Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for Armourdale.

Mr. G. R. Carton (Armourdale): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege; namely the story on page one of the Globe and Mail this morning headlined: “Letters in House Contradict Carton on Road Land Deal.” On page two of the Globe and Mail it simply says: “Carton Involved;” and page five of the Globe and Mail sets out certain letters stating: “Letter, Reply, Result.”

I rise, sir, not in anger. I rise simply in sorrow; and yes, in disgust. Because of the following two letters I was awakened this morning, about 1:30 am., by a reporter wanting an interview. These are the letters, one on Dec. 8, 1972:

“Hon. Gordon Carton, QC, Minister of Transportation and Communications,

“Third Floor,

“Ferguson Block,

“Queen’s Park,

“Toronto, Ontario.

“Dear Gordon:

“Attached hereto is a copy of a letter from a friend of mine in Ottawa. Is there any information we can properly give to him at this time?

“Sincerely,

“(Signed) Bert

“A. B. R. Lawrence.”

The next letter, Mr. Speaker, is a letter from me to Mr. Lawrence dated Jan. 3, 1973.

“Dear Bert:

“This is in reply to your letter of Dec. 8, on behalf of Mr. W. W. Buchanan, concerning property in lot 4, concession 1, town of Oakville.

“Although the recommendations of the governmental task force involved with designating parkway belts and transportation and utility corridors have not been finalized, the link connecting Highway 403 to the Queen Elizabeth Way has been designated as a controlled access highway.

“It has been determined that a portion of this land will be required for this highway. Our staff will establish the exact requirements and will complete the necessary appraisals. Following this, we will contact the owners and proceed with negotiations on a voluntary sale basis providing funds are available.

“Thank you for your interest in this matter.

“Yours sincerely,

“Gordon Carton.”

Mr. Speaker, at 2 o’clock this morning, or 1:30 a.m., not only was I unaware of the article in the Globe and Mail referred to by the Canadian Press reporter, I was equally unaware of the two letters. The reporter asked me if I knew a Mr. Buchanan, I replied no. He then told me the contents of the two letters that I have read; to which I replied that I honestly did not see anything amiss. In other words, what was he seeking? Where was the wrongdoing? I then asked him if in fact we had purchased the property, and he said yes, that this was part of the lands discussed in the Legislature Monday afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, my statement to Mr. Williamson of the Globe and Mail on Sunday, which was printed in Monday’s paper, and I quote -- and I apologize for the language, but bear in mind there are inferences when these questions are asked -- was:

“They would know better than to mention it to me, because I would get my back up and I would tell them I didn’t care even if we needed the bloody thing.”

My statement is just as true today as it was Sunday. This was a reply to a suggestion that a high government official or officer might influence me in my ministerial duties. Succinctly, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat, there is no way that I would do anything surreptitiously or improperly for anyone. Anyone who knows me will attest to this.

Following the perverted logic of the reporter, I suppose there perhaps could be implied something sinister in being addressed “Dear Gordon” by one of my colleagues. But a student of journalism would know this was accepted practice. The letter from the Hon. Bert Lawrence was proper in every way, similar to hundreds of letters received from all sides of the House, from all the government members and all the members opposite. They act as ombudsmen in their areas and they are fully entitled to ask for status reports.

If a request comes, whether it be from the hon. members or from members of the public, it goes directly from the minister’s office without him seeing it to Downsview for research. At that juncture a letter is drafted by the ministry staff and returned to the minister’s office for approval and signature. The minister would read and sign perhaps 200 to 300 letters a week. If the letter disclosed some discord or some varying views the minister would read the backup material in order to assure himself that he agrees with the replies.

I acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that I signed the letter, but I repeat, the matter was not an extraordinary one; it was one of countless hundreds of matters currently on the shelf. I completely forgot the letter. I forgot the name Buchanan and the entire matter until 2 o’clock this morning. Incidentally, but very important, there is absolutely no way whatsoever that the name Buchanan in the correspondence just read was in any way connected with Fantum Investments, Mr. Feldman, Mr. Shouldice or any other of the matters relating thereto. I dealt with the matter as a Mr. Buchanan and a lot and plan number reference, through the proper officials in my ministry.

That brings me to what I think is a most important point, Mr. Speaker. There is a chronology of events in this matter. It started on June 1, 1971, with a letter addressed to our chief design engineer and signed by Mr. Feldman -- incidentally, the press have all these letters -- and I find it very interesting that the second paragraph states:

“Upon checking at the township some days ago we found that the MTC is proposing to construct a connecting highway between Highway 403 and the Queen Elizabeth and that the cloverleaf and the right of way will in fact require all the above property.”

That started, sir, as I say, on June 1, 1971. There was a letter on June 8, 1971, from a ministry official, Mr. R. G. Burnfield, to Mr. Feldman, acknowledging the letter and “upon review will advise as to MTC’s decision.” On Oct. 20, 1971, Mr. Steinberg contacted Mr. Pillar of the ministry to discuss the status of the June 1 request: “Visit to be acknowledged by letter, noting request is under active review; advised that it would take a month or more to make a definite decision.”

On Oct. 2, 1971, there was a letter from Mr. Pillar to Mr. Steinberg as outlined above.

On Oct. 27, 1971, there was a letter from Mr. Pillar to Mr. Oddson informing him of “meeting with M. Steinberg and information exchanged.”

On Nov. 10, 1971, M. Steinberg phoned R. A. Madill of the ministry to check the progress of the request. Nov. 16, 1971: From R. A. Madill, MTC, to M. Steinberg: “Further to the phone call of Nov. 10 advising MTC not in a position to acquire property requirements, decision hopefully within next year.”

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): That is when they lost the file and the letter.

Mr. Carton: April 17, 1972: From Fantum to R. S. Pillar to advise of proceedings to apply for a draft plan of subdivision, suggesting present time is proper to commence negotiations for purchase of requirements.

May 15, 1972: From S. J. Radbone to A. Feldman, stating, “No record of property purchases for 403 as referred to in April 17 letter.”

May 25, 1972: W. Buchanan phoned R. G. Gascoyne concerning the acquisition of the subject property. May 29, 1972: From W. Buchanan to R. C. Gascoyne, enclosing the legal description and requesting MTC to purchase property. June 15, 1972: From A. C. Bonnis to M. W. Robinson requesting a title search and cost estimate.

June 28, 1972: Meeting between W. Buchanan, R. W. Oddson and P. J. Harvey in the latter’s office. June 28, 1972; July 18, 1972; Sept. 27, 1972; Oct. 6, 1972; and so on.

The most important one, Mr. Speaker, was on Nov. 2, 1972 -- which was before any letter was received or any letter sent by the hon. Bert Lawrence or myself -- when a report went from A. C. Bonnis to R. G. Gascoyne outlining the background for the recommendation for the advance purchase of the Fantum Holdings property.

Mr. Speaker, I prided myself in my ministry on answering all the MPPs’ letters as expeditiously as possible. I opened a file for each member. I personally updated them every two weeks, and in some cases the solution was to meet with the individual MPPs and their constituents. I do not recall ever refusing to meet with any MPP on either side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset that I spoke not in anger but in sorrow and disgust. I hope I have been able to convey my disgust. I now turn to my feelings of sorrow. I first sought public office in 1963 after having held high office in many community and charitable endeavours. I was the national president of the Canadian Progress Club; president of the YMCA; on the board of the Metropolitan Toronto Association for Retarded Children; for cystic fibrosis fund raising, the Spina Bifida Association; and latterly the Participation House.

It was while I was presenting a brief to the then Minister of Education, the hon. John Robarts, on behalf of the retarded children, that I thought perhaps I could direct my talents to a bigger forum where I could participate in the law-making for the less fortunate. I was first elected in 1963, re-elected in 1967 and 1971; and each time victory was conceded before the polls were closed 30 minutes.

I fought my own government in my maiden speech, and that’s a traumatic experience. I have held a weekly clinic every Wednesday. Summer, spring, fall and winter, Christmas Eve, New Year’s Eve, I have been there to meet my constituents. I have not missed more than one Wednesday per year, and that would be because of some outside force such as sitting, as we did on Wednesday nights, or at a minister’s conference.

Prior to Christmas 1973 I informed the Premier (Mr. Davis) that I did not intend seeking re-election in 1975. I felt I had made my contribution and I hoped I had at least made a ripple at Queen’s Park. The Premier requested me to stay; I politely and firmly said no. It was at that juncture I left the cabinet. There is no point in taking a ball player to spring camp if he is not going to play in the league.

And so, Mr. Speaker, the sorrowful part is that in the late autumn of my political life, my political career and all that went before it is beclouded by headlines that bear absolutely no relevance to the facts. The press had all the material used by me today; they had it before I did. The sorrowful part is that the Globe and Mail did not print the chronology, the chronology that I have just recited wherein it was shown that the ministry officials had decided to make the purchase. Obviously when the letter came through to me it went to the ministry officials and they updated me at that time. It was they who decided; the die had been cast by the ministry officials, in their wisdom, weeks before the minister signed that letter. The minister’s letter was routine.

I find this sorrowful, Mr. Speaker; and I would not want it to happen to any other member of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to introduce 80 students with their teachers from the C. B. Warren Junior High School in Yorkview. I am sure that the House would like to join with me in welcoming them here today as they observe the smooth and very, orderly working of democracy.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to introduce a distinguished gentleman in the Speaker’s gallery who is with us today, Mr. James Balfour, who is the federal MP for Regina East.

Statements by the ministry.

LAND ASSEMBLY IN EDWARDSBURGH TOWNSHIP

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to advise the House of the latest of a series of major initiatives the government is taking to facilitate development in eastern Ontario. In the coming months my colleagues will outline additional programmes specifically designed to serve this very important area of this province. The development of this programme is confirming our expectations that eastern Ontario would benefit very substantially from major industrial development.

However. Mr. Speaker, we are all very conscious that rapid large-scale industrialization could threaten the environment and disrupt the economy and social structure of many towns of eastern Ontario. Our residents do not want this kind of disruption. Many of them have chosen to live in this area of Ontario by choice because they like it better where they are than anywhere else. The government believes very strongly that any economic and social stimulation which we apply must reinforce the amenities which residents have chosen and the priorities which they prefer. In a very practical way these communities represent a substantial investment of public capital, in homes, schools, churches, stores and shops, recreation facilities, hospitals, and other services which would have to be duplicated elsewhere at a much greater cost if these communities lose their vitality. This could happen if they do not have some new industrial and commercial development.

This need was stressed constantly during the numerous meetings which the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) has held with our colleagues, with municipal and community representatives and with many citizens throughout eastern Ontario over the past 18 months.

As part of our programme, the Minister of Industry and Tourism will be bringing forward a programme for municipal industrial parks and this, together with incentives available through the Eastern Ontario Development Corp., will give the municipalities the resources they need to attract and locate the kind of industrial development they want.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the government wishes to ensure provision of an adequate site for major industrial development, because all our experience has shown that we must be able to show a site to potential industries and give them firm assurances on the availability, cost and servicing. To do this we must control the property.

The hon. members of this House are aware that options have been acquired on approximately 10,000 acres of rural land on the St. Lawrence Seaway in Edwardsburgh township.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): We knew it before the minister did.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: At the present time, the government has options on approximately 10,000 acres at an average cost of $508 an acre for undeveloped portions and $701 an acre for the built-up portions.

Mr. Lewis: When did they fill in the minister that he was being had?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As these options fall due, Mr. Speaker, they will be exercised on behalf of the government by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow).

Although we have not acquired options on all the property within the site, we do not plan to initiate any further purchases for the time being. However, we will be receptive to any reasonable voluntary offer of property which we consider useful for future development.

Mr. Roy: What is the cost?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: This site was chosen because it’s situated on the Seaway with the only deep-sea port between Montreal and Toronto. There is excellent road and rail access. Highways 401 and 416 and the main lines of the two railways traverse the property.

Mr. Roy: When did the minister find out about it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As I have said many times before --

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): The member doesn’t like it, does he?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- I cannot outline at this time in any detailed way how this property will ultimately be used. This will be determined --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The government had the chance to put Stelco there.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- in continuing consultation with residents of the entire area, but -- and this is very important -- the site is of such a size and nature that it can accommodate major industries and any associated community and support services which ultimately prove most desirable.

However, we will not allow this project to compete directly with existing communities for industrial development which they can readily accommodate. Instead, we know this initiative will provide economic stimulation and trigger secondary industrial and commercial development for the entire region without disrupting our very vital existing communities.

While some of this land is under cultivation, very little of Ontario’s prime food lands is involved and the development will not encroach in any significant way on our food production capacity. However, we do intend to keep in cultivation the lands that are presently producing food until they are needed for other development.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Until; yes.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, like steel mills or secondary manufacturing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Premier, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), the Minister without Portfolio from London South (Mr. White), the Minister of Industry and Tourism and other of my colleagues from eastern Ontario met with municipal representatives from eastern Ontario today and I will personally be in the area that’s directly affected tonight for a meeting with all the residents to --

Mr. Roy: All the residents?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- outline to them the details of the purchase.

Mr. Roy: Why weren’t we invited? The minister didn’t invite us.

Mr. Yakabuski: It’s our programme, not theirs.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- this is the first of a series of steps we are taking to --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): This is the last of a series.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- meet the social, cultural and economic needs of eastern Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister of Industry and Tourism doesn’t even agree with this.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Just say “cheese.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And I know, Mr. Speaker, by the response from the opposition --

Mr. Lewis: How is he going to bail the Minister of Industry and Tourism out of this one?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- that it hurts to have it brought home very --

Mr. Lewis: There’s the chicken roosting over there, right across from the minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- quickly by the government, that the government recognizes --

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Don’t start ad-libbing; read from the statement.

Hon Mr. Irvine: -- that there must be development in eastern Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): The way things are going, they won’t hold Glengarry.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: Another land grant by the Tories.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The minister has the floor.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is obviously very upset at this major announcement, which makes me feel just wonderful. All I would like to say is that the government will continue to make announcements which will make them feel as sick as they are today.

CUT IN MINISTERS’ SALARIES

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I said that the government was giving serious consideration to a five per cent reduction in the salaries of cabinet ministers. This would be a visible expression --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Does this include Mr. Kelly?

Mr. Cassidy: Must be an election due.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- of the determination of the government to provide an example that might be followed by others in our economy, including other governments in Canada.

The total remuneration of cabinet ministers is $40,500, made up of an annual salary of $18,000 --

Mr. Shulman: Overpaid.

Mr. Lewis: Boy, should there be a cut!

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- an indemnity of $15,000 and an allowance of $7,500.

An hon. member: The total remuneration is provocative.

Mr. D C. MacDonald (York South): They’re not on pack rations.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: They don’t like to hear about responsible moves.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Everything he touches goes sour.

An hon. member: Those guys are ripping off the public purse.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Everything he touches goes wrong.

Mr. MacDonald: Has the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) okayed this?

Interjections by hon members

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: Sounds like a cheap political trick.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The total remuneration of Ministers without Portfolio is $30,000. The cabinet has now approved my proposal and each minister will return five per cent of his total remuneration of $40,500 -- or, if a Minister without Portfolio, $30,000 -- to the Treasurer. Each minister will make his own arrangement --

Mr. Young: Make it 20 per cent.

Mr. Lewis: In person, in cash.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- but in all cases the full five per cent will have been returned by the end of 1975, at which time, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: Preferably at Winston’s, but if not there, who knows? What a farce this is. Do something about the economy.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member is the only farce around here. He’s the only farce around this establishment and it’s high time the people knew about it.

Mr. Lewis: What an irresponsible person the minister is; five per cent of $40,000!

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Let the member put his money where his month is.

Mr. Lewis: What is the government doing for low wage earners?

Mr. Speaker: Order please, order. We heard a comment --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: We heard a comment a moment ago about the exemplary behaviour of the members here. Let’s continue it that way. Would the minister continue?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The people will know the activity of the opposition for what it is.

Mr. Lewis: This isn’t behaviour; it is irresponsible.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): The member is a cheapskate.

Mr. Lewis: Do something for the people of the province.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I want to say that at the end of 1975 I will review the situation in accordance with the circumstances.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Don’t count on it.

Mr. Lewis: Oh sure.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: While there was no obligation to do so, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has already given evidence of his support for this action.

An hon. member: His and Dorothy’s. Don’t leave out Dorothy.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): He will be charged depreciation for that car, you know.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the leadership we are showing by this move --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Are the cheques going to be signed by the ministers’ wives as well?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- will be copied by others, and in this way assist in curbing the rate of inflation, which is the major concern of all of us.

Mr. Lewis: We could have an honour roll.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member apparently didn’t listen to the federal Minister of Finance last night. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we get on with the business of the Legislature?

Mr. Reid: Yes, we have had the comedy hour.

Mr. Speaker: I am quite aware of that.

Mr. Lewis: If the jobs were evaluated they wouldn’t get $20,000.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions; the Leader of the Opposition.

LAND ASSEMBLY IN EDWARDSBURGH TOWNSHIP

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Did he make clear that there would be no housing associated with the development in Edwardsburgh township, or will there be some?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in my statement there would be associated development along with the industrial development. There can be some housing development in the future.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since I know the minister’s sensitivity in that regard, and since there will be housing associated with it, I wonder if the minister would make clear to the House when he found out about this plan and particularly when he found out that there would be housing associated with it, in view of his statement in response to my question on Oct. 29 as follows:

“I don’t know for what purpose it is being assembled. I don’t know what the future will be.”

And on Nov. 16 he said, “There is no way there will be any new townsite in the township. Any residential development generated will be confined to Prescott and Brockville.”

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer the question of the Leader of the Official Opposition, because today we have many reeves and mayors in the audience.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They want to know why the minister wasn’t consulted.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would like to have the Leader of the Opposition on the record as not understanding what the development is all about.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They want to know why the minister wasn’t consulted.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member has asked his question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Leader of the Opposition doesn’t have any understanding as to what eastern Ontario needs.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All he has to do is check the records of how many seats his party got in eastern Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Did the minister buy their lunch today?

Mr. Roy: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want to say to him that I found out when the decision was in cabinet. The cabinet made a decision; and whether there will be housing located in certain areas I am not prepared to tell the member at this time. I said there may be housing.

Mr. Roy: Isn’t the minister in the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It would make some sense to have some housing there, I suppose, but I am not going to define to him what area is for housing. I said to him before, in my opinion there would be no new site for a large complex as we are contemplating in North Pickering or in Haldimand-Norfolk. That I stand by. There will be no new townsite.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just so that the minister will be informed, I used to work in Spencerville. I taught school there and I know more about that community than the minister does. I would like to say this, as a supplementary question --

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have never been in Spencerville and I know more about it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is a very important question from the standpoint of the audience that the minister drew attention to, the reeves, the elected people from the area. They want to know why the minister as the elected cabinet minister from that area was not consulted when the decision was taken by the member for London South to acquire those lands. What kind of a policy can this government possibly have when they don’t consult the Minister of Housing -- acting minister in those days --

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Is the Leader of the Opposition opposed to it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- or the man who is the spokesman for --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has asked why I didn’t know about the development at a certain time.

Mr. Lewis: They didn’t trust him.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): We know the question, just answer it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I informed the House there were options being taken. Options certainly were not being exercised and have not been exercised. The point is a decision has been made by the government of today to exercise the options in the near future, whenever they fall due.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister’s buddies have left him out in the cold.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Leader of the Opposition may have come from Spencerville at some particular time, but I don’t think he knows anything about Spencerville, quite frankly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park with a supplementary?

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that the senior members of the cabinet did not take the minister into their confidence on this matter because they felt he was not aware of the needs of eastern Ontario?

An hon. member: He can’t keep a secret.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, that is not the best question the member for High Park has asked, I can assure him.

Mr. Cassidy: Doesn’t the minister have any answers at all?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Obviously the member assured the people in my area very quickly that whatever was done would be in their best interests and that I would protect the people of Grenville-Dundas as long as I was their member --

An hon. member: We know what’s past.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and regardless of whether the opposition are against the development of eastern Ontario, which they apparently are, I am for it.

Mr. Breithaupt: The jury isn’t smiling.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East has a supplementary.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Housing please explain why it is that eastern Ontario members of this party and the New Democratic Party were not invited to the briefing he gave our invited guests today and which he gave to his own backbenchers from eastern Ontario?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P Taylor: Maybe if we had been briefed we would think better of the project.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. Taylor: Point No. 2 --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. P. Taylor: Would the minister please explain why a 456-acre industrial park on the waterfront at Prescott has never been used? And point No. 3 --

Mr. Speaker: That is not a supplementary question to the original.

Mr. Roy: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: Not the second part of it. The first part of it was. The member for Carleton East asked three or four questions. He asked for one supplementary, not four. On No. 1 he asked one. Is there an answer, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the member to repeat the question; I couldn’t hear him.

Mr. MacDonald: Why was it a Tory clambake instead of a legislative clambake?

Mr. Speaker: Ask the first question, which was somewhat supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Would the member repeat the No. 1 question?

Mr. P. Taylor: Why were the eastern Ontario members of the two opposition parties not invited to the briefing? And why was land purchased for this project at the rate of $500 per acre when the going rate at the time was $55 an acre?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, very obviously this government has done in the past, and did today, the proper thing in consulting the people of eastern Ontario --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: Why doesn’t the minister’s boss ever consult him?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We’re not a government that is going to take action without the people of eastern Ontario knowing full well what the ramifications are. We have said to the people who were there today, the appointed and elected people, that this will be a great stimulation to the economy of eastern Ontario, and I fully believe that.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister forgot to invite some members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Whether or not the member for Carleton East was there is not the question. I don’t think he would have added anything to it if he was there.

Mr. Cassidy: Probably not, but he should have been invited.

Mr. Shulman: That wasn’t the best answer the minister has ever given either.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister tell the House what types of industries the government is seeking to attract to this industrial park --

Mr. Yakabuski: In the fullness of time.

Mr. Samis: -- and what guarantees he can give to the existing communities that this won’t be in competition with the existing industrial parks in eastern Ontario?

Mr. Shulman: The minister won’t know.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, it’s unfortunate that the member for Stormont didn’t listen to what I was saying --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on!

Mr. Foulds: He was listening very carefully.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Let the minister quit taking such a superior attitude.

Mr. Foulds: Look, flannel mouth, just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In our statement we have clearly stated this development will not disrupt the development of existing communities in eastern Ontario. We have said we would provide financial assistance to the existing communities by way of assisting them to develop industrial parks -- serviced parks, and not just by way of acquiring land for developing those lands.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Most of them have industrial parks anyway.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am saying to the member, with regard to his particular area, that I don’t think he should have any quarrel with further development in eastern Ontario when the city of Cornwall has had more incentives provided by this government than any other area --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Breithaupt: And they were ungrateful too.

Mr. Bullbrook: They showed their appreciation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Therefore, I think it’s about time that the hon. member recognized that the Province of Ontario aims to help all of Ontario and all of the people.

LAND ASSEMBLY IN EDWARDSBURGH TOWNSHIP

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Industry and Tourism a somewhat similar question. When did he find out about this and how was he converted so spectacularly that he is put in charge of the development when, according to the quotes that he has made in our hearing in this chamber and in eastern Ontario, he said it’s absolutely foolish and we’d be completely off our nut to build a new industrial park there?

Mr. Yakabuski: The Leader of the Opposition is missing the point.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Obviously, Mr. Speaker, words of truth seem to ring a wrong bell with the Liberals today.

Mr. Roy: The minister is not off his nut, let him tell us that!

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I became aware of the options being placed by the government of Ontario just a week prior to Christmas.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the minister mean that the former Treasurer (Mr. White) went ahead on his own? No wonder he’s in charge of the campaign! Things look better than we thought.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Not from this side they don’t; don’t worry about that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I became aware of the options being placed by the government about a week prior to Christmas. While I had made those statements and I stand by them because at the time it was my opinion from the press reports that they were going to --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: What does the minister mean, he stands by them?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Well, the leader of the NDP seem to put such a great reliance on press reports of recent days.

Mr. Lewis: Two senior cabinet ministers, neither of them consulted, one in housing, one in industry; and now the government is building a park.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, we all want to hear the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: They are off their collective nuts over there.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: While they have one in the NDP, we don’t have to have two anywhere else.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It takes one to know one.

Mr. Yakabuski: He’ll have the last laugh.

Mr. Ruston: Will the hon. minister tell us what is going on?

Mr. Breithaupt: I don’t think Mack Sennett would have done as good a job.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker --

Interjection by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. minister wants to give his answer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the Speaker has called for order. Don’t carry it too much further.

An hon. member: Look what they are doing over there.

Mr. Lewis: Come on, they are colleagues of the minister’s. He is doing well, let him take another 15 minutes.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: No, it’s a fun day.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is the members’ time, let them keep that in mind.

Mr. Lewis: Right, but this is worth it -- go ahead.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, I have been aware that industrial operations are being advanced in eastern Ontario. To answer some of the questions the leader of the Liberal Party has asked, the Minister of Housing and I and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) and others from eastern Ontario have made it very clear to the cabinet what we believe is essential for industrial development in our part of the province.

Mr. Lewis: No doubt.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The actions that were taken then in acquiring land were those decided on by the then Treasurer of the Province of Ontario. It was their bill.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister was overruled.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We had clearly indicated the requirements in our part of the province.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Is he the nut?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The then Treasurer, reporting for the planning division of the government of Ontario --

Mr. Ruston: He made a mess of it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- and his people reviewed the requirements in eastern Ontario and where would be the best location for a major industrial park. It was the decision -- and I openly admit this, as I did in the press -- to put options on land by four ministers of the government. Once the option had been placed so they could get a clear decision on the price per acre of land -- and I think that’s in the best interest of the taxpayers of this province -- then it was brought to cabinet and we had the decision.

Mr. Lewis: What does he mean by clear decision?

Mr. Roy: The minister had it put after the fact.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We had the decision, as members of cabinet, to decide as to whether we wished to advance in taking up the options or dropping them. Basically, why did we go to eastern Ontario?

An hon. member: That wasn’t the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Very obviously, the opposition members have constantly said there was too much development in this part of the province, in western Ontario. We agree. We agree we had to move away and there had to be a major impact by government to try and stimulate major industrial development east of Toronto; and that’s the purpose for which we have bought this land.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that while I at the time openly admitted not knowing of it --

Mr. Lewis: That’s called truth.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- not knowing the principles by which it was being acquired for the type of industry, I’m at least willing to admit to you today that the decision we are making is right and in the best interest of eastern Ontario and was supported by our guests at lunch today.

Mr. Bullbrook: Now it’s the turn of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Mr. Lewis: Just by way of supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe I didn’t understand. Maybe I didn’t hear the reply in its entirety, I missed something.

An hon. member: That’s not unusual.

Mr. Lewis: What did the minister mean when he said, options taken by four ministers?

Mr. Cassidy: And who were they?

Mr. Lewis: Who were the four ministers? How does it work over there, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned that is a confidential piece of information of cabinet.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He’ll never find out how it operates because he’s always negative.

Mr. Lewis: Who was it? Mr. Speaker, will you call him to order and insist that he answers?

Mr. Speaker: The minister is answering.

Mr. Lewis: By way of further supplementary: Since the minister has put on the record now for the first time that the way in which the cabinet in Ontario operates in the acquisition of land is that four ministers in secret set options under way --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what was said. That’s exactly what was said.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I think the Legislature and the public have a right to know --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is what he said.

Mr. Lewis: -- who the four ministers are. Would the minister give us their names?

Mr. MacDonald: What version of COGP is this?

Mr. Lewis: Who are the four ministers?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You’ve asked a question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to get involved in the four ministers who were involved, but let me correct the NDP leader because it is obvious he doesn’t understand English. It is obvious he doesn’t understand.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just hold on a minute. The ministers did not acquire the land and I did not use that statement.

Mr. Lewis: Put the options on it then. Who were the four people?

Mr. Ferrier: Tell us the four.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is a big difference from acquiring land, which I understand the leader of the NDP was accusing us of. There were four ministers who operated with the permission of the Premier in placing options on the land, which I think is in the best interests of the government.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: That’s quite a way to run the government of this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member will never find out; so don’t worry.

Mr. Lewis: That may be but the government is on the way out. I know the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) and the Minister for Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) are two of them.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East with a final supplementary on this.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the minister: In view of the fact that none of the three cabinet ministers from eastern Ontario apparently, according to his answer, was consulted, has he objected to his leader about this, that there was no input from eastern Ontario in this decision?

Mr. Lewis: There wasn’t any.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, obviously the member from Ottawa East isn’t listening much or being realistic at the moment.

Mr. Lewis: London and Brampton decide for Spencerville.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I think I clearly indicated to this House that the ministers from eastern Ontario had made their position very clear in cabinet and to the Treasurer.

Mr. Shulman: But nobody paid any attention to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let the member just hold on, if he’d like to listen, but obviously he wants to continue to yap here as he does everywhere else. it.

An hon. member: They don’t want to hear

An hon. member: The ministers have not got anything to say.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, very clearly I said earlier in my remarks that the ministers from eastern Ontario had made their position known, and what they believed was required to make the economic improvement and industrial improvement in eastern Ontario a requirement.

Mr. Lewis: They told their little politburo of four.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We indicated it to the Premier and to the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, who does the planning, and it was left at that point. It was not a decision that was made without any understanding of what the members from eastern Ontario believed in. As to the location of acquiring the land, that was left to the Treasurer and those that he believed were best qualified to make it.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

LAND ASSEMBLY IN EDWARDSBURGH TOWNSHIP

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Premier. Would he explain to the House the procedures for acquiring the land under these circumstances and what would lead him to put to the hon. minister who has just spoken in charge of this development, when the minister said he has made his position clear, and in the press it is as follows:

“Whoever is assembling the land won’t get any encouragement from me and it is extremely difficult to believe that the government can justify such a purchase.”

An hon. member: Is the Leader of the Opposition against the idea?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’ll answer that question very simply. The Minister of Industry and Tourism has a very obvious interest in his responsibilities for industrial development in eastern Ontario. In my view, industrial development in eastern Ontario can take several forms, one of them being, as the minister has already referred to this afternoon, a growing programme, which will be announced by the minister.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But how does the Premier fire the man? That’s the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, let me finish and I’ll say what I have to say.

Mr. Roy: Answer the question.

Mr. Lewis: Calm down. This isn’t the Board of Trade. Relax, we know the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The programme will involve the municipalities in development of their own industrial parks as it relates to their particular needs. The government of this province feels, and feels very strongly, that there must be some focus, some locale, for the potential of major industrial development.

Mr. Speaker, I can’t give you any guarantees as to exactly what may occur. I just think back that if five years ago the government had had such a site maybe -- and it’s just a maybe -- the extension --

Mr. Roy: Who was in power then five years ago?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Never mind. I wasn’t. If five years ago we had had this site available, just maybe, instead of having the continued pressure of growth in Hamilton, Toronto and now on to Lake Erie, it might have been viable, and I say might, for the location of a major primary industry in eastern Ontario.

But I say, Mr. Speaker, that while all industrial development --

Mr. Cassidy: The government had 33 years to get to that point.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- has pluses and minuses -- and I know them -- there is no question that the effect in terms of housing, and in terms of secondary industry, is significant. And from the reaction I get in eastern Ontario, this is what the people want in a qualitative sense and also in terms of their own economic future.

Mr. Lewis: Now then, how did he acquire the land?

Hon. Mr. Davis: And I think, Mr. Speaker, it makes great sense. I have yet to hear anybody on the other side of the House oppose it. I find this intriguing. They are trying to have their fun; and that’s great. But they should get up and say they are opposed to it if they don’t think it’s a good idea.

Mr. Roy: It is fun.

Mr. Reid: It is all in the way they do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We think it has great potential for eastern Ontario and that’s why we are doing it.

Mr. Lewis: It is the manner of doing it.

Mr. Speaker: May I just remind the members that this is the question period not really the debating hour, and it’s developing into a debating period. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a supplementary, with your permission sir.

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a supplementary, too.

Mr. Speaker: Twenty minutes of the 45 minutes have gone to the Leader of the Opposition. I realize there are other people with other questions to other ministers.

Mr. Cassidy: You should stop him, Mr. Speaker.

An hon. member: Give him 25; he will likely hang himself.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There has been a great deal of time spent on one topic. There may be other members with other questions. I’ll ask you to be short. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a supplementary question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes; I’d simply like the leader of the government to indicate how the government proceeds in the acquisition of the land without consulting the ministers from the areas concerned.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there are two distinctions which have to be made, which perhaps haven’t yet penetrated to the Leader of the Opposition. The determination was made to take certain options.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a very real distinction between options and making a decision to purchase.

Mr. Roy: The Minister of Industry and Tourism can’t keep it straight.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There was a decision made to acquire options, which the government -- and properly so -- should be done on a totally confidential basis. This was done.

Interjection by hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The determination to exercise these options to actually acquire the land was made by the total cabinet.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may?

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary on this.

Mr. Lewis: Since I presume that the Premier has a manner of going about the optioning of land -- which is the same in the 4,000 acres of Durham as it is in the 10,000 acres around Spencerville -- who are the four cabinet ministers with permission from the Premier, who make these decisions in advance of a purchase? And why is it not possible to share this information with the cabinet as a whole so that in the process of optioning land, destructive and argumentative statements are not made by cabinet ministers inadvertently which prejudice the proposal?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I only sense from the leader of the New Democratic Party that he supports this proposition; and I am delighted to hear that. It’s the first positive thing I’ve heard in the last two days emanating from the other side of the House.

Mr. Lewis: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are appreciative of that support. I could only say to the leader of the New Democratic Party there is no set pattern as it relates to these matters in terms of decisions to acquire options.

Mr. Reid: All of a sudden the Premier is getting interested in the democratic process.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And I emphasize the very real distinction between options, and then the decision to purchase.

Mr. Shulman: Who are the four?

Mr. Lewis: Who are the four?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The Leader of the Opposition?

The member for Scarborough West has a question.

Mr. Lewis: I will pursue it and then, Mr. Speaker, you’ll have your supplementary. Who are the four? How does this cabinet, this government function in massive land acquisition?

Mr. Yakabuski: Smokescreen.

Mr. Lewis: Who are the four ministers who make the decision, apart from the Treasurer? That’s one of them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I just don’t intend to divulge how cabinet functions; that is our responsibility. If the member doesn’t agree -- -

Mr. Lewis: it is public money; it is public land.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- with the decisions that we have made, then he should please say so.

Mr. Lewis: It is legitimate to know how the Premier operates; this is a public business here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say this to the hon. member: The decision was made by government and the ministry to acquire options.

Mr. Lewis: No. There were only four of them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On the options.

Mr. Lewis: Who are the four who do that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: And the decision to acquire was made by the total cabinet. As to who the four are, with great respect, I don’t think it is relevant.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: We will see about that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Since the Minister of Industry and Tourism --

Mr. Lewis: It becomes more and more a privileged few; more and more a family compact in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): Go on. If the member doesn’t like it, vote against it.

Mr. Lewis: Go where?

Mr. Breithaupt: A further supplementary for the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Since the Minister of Industry and Tourism appears not to favour this particular project, is it the Premier’s intention to either remove those responsibilities from the minister or to remove the minister from his responsibilities?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the minister said this afternoon. He concluded his remarks by stating, as I recall him so saying, that he not only supported the project but that it had great potential for industrial development of a significant nature in eastern Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He has been reading the Premier’s speeches again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have no intention of removing the responsibility for this development from that ministry. I have no intention either of removing the minister from that responsibility in terms of the ministry. But I would only say to the hon. member, the thing that disturbs the people across the House is that he does it so darn well. That upsets them, I know.

Mr. Roy: Don’t worry, we’ll take care of him.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: We hear from knowledgeable insiders that he’s off his nut, as a matter of fact.

Interjections by hon. members.

ROSS SHOULDICE

Mr. Lewis: To restore the Premier’s sense of the adversary in the Legislature, since he is concerned about amity, may I ask him: In light of the editorials in many of Ontario’s major dailies today indicating unanswered questions that emerged in the last 48 hours in the press and in the Legislature, in light of the evident anxiety on the part of one member of this Legislature who feels deeply that he was wronged, in light of preserving the integrity of the political process and in terms of the Premier’s capacity to set terms of reference which include a commissioner’s right to make reflections on the way the media handled things, on the conduct of opposition members of the House as well as on the government’s conduct in the transaction, would he not reconsider the immense public value of having an inquiry into the allegations which have been made?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker. I am just as interested in public value as the leader of the New Democratic Party and I -- well I won’t go on to say what I nearly said. I do not intend to establish a royal commission. If the leader of the New Democratic Party has certain information that I do not have available to me, fine. If he would communicate this to me, if there are some unanswered questions, as has been suggested in some editorials, then, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what those unanswered questions are.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. One of the areas that must concern us, following the question from the leader of the NDP, is how in the world do the fund raisers, Shouldice and others, have specific knowledge as to the amount, down to the last cent, of business certain professionals and others do with the government -- information that is not available in the public accounts -- which leads to the kind of tollgate that Shouldice was imposing in Sudbury?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea whether he had or had not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That should deeply concern the Premier; the fact that such a tollgate exists.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Nonsense.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Inasmuch as yesterday the Premier said that when the file was laid in front of the members of the opposition and the press they would then be satisfied and not require a royal commission, since obviously neither the press nor the opposition is satisfied, and in view of his statement yesterday, doesn’t he think it would be prudent to get himself off the hot seat and order a royal commission?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think so. If the member for High Park has examined the file and there is something in the file he doesn’t understand, I am sure the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) will answer it for him. I can only assume from his question this afternoon that there is something in that file that he doesn’t understand and I don’t know why he doesn’t ask. The Minister of Transportation and Communications will answer.

Mr. Breithaupt: We would like to see all the file.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough West have further questions?

ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS ON LEAD

Mr. Lewis: Well, in light of the time, I have just one more question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that the lead smelters and the lead refineries in downtown Toronto are turning the environmental hearings into a forum for company propaganda, is the minister prepared to provide some financial support to the board of health in Toronto to allow the recognized experts, national and international, to appear before those hearings and to provide some balance to the distortions which now exist?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, one of the suggestions was that I should meet with the Toronto Board of Health. I think it would be very inappropriate at this point in time, while the hearings are going on, because the hearing board will be reporting directly back to me. If the board of health has concerns about certain witnesses it feels should be called, then I think that it has an obligation to go to the hearing board and tell the chairman and the hearing board exactly where it feels the inadequacies are, if there are any, and make its request there. I think that should be properly directed to the chairman of the hearing board.

They do not know what witnesses will be called at this point in time. Some of them are jumping to conclusions at this point in time and we feel they should put their case before the chairman of the board.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is the minister saying that if the case was put before the chairman of the board the chairman of the board has the authority to invite the witnesses and pay some of the costs to allow the relevant evidence to be put?

Hon. W. Newman: The reason we asked the board to take on this hearing was to let everyone have an opportunity to express their points of view, their ideas and their concerns before this board. If there are any concerns it is up to the board to make recommendations and decisions.

Mr. Lewis: Will the board finance witnesses?

Hon. W. Newman: No, Mr. Speaker, but certain witnesses can be called and some witnesses probably will be called by our ministry.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

ROSS SHOULDICE

Mr. Bullbrook: May I ask a question of the Premier? Would the Premier reconcile for me his statement given to this House on Nov. 21, 1972, wherein he said at page 4696: “Since becoming leader of the party I have followed a policy of refusing to inquire into the matter of the financing of party activities” with his statement to this chamber yesterday:

“As a result of that meeting, I spoke to Mr. Kelly, the treasurer of the party in the Province of Ontario, and told Mr. Kelly that Mr. Shouldice was not to be involved in any further aspects of the party organization or fund raising.”

The second part of my question: Would the Premier regard those statements as just an inconsistency or are they totally and diametrically opposed one from the other?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, they are totally consistent. I said then that I was not involved in fund raising as far as the party was concerned, and when it came to my attention that Mr. Shouldice was raising this matter with me, I communicated this to Mr. Kelly and told him from my standpoint -- which point of view, incidentally, Mr. Kelly supported -- that Mr. Shouldice was not to be further involved. I think they are totally consistent.

Mr. Bullbrook: One supplementary if I may: The Premier says to this House that he was not involved in the matter of the financing of his party’s activities. On Nov. 21, 1972, he tells us that; that very month he told Mr. Kelly to get rid of Mr. Shouldice as a fund raiser.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The member is a year out.

Mr. Lewis: It was a year earlier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As a matter of fact, I told him in November, 1971.

Mr. Bullbrook: A year earlier?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right

Mr. Bullbrook: Is that not an involvement in the matter of the party’s financing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it is not.

Some hon. members: No?

An hon. member: It certainly is.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: You say, “It certainly is”? And the Premier is involved -- the Premier and Kelly. That is why the member for Armourdale (Mr. Carton) has to agonize, because of the Premier’s method of doing it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

REMARKS BY CROWN ATTORNEY

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as his Crown attorney David O’Connor has admitted saying outside of the court that -- I quote him -- “I did use the phrase, ‘I want to get the bastard’” in referring to a case in which he is acting Crown attorney where he is prosecuting a certain Ben Ellis, does the Attorney General not think, in view of his obvious personal involvement in this case, that he should be removed and another Crown attorney replace him?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the comment made; I am not aware of the court where the comment was made. Perhaps the member could give me further particulars and I will look into it. I have no knowledge of the matter whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

POLICE RAID ON HOTEL

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. In view of the report yesterday made by His Honour Judge Pringle regarding the Landmark incident and the strong condemnation that he levelled at the police procedures that took place during that raid, and in view of the comments made by Elmer Bell, the head of the Ontario Police Commission, in advance of any inquiry, and in view of the comments made by His Honour Judge Scott, the local county court judge who is the head of the police commission in that area, also in advance of Judge Pringle’s inquiry, would the Solicitor General not agree that the time has come to remove Elmer Bell from the Ontario Police Commission and to remove His Honour Judge Scott from the police commission of the Niagara Falls area?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that on a number of occasions last spring, while this matter was before the House, we discussed a remark allegedly reported to have been made by Mr. Bell. He has denied that he made that remark as indicated by the hon. member. Under those circumstances I don’t feel there is any reason for Mr. Bell to resign.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary: What about the remarks of Judge Scott, who was the head of the police commission and certainly was quoted, and never denied having said, “There is nothing wrong. I have looked into it and I am satisfied that everything went on well”? Shouldn’t those two gentlemen be above and beyond prejudging police actions because of their positions and, since neither of them have been, shouldn’t they both go?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I don’t want to comment on Judge Scott’s remarks. Again I haven’t had it confirmed that he had said that. There is a report to that effect. For example, how much did he look into it --

Mr. Singer: Then he should not have commented -- and the Solicitor General should not have either.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Right, he commented. There were a number of comments during those days, as the hon. member will recall; some of them were unfortunate and some were quite accurate. But in any event, Judge Scott has indicated that because of certain federal legislation he intends to resign anyway.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: By way of supplementary question, will the minister let me know what he meant when he was reported to have said that the report was predictable, and that the only matter to be dealt with really was to have an amendment to the Narcotics Control Act of the federal government?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that it is a new question, and it is the member’s turn for one, so we will call it a new question.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated that the report was predictable, particularly in respect to recommendations regarding amendments to the Narcotics Control Act. I didn’t say, as the hon. member has indicated, that the only thing to do would be to make those amendments. Certainly there are a number of --

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, what is the Solicitor General going to do?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, we will be following up representations that have already been made, that were made by the Attorney General last spring and have been made by me to the federal Minister of Justice regarding section 10 of the Narcotics Control Act.

Mr. Singer: What is the minister going to do about the police?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Also, as the report indicates, there must be better planning and coordination of operations of this kind.

Mr. Singer: How can the minister arrange that?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That can be done by better training and better planning.

Mr. Singer: What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As far as intelligence units are concerned, again there should be better organization within the force as far as these units are concerned, and better training. I believe constables and officers involved in operations of this kind should receive special training, should be trained apart from the normal duties. There are a number of things that can be done.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

CENTURY CITY

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing: In view of the fact that we were to have amended the Planning Act so that the mortgage problems in Century City would be cleared up, is the provincial government prepared to help those people who are now fighting their cases through the courts to have their mortgages validated and are finding that Century City is appealing these decisions which have been in favour of the farmers in the area; and are being delayed by appeals by Century City to the appeal court and probably to the Supreme Court? Does the minister not feel that the province should help these people in their prosecutions when it was the legislation that existed at that time which created all the problems in Century City?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, that question should be addressed to the Attorney General.

Mr. Good: Well it is the minister’s legislation.

Mr. B. F. Nixon: Or the Treasurer.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, could I have the Attorney General answer it then please?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I was reading the story about the Crown attorney. Would the member repeat the question?

Mr. Lewis: He was not; he was reading a story about body rub parlours.

Mr. Speaker: You may redirect your question.

Mr. Good: In view of the fact that the Planning Act was amended last year to take care of the problems regarding the validity of mortgages in the Century City area and that these cases are now before the courts, would the Attorney General consider the idea of the province helping the people fight their cases, which are being appealed by Century City to the appeal courts and then to the Supreme Court to try to get around the validity of the legislation that we passed last fall to help these people validate their mortgages?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Thanks, I appreciate the member repeating it, since in fact I did not hear the question.

I don’t visualize, outside of the legal aid system which applies in this province to those who qualify, that the role of the Ministry of the Attorney General is to provide legal counsel in civil proceedings against any corporation or any other individual. I ask the member to seriously consider that concept if he validly put it forward, in terms of conflict of interest insofar as the Crown law officers are concerned, and in terms of cost to all the taxpayers of this province. No, I have not considered that at the present time.

Mr. Good: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In the knowledge that I have these are not civil suits, these are court actions regarding the validity of the mortgages which were at first considered invalid because of provincial legislation; since then the legislation had been amended so that these mortgages would be validated. Now this is an entirely different matter from a civil action against Century City, I think. It’s a matter of the validity of the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Clement: With respect, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, it is civil legislation or civil litigation. If a federal constitutional aspect is involved, then there are procedures whereby the federal Department of the Solicitor General or Department of Justice are involved if any of their legislation is questioned. The same thing applies here.

The member is quite correct if he is assuming that if a constitutional issue arises the Attorney General may well have some kind of contribution to make. But this is not on the part of any individual party to that suit, but more as a amicus curiae or as an assistant to the court to assist it in making the constitutional determination.

I know of no such request being made to my ministry. I will look into it, but I’m not aware that any such request has been made by any party.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

LAYOFFS AT INGLIS

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Is the minister aware that upwards of 600 workers will be laid off by Inglis Ltd. at 14 Strachan Ave., Toronto, for at least two weeks from Feb. 17 next, because substantial excess inventories of washers and dryers manufactured by Whirlpool Corp. the US company which controls Inglis Ltd., are being imported and marketed through Inglis Ltd. and under its trade name?

What provincial laws or federal laws, if any, protect the workers at Inglis in these circumstances? Will the minister look into this matter immediately with Inglis and with his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth), and with his opposite member in Ottawa, to stop this from taking place and report to the House?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware at this moment of the particular case of 600 workers with Inglis. It could very well be the Minister of Labour and our district office people are reviewing with Inglis the problems they are encountering. With regard to the aspect of the importing of certain components from the manufacturing or the parent company in the United States --

Mr. Renwick: They’re completed units.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If they are completed units or otherwise, Mr. Speaker, under the tariff arrangements they are quite often allowed to come in. We have had some negotiations and we will be conducting some further negotiations with Mr. Gillespie on March 10 and 11 relating to importing of goods.

Mr. Renwick: That will be too late.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it may be too late; that I fully accept. We have talked to Mr. Gillespie and the federal people not only for Ontario but for other provinces collectively. We have tried to get some changes in the tariff position to afford protection, not only to this industry, the white goods industry, but all through the brown goods industry and the garment industry. I can only repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we will continue to press the point as we see it from an industrial point of view in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question: I don’t think the workers at Inglis will think it’s timely to wait until March. What conceivable reason could there be, with the depression in the United States, that excess inventories of goods such as this could be displaced into the Ontario market for the purpose of destroying jobs in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it’s been the situation for many years that we have allowed imports into Canada under tariff regulations. And that’s exactly how this equipment is coming in and, depending on whether it’s manufactured in Canada or not, the tariff rate is set accordingly.

I would not think we are in any position to exclude Inglis, any more than any other company, in bringing their imports into the Province of Ontario. I may just say that trade is a two-way street and we still have some fairly good contracts going with other countries of the world as well. I will be glad to look into the Inglis situation and discuss it with them. I have already talked to their president months ago, who indicated to me at that time they were experiencing a very soft market situation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

HIGHWAY PLANS IN BRUCE AREA

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the House leader, the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. The minister is quoted in the Durham Chronicle by one of his admirers.

Mr. Roy: One of the few left.

Mr. Sargent: The quote is: “Mr. Winkler said that any plans for a four-lane highway have been scrapped by the province because it would attract a tremendous amount of development in this area and it would be incompatible with agriculture.” Was the minister misquoted, or shall we fire all our industrial commissioners in the Grey-Bruce area?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That makes sense.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I consider that a rather facetious question and I’ll tell the member why. At a meeting some weeks ago, when I met with quite a substantial number of farmers in the area, we were asked our opinions of certain questions. I said nothing about scrapping any highway plans for any four-lane highway. I simply made reference to the planning that I had been made privy to some considerable time ago, and I said it wasn’t in that plan. That’s exactly what I said and I stand by what I said there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has the Ministry of Industry and Tourism consulted him?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: And of course if the hon. member wants to walk around the country saying he’s going to scrap industrial commissions that’s his business not mine.

Mr. Sargent: The minister is sick.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Not as sick as the member.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

Hon. W. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Environmental Protection Act and to grant the local municipalities the right to pass bylaws to control noises.

Mr. Lewis: What does that mean? What use is that?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, could I ask the House leader: Since it is a statutory requirement now for the Workmen’s Compensation Board to appear before one of the committees of the House during the course of the session in which the report is tabled, that is this session, can he tell us when that will occur?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I communicated some time ago with the Minister of Labour and the chairman of that standing committee and that order of business will be called.

Mr. Roy: Could I ask the House leader whether or not we are sitting tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, we are not sitting tomorrow.

Mr. Roy: Could he tell us why?

Mr. Speaker: Our orders call for no Wednesday sittings except by motion.

Orders of the day.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1

Clerk of the House: Resuming the adjourned debate on notice of motion No. 1 respecting the report of the electoral boundaries commission, dated Dec. 5, 1973.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It is called regrouping I think.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George had the floor I believe.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, thank you, I will be brief with my comments. I would, first of all, like to say that I have already expressed to the Clerk my very real position that this commission exceeded its authority in the way in which they dealt with the riding of St. George.

When I was elected in 1973 my riding was a Scotty dog. What this commission has done to my riding is to remove the face of the dog and make it pregnant, and I do not think that is within the jurisdiction of the commission.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Pretty versatile dog.

Mrs. Campbell: In seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns about the way in which this matter has been reported to us. First of all, having been a member of the Toronto City Council when we concluded -- and I certainly concluded -- that the block system was the most appropriate system to ensure proper representation for the people of the city, I must add my voice to those who have questioned the fact that the block system appears to have been discarded.

I must also say, while I understand the need for some flexibility as between the rural ridings and the urban ridings, in my opinion, there is too great a disparity between the Toronto ridings and at least some of the rural ridings. I would like to make it clear that I recognize the particular situation in northern Ontario. But I do not think, for example, that one can conclude that Muskoka is in northern Ontario or should be treated so differently from the urban centres.

Surely it is time that we move more closely to ensuring that each person’s vote in this province counts as closely as possible as one vote. As it is now, we have heard from our House leader of the great disparity and I would suggest that certainly the city of Toronto has been shortchanged in the report which is before us. If one assumes that 30,000 people would be sufficient for a riding which is not in the north part of Ontario but that 72,000 average or more should be the proper distribution of population in the urban centre, I am sure that all of those who are rural representatives would be fair-minded enough to understand that this does create serious problems.

The urban centres today are facing enormous problems and they will be continuing in their complexity, as I see it, for some time to come. To permit the people of such areas to be so under-represented is, to me, a grave inequity which ought to have been corrected in this report.

Mr. Speaker, there is not much point in my going over the arguments on the block plan. There is really not much point in my going over these discrepancies. But I am of the opinion that this should be reconsidered. It is interesting that at the time when I so thoroughly embraced the block system at the city level, I was deeply criticized by some who felt that it would affect their position at the polls. I am now saying it when it could or could not affect my own position. But I think it is time that we looked at these things from the point of view of principle and not from any other point of view.

It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I rise on those points. Of course, I do not wish to speak further of my own riding specifically. I just feel that the principle is involved and that the people of the city of Toronto ought to have a right to be heard, if nothing else, with reference to these proposals. I cannot begin to understand why the people of the province should be cut off from having an opportunity to enter into an exchange in this matter, rather than the more sterile position of being forced to submit some written documents. There is no way really that one can assess the position of an electorate without that exchange between the people and those conducting the survey and arriving at a report.

So, Mr. Speaker, on all three points I am with my House leader. I endorse all that he has said, and I see no reason to prolong my statement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Cochrane South.

Ms. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to make a few comments on the resolution that is before us.

One of the things that has bothered some of us is that the changes that went on were made without any consultation with the people concerned. No rationale was given for the changes and people are wondering what the reasons were. No hearings were held and it seems to me a pretty high-handed way of doing things without meeting with the people who are directly concerned or without asking for any representations from them. It’s consultative democracy or participatory democracy, whatever you want to call it, at its very worst. It seems to me that this commission had an obligation to meet with the people and to discuss some of the changes that took place. One thing that bothers me very much is the decreasing voice that northern Ontario will have as a result of this report. The guidelines said there were to be no fewer than 15 seats, but the total seats are increased from 117 to 125 by this report, which means that we in northern Ontario will have less of a voice here in Queen’s Park than we have had heretofore. There is a great unhappiness in northern Ontario that attention is not being paid to our needs and this report will just confirm that, that we are going to have even less of a say than we have had heretofore. We in northern Ontario don’t feel that we have had sufficient attention paid to our needs in our considerations in this assembly and in the governing of our province.

Perhaps one might say that population growth hasn’t taken place in the north as it has in some of the other parts of the province, and those of us in the north are only too well aware of the slowness of growth and development in our area. We are aware of our lack of facilities and amenities and we feel that the government itself has not made much of an effort to bridge this disparity and slow growth to promote growth and development in the north together with the rest of the province.

We are going to be deprived of some of the political voice that we have had in the past. One of the reasons for the lack of voice is the great masses of land that some of the members in the north have to serve. The municipalities in the north have difficulty at times coming down here to Queen’s Park to make their representations on certain things. That geography itself makes it difficult for people to get down here as can some of the people who can jump in a car and in an hour’s drive be at Queen’s Park.

I think those kinds of things should be taken into account when redistribution is being carried out like this. And they weren’t considered, obviously, by this commission.

I think that at least one other seat should be put into northern Ontario. The average seat in the north seems to represent about 50,000 people, but there are some glaring deviations from that principle. We have seen that Sault Ste. Marie, for instance, has 80,000 population in the proposed seat there, and yet right around it are two seats that have a good deal less than that. Algoma has in the neighbourhood of 30,000 population and Algoma-Manitoulin about 31,500.

It seems to me that Algoma is considerably smaller as far as population is concerned. In view of the fact that Nickel Belt is a very large seat in terms of area, one wonders why places like Chapleau and Foleyet, perhaps, could not have gone to Algoma. It seems to me that around that whole area of Sault Ste. Marie some significant adjustments could be made and another seat carved out in the north, to give extra political voice for the north in this assembly and so that some of the problems around that situation in the mid-north could be taken into account.

I feel that as things now stand we in the north are again getting a kick in the teeth from the political centre of this province. We are going to have less voice when we need more, in view of the difficulties we have been confronted with, such as the distance from Queen’s Park, and the difficulties our municipal people have in getting down here to make representations. We need more of a clout as far as getting development and promotion is concerned.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that there should have been not just a move to preserve the seats that we had, but some effort to give us more of a political voice by at least one more seat. I am not happy with what has gone on. I think more recognition needs to be given to the north than has been given in this report that has been brought in.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland.

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon on behalf of my constituents in the municipality of Fonthill within the riding of Welland. The report of the Ontario electoral boundaries commission proposes to remove this municipality from the riding of Welland. As the representative for this area for nearly 24 consecutive years, I strongly urge the commission to reconsider this decision.

As provincial representative since 1951, I have watched this area develop into an integrated unit. I have seen the relationships between the municipalities and the people become interwoven, and I have watched the area grow, each part contributing to the whole.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The mem-has never spoken before.

Mr. Morningstar: Fonthill has traditionally been a part of Welland county --

Mr. Cassidy: Not in 24 years.

Mr. Morningstar: -- and in my 24 years of public service in this area, I have come to know the people and they, in turn, have looked to and relied upon the member for Welland as their representative. Strong bonds of friendship and loyalty have developed over the many years, bonds which are difficult to transfer and which now face a real threat of disintegration. I personally share a feeling of closeness with the people of Fonthill, as I do with all my constituents.

Mr. Cassidy: They give the member his living.

Mr. Morningstar: I have been granted many distinctions by them in the past, such as honorary membership in the Fonthill fire department --

Mr. Cassidy: Right on.

Mr. Morningstar: -- and honorary membership in the Fonthill branch of the Canadian Legion.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Reason enough.

Mr. Morningstar: The members of the various clubs and citizens’ groups within my riding associate very closely with one another and draw upon all municipalities for their membership and support. I am especially proud of the easy interaction among my constituents --

Mr. Cassidy: What does that mean?

Mr. Morningstar: -- as all spectrums of society are represented in the Welland riding -- farmers, fruit growers, factory and office workers. My office has received numerous telephone calls and letters protesting this disruption of the traditional boundaries, which would result in upsetting the long-standing traditions and characteristics of the riding of Welland.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would strongly request that the commission reconsider their decision and allow the municipality of Fonthill to remain as part of the great Welland riding. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words in this debate about the redistribution of ridings across the Province of Ontario. I might say, incidentally, that it would have been better if public meetings had been held by this commission.

In the riding that I represent there have been a number of changes; and, of course, they have enlarged the riding, which is known as Kent. One thing about the commission’s report is that they have changed the name, which I have been asking for since 1961. In the riding of Kent there are five municipalities of the county of Elgin, and that riding was disillusioned when the riding wasn’t called Kent-Elgin when redistribution took place in 1961. However, I see the commission has carried out my wishes, and I wish to say how much we appreciate it and how much the citizens of Elgin appreciate having themselves recognized in the name of that provincial riding.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the county council of Elgin had passed a resolution asking that commission to withdraw those five municipalities from the riding of Kent and put them back into the riding of Elgin. In general, I had no objections in this regard. I know there would be a lot more satisfaction if Elgin was all in one riding. But, as the member for that riding for the last number of years, I would be very disappointed to lose that portion of Elgin county. Since the commission took no action on that resolution, I am very pleased; but I know it will be a great disappointment to the county council of Elgin.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, the commission has enlarged the riding. They have included four other municipalities in the county of Kent which gives the riding an estimated population of more than 50,000. I would say it makes an excellent riding, and I am very pleased; I have no criticism whatsoever. However, I just wanted to bring to your attention that the county council of Elgin passed a resolution asking that those five municipalities in the riding of Kent be transferred to the riding of Elgin. I know it will be disappointing to them, Mr. Speaker, but I must say I am very pleased they left it in the riding to be known as Kent-Elgin. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might say at the offset that I share my party’s concern with the general principles involved in our resolution -- the misapplication of some of the basic guidelines in terms of disproportionate representation between the urban and rural areas and the block areas in the city of Toronto, as well as the under-representation that appears to be coming from northern Ontario.

With respect to my own riding, Mr. Speaker, there is one point that concerns me, and that is the name of the riding. I take the opportunity in today’s debate to draw it to the attention of the electoral boundaries commission, as I understand that they have said that they will look with a great deal of interest and read very carefully all the remarks made in the debate in the House centring around these two resolutions before they come forth with their final report. If this is not the case, if the bill is in fact ready to go in a particular ministry of the government, I would assume that the same applies there though, and that the remarks that I make today with respect to the name of my riding, being as it is only a small change, can be directly implemented at that stage.

In any event, in whichever stage this can be quickly implemented, Mr. Speaker, the name of my riding, rather than Windsor West, should be Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): He wants to eat.

Mr. Bounsall: Right. Just before I get on to some of the reasons why it should, I might say that with respect to the shape of my riding as it has been redrawn I am completely happy. The initial proposal that came forward contained in keeping an eastern boundary of the riding of Windsor West -- that eastern boundary being the westerly boundary of Windsor-Walkerville -- that was a complete horror and nightmare in the way it jiggled and jagged around. It had no real reason to so do. The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) made a submission to the commission suggesting that it go up the middle of Dougall Ave. I made the same submission and that submission was accepted by the electoral boundaries commission. It was a wise one and we can certainly now both describe our respective western boundaries and eastern boundaries to anyone who asks us. It is a reasonable line of demarcation.

With respect to the name, however, it is important that this riding be called Windsor-Sandwich for historical reasons. The town of Sandwich, not as an incorporated town, but as an existence, as an entity, under that name, dates from 1788. It represents that westerly portion of the city of Windsor and was the original settlement in the area. One square mile of land was purchased by the British in 1788 and became almost immediately a settlement, and the name of that settlement was Sandwich.

On the current situation, Mr. Speaker, I must admit with respect to names I brought this whole idea to the executive of my riding association at the same time as the submission with respect to the easterly boundary going up Dougall Ave. and I met with, I must admit, a divided response. I proposed that if the urban riding on the east side of Windsor, as it was proposed, be called Windsor-Riverside, and that the centre urban riding be called Windsor-Walkerville, it was reasonable and eminently just that the most westerly urban riding be called Windsor-Sandwich because of the historical connotation. Half of the people with whom I was speaking bought this idea wholeheartedly. The other half said that part of our problem in Windsor is the old demarcations of the old towns and areas in our city, which now all comprise the city of Windsor. It would be best to tamp down all the old rivalries. In fact, they would prefer to see the ridings called Windsor West, Windsor Centre and Windsor East.

I personally do not agree with them; that is why I am speaking here today. I think there is a bit not only of historical tradition but a bit of romance lost, if those three names were adopted for the purpose of just tamping down any local competition which still may exist. Rather than having the ridings called -- to be consistent -- Windsor East, Windsor Centre, Windsor-Sandwich, they should be called, as two are proposed, Windsor-Riverside, Windsor-Walkerville, and my riding’s name changed to Windsor-Sandwich.

I might say that Sandwich existed as a community under that name 66 years prior to the name of Windsor being used for that centre town, which is what arose, 70 years before the name of Walkerville came into existence in that area, and 133 years before the name of Riverside came into existence in the area. In terms of the oldest name in the area, one which shouldn’t be lost is clearly the name of Sandwich, which is the oldest and most historical and, in that sense, the most important.

Sandwich, as I say, came into existence in 1788, and in 1858 became a town. The city of Windsor did not come into existence as a name until 1854 and as a community not until 1828, so that the community of Sandwich pre-dated even the city of Windsor by some 40 years. In the initial instance, the former area of Windsor was not called Windsor, it was simply called “the ferry” and it came into existence simply because that is where the residents of Detroit, in building a ferry to cross the Detroit River, decided that was where that ferry should land. Around that landing point a community grew up and that community was not called Windsor for many years, it was simply called “the ferry.”

Hiram Walker, over in what has been referred to as Walkerville, opened up a distillery in 1858. It was at that time that area became to be known informally as Walkerville and finally became a town only in 1890. Riverside itself was never known as such. Informally, it was never a village, it never had a history before the fact that, simply to designate an area of dwellings which had grown up, it became a town in 1921, 133 years after the founding of Sandwich.

I might say that, not only for historical reasons, it’s important to call this westerly-most riding Sandwich, but in fact -- just to be clear for the commission -- back in the 1930s they amalgamated the town of Sandwich, the town of Windsor and the town of Walkerville into one city called Windsor. In 1964, the city of Windsor amalgamated with several of the county areas to the south of it to become the much larger city which we have today.

Prior to the 1964 or 1965 amalgamation where it took in that larger portion, two-thirds of the former city of Windsor was the town of Sandwich, in my riding. Two-thirds of the portion of my riding in the city of Windsor, prior to the amalgamation of 1965, was the old town of Sandwich. After amalgamation took place and they added the much larger area in the county, all the entirety of the rest of my riding on the west side which was incorporated at that time were all residents of Sandwich West township, so the vast majority of the people in my riding lived in the old former town of Sandwich or, from the south part of the riding in its entirety, in the township of Sandwich West. So I would say 85 per cent of the residents of my riding have lived in an area either directly designated as Sandwich prior to 1964-1965 and historically before that were part of the old town of Sandwich.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the electoral boundaries commission would make that simple change of the name of the riding from Windsor West to that of Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr. Speaker: Before the next speaker, the acting Speaker would like some direction from the House on how we are going to proceed. There are two resolutions meaning the same thing; one from the NDP and another from the Conservative Party. I did break what we had started last night by the NDP being first and the Liberals at back and by letting the member for Welland speak. Now, is it the wish of those who have presented the second resolution on the government side that you take part in this debate or do you want to save your remarks until we deal with the one resolution and then with the other one?

Mr. Cassidy: They can speak on both, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, they can.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you mentioning to us the opportunity to decide whether we speak on this resolution or on the other. But since the resolution which was presented by my colleagues in our caucus seems to follow a certain line, which may be somewhat different from the resolution which we are now discussing. It is the consensus of our group that we would complete that debate and then introduce our resolution and speak to it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, that procedure would be satisfactory. Since both resolutions really simply call for a debate based on various reasons, we have felt that it would go in a normal rotational way. However, it is certainly most acceptable to us. We can have our speakers alternate with those of the New Democratic Party. When all who choose to speak have done so, then, Mr. Speaker, if you wish, the second resolution as such could be put and the remarks of members -- perhaps particularly if their ridings adjoin or if they wish to follow a certain theme in sequence -- could be more expeditiously handled that way.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think this was the concern of some of the members. If the procedure is agreed upon, we will proceed as we have been. If there is any member on this side of the House who wishes to take part in this particular resolution, all we have to do is signify the speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am not just sure of what you have decided to do, but I hope it is in order if I speak briefly at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Perfectly in order. It is your turn to speak now from the Liberal caucus. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes, it is quite in order for him to go right ahead and speak.

Mr. B. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Applause.]

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): No unanimous consent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wish they would applaud when I finish.

I am very much aware, Mr. Speaker, that it was more than a decade ago when the government decided that the old redistribution procedures should be abolished and the political input into the redrawing of the boundaries should become a thing of history and that the responsibility must in the future rest on the shoulders of impartial citizens with some special knowledge or with some special responsibility. I recall the redistribution at that time because I believe it was the first occasion when it simply wasn’t handled by a committee of politicians in some back room of this chamber. I personally believe this method of impartial redistribution is far superior.

I think it is for that reason that we must not allow ourselves the luxury of indicating that the commission was in any way doing other than their duty in drawing the lines establishing the new constituencies. I have found it extremely offensive indeed that members of this House would allege that any partisan consideration directed the members of the commission. I found this particularly offensive since the chairman is a judge of the bench in this province. If we are prepared to support the system and believe in it, then it is incumbent upon us not to make innuendoes or allegations that their motivation is anything other than impartial.

I feel very strongly about that, particularly since it has been brought to my attention that perhaps I, as an individual member of the Legislature, suffer as much as any from the decisions made by the redistribution commission. The old riding of Brant has been changed substantially. Certainly, this was to be expected, since under the former redistribution boundaries its population certainly was not high compared with the population of other areas.

The riding of Brant as reconstituted has been named, at least by the suggestion of the redistribution commission, as Brant-Norfolk. It extends considerably further than it did previously -- right down to Lake Erie. The reason for this as given by the commissioners was that they wanted to follow the new boundary lines of the lower tier municipalities in the regional government established in Haldimand-Norfolk. While I can see the rationale of that decision it has meant that the constituency as proposed has been more far flung than would otherwise be, since the former boundary was Highway 3 which cuts through Norfolk county and keeps the communities more or less bound together in some areas of mutual concern. But I am not prepared even to suggest that the commissioners reconsider that boundary because I believe that they have been given the responsibility by this House to make a decision, not in our best interests as individuals, but in the best interests of the community and the democratic process.

I don’t want to sound unduly pious, but I do believe that if we are prepared -- as we are and which we on this side support -- if we are prepared to relinquish the powers that are ours under the constitution to establish these boundaries and give it to an impartial commission, then we are going to have to live with the results of their deliberations, even though in some specific areas we feel that mistakes of this type have arisen. I don’t personally believe it is a mistake, since I believe it is simply a view of an organization of the community which is inherent in the approach taken by the commission, rather than simply the approach made by an elective politician as to what would be convenient for him or her. Certainly that convenience for an individual must be dismissed and bear no impact at all on the decisions made by the commissioners.

One thing I am delighted at, however, is that in the second report the commissioners saw fit to include the Six Nations Indian reservation within the boundaries of the proposed riding called Brant-Norfolk. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I intend to contest the Liberal nomination and I hope I will be the Liberal candidate in that constituency. I am delighted that the recommendation has been made to include the largest Indian reservation in Canada by population. I certainly hope that there is no further change on that basis. The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Allan) is taking his seat and he and I more or less share some responsibilities in that area. I know that he is going to express his views, perhaps on the resolution that is standing in the name of Conservative members when we get around to that debate in a few minutes.

There is one other area, however, that has come to my attention and that is that the constituency to be designated Brant-Norfolk does have a very large section, an important section, of Oxford county included in it. There have been resolutions from the newly reconstituted county government in Oxford asking that the boundaries of that county be made the boundaries of any provincial constituency in the future. The problem there, of course, is that the population would be considerably larger than that which would be permissible under the terms of reference given to the commissioners, but I know that the commissioners would at least want to consider the strong position put forward by the councils of Blenheim, Blandford township and the county of Oxford that at least the county be given the consideration they seek.

I would suggest, however, that although it would be a cumbersome name, there is ample justification for including the name Oxford in the name of the constituency, since almost as large an area and probably as large a population from Oxford would be added on to Brant as comes from the former county of Norfolk.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is not a simple business for commissioners to take a red pencil and carve out a constituency which includes people with a community of interest and meets the requirements of population that we have put before them in their terms of reference. The old constituency of Brant I think was originally established in the latter days of the Henry administration back about 1932 or 1933. The former member for Brant, my father, used to say that he had been particularly well treated, even though it had been a sort of gerrymandered, partisan redistribution in those days. As a matter of fact, the number of constituencies was reduced, I believe, from 120 to 90.

You can imagine the trials and travails that the government of the day, headed by Premier Henry, had in redistributing in such a way that 30 constituents were lopped off. You can almost understand why his own party wondered at his judgement, and of course the people wondered at his judgement too since he was not successful in his bid for re-election. His campaign slogan that year was “Henry ploughs a straight furrow,” which didn’t seem to grab everybody’s enthusiastic attention in those days. The reference to the constituency of Brant was that my father, the former member, had been the member there since 1919, and the decision was made to dump all the Grits into one constituency. I think the procedure was called “hiving the Grits.” That was the establishment of this constituency of Brant which has been represented by Liberals now for a considerable period of time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not too long, though.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, not too long. As a matter of fact, when I am home I don’t talk about it being time for a change as vehemently as I do elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, I did simply want to express some of the objections that had come to me from the people in the proposed new constituency of Brant-Norfolk and to indicate that it would probably be one of the more far-flung constituencies in Ontario, short of those in the North. It would include a major part of the county of Brant with the exclusion of the city of Brantford, which my friend, the member, may want to comment on further in this debate. It goes over to include a section of the county of Oxford and then down into the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, a very interesting area indeed and one which I say to you in frankness and for your interest, Mr. Speaker, might return a Conservative candidate if the people were prone to vote precisely the way they did in 1971. I hope, however, it will be possible to persuade them otherwise, and there is every reason to believe that that won’t be much of a problem.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York North.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel that I can speak at this time because my name is not on the resolution proposed by the government members, and I do agree with a lot that has been said by previous speakers in other parties.

I feel the commission did a wonderful job as far as drawing lines and dividing up populations, but that’s as far as it went, as far as the area that I represent is concerned. Mr. Speaker, if you think of those who might be familiar with the area that I represent, the new proposal is to go from nine miles west of Brampton along Steeles Ave. over as far as Bathurst St., go up Bathurst St. to within a mile and a quarter of Aurora, go across the proposed 404, back down the east side of 404 and go over to Ontario county, the boundary between Ontario and the region of York, then back up to the north end across from Markham.

Mr. Cassidy: Has the member no feeling for the member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon)? That’s what it’s all about.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. W. Hodgson: The member for York Centre and I made a proposal and it was partially accepted and partially not accepted. His part was accepted.

An hon. member: His part was accepted and the member’s wasn’t?

Mr. W. Hodgson: No, in all fairness to the member for York Centre, we proposed that the boundaries should stay as they are in the region of York at the present time. It would have made a lot of sense because the region of York has a population at the present time of 186,000, which would make three complete ridings. It is proposed that the population by the year 1981 will be 310,000, and, there would be three complete ridings within the region of York. We suggested it should stay as it is at the present time. Next time around it should be divided into three complete ridings. The people of the region of York want to stay in the region of York for the government representation.

I say the part that we did miss out on is community interests. I like the people in Vaughan. I know a lot of people in Vaughan, and I can work with the people in Vaughan. ln fact, I have been working with a lot of people in Vaughan over the last three or four years. The people in East Gwillimbury township, which is within a mile of the regional administration offices, really want to stay in the riding of York North for purposes of community interests. Their interests all go toward the town of Markham. They have no interests at all with Port Perry or Uxbridge and places such as that.

The part that I really want to get to is the part that is suggested by the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), that there should be more public input before any redistribution is done.

For instance, the regional council of York wrote a letter asking that the boundaries remain as they are at the present time. Twelve of the 14 members of council wrote and asked that the boundaries should be left as they are. In addition, there were several letters from constituents and all the local media supported leaving the boundaries the way they are now. They all got a nice letter back saying, “Thank you very much for writing and we will consider it.”

I think those people who wrote letters deserve more than just a letter back saying: “We will consider it.” They don’t know whether it was considered or whether it wasn’t considered. There should be public meetings where they can have their input and the commission at that time can tell them the reason why they are doing it. Maybe then they will accept why it is being done this way. But at the very least we should give the people of Ontario enough time to make their views known verbally to the commission.

Mr. Cassidy: Where was the member when the terms of reference were drawn?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for York North has the floor.

Mr. W. Hodgson: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, revising electoral boundaries only happens once in every seven or more years and it is something that should receive a lot of consideration and should involve a lot of public input. I don’t think we should do it hastily.

If the large urban centres must have more representation at this particular time, I think we could deal with that particular phase in time for the next election. But in order to have public input across the province, it would be impossible to do it before another election. I say we should do the urban centres and leave rural Ontario the way it is and we can get along. That is my suggestion to the electoral boundaries commission and to the members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments that have been made by the member for York North, and I know that we all have a certain sense of wishing that we had come out more forcefully at the time of the terms of reference for the commission were drawn. If you look back to that debate about a year ago, Mr. Speaker, you will find that some caution was expressed by members from this side of the House, but that we went along in voting for the resolution setting up the terms of reference. What a sorry mistake that was.

I find it ironic now, however, that so many of the Conservative backbenchers are suddenly saying: “Yes, there should have been public hearings” and “Yes, there should be public input,” because if they felt that at the time a year ago they could have said that and they could have influenced the government to ensure that a process of public hearings was undertaken by the commission, and they did not do so at the time.

It seems to me that the reason they didn’t was because it’s not the Tory way. After all, if they put a judge, the Clerk of this Legislature and somebody else on the commission, there is a presumption that it’s going to be safe, it’s going to protect rural Ontario, it’s going to protect the Tory heartland and therefore all will stay right in Bill Davis’s blue sky. Well, of course, that hasn’t happened and the second drafting of the electoral boundaries has offended a lot of the Conservative backbenchers, and now they are discovering the need for public hearings and for some different kinds of guidelines, although they may not necessarily agree with us about what those guidelines ought to be.

I want to make a few comments about this, Mr. Speaker. I regret not being here last night when the debate was opened by the member for Kitchener and the member for York South. As it happened, I was meeting with people from an area of my new proposed riding, the Carleton Heights-Lexington Park area, to discuss this very subject of redistribution.

I am sorry that the new boundaries will continue to over-represent rural Ontario at the expense of city dwellers and that they will do so to such a ludicrous extent. I think that the government was wrong to propose such terms of reference for the electoral boundaries commission and in giving it such latitude to proceed as it did. Now I realize that we were wrong in not opposing it, and certainly the House as a whole was wrong in endorsing the terms of reference that were given to that commission. But I think that the commission was also wrong in using its freedom to create such wide and unnecessary disparities in population between ridings.

With the exception of northern Ontario, which all the parties agreed should not have its number of seats reduced, the commission should have stuck as closely as humanly possible to the principle of one man or woman to one vote. Because the commission failed to stick to the principle of representation by population, Mr. Speaker, and because it did not follow any other discernible set of principles in coming forward with its proposals for redistribution, in that sense it was politically biased. And I would say that for the record.

I’ve made some other comments about gerrymandering and so on. I have a feeling now that I look at it and now that I’ve had the time over Christmas to reflect on it. that quite possibly the commission acted more out of ignorance, or even stupidity, than out of deliberate political bias, in the particular boundaries that it may put on to particular ridings. Certainly in the case of the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) and myself, where we were lumped together, we felt there was political direction in putting the two opposition members from eastern Ontario into the same riding.

We got from the commission an unequivocal statement that they didn’t realize that a lot of people in the Ottawa area actually spoke French, and that most of them lived in the present riding of Ottawa East, and that the riding could easily be accommodated or enlarged in order to accommodate the other ones.

But the political bias of the commission shows through, Mr. Speaker, in the perverse way that it has over-represented rural Ontario and under- represented urban Ontario.

The hon. member for York South was chided gently by one or two people in this House after he spoke last night because he said that the federal electoral boundaries commission had managed to observe a 15 per cent rule quite successfully, and that since there was one member of the federal boundaries commission who sat on this provincial commission, then surely the talent to do the same kind of thing existed here in this exercise that we’re debating today. As it happens, the federal guidelines that were laid down did permit a tolerance of up to 25 per cent greater or less than the average population per riding across the province, not 15 per cent as the hon. member said.

However, it was my recollection that the federal commission had in fact ensured that most of the ridings in the province held to a very narrow range, around the average quotient per riding, and my recollection was that it was 15 per cent. We’ve checked through the facts and that is accurate. The ridings that depart more than 15 per cent from the average are basically northern ridings, and in one or two other cases ridings where there were special circumstances.

I want to read those figures into the record, partly for the guidance of this commission which will possibly reconsider its proposals yet again, and certainly for the guidance of the next electoral boundaries commission. It seems clear to me that the terms of reference that are laid down next time must ensure that no riding will vary by more than a defined percentage from the average population per riding. That was the federal practice that should have been our practice.

It seems to me that we should also determine next time that no riding will vary more than a small amount from the average population per riding unless there are compelling reasons, and not the kind of quixotic reasons that were adopted by the commission in the present case.

Mr. Speaker, the federal redistribution proposals of 1970 provided for 91 ridings across the Province of Ontario. Of those 91 ridings, no riding would have had an average population of more than 25 per cent above the provincial quotient or average. Five ridings would have had an average population that was more than 15 per cent above the provincial average, and of those five ridings, as I recall, three were urban southern Ontario ridings. Five ridings would have had more than 15 per cent above the provincial quotient; 45 ridings would have been in the range between the quotient and 15 per cent above. Those would basically have been urban ridings with one or two exceptions.

Thirty ridings would have had a population that lay between the provincial quotient and a figure that was 15 per cent less than the provincial quotient. Then there were 11 ridings that would have had a population that was more than 15 per cent below the provincial quotient. These were the federal redistribution proposals. There was not a single riding across the province where the federal commission saw it necessary to recommend a population that was more than 25 per cent below the provincial quotient. Of those 11 ridings that lay more than 15 per cent below their quotient, seven were in the north where there are obvious geographical reasons why one can’t have as large a population as in a riding like St. George or Ottawa Centre or York South.

To recapitulate, Mr. Speaker, 75 of the 91 federal ridings that were proposed lay within a 15 per cent range above or below the average for the province. More than 80 per cent of the ridings would have been around the middle and you would have had what the statisticians call a normal curve, with a small number of ridings which deviate a long way from the provincial average and most of the ridings lying in a narrow range near the provincial average. That was done by a commission whose membership included the Clerk of the House, who was also a member of the provincial boundaries commission.

Let’s look at the provincial proposals as we have them before us now -- that is, the second run that was released to us late last fall. One riding, Sault Ste. Marie, would have had a population more than 25 per cent above the provincial average for no discernible reason whatsoever. It is a compact urban riding in the north however, and the north we were told was to have more seats than it might have justified in population. Thirty ridings would have had a population between 15 per cent above the provincial average and 25 per cent above, and those 30 ridings were almost all urban Ontario ridings in the larger cities of the province. Then 36 ridings would have lain in the range between the provincial quotient and 15 per cent above, and 28 ridings in the region between the provincial quotient and 15 per cent below.

Then we come again to the aberrations. Thirty ridings, of which 22 were in southern Ontario, would have had a population that was more than 15 per cent below the provincial quotient and, of that number of 30, there were 13 ridings that would have had a population more than 25 per cent below the provincial quotient. In the case of the federal redistribution, Mr. Speaker, the maximum population of a riding was all of 17 per cent above the provincial average. In the case of the proposals at the provincial level that are made and are being debated now, the maximum population in Sault Ste. Marie was 29.5 per cent above the provincial average.

At the other end of the scale in southern Ontario, the riding with the lowest population, which was Elgin, had a population proposed at the federal level of 21 per cent below the provincial quotient, and the northern ridings had a maximum aberration or difference of 24 per cent below the provincial average. That compares with Muskoka which is about 48 per cent below the quotient for the province in the provincial redistribution, and the Algoma riding which is about 51 per cent below, a level of difference which is completely unnecessary and unacceptable.

Whereas there was a normal curve in the federal redistribution, Mr. Speaker, with a few ridings more than 15 per cent either above or below, and most of them bunched within, in the case of the provincial redistribution only half of the ridings lay in that range in the middle of 15 per cent below to 15 per cent above. The remaining 61 ridings were the exceptions and were out there as being above the 15 per cent level or below the 15 per cent below level.

Mr. Speaker, in other words, the normal kind of distribution of riding populations that might have been expected from a commission that was doing a scientific job and was seeking to observe the rule of representation by population is simply not evident in the proposals that the commission put forward. Had the commission followed this basic rule, the average population of urban ridings would have been about 9,000 or 10,000 less than what is presently proposed. Had that been the case. Mr. Speaker, then the kind of complaints that people like me made about urban under-representation would not have been necessary and the kind of difficulties we have had in drafting urban ridings would not have been felt.

The member for St. George wouldn’t have had the problem because it would have been perfectly easy to redistribute the Toronto ridings and provide for block ridings to give due weight to the working-class voters who live south of Bloor St. in central Toronto. I wouldn’t have been put into a position of having to accept and deal with a rather sharp difference between one new area of my riding and the remainder of the proposed riding. The Ottawa area would have had the eight ridings that it should have had in this redistribution, rather than being cheated out of fair representation along with the other major cities of the province, and having to be content with only six.

The people in West Carleton township, which has been joined with Renfrew South; the people in Osgoode township and in Rideau township, which has been joined with Grenville-Carleton; and the people in Cumberland township, which has been joined with Prescott-Russell, would have been part of Ottawa ridings because they are part of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Instead of that, the rule about municipal boundaries which was meant to guide the commission was violated in those three cases, and those constituent parts of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton were put into rural ridings which stretch as far as Algonquin Park in one case, the St. Lawrence River in another case, and the land boundary between Quebec and Ontario in the third case.

I’m concerned, in particular, about the way that the boundaries commission has ignored community of interest in making its proposals. Évidemment la division des secteurs français d’Ottawa en trois ou en quatre dans la première carte électorale proposée par la commission, ignorait la communauté d’intérêt. Maintenant que la correction a été faite. J’accepte les propositions de la commission pour le nouveau comté d’Ottawa Est.

It is a happy fact that the commission was able to recognize the mistake it made in the case of Ottawa East. But the strip ridings in Toronto which muzzle the voice of working-class voters below Bloor St. by including them in ridings dominated by middle-class voters from north of Bloor have been perpetuated. An area of about 5,000 voters from the southern suburbs of Ottawa, the Carleton Heights-Lexington Park area, has been included in Ottawa Centre, which up until now has been an older and core area riding.

I want to describe that because I’m going to suggest to the commission -- I’m putting my remarks on the record -- that looking at the alternatives and given the bias of the commission against a proper representation by population for urban areas, that I accept the proposals that have been made for Ottawa Centre. In fact the alternatives that could be made for the Ottawa ridings would create more havoc and cause more problems than they would cure. I have been talking with people in the suburban area and finding out areas of common interest which didn’t spring to mind at first blush, when we first saw the proposals of the commission.

I want to say though, Mr. Speaker, that the Carleton Heights-Lexington Park area is separated from the rest of Ottawa Centre, as proposed, by the Ottawa Experimental Farm, which, when you measure it on the map is all of a mile and one-half in distance -- as the member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) knows; he probably drives across it quite regularly. It’s not very far, in the physical sense, in this vast province of ours. But in a psychological sense, an undeveloped area, filled with experimental farms and marijuana patches and that kind of thing, is a very large psychological barrier. It means that there is very little common mingling of the people who live south of the experimental farm with the people who live in the rest of the proposed riding of Ottawa Centre.

The area of Carleton Heights and Lexington Park once formed a portion of Nepean township. Because of transportation routes and other things, it happens that the people in the area go into Nepean township for their shopping, for the library services and for services that happen to be more convenient to them there than within the city of Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They are great people and I will take them any time.

Mr. Cassidy: They’re good people. I have met a number of them and, as I say, we’re happy to have them and we’re beginning to come to terms.

We had a meeting last night, Mr. Speaker, and they were very welcome because I can say that they feel like forgotten people. They’re part of John Turner’s riding at the federal level, for God’s sake, and John Turner’s riding includes Rockcliffe Park.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Why doesn’t the member propose developing the experimental farm?

Mr. Cassidy: We’ll come to that some ether day. They are part of John Turner’s riding, which is away over in the east end of Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, at the federal level. They belong to Elmdale-Victoria ward at the municipal level, but are separated from the rest of that ward by this same experimental farm. They are the only portion, at present, of the Ottawa South riding which lies to the west of the Rideau River. There may be reasons in their member why they feel alienated from the Hon. Claude Bennett; but they certainly have not had much contact with him and they don’t feel any community of interest with the rest of the area that he represents.

What came through loud and clear to me was that they don’t like to be forgotten. And any member who is willing to speak up for them, as I am, and to work with them, as I am, would be welcome by people down there. That’s much more important to them than whether or not their homes were built at the same time as the homes of the rest of the riding.

But that kind of marriage needn’t have been created if there hadn’t been the over-representation of rural areas at the expense of the urban areas. I did look at the possibility of a minor piece of surgery in the Ottawa area, Mr. Speaker, which would have involved a trade of a part of Ottawa Rideau riding.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: What was that?

Mr. Ferrier: Ask the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member for Ottawa Centre continue, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, I did look at the possibility of a minor transfer of boundaries, some minor surgery, Mr. Speaker, which would have brought part of the Glebe into Ottawa Centre. But it became very clear that the Glebe, which is directly to the south of Ottawa Centre and is an area similar in history and age and so on and has perhaps a closer community of interest, wants very much to stay as a whole. It is an integrated, united community, and they did not like any proposal that would split their community between two ridings. And neither did I. That is why I say to the boundaries commission here in the record that it is better to stick with the present proposals for the new Ottawa Centre riding than it is to split an established community in the Glebe. So I would suggest that the Glebe be left with the new riding of Ottawa Rideau.

I am content with the other proposals for Ottawa Centre which basically extend the riding to the west, and that, in my opinion -- about whether the riding should go to the west or direct to the south -- was legitimately a matter for the boundaries commission. If that’s their decision, as an independent commission, then I am prepared to accept that particular point.

If I can recapitulate though, Mr. Speaker, the urban ridings are too big. The commission should have acted on that. If it’s prepared to make any concession to this particular House, I urge it to look at that particular problem. I suspect that the comments that we are going to hear from the Conservative backbenchers will be self-serving -- crying over spilt milk because they supported the government and didn’t insist on public hearings, or all that nonsense as they would have seen it a year ago -- until they found out the results as they are right now. If the commission is willing to do anything with rural ridings then, for God’s sake, let’s see more urban ridings in the province. And let’s see that the rural ridings are brought up to a more acceptable kind of population for the elections that will be held over the next ten years.

I believe that in the Toronto area in particular, the principle of community of interest should be respected with the redrafting of the urban ridings in midtown Toronto -- in other words, the block ridings that should have been created and in fact exist in the draft before the commission.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Speaker, I don’t plan to take very long. The commissioners’ treatment of Carleton East is at this point, as far as I’m concerned, without criticism. I just want to address myself to a couple of points of a general nature with respect to their work.

But before I do that I can’t allow the remarks of my friend from Ottawa Centre to go without some reference from me. It’s obvious that in the month to six weeks he’s had to consider the changes in his riding, he’s changed his attitude a great deal and that’s --

Mr. Cassidy: I am a very mellow fellow, as a matter of fact.

Mr. P. Taylor: Yes, he obviously has grown in the job. I just give my friend from Ottawa Centre one piece of advice: If he really works at it maybe some of those four-footed things on the national experimental farm will turn up some votes for him, but I leave that to him.

An hon. member: Is that in Toronto?

Mr. P. Taylor: No, that’s in Ottawa.

Mr. Cassidy: We beat him in Osgoode township and that was the people who were voting. I don’t know if the member got the cows’ vote or not.

Mr. P. Taylor: Well, my friend made a speech and I didn’t interrupt him so I hope he won’t interrupt me.

I rise at this time, Mr. Speaker, essentially to add my voice to those decrying the lack of public hearings in the exercise of changing the political boundaries. I think that the clearest example in eastern Ontario of the need for public hearings was the trap that the commissioners fell into with respect to Ottawa East.

I find it interesting that the commissioners were appointed by the cabinet, which is the very group in this province which has clearly demonstrated that it does not understand eastern Ontario and does not understand the aspirations of the francophones or the Franco-Ontarians. I think that had there been public hearings they certainly would never have fallen into that very embarrassing and very indicative situation.

The only other point I wish to make with respect to the changes as they affect eastern Ontario and Carleton East is that the commissioners in their wisdom have seen fit to remove from Carleton East the township of Osgoode and, contrary to the views expressed from his seat by the member for Ottawa Centre, I’m sorry to be losing, in an electoral boundary sense, the people of Osgoode township. I have enjoyed serving them the short time I have and I will continue to serve them to the best of my ability until the new boundaries become law. The people of Osgoode have provided Carleton East with a nice balance between urban and rural population and I have enjoyed the experience of serving them here in the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, in winding up this particular section of the debate for this group I would like to put on the record some figures in respect to what has been happening here. I also want to reiterate to some extent some of the matters we’ve placed before the commission after the first draft of the map was issued, and after we had had a chance to look at it carefully and see what the situation was.

First of all I would like to say that as far as we are concerned the principle of an independent commission is an extremely good one. I would agree with the leader of the Liberal Party when he said that we have to take for granted that the commission is a workable organization and I think this Legislature has to look at it from the point of view of how it can work more effectively and more efficiently. That’s the job that faces us.

The member for York North and others have expressed the opinion that we needed more public input. This I think strikes at the very heart of the matter, because no matter how efficient a commission might be and how knowledgeable its members might be, in order to properly reflect what the people of a province want, they should at least hold public hearings in typical areas of the province.

That means that the work of a commission must start away ahead of the time schedule in which they worked at this particular time. In other words, the commission must be appointed earlier and it must have time to do an adequate job of public hearings, of assessment of those hearings, assessment of representations that have been made, and assessments of the census tracts and all the other things that must come under their purview.

Their terms of reference, of course, must be more carefully outlined. I think this is the thing that emerges from this debate today; that we were not careful enough in outlining the terms of reference of this commission. That perhaps is understandable, because when a commission of this kind is only appointed once a decade not so many people -- except for, of course, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Downer), is it? Except for him -- very few of us survive that long that we see very many of these revisions taking place. And so we forget from one redistribution to the next one.

So it is that we have to recognize that perhaps some hard and fast rules -- at least more comprehensive rules -- must be laid down; and I want to say a word about that later on. But at least we should be thinking in terms of the next redistribution, and that is the matter which the member for York South emphasized from the very outset of this debate.

We did get our first report and there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with it. I will say that the commission deserves a great deal of credit because of the way in which it reacted to the suggestions that were made. It brought in the second report with a great many changes. Now I know that many of those changes came at the sacrifice of some members’ seats, the sacrifice of some of the areas which they represent. Perhaps the second report was not much more satisfactory to some members than the first one, and therefore this debate is taking place.

Just to reiterate the kinds of things we have expressed and want to summarize at this point: We were unhappy with the 25 per cent leeway. We agreed to it at first, with reservations, but I don’t think any of us in this House at this time, on this side at least, would agree with that 25 per cent in the future.

It was my privilege to look in on the New Zealand situation where redistribution takes place on a very regular basis. They have a five per cent tolerance from the average -- that’s all, five per cent -- and they make it work. I realize it is a small country, but some of those ridings are fairly large and some, of course, in the cities are fairly small. The fact is they do live within the five per cent.

I was able, as an outsider, to go into the room in which the work was being done and examine the whole process. The reasons were given by the technicians who were there working under the commission. The reasons were given why they outlined this particular riding in this way or that particular riding its another way.

This is the thing which is lacking here. We haven’t been able to see the working papers of the commission. We haven’t seen any justification of the kind of boundaries that have been drawn. I think this is something that we have to look at for the future and perhaps draw up some rules to meet this problem.

And so while it may have been felt that the 25 per cent was fairly reasonable in a far-flung province like this, the fact is that today with communications, with paved highways, with the means we have of contacting people -- telephone service and all the rest of it -- the need that used to exist for a member to be able to easily reach all parts of his riding within a day, or whatever it might be, no longer exists in the way it did.

The time is here, I think, when we should be thinking in terms of average populations, with a tolerance which is pretty close to zero; even though that may mean some imbalance in territory. Again, at least again for this party, I say that as far as northern Ontario is concerned this kind of rule would not be practical because of vast distances and the isolation of many of the areas in that particular part of Ontario.

But the problem came when the commission began to look at that 25 per cent and chose to ignore it in too many instances. The commission, while cutting down somewhat on the present imbalance, has set average urban ridings at about 12 per cent above the average while setting the rural ones at 14 per cent below it. The result is that 21 urban provincial ridings will be more than 15 per cent above the average, and 30 rural tidings are more than 15 per cent below. This means that well over half of the ridings will be either above or below what seems a reasonable tolerance, at least one which we accepted for the new redistribution; particularly where the ones below the line are slow-growing areas and the ones above them are fast-growing territories.

The average urban riding will have roughly 68,000 to 70,000 people, while the average rural one will have 49,798 to about 50,000. So you have a differential there of something around 18,000 people, Mr. Speaker.

This seems incredible in light of the fact that the average urban riding is growing so much faster than the rural one, and the imbalance can only increase as time goes on. But these figures deal with averages.

Specific instances of sheer imbalance are not difficult to find and we have heard them this afternoon. Sault Ste. Marie is a case in point; it had 80,000 in 1971, while Algoma had 30,000 and Algoma-Manitoulin had 31,500. In other words, the Soo will have over twice the population of the two adjacent rural ridings; and this hardly seems sensible.

Peterborough will have 73,000, while Hastings-Peterborough will have 54,000, Leeds about 50,000, Lanark 42,000 and Muskoka 32,000. Most ridings in Metro Toronto, as well as in Hamilton and Ottawa, will have populations in the 70,000 to 75,000 range; while 36 rural southern ridings average 52,000. Between these is group of 14 rapidly urbanizing ridings with an average of 61,000 -- I am using round figures here -- which is near the southern average of 62,000 people and somewhat above the provincial average of 61,600.

But even among similar ridings, I would like to point out, the difference appears inexcusable when we look at it. Chatham-Kent, with a relatively small growth rate, will have 57,500 people on the basis of 1971 figures; Cornwall, with little growth, will have 53,300; while Peterborough, with a much faster growth rate, will have 73,500 people.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): We will catch up.

Mr. Young: Well Ontario now has 117 seats. It will have 125 with the redistribution.

Of the 102 present seats in southern Ontario, 63 could be classified as urban and 39 as rural. A redistribution based on population would seem to indicate that we should have 16 urban seats in addition and should have dropped eight rural seats. That brings us to a total of 110 southern ridings plus the 15 northern ones guaranteed by the Act. As the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier) pointed out, it well might be that we should think in terms of an extra seat in northern Ontario at this time. I might have a word to say about where we would find that in a few minutes.

The result is a situation in eastern Ontario where 14 rural ridings from Parry Sound to the Quebec border average 47,000 people, as against the southern average of 62,000. If these rulings, and they contain 658,000 people, were redivided and brought up to the southern average, it would result in 10 ridings instead of the 14 present ridings. Not good news for some of the eastern members if it were done, but perhaps it should be done at least in some measure; perhaps that’s where one of the extra seats could go for northern Ontario.

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): The member would have it all in the urban centres.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): No.

Mr. Young: No, no.

Mr. MacDonald: There would be some relationship to population.

Mr. Young: We get some relationship to population in this area.

Mr. Ferrier: Those fellows from the east don’t know about distances compared to us in the north.

Mr. Young: The eastern Ontario rulings are not nearly as large as many of the northern ones.

Now I want to come to another point we would like to emphasize very strongly here. The first election to which this redistribution will apply is 1975, or perhaps 1976, but the census figures for 1971 are being used. These figures are completely out of date right now, in 1975, and they will be far more so by 1979. In 1975 a great many urban and urbanizing ridings have far more people in them than they had at the time of the census. Therefore, the imbalance between urban and rural ridings that I have already spoken about will be greatly accentuated.

It’s impossible, of course, to accurately assess exactly what this imbalance will be, but we do know how much each riding grew in voter strength between 1967 and 1971. During that period, the enfranchisement of 18 to 21-year-olds added about 10 per cent to our polling strength. But allowing for this, and projecting the 1967 to 1971 percentage growth in voters to population growth between 1971 and 1975, we get a rough idea of what population might be expected in a given riding in 1975. This presents no great difficulty where the boundaries are the same, but where boundaries have been changed, the general growth in the area can be applied to the new riding.

Sault Ste. Marie, for example, one we’ve talked about a great deal, had 80,000 people in 1971. But projecting the growth rate between 1967 and 1971, about 10 per cent, to the period from 1971 to 1975, we get a population of about 88,000 in Sault Ste. Marie right now. When you realize that the two adjacent ridings have populations of 30,000 to 36,000, this becomes ludicrous.

The present Yorkview riding, which I represent, grew about 20 per cent over the four years 1967 to 1971. The area comprising the new Yorkview is growing faster than the rest of the riding and is infilling with major apartment developments. The redistribution set the new riding population at 73,000. With a 20 per cent growth over the 1971 to 1975 period the population of Yorkview will be nearer 88,000 by the time of the next election.

In York Mills, with a 1971 population of 75,000, the population right now will be much closer to 80,000 and possibly much higher than that.

In Ottawa the same thing is true. We heard about Ottawa this afternoon. The old Carleton grew by 24 per cent between 1967 and 1971. If that same growth continues, then the new Carleton, by 1975, right now, instead of a population of 70,000 will be around 87,000 this year.

Similarly, the Carleton East area, growing at the rate of 25 per cent, will have 78,000 by 1975, instead of the 63,000 stated by the commission.

In contrast with this kind of growth, most rural ridings will change very little. Parry Sound, with its 40,000 people in 1971, will likely have about 42,000 this year, if the trend of the Sixties continues. Lanark, with 42,000 in 1971, will have about 45,000 this year. Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry, with 47,000 in 1971, will see about 49,000, perhaps a few more, this year. Prince Edward-Lennox, with 42,000, may reach 45,000 by 1975. And Muskoka, with 32,000, may well grow to 37,000 by the time the election is called in 1975 or 1976.

In other words, by the first time this redistribution is used, Mr. Speaker, we may well see southern ridings vary from 37,000 to 90,000 and over, and northern ridings from 30,000 to 87,000.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Absurd.

Mr. Young: Certainly the difference between the average urban and rural ridings will be much greater than the figures shown in this redistribution; and many rural votes will be worth two to three times the vote in most urban areas. Well perhaps some of the rural representatives will say that a rural vote is worth two or three times the urban one. Let’s here them say so and put themselves on record to that effect. I don’t believe it, and I think in any democracy we can’t afford that kind of an imbalance.

Because of this trend since 1971, because the census figures of that year are used, logic would dictate that many of the urban and urbanizing ridings should have 1971 populations set actually below the rural ones in the province, instead of 30 per cent higher. This would still see the urban averages above the rural ones by 1975; and by 1979, of course, the difference would be very marked.

Well we’ve heard a great deal this afternoon about the redistribution in Toronto. I don’t want to reiterate what has been said, but I do want to put on record this afternoon part of the OMB decision of July 3, 1969. It applies equally to the provincial redistribution as it did to the municipal one, and I quote:

“It is significant that all of the opinions, and evidence presented by persons well qualified in the field of political science, were in favour, without exception, of the block plan approach for the reasons summarized above. No person trained in political science and the other social sciences appeared to espouse a strip plan or cross-section approach.

“It is also not without significance that a great many ratepayers organizations as well as two political parties intending to take part in the forthcoming municipal elections all favour the block plan. Indeed, the only support for the city’s plan came from three aldermen who appeared to argue in support of the proposals which they had made.

“In the respectful view of the board, a block plan is preferable for the reasons given above and the city will be divided into wards based on the block plan as fixed by exhibit 11. If a council desires to have a letter as well as a number applied to each ward, the board should be advised prior to issue of the formal order.”

Mr. Speaker, this was the opinion of the Ontario Municipal Board after thorough-going discussion and after lengthy hearings. So it would seem that if we are going to see carried out the instructions of this Legislature to the commission, that commission should not violate in such a blatant fashion the ward boundaries of the city of Toronto.

As we look at this map in Toronto and the map around the province, we are driven to the conclusion that a much better job could have been done by the commission. It seems to me they should go back now and take a further look at what they have done. I know the time is short and I know that perhaps a thorough redrawing of the whole electoral map may be out of the question at this point, but let’s look at a few things that can be done, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the areas that can easily be changed among those that have been mentioned here in this House last night and today, should be changed.

Sault Ste. Marie, for example; there is no reason in the world why that imbalance -- maybe 8,000 population versus the two, Algoma-Manitoulin -- should not be shifted. There is no reason why at that point the city of Sault Ste. Marie might not be cut in two and given two seats, or some other area equally deserving in the north might have that extra seat added. To hold that imbalance is not only very bad policy on the part of the commission, but rather an insult to the members who are given only that small responsibility in comparison with the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) who is, I would think, overworked with this kind of population.

Again, when we come to Toronto, let me say this to you, Mr. Speaker, the work is already done. I have in my possession a letter which states that fact, that the staff of the commission had drawn up the block plan for the city of Toronto. It is there. All they have to do is pull it into the files and put it into effect. There is no extra work involved here by the commission. It is a matter of looking at it quickly. It is there, it is done; it can be put into effect and it will harmonize more with the ward system in the city of Toronto.

In eastern Ontario, one or two at least, if not three or four ridings, could be pulled out of that area where we have over-representation on the part of the members concerned, and where some of those seats could be used in some of the urban areas -- the city of Toronto or Hamilton or Ottawa -- with a very simple redrawing of boundaries. That extra seat could be given there so that we don’t get this very great imbalance such as in my own riding and others where we will have close to 90,000 people when the election is actually called this year.

Mr. Speaker, just in closing, again I want to say that we support the idea of the independent commission, but I think that right now is the time when we should be looking at this, not waiting for another 10 years. In view of our experience at this time and in view of the debate that has taken place, this House should spend some time on this in the next session, if not in the first session following the election.

It is important to look at what we have found out and set guidelines for the future; guidelines in respect to the commission’s terms of reference; guidelines in respect to the variances, the tolerance that might be allowed; guidelines in respect to the kind of things which we have talked about here and preached here. We might very well forget these things before the next commission is appointed in the years ahead.

So I urge, Mr. Speaker, upon this House, that we not simply drop this debate when we have finished here today, or tomorrow or whenever the time might be, but that we ask this Legislature, or the next one, in the light of this experience, to introduce legislation which will guide the same kind of activities in the days ahead.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to make a few comments on the report of the electoral boundaries commission.

Mr. Speaker, when the original report had been submitted by the commission to the members of the Legislature fairly early last year, I thought that was the right approach. We appointed a commission and they went into what they thought was a fair method of resolving the new boundaries and they submitted their report.

Where the commission, I think, fell down -- or maybe I shouldn’t blame the commission; I should blame ourselves for not setting the terms of reference so there would have been public input, so that after their original submission they should have travelled about the province and heard submissions from the various groups and organizations that would have been interested in making submissions to them.

Mr. Speaker, when the first report was sent down I had noticed -- and naturally each of us are particularly interested in the area that we represent -- I had noticed that the riding of Windsor-Walkerville had jagged lines on both sides of its bounds. There was no definite, straight-line boundary definition between the Windsor-Sandwich riding and the Windsor West riding.

Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t interested and wasn’t concerned as to where they were going to locate me. My sole concern was that it would be that much easier for the constituent to know that if he lived on one side of a street that he would be in one riding and that if he lived on the other side of the street he would be in one of the other rulings.

Now in the city of Windsor there are natural boundary lines. On the natural line between Windsor-Sandwich and Windsor-Walkerville there happened to be a railroad track. The original submission of the commission did not follow the railroad track. I had the opportunity to make a representation to the commission, which I did by dropping into their offices -- I think it is McCaul St. isn’t it?

An hon. member: Lombard St.

Mr. B. Newman: Lombard St. I met with Mr. McCool and one of the other staff members and I pointed out to them how simple it was to follow a railroad track. In that way, those living on one side of the track would know that they were in the Windsor-Walkerville riding and those living on the other side of the track would be in the --

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Riverside riding.

Mr. B. Newman: -- Riverside riding.

Now the other side of the boundary, and that is the boundary separating Windsor West and Windsor-Walkerville, happened to be exactly the same format as was used in the 1964 redistribution on which we fought the 1967 election. That was a real jagged line.

If one were to look at that one wouldn’t be able to reason why the redistribution commission used that approach when there was a simple solution to the problem. When I met with the commission I presented what I thought was a simpler answer -- and that was the following of Dougall Ave. right from the river front to the city limits, they saw the logic of the move and when they submitted their second report I thought they had actually done a little better than I had suggested to them. They realized that if they followed Dougall Ave. throughout it may have made the riding of Windsor-Walkerville have several thousand fewer population than either of the two ridings. As a result, the redistribution commission came along and followed another natural dividing line. That happened to be Cabana Rd. up to the western extremity of the city of Windsor.

So now Windsor-Walkerville has the Detroit River at the north end, Dougall Ave. at the west end, the Pere Marquette and Chesapeake and Ohio railways on the eastern boundary, and the city limits at the south boundary. It is a good redistribution. Politically it may not be as good as one would like it, but that is really beside the point, Mr. Speaker. In dividing the boundaries we should always be concerned with the voter and the citizen rather than our own personal futures.

In setting up the new boundaries too, Mr. Speaker, I think that the commission should have taken into consideration population projections. Windsor prior to redistribution had 2½ members; now they have three full members. All three members -- Windsor-Riverside, Windsor West, and Windsor-Walkerville -- are all city members and solely city members. Prior to redistribution, if I’m not mistaken, I was the only member whose riding was completely within the bounds of the city. I think both Windsor West and Sandwich-Riverside as it was called then -- was the member’s in then?

Mr. Bounsall: Yes.

Mr. B. Newman: All right. There were two ridings then. The Windsor West riding and the Windsor-Walkerville riding were both within the city and the Sandwich-Riverside riding was a horseshoe-shaped riding that went around the city. Now there are three members representing the city of Windsor. With population projections, Mr. Speaker, and with the provincial average being some 58,000 and looking at the population statistics for the three ridings I find the redistribution commission, rather than giving thee seats to the city, should have increased it to 3½ seats. Windsor-Walkerville now represents a population of 68,010, Windsor-Riverside, 67,505, and Windsor West 67,385.

Mr. Burr: That’s 1971, not now.

Mr. B. Newman: Those are 1971 statistics, yes. Since then, there has been a tremendous growth in all three ridings in the city. I think, Mr. Speaker, it would have been better had the commission considered the growth and considered these statistics were some four years out of date, and had set up another half riding within the bounds of the city of Windsor, another half member, so that member would represent part of the city and part of the county.

I likewise think that they have to take into consideration the tremendous redevelopment that is taking place, especially in the core city. My own riding now has, if I am not mistaken, either six or eight high-rise developments under way. They would represent a population of some 1,500 to 2,000. They now have 68,000 people, according to the 1971 statistics, and actually by the time the next election were called there would be probably 75,000 people in the area -- not that I’m complaining about representing 75,000 people, but I think if you are going to use provincial averages you should attempt to redistribute, following a provincial average area of provincial average figures where possible, Mr. Speaker.

Now that the boundaries have been set up -- and I think all three Windsor members would have liked some other changes but we are content to accept what the redistribution commission has done -- I would think maybe the city fathers might look at the provincial redistribution and maybe readjust their own ward system in the city so that we would have approximately three wards from each of the provincial ridings.

I don’t think the boundaries should have followed the old ward system because I think the old ward system outdates itself very quickly as development accelerates in given areas. For example, the riding of Windsor-Riverside has a tremendous amount of development going on. The principal development in the community, I think, is going on in the Windsor-Riverside riding; and it’s going to mean that that riding before another two elections will really be lopsided as far as population representation is concerned.

Had the commission, after the submission of the first report, followed the recommendation of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, I think they would have done themselves and the community a real service. I think they could have received input from the community by going to the community, and not having submissions presented to the commission. I happened to go down to the commission and discussed Windsor-Walkerville because I was familiar with it. But I think it would have been better had that commission gone to the public instead,

I think the suggestion made by the member for Windsor West concerning the name change is a good one. Had he not made it, I was going to make that suggestion, which is to call all three ridings in the community by some given name; that is, one being Windsor-Sandwich, the central riding being Windsor-Walkerville and the easterly riding being Windsor-Riverside. In that way we would be maintaining the names of all three larger communities within the bounds of greater Windsor -- the original town of Sandwich, Windsor and the growing area of Riverside.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the redistribution commission take to heart the comments I have made; and if and when they are going to make any changes concerning any of the ridings, that they look into population projections as well as input from the public. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

Mr. G. R. Samis (Stormont): Mr. Speaker, I would like to state the position for the people of Stormont very briefly. First of all, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I wholeheartedly support my colleagues when they complain about the inequities in northern representation under the proposals. I think it is extremely unfair to the north to expect them to have less representation in a new House. I also think there are obvious inequities in Toronto; however, I am no expert on Toronto and I don’t intend to speak on Toronto. I intend to speak about eastern Ontario and in particular my own riding of Stormont.

Under the proposals, Stormont would no longer exist as an entity unto itself. I would become the member for Cornwall, and I would like to go on record as wholeheartedly supporting the proposal for the new riding of Cornwall. The proposal recommended was the same that we recommended as a riding association to the electoral boundaries commission in Ottawa. We feel that the city of Cornwall is now a city that is on the move. We feel that the rural needs of eastern Ontario still need to be represented and recognized.

Coming from Cornwall, I would be the first one to admit that there is possibly over-representation in some ridings. There is definitely a need for amalgamation of some of our rural ridings in eastern Ontario. But Cornwall, with a population of 52,300, does make sense as an independent riding.

Look at the growth potential of the City of Cornwall: Combustion Engineering is coming in and, within five years, projects employment of 1,000 people. There has been the announcement of a $24.5-million transport school which will employ 200 people and have 600 students in Cornwall. There will be an expansion of our industrial park as well as the creation of our new civic complex by 1976. And, if this new Tory boondoggle in Edwardsburgh township ever gets off the ground, it’s obvious that Cornwall, unlike the previous 10 years, will not stagnate. Cornwall will grow. Therefore I feel that the designation of Cornwall as a separate riding makes good sense, and I would like to commend the electoral boundaries commission for their recommendation and go on record as supporting that recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak on this resolution?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I think that completes the list of those members who, so far as I am aware, were intending to speak on this resolution. If it is your wish now to place the other resolution, I believe there may be certain other members from this side of the House who may wish to join in on that debate.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll call the order then.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2

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

Mr. Speaker: It is indicated the member for Middlesex South -- oh, who is going to speak first?

Mr. B. Eaton (Middlesex South): Let him go first.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew South.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise and participate in this discussion with regard to the report as tabled by the electoral boundaries commission.

I have listened to a lot of the debate that has taken place so far, especially that which has come from the New Democratic Party benches, and I am inclined to disagree with them very substantially. I think most of them have, more or less, suggested that a number of rural ridings in this province, especially in eastern Ontario, should be eliminated and that the whole thrust be in creating a great number, or quite a number, of additional urban ridings. And, of course, if I were sitting where they are sitting perhaps I would use the same kind of argument.

Mr. MacDonald: How about rep by pop?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Don’t worship it.

Mr. MacDonald: I am not worshipping it.

Mr. Yakabuski: That’s something I want to say a few words about. But, you know, Mr. Speaker, I think it proves again that that party across the floor know very little --

Mr. Breithaupt: Which one?

Mr. Bounsall: The one that counts -- ours!

Mr. Yakabuski: That party in the centre mostly.

An hon. member: There are three parties over here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Yakabuski: They are never in the centre of the road, but they happen to sit in the centre. They know very little about the real needs of rural Ontario -- as a matter of fact, of rural Canada, for that matter.

Mr. MacDonald: Tut; in fact, tut tut.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Yakabuski: I think the whole principle in a country such as ours, in a province such as ours, the whole principle of representation by population is wrong.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: Is that right? Must get this on the record.

Ms. Bounsall: Bring back the rotten boroughs.

Mr. Yakabuski: It can’t work and it won’t work.

Mr. Young: We should have that on the record from the Tory member.

Mr. Yakabuski: If we are to look at the average riding, then somebody is going to suffer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Yakabuski: And in the case of representation by population, the people who do suffer are these people who happen to live in the rural ridings or in the sparsely settled ridings across this province.

Mr. MacDonald: What does he mean “who do suffer”? Are they the only people who do?

An hon. member: Oh be quiet and listen, he didn’t interrupt the member.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): If he keeps quiet he will learn something.

Mr. MacDonald: I am trying to.

Mr. Yakabuski: But anyway, I want to give some of the reasons for this. I want to say, perhaps before I get into that, that the second report as presented by the electoral boundaries commission is quite satisfactory to me as it affects that part of Ontario. I have to say that the eight new townships that are added to the great riding of Renfrew South are quite welcome as far as I am concerned. I think they are welcome additions because they are --

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): They are welcome to the member.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- just good and great people, and I would be just so happy to have them. As a matter of fact, I think I would be terribly disappointed --

Mr. MacDonald: He can’t afford to say anything else, isn’t that right?

Mr. Roy: The problem is that they won’t have him.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- when the bill comes before the Legislature if any of these great townships were deleted. However --

Mr. Roy: These people won’t have the member for Renfrew South.

Mr. Yakabuski: That’s what the lower-town bumpkin might think, but that’s not the way it is.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bounsall: Is the member for Renfrew South trying to push the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hamilton) out now?

Mr. Yakabuski: That’s not the way it is.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: I’d like to have the member’s comments about --

Mr. Yakabuski: I am not so concerned about the size of some of these rural ridings when it comes to square miles or the area they cover. I am concerned about the kind of representation they might have to suffer if these rural ridings are too large by way of population. I think I have been around this Legislature long enough to know --

Mr. Roy: Too long.

Mr. Yakabuski: Well, maybe the member thinks so, but thank God there are a great many people down in eastern Ontario who don’t agree with him.

Mr. Roy: They will have a gift for the member in 1975.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Yakabuski: But one thing I don’t think any of us can argue about is that generally the member representing a semi-urban, semi-rural but especially a rural riding has a much, much greater workload than the member who represents a strictly urban riding. There is no question about it, because I can see it in our caucus and I think the same thing can be applied in either of the caucuses across the floor.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Would the member tell us the reason for that?

An hon. member: They don’t have any urban members; they don’t know.

Mr. Yakabuski: For example, if someone living in Yorkview or York South, for instance, has an OHIP problem, nine times out of 10 he will go to OHIP or call OHIP up in the city of Toronto. That problem will not get to the member. As a matter of fact, a goodly number of the residents or citizens of urban ridings don’t even know --

An hon. member: Who their member is.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- who he or she may be.

Mr. Ferrier: That’s not the case in York South or Yorkview, though.

An hon. member: Some of them don’t want to know.

Mr. Yakabuski: Now, that’s one example, OHIP. Another example would be when it comes to assistance in various forms, whether it be family benefits, whether it be general welfare or whatever form the assistance may take.

Mr. Bullbrook: I used John Robarts’ picture in both my elections.

Mr. Yakabuski: Use it again, it will help. That kind of problem isn’t generally brought to the doorstep or the desk of an urban member. That again is taken to the agencies that are provided in the urban centres.

Mr. MacDonald: He doesn’t know anything about urban members. He’d better go back to Barry’s Bay and mind the store,

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Yakabuski: Throughout the rural parts of Ontario, one can’t provide those kinds of services that are provided in the urban areas.

Mr. Bullbrook: They would have a lot of workmen’s compensation cases in rural areas, I imagine.

Mr. Yakabuski: For instance, UIC. In the rural areas, whether this be a federal matter or not, I don’t know how many UIC problems are not brought to the attention of rural members. Again, in the urban centre they have help at their fingertips -- “Let your fingers do the walking,” you know -- or the transportation system to take them to a facility where they can be provided with that kind of service.

If the city of Toronto has a problem with regard to transportation, or whatever it may be, we find them sitting in the Premier’s office some morning at 9 o’clock. If the mayor of a small city in rural Ontario or the members of a municipality in rural Ontario have a problem, they don’t get to the Premier’s office or the minister’s office as readily. They take that problem to their area representative.

Mr. MacDonald: The word I get is that they can’t get into the Premier’s office any more than the member can. Neither of them can break through.

Mr. Yakabuski: Oh, they can get in, they can get in, but they usually work through their local representative, because there is a great communication goes on between the elected members and the municipal officials, especially in eastern Ontario. I think that was proved quite handily today when we saw in the galleries all these great mayors, reeves and other municipal officials from eastern Ontario

Mr. Breithaupt: They were in shock.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Who, by the way, were completely disgusted with the opposition. They sure were disappointed by them.

Mr. Yakabuski: Again, I want to say that I am not quarrelling with the second report as presented here in December. I feel personally the commission could have much more regard for community interests and the type of problem that I covered in the last few moments. I think back in 1966 or 1967 when the last redistribution was done that the guidelines were much different when it came to rural, semi-rural, semi-urban and urban ridings. I think that in the future, when such guidelines are drawn up, it again should get an awful lot of consideration.

Again, if the commission is going to look at the boundaries as we presently see them, I hope it will have much more regard for community interests and not be too concerned or as concerned as it has been insofar as representation by population is concerned. Because representation by population will not work in the kind of province and in the kind of country we have. I think we see evidence of that every day. A rural member must spend many more hours in his office looking after constituency affairs; whereas we see our urban counterpart able to participate in a very adequate fashion on every committee and in a much fuller way in the affairs of this Legislature on a day-to-day basis.

An hon. member: Does the member really believe that?

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I’m glad I had the opportunity to speak. I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to get in on this debate first, because I know many of them have concerns that are much greater than mine; and we’ll be pleased to hear from them now.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Middlesex South.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, in rising to comment on this resolution, I’d like to refer firstly to the second part of our resolution and express some concerns over the opportunity that people had to make a response to the second proposal brought forth by the electoral boundaries commission.

I may not completely agree with what some of the members have said regarding the need for public hearings. I feel that when the first map was proposed the opportunity was given at that time for people to, make submissions --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Did the member for Middlesex South?

Mr. Eaton: Submissions were, of course, made by the people who felt they were being affected; who felt that they had changes to make. Naturally, those who were reasonably satisfied with what had been proposed did not make submissions.

In the meantime, some people made submissions which affected those ridings, without the people who were being affected having a chance to make any counter-submission or comment on the proposals that were made. I feel that perhaps this is where the proposals have fallen down; that there were changes made that many people did not have a chance to comment on, and comment on as to how they affected them.

It seems a bit hypocritical when I hear the hon. member for Kitchener standing up and calling for public hearings, when one of the members of his party would make proposals for another area to be included in a different riding without ever consulting with the local councils or the local municipalities in that area affected. Certainly that’s not public participation.

Mr. Breithaupt: Where’s that? Where’s that riding?

Mr. Eaton: And I refer directly to the riding of Huron. The member for Huron (Mr. Riddell) was approaching the commission asking that a portion of Middlesex North be placed in his riding. Certainly there was some reaction by the people in that area after that proposal was carried through. For instance the mayor of Parkhill reacted against the breaking down of the county lines. Reeve Ken Vernon of West Williams said, “We belong in Middlesex county.” Adelaide township council added their support. Reeve Charlie Nichols said, “There is 100 per cent agreement on the brief being sent to Queen’s Park by Strathroy.”

I will refer to the telegram that was sent by the council of the town of Strathroy. I certainly won’t read it all but they reacted in this way:

“Whereas the commission has proposed that a portion of Huron and Middlesex counties be consolidated into a new Huron-Middlesex riding, the municipal council of the town of Strathroy strongly protests this proposed change.”

Then they list the following reasons, which are certainly laid out in the terms of reference, namely the community of interest, the diversity of interest and certainly the lines of communication within that area.

They refer in their telegram to such things as the Lake Erie regional development, which is a four-county region comprising Norfolk, Oxford, Elgin and Middlesex. These people participate together in that programme.

They refer to their local hospital board, which quite often deals with the provincial government through its member. It represents an area of some four townships plus Strathroy, some of which would be in one riding, some of which would be in another, and one riding which, under this proposal, would include Huron county.

They refer to their area planning board, which deals with government matters. In effect, it would cover approximately the same four townships as their hospital board and would have the same effect of splitting the representation in that area.

As far as communications are concerned, the reeve of Adelaide township referred to the fact that in Middlesex county they don’t even get the same edition of the London Free Press, that those things are not in common between Huron and Middlesex counties.

Mr. Roy: You probably can’t read it anyway.

Mr. Turner: Who said that?

Mr. Eaton: I will certainly pass that on to him because he happens to have been a Liberal supporter at one time. I am sure he isn’t any more.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: He’ll be glad to hear that the member said that. He is the president of the local Liberal association.

Mr. Roy: What’s that?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: He is the president of the local Liberal association.

Mr. Roy: I didn’t say he can’t read it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That’s what the member said that he couldn’t read.

Mr. Eaton: Well, we can expect those kinds of comments from the member for Ottawa East, because he is just about that childish.

An hon. member: Right on, right on.

Mr. Roy: The member will hurt my feelings that way.

Mr. Eaton: In that particular area --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Eaton: You know, Mr. Speaker, one wonders about this House. We sat and gave the members opposite the courtesy of listening to what they had to say about their areas. Now they show us the ignorance of continually interrupting. There ought to be some place where they could show some of the same courtesy.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): There ought to be some place for that member.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): In the woodshed.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: There is a place for him. I can tell him where to go: back home.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, to continue, as far as those lines of communication are concerned, even the general pattern of the roads in that area does not run directly in connection with Huron county. In that part of the county the roads run at a different angle to the roads in the Huron county area in which they are proposing to put this part of Middlesex county.

Sometimes we get reactions to various things that governments do. Certainly I have not had as great a reaction from that area to any particular item as I have had to this. Perhaps this is where these people have the opportunity to get their say in and to give their response to what the commission has proposed by sending forth these letters, by sending forth their expression of opinion, and giving us the opportunity here in the House to present it to the commission.

I have had about 200 to 500 letters and clippings from individuals in this area of the riding, saying that they are opposed to the commission’s suggestion to place that part of Middlesex county with a portion of Huron county. However, one group didn’t stop at that. They felt that if they were going to oppose these things, they should also be constructive; they have made a proposal, and I would like to present some of the various resolutions sent in by the councils of that area, by the county council and by the Federation of Agriculture. Middlesex county council are pleased to advise that the council of the county of Middlesex met on Dec. 30, 1974, and took the following action regarding provincial electoral districts.

They agreed that the present electoral districts are satisfactory and acceptable. I’m sure many people don’t like to see the changes that are proposed take place. However, they are also being realistic. They are saying that we are opposed to the recent recommendations of the electoral boundaries commission regarding provincial electoral districts, and they agreed to submit the following proposal to the commission: That there be three provincial electoral districts for the city of London and one provincial electoral district for the county of Middlesex to include the entire county. And they have forwarded this to the electoral boundaries commission, the provincial cabinet and all the local MLAs involved.

The Middlesex Federation of Agriculture point out that the proposed changes destroy completely any continuing identity of the county in a political sense; that they destroy the entire economic, social and political activity within the county, as it is on an east- west basis, never north as projected by the commission.

Finally, there is the obvious need for an authentic rural voice in the Legislature. The past year has illustrated to all the consumers the importance of the producer. But how can farmers present their case in this province if their voice is muted by the urban majority. Surely an industry with a forecast income in 1974 in this province of $2,298,000 deserves more direct representation.

So they have put forth a resolution. They resolve that the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture, being concerned with the electoral boundaries report, suggest that Middlesex county have one representative to the provincial Legislature and that the city of London have the appropriate number to accommodate their population. This would retain the identity of Middlesex county and provide rural representation of agriculture from this county.

Others are very similar, and I will just read into the record the names of the other municipalities:

The council of the village of Lucan is in agreement with the same resolution. The township of west Nissouri is also in agreement

The township of McGillivray:

“Whereas the township of McGillivray has been in the riding of Middlesex north for many years, and whereas the Middlesex North riding has been considered a rural riding, and whereas any change in the riding boundaries should take into account the area involved and not relate so much to population in the riding; therefore be it resolved that the council of the corporation of the township of McGillivray request that the township of McGillivray be included in a rural Middlesex riding excluding the city of London.”

Also, a number of the letters which I received supported the resolution of the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture suggesting that there be one riding for Middlesex county.

Of course when we make a proposal like that it could cause some other problems, certainly in the Huron area. Not being like the member for Huron county -- not consulting with the people that would be affected I have consulted with some of the people in Huron county --

Mr. Haggerty: Before or after?

Mr. Eaton: Just recently.

They would quite accept having a riding composed of Huron county. It seems quite logical to the extent that Perth has worked to have theirs this way; Oxford is close to that way; Middlesex would like it that way; Lambton would like it that way. We did have the same possible concept to create a riding for Huron and a riding for Bruce with Owen Sound. There are people in Huron county who certainly support that concept.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of the residents in Middlesex who have approached me on this and some I have talked to in Huron, and I propose that we should create a riding of Middlesex county and allow three ridings to be formed within the boundaries of that area and from the city itself will have some proposals in that regard.

I would propose to the boundaries commission that a riding of Middlesex county be created which would consist of the townships of Adelaide Biddulph, Caradoc, Delaware, Dorchester North, Ekfrid, Lobo, London, McGillivray, Metcalfe, Mosa, Nissouri West, Westminster, Williams East, Williams West and the Indian reserves, the towns of Parkhill and Strathroy and the villages of Ailsa Craig, Glencoe, Lucan, Newberry and Wardsville. I do hope Mr. Speaker that the commission gives this proposal fair consideration.

Mi. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker I wasn’t going to address myself to this particular resolution, but the member who just spoke has provoked me into saying a few words.

First of all, I think he had better get his facts straight Mr. Speaker. When the first proposal came out, they had aligned four townships out of Perth with Huron. I was quite pleased to accept that and I did not submit any kind of a submission to the electoral boundaries commission whatsoever.

Then there were some changes made and the commission sent out a second proposal. They wrote to me and asked what I thought of having five townships out of north Middlesex aligned with Huron rather than the townships out of Perth. It was at that time that I wrote a letter back, saying as far as I was concerned that it made abundantly good sense, that there was a lot in common between Middlesex North and Huron. So I think the member had better get his facts straight before he comes into this House and expounds on something that, as far as I’m concerned, he knows very little about.

Mr. Bullbrook: When he is wrong though, he is cabinet material.

Mr. Riddell: The member for Middlesex South, Mr. Speaker, is very uneasy about losing the town of Strathroy, because it lessens his chances of retaining his seat in the House. I can only say that I welcome the opportunity of representing the town of Strathroy and the township of Adelaide, if this is the wish of the electoral boundaries commission.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that my roots were first established in Middlesex county, having been born and raised there. I had many occasions to travel Middlesex county with the late W. K. Riddell, who was my father and the former agricultural representative in the area. I know Middlesex county well and I will repeat that I will be only too happy to represent the townships out of Middlesex North as well as Adelaide and the town of Strathroy.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to be losing three townships out of Huron -- Hullett, McKillop and Tuckersmith townships -- and the town of Seaforth. I would hope that the electoral boundaries commission would take a look, predominantly at Tuckersmith township --

Mr. Eaton: Wouldn’t the member want a riding of Huron?

Mr. Riddell: Tuckersmith township juts down within four miles of Exeter, which is considered to be in the southern portion of the riding as it now exists. This means that the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) will be expected to travel from Southampton clear down to within four miles of Exeter, or within approximately four miles of where I reside in order to serve the people of his riding.

This, to my way of thinking, is somewhat ridiculous. I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to see any other changes made; other than that I would like to see Tuckersmith realigned with Huron, owing to the fact that it lies south of Highway 8 and is very much a part of Huron; it is ridiculous to include it with Huron-Bruce.

I’m not trying to say anything else, other than the fact that the next time the member for Middlesex South gets up to speak he had better get his facts straight and maybe talk to the electoral commission.

Mr. Eaton: It is right there in print. It is right there in print.

Mr. Breithaupt: It must he right then.

Mr. Bullbrook: The member must try to control himself, if he can.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would like to bring some calm to this debate by commending the commission on its manner of handling a very difficult and sensitive job. In their first report they took what was left of Carleton, changed its name, reduced it to one municipality and from a demographic point of view I suppose that report made some sense.

I did make some submissions to the commission. I asked for three minor changes. They responded by making two of the three that I had requested, and I suppose I should leave well enough alone and say two out of three ain’t bad. The third one, on which they turned me down, I would like to raise again, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Housing, the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Irvine).

I believe in the community of interests. The riding that I now represent as a result of the second report is a completely urban riding, and as one who has represented an urban-rural riding for the past 3½ years I can attest to the fact, as the member for Renfrew South so forcefully stated, that it is indeed a different breed of animal. The people who suffer are, in fact, the rural people, because the member normally based in the urban part of the riding simply cannot respond to the rural needs. The very fact that there is a long-distance telephone charge from the rural part of the riding to the urban part of the riding makes an urban-rural riding nonsense.

So, the point that I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that in the second report, the commission, whether through lack of knowledge or lack of time to study, in fact created an urban-rural riding in which the urban part of it is in the minority, and that is the new riding of Carleton-Grenville. The township of Goulbourn is an entirely urban community. It has a large, country, open part and, therefore, geographically it looks large. That part of the riding is so sparsely populated that it really is negligible. It is an urban community based in the communities of Glencairn, Richmond and Stittsville. Their umbilical cord to Ottawa is the Queensway. They share that with the community of Kanata, which is now in the riding of Carleton.

The township of Goulbourn is in the western growth area, as reflected in the Ottawa-Carleton official plan. It will eventually form part of an urban community of 100,000 people. Looking ahead to the next redistribution, as one of the members mentioned, I believe that Goulbourn should now be included in Carleton, and at the time of the next redistribution there would only be one piece of surgery necessary rather than two.

So I again asked the commission to look at the debate and to consider the possibility of returning Goulbourn to the riding of Carleton. I want to say now how much I regret losing the townships of West Carleton and Rideau -- the township of West Carleton for two reasons; first, because it is the place of abode of my distinguished predecessor in this House, Mr. Erskine Johnston, and I have always been happy to have Mr. Johnston as a constituent; the second reason is that it also is the place of abode of the perennial Liberal candidate for Carleton. I was hoping to see him come back for a fourth attempt. Unfortunately, he will probably have to try to run against the member for Renfrew South if he wishes to be a candidate in the next election.

Mr. Breithaupt: A change is as good as a rest.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The township of Rideau, which is part of the Ottawa-Carleton municipality, will be going to my colleague, the Minister of Housing. I know he welcomes these fine people. They are a rural community and they wish to remain a rural community. I will miss them deeply.

I do ask again of the commission that they take a look at the urban nature of the township of Goulbourn and rejoin it with its neighbours in Nepean township and Kanata to make a completely urban riding with a population, based on the 1971 census, of approximately 77,000. I will hear cries of rage about representation by population. There is simply no reason to believe that somebody representing a completely urban riding cannot represent 75,000 to 80,000 people as easily as the man who represents 35,000 in a rural riding.

I can speak from experience on this, Mr. Speaker, having tried to represent both. I can assure my colleagues to the south, it is much easier to represent an urban riding. The 250 miles that I put on my car every weekend now are primarily to serve a very small part of the population of the riding. When I hear the member for Ottawa Centre talk about a mile and one-half of farmland making strangers of one part of his riding from another, I wonder what he would say about the 60 miles that now separate the people in Fitzroy Harbour from the people in Kars and Burritts Rapids.

I want an urban riding, Mr. Speaker. I feel that the people in Goulbourn should be in an urban riding and I know that they will back me on this at the time the commission, if it does, receives renewed representations. That’s all I wanted to say and it’s very brief today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for London North.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak about the boundaries within the limits of the Middlesex county area, including the city of London. I must say that the commission is to be congratulated for its fine efforts in realigning some 117 ridings in the province. Recognizing the ripple effect that must occur with every slight modification, it’s amazing that they can have so little concern expressed throughout all the province. It’s a credit to them that there are only a few areas that need to be altered at this point in time.

It’s about the Middlesex and London areas that I speak. Mr. Speaker. I identify myself entirely with the comments of the member for Middlesex South and my colleague from Middlesex North (Mr. Stewart) who will no doubt join the debate shortly. It has become apparent that the county limits of Middlesex must not be crossed or violated. The members for Middlesex North and Middlesex South by the time this debate has finished will make it abundantly clear that such a violation should certainly not occur. There is little to be gained from my reiteration of their particular arguments other than to say that I agree entirely.

Now comes the question of what to do about the city of London and its relationship with the surrounding county. Mr. Speaker, the population of London in 1971 was about 225,000. The county of Middlesex was about 59,000. Those figures lend themselves perfectly to the creation of three urban ridings of about 75,000 each in the city of London and one rural riding in Middlesex of about 59,000. To draw three riding boundaries in London is quite simple when we apply the parameters of the motion found on the order paper of Dec. 5, which motion in effect struck the commission.

When the four London and Middlesex members considered the problem of creating three urban ridings to occupy the entire corporate limits of London, a solution was immediately apparent because the commission had already done the work for them. The December commission proposal had created in London two fully urban ridings and two ridings that were part urban and part rural. By leaving the riding the commission designed for the centre of the city, which was then called London North, by and large untouched, and by leaving London South by and large untouched, that left one riding already stretching across the top of the city from the far west to the far east with two rural townships attached to it. The commission called that Middlesex North even though it was about 90 per cent London population.

To create one rural riding of Middlesex, we merely moved the two rural townships away, that is, London townships and West Nissouri township, to the rural riding of Middlesex, where they will rightfully belong. That step left the top, almost northerly, London riding short of population, compared to what we felt was the average population for 75,000 people in each of the three ridings. The most northerly or top London riding merely moved into the population areas being vacated by Middlesex South.

To balance off all the population in three urban ridings at about 74,500 each, we added one census tract to the centre riding and one or two census tracts to the south riding. Therefore, by using the commission proposal of December as the basis and by only minor modifications to the centre riding, that is, the addition of one census tract, and to the south riding adding one or two additional census tracts and by adding the balance of the city to the northern riding, we have three perfectly balanced urban ridings.

As I indicated and reiterated, Mr. Speaker, we only slightly modified the December commission proposal to have the three perfectly balanced urban ridings in the city of London. But for the urban-rural split, the commission has already met practically every one of the criteria described in the motion of 1973 that set up the report. Our modifications do not really alter their December proposal. By our proposal, the internal boundaries of London are made up to the extent of about 96 per cent, being either of these three: the Thames River, major arterial connective roads or the Canadian National Railways’ main line. All of these boundaries are vast barriers bordering communities but not separating communities of interest.

The same boundaries for the existing ridings of London North and London South could not be preserved in that each of those ridings were approaching 100,000 population and therefore had to be reduced in size to about the 75,000 measure.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the London and Middlesex members, I would present our proposal, which is one rural riding for Middlesex and three urban ridings in London. I would table the proposal in the form of a map showing the divisions and now offer the following physical descriptions:

Specifically, Middlesex riding would have 59,000 population and would consist of the entire county of Middlesex but would not include the city of London. The county area is made up of the following townships: Dorchester North, Westminster, Delaware, Caradoc, Ekfrid, Mosa, Metcalfe, Adelaide, Lobo, Williams East and Williams West, McGillivray, Biddulph, London and West Nissouri, and of course all the towns, villages and built-up areas contained within those municipalities.

In the London ridings, there would be three contained within the corporate limits of the city of London. One would be London Centre, population 74,306. It would consist of census tracts number 25, 24, 23, 33, 32, 31, 35, and 36 (west of Highbury Ave. only) and 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, and 21. London Centre is, but for census tract 21, no different from the December, 1974, commission proposal, identified at that time as “North.” Tract 21 is added to balance the population with the city’s two other tidings.

Another riding would be London North. This riding would have a population of 74,562. It, along with London South, would encircle the London Centre riding. London North consists of census tracts number 8, 9, 20, 44, 51, 50, 49, 48, 46, 47, 38, 37, 29, 28, 30, 27 and part of 36 that is east of Highbury Ave. London North differs from the December, 1974, commission proposal in that the commission called it Middlesex North at that time because it included two additional townships of the county of Middlesex. This proposal does not include the two townships of the county of Middlesex.

To balance the population, it proceeds south at its east end to acquire census tracts 30, 29, 28 and 27, that part below Dundas St. These four tracts were formerly in the riding of Middlesex South. It further differs in that it does not include tract 21 for the reasons previously enumerated in the description of London Centre.

The final riding is London South, 74,354 population. It consists of census tracts 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 26. I would implore the commission to accept that proposal, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for London South.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, the length of my remarks should not be construed as evidence of my interest in this matter. Because while my remarks may be short and even shallow, I can assure you that my interest is long and very deep. Now, I want to congratulate the commission first of all on its approach to an almost impossible task. Without fear or favour it has done the very best that three wise people could do and it has brought in a redistribution plan which is no doubt a very great improvement upon the present electoral boundaries and which is agreed to by most observers as being entirely satisfactory in many of its details. London-Middlesex, however, is an exception to that general evaluation --

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: It all depends where one is situated.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and I would like to support the detailed proposition made by the hon. member for London North. This isn’t a partisan matter. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you. Because while it’s true the commission, quite rightly, cannot and do not look at the political consequences of the changes in electoral boundaries, I myself have done so and I can assure you that the plan presented is not of particular value to our particular party. In fact, many other arrangements could be made which would be far more advantageous to the party which I have represented. -

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Nothing’s going to help the Tories the next time.

Hon. Mr. White: It’s not a partisan proposal as evidenced, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that the county council of Middlesex has supported the plan which we now offer to the commission for its consideration, as have some number of township councils. It has been supported by a number of my own acquaintances on the London city council as well as informed observers from other parts of the community. It has the full backing of the four MPPs from the area, two of whom have spoken already -- the hon. member for London North and the hon. member for Middlesex South. And I understand it will be supported by the distinguished member for Middlesex North.

What it would do, sir, is to re-establish the integrity of the Middlesex riding, which is the wish of everyone affected. It would, at the same time, provide several city ridings, each of which would have an almost identical population of about 74,000. It would provide a riding of London South almost identical to that defined by the commission itself. It would provide a London Centre riding almost identical to the so-called riding of London North, defined by the commission itself. So in many respects it coincides with the objective and learned decisions of the commission.

It does, however, have the great advantage of restoring to the county of Middlesex the prospect of having one member representing it in this chamber. This is a great advantage to the county council, to the township councils and indeed to the 59,000 people who would be in that rural riding.

The ripple effects may be touched upon by my colleague, the hon. member for Middlesex North. I can’t speak with authority on the subject, except to say that the solution proposed by the hon. member for London North would enable the commission to meet the wishes of Huron county, as I understand it, supported by the hon. member for Huron, of having a riding more or less coincident with the county itself. It would, with a few minor variations, enable the county of Bruce to have a riding more or less coincident with the county of Bruce.

Therefore, while there would be ripple effects from the suggestion we now propose, I suggest to you, sir, that those ripple effects in themselves would be an improvement. So I take great pleasure in supporting my colleagues, the hon. member for London North, and my neighbours from Middlesex North and Middlesex South, in imploring the commission to consider this proposal, which I believe, personally to be a very great improvement upon plans previously rendered.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.