with respect to the city of Toronto. As the member for York South has mentioned, it is certainly common knowledge that the initial development of the strip wards for municipal voting patterns within the city of Toronto were found to be unsatisfactory by the Ontario Municipal Board. A ward structure was required, and certainly all the good reasons of ethnic grouping and good communications and all the details which were used to require that kind of a development within the city of Toronto for municipal purposes are every bit as valid within the city of Toronto for legislative purposes. We understand that there was a proposal made to set out the ridings in the city of Toronto that could be divided properly within the block pattern to which I have referred.

During the matter of redistribution I received a rather interesting series of letters from a young man in Toronto, a student whose name is Robert W. Barclay and who lives at 35 Charles St. W., Apt 812. He developed in great detail, and I want to go into that at a point later in my remarks, the kinds of suggestions that would have made him an excellent member of this, commission, or certainly a very fine resource person to the commission. He divided the city of Toronto very neatly into 10 constituencies: Beaches-Woodbine, Riverdale, St. David, St. Andrew-St. Patrick, Bellwoods, Parkdale, Dovercourt, High Park, St. George and Eglinton -- all of them well thought out, evenly balanced constituencies, pretty well in a block division. Surely, if this young man could sit down with the information that he had available to him -- and I don’t know how he got all his information -- and come up with a pattern that would easily and intelligently divide the city of Toronto into reasonable block voting patterns, then it would not be beyond the wit of the commission to do the same. We’re told that such an alternative did, in fact, exist. If that is the case and it is not brought forward at this time for the consideration of the Legislature, then surely we should know why.

Were the proposals then really followed? I referred to them at the opening of my remarks, the desire not to touch any constituencies, or as few as possible; the geographical, historical, commercial and general communications areas; the rapid growth and vacation areas in northern Ontario. Yes, perhaps one was dealt with, that of northern Ontario, in that the number of seats was not changed. But, as the suggestion has been made, the internal division of those 15 ridings, to which I’m sure many members from the north will refer, resulted in some discrepancies that do not seem very easily explained.

The matter of vacation areas is one which perhaps has a small balance of merit. But surely it is a rare situation when a member in a cottage area constituency is faced with an ongoing problem by someone who is up there for several months or several weeks within the year. The odds surely must favour the approach that that person would take to the representative where his or her permanent home might be. There are exceptions, of course.

I simply suggest to you that we should not dwell too much upon the suggestion that members who represent areas in which there are many cottagers are overwhelmed with the requirements of constituency service for those persons. At least in my brief experience in this chamber and in discussing it with my colleagues, we find this is perhaps a minor point but one that, can hardly he justified when we look at the requirements which we have to represent people.

There are some particular examples that have taken place concerning the matter of the city of Toronto. As has been suggested, the Confederation of Resident and Ratepayer Associations was very concerned about this whole strip riding approach. There were two suggestions which it offered on its own. The first would have used Bloor St. as a general dividing line to form ridings on the block configuration. The second, based on a full respect for community boundaries would again result in a somewhat modified form of block ridings.

Surely, as the downtown part of the city of Toronto develops this sense of community, we should be doing everything we could in this Legislature to ensure that that kind of pattern is encouraged. If we are attempting to develop one large city where there is no sense of community, no involvement by the individual in the area in which he or she lives, then we are only asking for future problems as people become rootless and are not interested in anything about them in a large growing city. As a result, we have to attempt to develop our own riding boundaries on the same basis that communities develop, insofar as that is possible. The alternative certainly exists within the city of Toronto, and it is rather sad that it has not been used.

There was the request earlier that the total number of constituencies be increased from the 10 which are proposed, and to which I had referred, to possibly 11. However, the commission in its wisdom has looked at the developmental patterns within the community and has stayed with the figure of 10. There are imbalances with the populations, of course, but I think it is accepted generally on all sides of the House that a rural constituency is going to have more difficult patterns in terms of travel and terms of the accessibility of the constituents to the member than will an urban constituency, where communications are perhaps quicker, where the distance to travel is somewhat less and, accordingly, where a certain differential can be considered acceptable.

Of course we are interested in representation by population. However. I do share the view of the member for York South, which may be a bit old fashioned, that we have to allow a certain acceptable balance when we weigh travel time and accessibility time against the matter of a more rapid communication availability, at least within a metropolitan area. This is as true in my city of Kitchener. As it is, I think, in other and larger cities within the province. This kind of a differential is something that does not cause me particular concern; that is, I would not be prepared to say at least that there could be no such differential.

There are some examples of specific changes that I would like to refer to at this time. The first suggestion I would make to the commission is quite a parochial one, I admit, and that is to change the name of the added constituency within our area from Kitchener South to Kitchener-Wilmot. Federally, the constituency of Perth-Wilmot exists whereby the county of Perth has added on to it the area municipality and the region of Waterloo, which is the township of Wilmot. And that constituency’s name of Perth-Wilmot has been accepted by the federal authorities; so that we have the precedent of attaching the name of this particular township to its constituency.

Certainly, I use the term Kitchener South is a rather all-embracing one, and I would hope that the commission would accept this particular suggestion. It remains a two-word constituency name, so that it is not exceptionally lengthy. I would think it would add a certain sense of belonging to those people in the township of Wilmot.

The second point that I believe my colleague, the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good), will refer to is the name of his own constituency. What is proposed to be Waterloo, I would hope the commission would consider to continue as Waterloo North. That constituency will include not only the city of Waterloo, but the two townships of Wellesley and Woolwich. The name of Waterloo North is one which has existed on the electoral rolls of this province since 1867. Of course, the member for Waterloo North will be able to more adequately express the concerns that he has on the subject, but I wish the commission to know that I, at least, share those concerns.

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with particular points, I had referred to the comments raised earlier on in the suggestions made to me by Mr. Robert W. Barclay. He has written to me a letter as a result of the additional comments that flowed from the second report of the commission. While that letter does go on for two pages, I think that the constituency changes which he suggests are indeed in areas which cover much of the province, the points which he raises, I think, would be of great use to anyone looking over the debate on this subject. I would just like to refer to a couple of these comments that he makes, because I think that they will be useful in the debates as we go through them. His second paragraph begins as this:

“As the question of how many ridings should be created and where they should be allocated seems to be fairly well settled, I have re-examined my ideas in the light of the final report. As the matter is now before the Legislature and you are in a position where you will no doubt be playing a role in the debate and ultimately in the decision-making, I thought that you might be interested in several adjustments which had struck me as being improvements. I hope that the maps are understandable enough that I can safely dispense with any detailed description of urban riding boundaries. The populations are rounded-off approximations based on the 1971 census.

“In regard to Metropolitan Toronto, there are several ridings which I view with severe misgivings. One is York Mills and the other is Ellesmere. Both appear to be extremely awkward combinations. I feel that my proposed adjustments in Scarborough are logical enough. They present a very simplistic map and do not alter the ridings too radically from the previous distribution; yet, they permit the creation of a compact new riding. In viewing the population of Scarborough North, it must be remembered that the figures used are now 3½ years out of date and that sustained development has occurred in the Malvern, Brimley Woods and Bridletowne areas of the borough. The riding’s population must be rapidly approaching that of the other four ridings of the borough. As far as the York Mills-Oriole situation goes, the change is from an east-west division to a north-south one. This would appear to me to provide less awkward ridings while not upsetting any established community of interests. The name Willowdale might better be substituted for Oriole in this situation.”

I might intervene at this point. Of course, the name Oriole has a great historic tradition in the area, which might not he known to Mr. Barclay. It was, I believe, the home area of a former Premier of the province; I believe Mr. Whitney --

An hon. member: Mr. Henry.

Mr. Breithaupt: I’m sorry, Mr. Henry. It certainly has connections with the area that Mr. Barclay might not have known. But let me proceed with the letter.

“I am deeply disturbed that the strip system is still being employed in the city of Toronto. Not only that, but it is evolving into longer strips (see St. Andrew-St. Patrick). How the Ontario government can possibly justify this after its own glorious creation, the OMB, has specifically rejected it escapes me. The accompanying map is a possible rearrangement in Toronto which would limit the number of true strip ridings to one, while providing reasonably compact boundaries for the rest of the seats.

If I may now pass beyond the boundaries of Metro, I would like to direct my attention to two ridings which I feel are just abominations. They are Brant-Norfolk and Wellington-Peel. The former resembles two unrelated areas thrown together as a tag-end unit. In this regard, also, I feel it is undesirable that rural Oxford should have approximately 10,000 more people in it than urban Brantford. Despite the strong feelings of community within a county I feel that to be equitable more areas should be excised from Oxford and added to one of the adjoining constituencies. It should be noted that all of the area taken from Oxford would end up in one riding, unlike the proposed dissection of the Waterloo region on the commission’s ‘First proposals.’ This factor could be accounted for by employing the word ‘Oxford’ in the name of the adjoining riding. This might smooth a few ruffled feathers.

I have set out two possible adjustments to the Brant-Norfolk problem. The first would add only Houghton township to the present Haldimand-Norfolk while the former townships of Middleton and Blandford, the former town of Delhi, the township of Oakland, and the newly created township of Norwich would be added to the present Brant. This is the preferable alternative, I believe, as it would leave the ridings as close to their previous composition as is feasible. This plan would find favour with the hon. Mr. Allan, I believe.”

I must say, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether it would or not, but I am sure he may choose to comment.

“The second alternative is to organize the ridings strictly along the present municipal boundaries into two appropriate ridings. Thus Norfolk-Oxford would consist of: Blandford, Blenheim, Norwich, Burford, Norfolk, Delhi, and the town of Simcoe; while Haldimand-Brant would consist of: South Dumfries, Onondaga, Tuscarora, Brantford north of the Grand River and [the towns of Paris, Haldimand, Dunnville and the city of Nanticoke.

“The first thought which strikes my mind upon seeing Wellington-Peel is that Governor Gerry’s salamander has escaped from its cage (I am speaking of shape and not intent here). It is absurd that a riding as thin as this one should extend for so far, or that Caledon should not be included in a riding with its neighbour, Orangeville, while being lumped with distant centres beyond Orangeville. I believe that the adjustment I set out is reasonable. There is a community of interest among Mono, Orangeville, Caledon, Erin and Eramosa, while Fergus, Elora, Peel and Maryborough as contiguous areas of Wellington county may be properly joined to them. There are, also, communities of interest flowing from Shelburne up Highway 10 to Dundalk, Flesherton and Markdale, and from the north Wellington area up Highway 6 to Durham and Hanover.

“Briefly stated, my adjustment is this: Grey-Wellington -- the present Grey South plus [the townships of] Minto, Arthur, West Luther and Melancthon, [the towns of] Harriston, Palmerston, Arthur, Shelburne [and the village of] Clifford.

“Wellington-Dufferin, [the townships of] Peel, Maryborough, Nichol, Pilkington, Erin, Eramosa, Mono, Amaranth, East Luther, East and West Garafraxa and the towns of Orangeville, Caledon, Fergus, and the villages of Drayton, Erin, Elora and Grand Valley.

“It is to be noted that these adjustments can be made without affecting any ridings other than the two involved.

“Finally, I wish to direct my attention to the Huron problem.”

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Wasn’t going to speak to him, but you are getting one.

Mr. Breithaupt: To continue:

“From all reports it would appear that Strathroy is furious about being included in that riding. It would seem far more logical to me to merely merge the rural areas of Middlesex North with the southern part of Huron county to achieve a Middlesex-Huron riding. This involves an almost even-up trade of Adelaide township and Strathroy for the townships of London and West Nissouri. The former could then remain where they are in Middlesex South ... Highway 4 is the chief route from Huron county to London and it would provide a key link between the two areas and the riding.

“The resultant disappearance of Middlesex North would allow the creation of a third urban riding in London. Clearly if Mississauga with approximately 175,000 people in 1971 is entitled to three seats, then London with a population of approximately 225,000 is also. At some point in time London is going to have to receive another purely urban seat, and an excellent opportunity would seem to present itself the moment. The division of London into three seats (all with greater populations than those in Mississauga, I might point out) could be accomplished by an adaption of the present division through the addition of a London West, or an entirely new basis for division could be arrived at. My maps give an example of both solutions. In each case, the area of London accorded to Middlesex South is shrunk very slightly from the present.

“Two other slight adjustments commend themselves with respect to Huron-Bruce. The vast extent of the riding could be curtailed at either extremity, with Tuckersmith remaining in a proposed Middlesex-Huron and with a trade-off of Port Elgin and Saugeen township to Grey-Bruce for Walkerton and Brant township. While not greatly affecting the population of either riding, it would render both more compact. The hub of Grey-Bruce is Owen Sound, and Port Elgin would appear to be more within its sphere than Walkerton.

“I hope that the ideas expressed to you have made the reading of this letter worth your While. In addition, I hope you are successful in achieving a meaningful debate of the commission’s proposals and in achieving the rectification of their most obvious weaknesses.”

This, Mr. Speaker, is simply a series of suggestions made by one observer; and one would wonder at the benefit, therefore, of having the kind of public hearings we referred to earlier in bringing forward some of these particular points and concerns.

I am sure members from the various areas which Mr. Barclay refers to in his letter are going to be entering the debate and making suggestions which ma be of use to the commission. One wonders, though, how much better the initial results of the second series of proposals might have been if this kind of an input would have occurred earlier through the kind of benefits which concerned and interested citizens would have been able to have brought forth at a time of public hearings.

The matter of the Scarborough redistribution is something that concerns us particularly in the Opposition, because the rulings within the Scarborough area seem to have been also divided in a rather curious way. Mr. Barclay has referred earlier to suggestions that he has made. We think, as suggested by this writer, a reasonable suggestion would have been to divide the area into five constituencies, the boundaries of which would have caused a certain block approach and would have allowed for further and earlier development.

The boundaries are set out here and I am not going to take the time of the House to review them, other than to say that Scarborough North would be a constituency bounded by Steeles Ave., Victoria Park, the Pickering town line and Highway 401. Ellesmere could be hounded by Highway 401, Victoria Park Ave., Highland Creek valley and Lawrence Ave. Scarborough West could be bounded by Lawrence, Victoria Park, Kennedy Rd. and Lake Ontario; Scarborough Centre by Lawrence, Kennedy Rd., Markham Rd. and Lake Ontario; and Scarborough East by Highway 401, the Pickering town line, Lake Ontario and a line north from Lake Ontario on Markham Rd. to Lawrence and so up to Highway 401.

This would be the kind of a block approach of dividing these constituencies that again might better serve the public interest. It is not just enough to suggest that the kinds of submissions that were received following the initial proposals, show the attitude or approach which many people might have chosen to take to this kind of a suggestion on internal divisions of constituency boundaries.

The examples given for Scarborough are much like the examples given by Mr. Barclay when he refers to a series of other ridings. Both of these writers have put together suggestions which I presume are worthy of at least discussion and review. They may not entirely satisfy local patterns, because these two persons may not know all of the details that the commission may have available to it. They also would not know how particular members representing constituencies would view the suggested changes, which might appear easy from the outside but within a constituency might not be suitable to the people who in fact live there. However, this kind of an input could, we think, have been much better attended to by the kinds of approach which would have involved a greater public hearing.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other points I would like to make. The matters dealing with redistribution in the London and Peterborough areas have caused some concern, and I presume that members for those constituencies are going to speak to them. My colleague, the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) has asked me to raise one further point since he is attending another event this evening. He has expressed concern that in his particular constituency the improvement district of Barclay is to be removed from the Rainy River riding.

Mr. Reid does regret this, since he has developed what he believes to be a good relationship with the people in the Barclay area. Certainly if it is not the wish of these people to be put into the Kenora riding, he would prefer they remain in the Rainy River district. He has asked me to raise this point and I do so at this time because it will then at least be available for the commission when they review the Hansard debate on this subject.

We have set out, Mr. Speaker, in the remarks that I have made, the three concerns which we particularly have had. The first concern, as I have suggested, is the one dealing with the lack of public hearings. The second matter is the size differentials which have been reviewed, not only in the press and the other media but here this evening. The third matter is the particular problem that deals with the city of Toronto.

These are the three areas to which we believe the commission has not attended as properly as we think should have been done. There have been some articles in the press dealing with the presumed differences in view between the hon. member for York South and the Clerk of the House who sat on the commission.

Whether the comments made either by Mr. Webster or Mr. Williamson are correct or not, I agree that we should not be dealing with this on the basis of a particular personality difference. We should be basing our views on the points that have been raised this evening. And the points and suggestions made are in the light of the report, and with the hope that they may have some value and influence as the commission reviews its work.

The matter of public hearings may not be dealt with. It may well be too late for such an approach on this redistribution, as we know that it is the intention of the government to have this legislation in place before the next election. Obviously, in order to be able to judge when an election should be called, it will be necessary for the government party, as well as for the opposition, to have redistributed constituency organizations in place and ready to go whenever the requirement is there. So, the matter of public hearings may not be able to be the kind of thing that is going to be in effect for this redistribution.

We think that was unfortunate. We would like to have public involvement if it is still possible; but we certainly require that on any future redistribution public hearings be a matter of course.

The second point, that of the size of constituencies, we may still be able to resolve somewhat. The balance that I have suggested, in the mechanical statement that was made earlier dividing the province into four areas, sets out the various differences -- northern Ontario, the constituencies more than 60,000, the constituencies less than 60,000 and the Metropolitan Toronto circumstance. The riding differences average out, it so happens, pretty close to 60,000. But when you take out the Metropolitan Toronto areas, this discrepancy is larger than many of us would like to see. If a 15 per cent figure can be matched within the federal terms of reference, surely that should be the goal within Ontario.

The third point dealing with the block boundaries in the city of Toronto can still be changed. This is one thing that the commission could do that would bring forward a better approach and a better balance of constituencies within the city of Toronto. I’ve already referred to the suggestion made by Mr. Barclay. It was acknowledged, from various sources, that there was a proposal made for constituencies, based on this block system within the city of Toronto.

If it’s too late for public hearings, and if it’s too late to worry about all the size differentials of the province, surely the final area of our concern is not too late. That area of concern is with respect to the city of Toronto, At least that particular area could still be dealt with in good time, based on community interest and an involvement to attempt to develop that better sense of community spirit that would exist as we look to the future in the downtown part of the city rather than continuing these narrow strip boundaries.

Well, those are the three areas of concern that we have, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to you that the means I have brought forward to you tonight would allow some alleviation of that, if not now at least in the future.

We are of course concerned with redistribution, but as the government is well aware, we are prepared to fight the next election no matter how they slice up the province. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have just two brief points, Mr. Speaker, which I can make in the five minutes left. The first is my riding of High Park is having added to it the loyal Tory area of Swansea, and a number of loyal Tories from that area have asked that High Park in future be known as High Park-Swansea, and I have no objection to that. If someone out there is listening, I hope they will carry out this major change in the redistribution.

The other point is perhaps not as serious. It is a letter which I have here. It is on Progressive Conservative Party stationery and it apparently was sent out at the time of the last redistribution. The only reason I mention it is that there have been some snide suggestion on this side of the House that because it is an independent commission we need not worry and there is no gerrymandering.

Of course I believe in independent commissions and I was not one of those snide people who said that, but I thought it should go on the record. This letter which went out last time, this particular one, is signed by a certain David E. Allin and dated March 23, 1966, and I haven’t got time to read the whole letter, unfortunately, but I will read the important part. It is addressed to Stan Boivin, president of Nickel Belt riding Progressive Conservative Association:

“As the area encompassed by the present Sudbury and Nickel Belt ridings will now enclose three ridings, the new Sudbury East riding will include parts of both, it is my thought that perhaps the best method of effecting redistribution will be to have a joint meeting of the Sudbury and Nickel Belt executive to discuss it.”

It is always interesting to know how independent commissions work, so I put that on the record just for the benefit of those who may have some doubts in the future; that is purely a historical point. I am not running again so it is not of too much importance. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Will there be further people to speak to this? The member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) or the member for St. George? Were either going to rise? Perhaps it is hardly worth while starting. If you would care to move the adjournment of the debate it might just be in order.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): You wish me to move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Speaker: We have only one or two minutes left. You will probably take more time than that.

Mrs. Campbell moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House I would say that we will carry on with this debate tomorrow afternoon and also the further motion; to be followed by order No. 10, Bill 179; to be followed by order No. 2, Bill 176.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.