Journal des débats 1985-oct-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Robert G. Elgie, MD, QC, as member for the electoral district of York East, and I have issued my warrant to the chief election officer authorizing the holding of a by-election.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome and introduce to you all the pages serving during this first part of the 1985 fall session. I would like to place their names and ridings on the record.

Patricia Agnew, Hamilton East; Lynn Bonhomme, Oriole; Maeve Gallery, Brant-Oxford-Norfolk; Chantal Cholette, Armourdale; Kristen Clarke, Timiskaming; Karen Deacon, Burlington South; Brian Dingle, Hamilton West; Katrin Dockrill, York South; Matthew Hickey, Hastings-Peterborough; David Hodge, Dovercourt; Craig Irwin, Mississauga East; Todd McRae, Durham East; Bradley Miller, Cambridge; Derek Miller, Renfrew South; Arlene Monzar, Etobicoke; Geralyn Pluim, Carleton East; James Reddy, Nipissing; Anna Sardella, Erie; Sherri Warner, Scarborough North; Jennifer Wiebe, Haldimand-Norfolk; Jody Wildman, Algoma; Michael Winters, Frontenac-Addington.

Please join me in welcoming the pages.

BLUE JAYS

Mr. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: For me, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the members of my caucus and salute the Blue Jays. I happen to be from outside Toronto, from Muskoka specifically, and therefore I can speak on behalf of all Ontario when I say not only Ontarians but Canadians are proud of the Blue Jays.

They have brought a lot of pride to this province and a lot of pride to this city. They have reached their pinnacle of success through something very important -- I am sure the Premier (Mr. Peterson) will agree -- through teamwork. That says a lot to us all, and I think they are going to go on and win because they deserve to.

My experience of playing ball is not great. You may not be surprised to know that I played right field in Bracebridge; that was because no balls ever came that way. I say to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that the Blue Jays have truly brought not only recognition to this province but also something that should avoid any tax increases in the upcoming budget. The revenues that will flow to this province in all forms, particularly some of the more liquid taxes, will undoubtedly help him a great deal.

There is another thing all of us who have been to a game, and I bet most of us have in the last while, can be proud of. I sat in a seat in section 32, just south of Steeles, the other night. I was sometimes able to see the game in front of me. There were 35,000 or more people. They not only paid great respect to the team but I was also very proud of the way they acted throughout the whole game. I think our fans have shown a measure of class in this series, and I hope and believe we are going to go on and win it all in the World Series.

Mr. Speaker: I know all members appreciate the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. However, I must say he is out of order wearing that hat in the House.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his most apt comments with respect to the Blue Jays on his point of privilege. I am sure we all share the great pride he talks about and look forward to a victory tonight. I appreciate very much the speech of the Leader of the Opposition about teamwork, although I say to him with great respect it is a speech he should have given at caucus this morning rather than in this House.

[Later]

Mr. Rae: Let me first of all make it very clear that we join with the Leader of the official Opposition in our dedication to the cause of the team with blue, white and red colours, the Blue Jays, who will be playing tonight. Dare I say, I am sure many of us will be there in one capacity or another cheering them on. I might point out that they never did this well under the Tories, and we hope they will do better today.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: History is clear. Take it from one who supported the Washington Senators during the 1950s, it is a pleasure to watch a team that has a real crack at the World Series. I know all of us will be rooting for them.

PRESENTATIONS

Mr. McKessock: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The famous McIntosh apples the members have on their desks have been brought from the largest apple-growing area of Ontario, the Georgian Bay apple-growing area of Meaford, Thornbury and Collingwood. The farmers in that area sell approximately $9 million worth each year. These apples have been brought to the members through the courtesy of Georgian Triangle Apples Ltd. of Thornbury.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In the three months since this House last met, the people of Ontario and Canada have witnessed important changes in leadership. When we last sat in this chamber, we joined in tribute to the Honourable John Black Aird as he approached the end of a highly successful term as Lieutenant Governor. While none took pleasure at the end of his tenure, I am sure all share my delight at the appointment of his successor. On behalf of the government, I would like to express in this chamber our congratulations to the Prime Minister on his excellent appointment of the Honourable Lincoln Alexander.

I would also like to extend congratulations and best wishes to our new Lieutenant Governor for the responsibility he has been entrusted with. His Honour has already demonstrated a balance of qualities that should serve him in good stead: informality leavened by dignity, self-confidence dashed by humility and recognition of the importance of the traditions on which our system of parliamentary democracy is built combined with a keen awareness that it must be able to accommodate change.

[Later]

Mr. F. S. Miller: I would like to echo the comments of the Premier and to say it is a great privilege for me to speak on behalf of our caucus in congratulating the government of Canada on the excellent choice of the new Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

Lincoln Alexander, as all of us in this House know, has had a long and illustrious record of achievement in the public life of our country and province. In his new role as Her Majesty's official representative here, I know he will excel in his commitment and dedication.

His Honour has already indicated he will bring his own distinctive touch to the office. We look forward to working with him as he carries out his duties in his own way, bringing the special warmth and commitment for which he is already well known and admired across this country.

History will record the appointment of Lincoln Alexander as Lieutenant Governor of Ontario was a breakthrough on behalf of visible minority groups in Canada. However, it also signifies the choice of a truly outstanding person, one very worthy of the onerous responsibility of representing the Queen in our province. We congratulate His Honour, and look forward to working with him throughout our province.

Mr. Rae: Let me also say how much we all in this House share the joy of the province, in having said farewell to such a fine representative of the Queen and of the people of this province as John Black Aird, how much we all share in the common pleasure of the appointment of Lincoln Alexander.

Speaking personally, I had the occasion of serving with Mr. Alexander in the House of Commons. He was an outstanding member. He was a highly regarded minister in that short-lived minority government of Joe Clark.

He has served this province with distinction, and I know he will continue to serve the province with distinction in his new role. I know as well that he will add to it the very special capacities, interests and dedication that he has, and that he will leave his mark on the job, just as Mr. Aird left his own unique mark on the responsibilities of Lieutenant Governor.

NEW PROVINCIAL LEADERS

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My first statement in this House as Premier was to note the departure of two giants from the Canadian political scene. On behalf of the government, I would now like to express congratulations and good wishes to their successors, Premier Pierre Marc Johnson of Quebec and Premier-designate Donald Getty of Alberta. As a veteran of some four months on the job, I am pleased to welcome these new members to the team.

Ontario has had disagreements in the past with the governments of both provinces, and I am sure we will not always agree in the future. That is the nature of Canada's system of government. However, change in the leadership of three provinces within four months provides an opportunity to take a fresh look at some of our common problems in a new light and to consider some possible solutions in a new spirit.

With that attitude, I look forward to meeting and working with Premier Johnson and Premier-designate Getty, along with our fellow Premiers, in the interest of our provinces and the country as a whole.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. F. S. Miller: In this age when leaders of provinces are changing with some rapidity, I was delighted to add my congratulations to Premier-designate Don Getty, with whom I worked as a minister some years ago. He served his province then and in the meantime with distinction. I have every confidence he will play a significant role as successor to Premier Lougheed.

I suspect there will be occasions when his priorities will not be the same as those of Ontario, but I have every confidence his commitment to this country will always make it possible to negotiate in a fair and positive way.

I agree with Mr. Getty that a stronger Alberta means a stronger Canada. Indeed, this country can only be strengthened by ensuring that all its regions have a strong and equal voice on behalf of the people. We wish Mr. Getty well and look forward to working with him.

It is also a great pleasure to welcome Pierre Marc Johnson as Premier of Quebec. Of course, he comes from a distinguished Canadian political family, and it must be especially gratifying to him to follow in the footsteps of his father.

As someone who has lived in Quebec, I have always taken a particular interest in the politics and development of that great province. Pierre Marc Johnson has served Quebec with great dedication as a member of the provincial cabinet, and I know all of us here in Ontario look forward to working with him towards even greater ties between his province and our own and towards an even greater Canada.

M. Rae: Laissez-moi dire, en ce qui concerne l'élection de M. Pierre Marc Johnson, que nous sommes tous dans notre parti reconnaissants de ses capacités extraordinaires comme homme politique. Nous sommes heureux, si je peux le dire, de voir un changement, un renouvellement politique dans la province de Québec et les opportunités que représente l'élection de M. Johnson.

J'ai eu l'occasion, il y a seulement deux mois, quand nous étions ensemble à Québec pour la conférence de l'Association parlementaire du Commonwealth, de rencontrer M. Johnson et de lui parler, et je sais bien que nous avons maintenant une occasion de faire un progrès important dans les négociations constitutionnelles. Je suis prêt à dire, comme chef de notre parti, que nous sommes prêts à jouer un rôle constructif dans toute négociation avec la province de Québec.

As I said to Mr. Johnson at the end of July, when I was attending the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference and I had a chance to meet with him for about half an hour, we are prepared in our party to play a constructive role in the negotiations that we know will happen under a new leadership in the province of Quebec. We see the renewal that is taking place in that province as an opportunity for us to include Quebec once and for all in the new Confederation agreement that was signed just two years ago.

We are going to have some interesting discussions with Alberta. I find it ironic that a province that declares itself in favour of free trade with the United States would find it impossible to declare free trade on natural gas prices, about which I know the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) shares some concern.

We will, of course, always have a friendly relationship with Alberta. We have some differences of opinion, which will no doubt be expressed. From time to time I have had occasion to express them myself. Nevertheless, we recognize Mr. Getty as the extraordinary Minister of Energy and Natural Resources that he was during the 1970s, and now, having been cleansed by the private sector, he will no doubt provide the leadership that Alberta so rightly expects from its Conservative Party.

We salute this process of renewal. We certainly salute with a great deal of pleasure the appointment of Lincoln Alexander, and may I say that I hope this mood of charming camaraderie continues for many years to come.

POLLS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is the government's contention that polls conducted on behalf of the government at public expense ought to be tabled and made available to all Ontarians. I am pleased to begin this tradition by tabling with the Clerk of the House several polls commissioned by the government from 1983 to the present, with four copies of each to be placed in the legislative library along with raw polling data available. Copies will also be sent to the leaders of the opposition parties, with reference copies to be placed in the press gallery.

BUDGET DATE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to advise the House that I will present the 1985 budget on Thursday, October 24, at 4 p.m., God willing.

2:20 p.m.

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Hon. Mr. Curling: As members of the House are aware, the people in the McClure Crescent area of Scarborough have been concerned for five years about living on soil containing radioactive particles.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister wait until copies of the statement are distributed?

Mr. Speaker: Will the House agree to let the minister continue?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Curling: This situation can go on no longer. The government has decided to take action now. We will offer to purchase all of the 40 privately owned properties directly affected by the soil where owners wish to relocate. The purchase price will be based on market values for similar properties in other parts of the Malvern community.

There are a further eight properties in the area that are owned by Ontario Housing Corp. and leased to families. We will give those residents the same opportunity to relocate by offering them similar accommodation elsewhere. All reasonable costs associated with moving, both for owners and for OHC residents, will be borne by the province.

I have arranged for consultants on radioactivity to meet with the owners and review with them the results of the soil survey carried out on their property. The owners will then have the option of deciding whether or not they wish to sell. The residents of the affected properties were notified of the government's decision by letter earlier today.

The properties that are purchased by the province and are within federal-provincial guidelines on levels of radiation will be offered for rent. All prospective tenants will receive a copy of the soil survey prepared on the property in question so that they will be fully informed of the circumstances before deciding whether to lease.

The government's offer to purchase the properties in the McClure Crescent area in no way reduces our determination to see the soil removed at the earliest possible time. The offer will remain open until a year after the soil is removed. In addition, I intend to keep the residents informed of the progress being made to have the soil removed.

The crucial point is that residents have not had a resolution of their concerns about living on soil containing radioactive particles. They must be given the option of relocating. I believe we now have a solution they will accept.

I will conclude by saying that this action will not prejudice the right of certain individuals to proceed with the cases currently in the courts. These suits allege that the province failed to reveal the presence of radioactive particles in the soil, and we are defending on the grounds that the province had no knowledge of the problem before selling the land. As a result, we as a province are not admitting any liability by making this proposal but are simply attempting to help resolve the concerns of residents.

SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION

Mr. Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As one of the francophone members of this Legislature, and on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Ontario, I would like to recommend the introduction of simultaneous translation as soon as possible in order that the broadcast of the sessions be equally accessible to the francophone community across Ontario. It is also important that anglophones be able to understand those members who may choose to speak French.

Si je peux me permettre une seconde pour traduire ce que j'ai dit, à peu près, en français, vous savez que quand on nous donne la chance ou le privilege -- on appelle ça soit une chance ou un privilège -- de s'exprimer soit en anglais soit en français, il est quand même très illogique de penser que nos collègues anglophones, eux, ne peuvent suivre nos discours, ne peuvent suivre nos débats, pour la simple raison que nous n'avons pas de traduction simultanée. Ce que nous demandons, en terminant, c'est que la traduction simultanée dans cette Chambre, pour le bénéfice de tous les membres, devrait se faire le plus tôt possible.

Mr. Speaker: The member makes a good point. However, it is not a point of order. It is a very good point of view.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO MINISTERS

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have a question for the Premier. In the past few months, we have heard a lot from him about open government. Would he agree that government must not only be open but also be seen to be open?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is one of the member's more penetrating insights. Obviously, he is right.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I am not sure what he said, but he seemed to say yes, so I have a supplementary. I would like to know how he is going to reconcile that answer with some of the actions that have occurred.

I am going to send him something so I can ask him a question. It is a $1,000 bill. It has a clock on it too, and the big hand is at the 12 and the little hand is at the 2. That means question period.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is it a tuna fish?

Mr. F. S. Miller: It could be just as smelly as tuna fish, let me tell the member, so do not get too quick over there.

I am intrigued by the prices on ministers: $1,000 to give advice to the Premier (Mr. Peterson); $250 to give advice to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Ms. Caplan); $250 -- it should have at least been $255 to differentiate them -- to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter); $150 to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston).

Interjections.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I would be hurt if I were the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. F. S. Miller: We will not have to stand up and ask for a question to a minister; we will just have to name the amount and they will know who it is from now on. I want to know how the Premier can reconcile his statements about open government with this tollgating action that is going on in this province.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his new use of visual aids. They are very helpful in the presentations he is making in the House.

Second, he raised an important question and I want to respond to that. It is our intention, as I have said before, to build an open government where anyone can have access to talk to ministers.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I hear some sneers across there. Some of the members who are sneering the loudest are those who should not be sneering the loudest.

I appreciate the fact that all parties are engaged in fund-raising to support the democratic process. It may have been, in some cases, that there was an impression that certain people had access and others did not. Let me tell you categorically, Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely untrue in this government. We do raise money, there is no question about that, but there is no one who has preferential treatment for any amount of money.

Mr. Speaker, you may say to me that this perhaps speaks to the need for a different approach to election expenses in this province. As you know, sir, everything we do is open and fully reportable. I appreciate the impression these things can leave. I read somewhere that the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) had a dinner at $4,000 a head. I heard that the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) --

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The Liberal Party is charging for access to ministers. The Premier should not try to confuse that with a legitimate political fund-raising dinner.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I guess what I am saying is correct then. I heard that the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick is charging people $1,000 to go to a baseball game with him. I do not know whether rain checks are being issued or not.

I have read that the honourable leader has $300,000 in his pot from the last leadership campaign and I gather he is not going to share it with any of the worthies.

All these things can perhaps leave a most unfortunate impression. If the honourable members have some ideas as to how to change the system, I would be delighted to hear them. We have pledged and are determined to bring in reforms to the Election Finances Reform Act. He may have some ideas as to how to do that.

I stand before the House and say that no one has preferential access to this government. Last week in Sault Ste. Marie I heard about the number of ministers who have been there for open consultation, listening to all points of view from all walks of life. Even though my friends opposite have a different impression, there is no preferential treatment and there never will be.

Mr. Rae: It takes Tories and Liberals to know what a $1,000 bill looks like. I do not think most Ontarians do. What I hear the Premier saying is that the people who are paying $2,000 to belong to a special economic club are wasting their money. That is an important statement. I am glad he is making that very clear. I am sure he will send it all back as a result of what he has said.

Is the Premier denying that a $2,000-a-year contribution to the Liberal Party of Ontario was said by the Liberal Party in its mailings to businesses throughout the province to admit the donors to a special economic club that would be addressed by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) with respect to economic information and would be addressed by the Premier with respect to economic events taking place in the province? Is he denying that was the proposal of the Liberal Party? If it is the case that that is being proposed, is he prepared now to disband that completely and to refund the money paid by those poor individuals who thought they were going to be able to rent some influence with the Liberal party?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will check the record. I do not believe the figure the member is referring to is $2,000, but I will have to check that. I may well be wrong. Let me stand firmly in my place to tell the member that no one can purchase influence for any amount of money, be it $1,000, $2,000 or $10,000. If anyone is under that mistaken impression, I will gladly return his cheque. If the member knows of anyone who thinks he can get influence for any amount of money, the member should tell me his name and I will clearly inform him of the truth about this government.

Mr. F. S. Miller: The answers the Premier gave had nothing to do with the question asked. His letter accompanied the request for $1,000 for the club and to have influence. Mr. Davis, myself, and previous Premiers of this province, always solicited advice without a toll gate charge; that is a fact. When we raise funds, we raise funds. We do not tie seeing a minister to give advice to asking for permission to come in on bended knee, passing our cheques forward and saying, "May we talk to you?" That is the kind of impression that came out and the Premier's letter did not help.

Is he going to instruct Mr. Smith, as he instructed one person named McGregor, that he should not go around the province doing these things? Is he going to instruct the fund-raisers for his party that he divorces himself from this kind of action and will go back to legitimate, upfront fund-raising?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have told Mr. Smith, and would tell anyone else raising money in our party, that there is no suggestion and there is to be no suggestion anywhere of any favours for any amount of money. We are clearly and absolutely against that. If the member or anyone else has any mistaken impressions, I am here to dispel them at this moment.

That being said, perhaps we have to apply our minds collectively to the Election Finances Reform Act. We are open to that. The member may have some ideas. I know he has changed the rules somewhat to accommodate his own leadership campaigns. He has juggled his own reporting on that and I appreciate he may be upset that this gives the improper impression.

Therefore, I am willing to sit down with him and all members of this House to devise a system that is fair and looks fair in every regard. I repeat to him, there is none of that in this government.

Mr. F. S. Miller: A number of his members were not applauding. I simply say a lot of people did not read it that way, nor did I.

GOVERNMENT'S COMMITMENTS

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have another question for the leader of the government.

The last election campaign saw a lot of promises made --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to hear the question.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Yes, it is a good question. It is succinct. It is a question worth listening to.

Prior to May 2, the now Premier went around this province and made a lot of promises to a lot of people to get votes. Between May 2 and May 24, his nominees made a lot of promises to the New Democratic Party to get its alliance. Let me read them:

They were going to cut taxes, eliminate Ontario health insurance plan premiums and not increase the deficit; they were going to have denticare, a half-billion-dollar housing program, a job creation program and $100 million for co-op housing. To get the NDP on side, they promised equal pay for work of equal value in all sectors, first-contract legislation and an end to extra billing.

They are backing away from all those promises. Today, after three months out there, they have brought forth one statement. That is all they have brought into this House. There is nothing of substance.

Can the Premier explain why he is running the government by smoke and mirrors and not by real programs?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am curious. The member accuses us of doing nothing in the last three months. Can he not think of a better question than that, after three months? When my friend goes back prior to May 2, and it may be very painful for him but I am quite prepared to make that trip with him, it seems to me in his throne speech, or shortly after that, he agreed with virtually everything we said, which shows the wisdom of his conversion as late in life as it was, and I am delighted to have his support on the things we talked about in the campaign.

Mr. F. S. Miller: The difference is that we do what we say and he is backing off all those promises I have mentioned.

I am going to ask a question on behalf of the leader of the NDP, because it is the kind of question he really wants to ask.

Mr. Speaker: It is a supplementary, I hope.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Let it be my supplementary. Where does the Premier really stand on the alliance? Is he going to break it, as he has been hinting to the press lately? Did he get the leader of the NDP's signature on the agreement just to get that job over there, or is he going to carry through with his promises?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, let me say I can understand the Leader of the Opposition asking questions on behalf of the NDP leader, because there is no leader directly opposite of whom one can ask a question.

Let me say to him that our party is in the process of honouring all the things we said we would do. This government has made more decisions in the last 100 days than the previous one did in many years. I remind the member of the sensitive and intelligent way my colleague the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) has handled the separate school issue, doing exactly what we said we would do, while the Leader of the Opposition did not have the guts to touch it and walked away after a year of inaction. I remind him of what has happened with the spills bill and the pop can issue. I remind him of what we have done for farmers.

I tell my friend that is just the beginning. He could take a lesson from this government. His colleague was right, he is confused and his party has lost the right to govern in this province because it still does not know what it is doing over there.

2:40 p.m.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty hearing the questions and answers. I do not know whether we can turn up the microphones. Final supplementary.

Mr. F. S. Miller: As a matter of fact, I was waiting for the final supplementary from the leader of the NDP. He obviously has not sent it over yet.

Having sat on the government benches for a day or two and having seen us come in for a fall session with our legislative program in place, when will we see the birth of the Liberal program instead of just more of the perceptual press-agentry approach?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend is having trouble phrasing that question. Let me tell him the context in which we govern. We are not looking for a Camp and Atkins to set our priorities in this government. We do not do it by polls. We have shared all that with the members. We have told them very clearly where we stand on the issues and what we are doing. We are making progress in every regard.

My colleague told the members today there will be a budget in nine days that will lay out the priorities of this province. The House will be seeing in the near future our plans with respect to youth unemployment and a variety of other things. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition even he will be astounded and he will say what a marvellous legislative program it is.

He agreed to a number of those things in his throne speech, even though he may have confused his colleague the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), who goes around the province talking about how confused he is about where the Tory party is going. We are not confused and we are willing to help out both members.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Rae: My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. I would like to ask him about equal pay for work of equal value. He will know the accord was very specific in setting out a commitment by the government to introduce legislation covering both the public and private sectors in the first session.

We then had new arrangements declared in July, that public sector legislation would be introduced, there would be a green paper and there would be private sector legislation introduced after discussion of the green paper. At that time the minister expressed the hope, and indeed the expectation, that legislation covering both sectors would be introduced in the first session. Does that commitment made in May and again in July still stand?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to thank the leader of the third party for the question. He asked me last July, "Can the minister tell us if legislation is going to be ready before the end of 1985?" Then in his best cross-examining way, he said, "Yes or no?"

I answered: "The time frame will be dictated by the amount of time expended in public consultation. It is my hope we will have legislation towards the end of the year. Bearing in mind the variable nature of the process, particularly the consultation, I cannot be absolutely assured of that. I am going to do my best to see that timetable is met." And so I am.

Mr. Rae: That was a wonderful reading of the answer the minister gave in July, and I want to congratulate him. It was read with considerable feeling, and he did it very well.

That is not what I asked him. This is a new month, and I asked him a new question. I expected an answer that might refine the previous one. A number of statements have been made. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) has made a statement. The Premier (Mr. Peterson), wandering outside in the corridors, makes a statement every three days to whomever will listen about what might or might not happen.

I have a very specific question for the minister, and I hope he will not screw it up again. The minister set out the timetable as follows: he said there would be public sector legislation, a green paper and private sector legislation. Is it still his expectation that will be the case?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I read the question and answer, so the House would know precisely what timetable I did set out. Nothing has changed, except for this: I must candidly say that in the production of the green paper we are about a week or 10 days behind the timetable I expected, but I think the House should have it before long. Nothing else has changed.

Mr. Timbrell: Can the Attorney General explain to us how he then proposes to ensure that all groups interested in this issue, be they the Equal Pay Coalition or various employers' organizations that have concerns about it, will have input publicly before any legislation comes to the House? How is he going to do that and meet his earlier commitment to the New Democratic Party and to the voters of this province to move on this issue before the end of this calendar year?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The reason I went to the trouble of reading the answer and looking it up is that I emphasized in it the importance of consultation with all groups in the community. I made it plain that the length of that consultation process would inevitably affect the introduction of the bill. If the consultation process is long because there are many groups that want to be heard, so be it. It is our intention before legislation is introduced, as I said in July, to have full consultation with all sectors of the community that want to be heard on this important issue. Why? Not just for the fun of it, but because we believe it is important to keep this commitment and to do it right.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to ask the minister when early fall is. Early fall was his commitment. What does a week beyond early fall mean? When are we going to have the green paper?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am not going to begin instructing the honourable member on when early fall is. I do not think we are actually quite into early fall yet. We think, rather, that this is an Indian summer phase, but I can assure the honourable member that before long the green paper will be unveiled to her.

Mr. Rae: So far so good. I guess some falls come earlier than others.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. He will know that every week that a ban on extra billing is delayed costs patients who are extra billed $1 million; $1 million a week, which has been calculated by the government of Canada, is what those doctors who are extra billing are charging patients. That is a loss to the Treasury of this province. It is also a loss, which can never be recovered, every week to those patients who are shelling out $1 million a week to that small minority of doctors.

The minister has had a policy in front of him for a long time. He had a commitment from his leader throughout the election campaign after the flip-flop that took place two years ago, when what was once a safety valve became a sacred commitment of the Liberal Party. What is the reason for the delay? Why is there hesitation in introducing legislation this week finally to bring an end to this disgrace of extra billing in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the leader of the third party for the question. The reason there is some delay, as he would style it, is that we are putting together a system that will deal with the realities in Ontario. As he knows, several models are available in Canada and in various other provinces. We happen to believe that in Ontario there are special circumstances that require special answers. We are not willing, as this particular group across the way is, to adopt willy-nilly the suggestions from other jurisdictions without taking into consideration the considerable input the public has to offer us with respect to reasonable compensation in making the best health care delivery system available to the people of the province.

I understand his desire to move very quickly with this, but if the job is worth doing, it is worth doing well. I am determined to make the best program available to the people of the province that we possibly can have.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The minister knows full well that delay is the friend of reaction and delay is the enemy of reform. It is as clear as that. If the minister wants to consult, and no one objects to consultation, why does he not introduce legislation indicating what direction the government intends to go, refer it to a committee of the Legislature and let the committee do its job, which is to listen to the groups that have concerns about how it is being done?

Why does he not at least tell us where and how he stands, when 70 per cent of the people polled in a poll released today say they are in favour of an end to extra billing? Why is he delaying? It has been ended in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Quebec and the Yukon. Why should Ontario lag so far behind when the government has a clear political mandate to get off its duff and do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The leader of the third party will understand well that there is a commitment on the part of this government to take the steps that are necessary. Of course, if a difficulty should arise, he will be the first to criticize, along with all his colleagues. I am going to the public to talk to the various health care providers in this great province of ours as to what can best be done to ensure we have a quality system of delivery of care. We have a mandate to be absolutely sure we have the best system.

The honourable gentleman just named several provinces. None of those provinces has exactly the same system, which reflects the fact that the medical practitioners in the various provinces have different styles of delivery. In this province we have a particular composition of medical practitioners. We have to take into account the circumstances that make up the delivery of health care services in this province. I am determined to listen to the people, to consult and to find out exactly how they want us to put the details of the program in place.

He has asked for an opportunity for a committee of the Legislative Assembly to participate in the deliberations on that legislation. I am prepared to allow that to go ahead. In fact, I think it is mandatory that it occur, In addition, I would like to point out that those individuals who wish to make haste on this very important item have yet to submit to me their detailed program so that I can review it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elston: They should send it all over. They are the ones who want this to be done in a hurry. They should send over their suggestions. I am open for all their suggestions.

Mr. Grossman: I might remind the Minister of Health, while he is pointing out the importance of caution before proceeding, that he and his leader agreed unequivocally and without exception to ban extra billing. He said that to the public and to the New Democratic Party, and that is why he has his job today. This forum is no place for him to be lecturing on the importance of consultation before proceeding on extra billing.

I understand that at Action Centre last week the minister asked the district health councils to assist in arranging and co-ordinating public meetings at which the public could come and discuss the problems of extra billing. I want to put it to the minister that the district health councils have been very important vehicles in building up public consultation and in being arbitrators in the health care system by bringing together people in the system to work together -- doctors, other providers, hospitals and consumers, all working together.

I put it to the minister that in the name of phoney consultation he will destroy the district health council movement by putting it right in the middle of a fight in the health care system between doctors and patients and between doctors extra billing and doctors not extra billing. Why has the minister chosen to destroy the district health council movement in order to save face in backing out on his promises on extra billing?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As usual, the former minister, who is often wont to quote Joan Charboneau and other right-wing members of the medical profession in accusing opted-in physicians of being less than adequate in the delivery of their services, as he did earlier in the session, is off the mark again.

The reason health councils have been asked to facilitate the discussion in public is precisely that I think they are the best forum in which an even-handed discussion can be held. They will open it up for all of the public right around the communities in this province to discuss this issue. I have not asked the district health councils for their recommendations. I have asked them actually to tabulate the various comments which are made during the discussions fostered by the open forum.

We will take very seriously the recommendations generated from the preliminary sessions, which will not be recommendations of the councils but of those attending these very public community forums, and we will use those to develop our legislation. We have developed the best mode in which we as a government can be very open and precise as to exactly how sensitive this issue is for the people of Ontario.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I must agree with the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) that using the district health councils is a totally inappropriate method to get consultation on this issue. We have been debating extra billing in this province since the Ontario health insurance plan was brought in. The reason the government is holding back is the doctors. There is a consensus in this province in which 70 per cent of the people support a ban on extra billing. Why does the minister not put the interest of the ordinary people ahead of the doctors and ban extra billing in this session of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is not uncommon for the member opposite not to understand what public consultation is. This is a very delicate matter. It is one in which we have to take the time to be absolutely sure of the various details in the legislation. Those individuals across the way would be the first to criticize us if we brought in an incomplete package of programs. They can provide me with some of their inputs, and I will welcome it.

I have met with the member opposite to discuss the opportunities that are available. I think we are doing the appropriate thing. We are doing the absolute, necessary thing when we find the Ontario Medical Association will not discuss the issue with us. We have to reach out to ensure we get the appropriate information and put together a package which is absolutely the best for the people of the province.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Timbrell: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I would have posed it to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) or the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who is responsible for overseeing that ministry, but given the nonanswers earlier today I thought perhaps I would put it to the Minister of Housing, who I know will give us an honest assessment.

In light of the fact that recent statements from leading representatives of the building industry completely discredit his assertion that the new government's housing policies will lead to more rental accommodation being built in 1986, can he tell us by how much he intends to ask the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to increase the budget of the Ministry of Housing to allow for the fact the government will now be virtually the sole source of financial capital for new housing in Ontario?

Can he also tell us the additional social costs for the thousands of men and women in the trades and related industries whose jobs will be in jeopardy as a result of the policies of this government, which will lead to less rental housing and not more?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thank the member for the confidence he places in me. I will respond to his questions by saying I did not realize the government was the sole source of supplying affordable homes. When I speak with developers, they say to me the private sector is willing to join with the government, the public sector, in producing affordable homes. At the moment we are working on a housing policy which will possibly have incentives that will encourage both public and private sectors to build together.

3 p.m.

Mr. Timbrell: Do I take it then that the minister is confirming my worst suspicion, namely, that there will not be a single rental unit constructed in Ontario in 1986 without significant government subsidies or tax breaks, that the government is in effect telling the private sector there is no room for it to invest in rental housing in Ontario, but it must do it in concert with the government? Is that the minister's position?

Hon. Mr. Curling: That is not the position at all, as the member knows. I will confirm to the member that the private sector told me it would build --

Some hon. members: It has not.

Mr. Brandt: That is not true. Name one builder.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member may have been speaking to the wrong developers. We have had encouraging talks with many of the developers --

Mr. Bennett: Which one?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Everyone.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: As a matter of fact, many of the developers who spoke to me told me they had been building in the country for the past 10 years and had never met a Minister of Housing. I was very shocked by that. It seems to me there are many developers who are willing to build.

Mr. Timbrell: You cannot name a single builder who is building.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: I have a supplementary to the questions of the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), who is the only Minister of Housing in Ontario's history who never built a single, solitary house.

Interjections.

Mr. Timbrell: On a point of privilege: I invite the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) to check the public record for that short period during which I was responsible for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. He will find a number of housing projects were approved during that time, as well as a number of ministry housing policies.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Timbrell: But this minister cannot name one builder who is going to build --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member will address his supplementary through the chair.

Mr. McClellan: I am sorry I provoked that outburst.

The minister has had more than ample time since he was sworn in to develop the details of Ontario's housing supply program. Can he tell me when he intends to have the details complete? He has shared a draft proposal, but time is passing. When does he intend to have the program in place? When does he intend to announce the allocation of housing units for 1985?

Hon. Mr. Curling: At the moment we are working on a housing policy that will address the shortage of affordable housing in Ontario. In the very near future, we will have a policy the member can look at.

Mr. Mitchell: Early fall.

Mr. McClellan: Early fall? When is early fall? It sounds like "the fullness of time."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NURSING HOME INSPECTIONS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Health regarding the tragic deaths that occurred at the Extendicare London Nursing Home. I would like to read Dr. Korn's report, which the minister made public last week in London:

"The lunch menu for September 5 consisted of turkey, ham and cheese sandwiches. They were prepared in a temporary kitchen, probably before 10:30 a.m. The ham was prepared first, the turkey second and the cheese third. Because of the lack of refrigeration space, it is unlikely that they were refrigerated before serving."

Was this procedure consistent with the compliance plan the nursing home had filed as a result of problems in the kitchen and the use of a temporary kitchen? Will the minister table the compliance plan with the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not have the compliance plan here. I can check with my officials with respect to that plan. The item, as reported by the member, basically sets out the problems that were revolving around the changeovers from the temporary kitchen facilities to the permanent facility, which had been reconstructed as a result of inspections.

I will look into the possibility of filing the compliance plan with the House.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: In the statement he gave in London last week, the minister said, "As a result of the recent experience, I have directed that both the inspection systems" -- being the public health unit's and the ministry's -- "be closely examined for their thoroughness and effectiveness. Further, in order to improve our inspection capacity, the two systems have to be charged to develop formal liaison relationships and work more closely together in the inspection process."

Is it not clear to the minister, in the light of this very tragic incident and other incidents that have occurred in the province, that there is something very wrong with our inspection process in Ontario? During the time when a temporary kitchen was being used, why were the inspectors not in there almost on a daily basis to protect the residents of this nursing home? If he agrees there is something very seriously wrong with the inspection process in this province, how long will we have to wait for this reform and how long will nursing home residents have to wait to be properly protected?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have moved very quickly to co-ordinate the inspection facilities between the public health unit and the Ministry of Health nursing homes branch. I found there was no co-ordination between them and no sharing of the reports, and I have directed that to take place. Both things have been done immediately, and we are improving our inspection services almost on a daily basis.

I thank the member for these questions, because it is a concern I share with him that we protect the citizens who are resident in our nursing homes. We are moving to do a number of things to improve the inspection services available to the nursing homes.

APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

Mrs. Marland: I am encouraged to hear the response from the Minister of Housing this afternoon since my question is addressed to him. He said he has been having encouraging talks with the development industry. Obviously, he has acknowledged the important role that the development industry and the private developers in the province have in addressing the problem of rental housing supply.

Does the minister realize he has undermined his own credibility and the impartiality of his office by appointing to his staff, as his executive assistant, Sean Goetz-Gadon, a former director of law reform for the Metro Tenants' Legal Services and a former secretary of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations? Can the minister tell us how his executive assistant can be impartial in his very important position in his office?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am quite surprised the member would pose a question like that. In our government we appoint people by credibility and by their professional ability. Mr. Goetz-Gadon is quite a competent individual. Whether he was a lobbyist for the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations was not one of the criteria on which I appointed him. He has tremendous ability in this regard. He takes housing very seriously and he was the best talent available at the time.

Mrs. Marland: Will the minister explain his defence of Mr. Goetz-Gadon's residence in a co-operative housing unit while his salary exceeds $40,000? It seems the minister's indifference to the sensibility of landlords and developers is at least matched by his indifference to the sensibilities of low-income earners in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The first question and the second question have the same taste to them. Because an individual improves his lot does not necessarily mean he should move. I understand Mr. Goetz-Gadon pays full rent in the co-op in which he lives and is not subsidized in any way. Is the member suggesting he should move because he receives a salary over $40,000 while paying the full rental charged?

3:10 p.m.

INDIAN LAND AGREEMENT

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Attorney General regarding negotiations for compensation for members of the Whitedog and Grassy Narrows Indian bands near Kenora. Given the fact that this specific and particular incident of mercury pollution ranks among the worst social crimes ever committed in Ontario, what we may have noticed -- I choose my words carefully -- is nothing short of systematic negligence for the mere sake of a buck.

This incident dates back to 1970. We fully realize that patience is a virtue, and furthermore we realize the future can last a long time. Can the Attorney General give us his assurance that a settlement is imminent so we can at long last compensate our first Canadians?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to tell my friend and the House that I share the characterization of the incident he has advanced. The pollution in this case occurred in 1970. The negotiations began in 1978. By May 1985, virtually nothing had happened to advance them. This government has given those negotiations a very high priority. We are close to a settlement, and I hope to be able to make an announcement in the House shortly. I do not want to say anything further because, as I said, no settlement has yet been achieved. There are seven parties. We hope to have a settlement shortly.

Mr. Pouliot: While it is not our intention to jeopardize the delicate negotiations that are going on, can the minister give us a date?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to be able to help my friend by giving him a date, but as he understands, in negotiations one cannot give a date; it depends on the consent of six or seven other people.

Mr. Sterling: Although the Attorney General characterizes movement in negotiations as starting after May 1985, is it not true that Mr. Jacobsen of the Ministry of the Attorney General was appointed by myself when I was Provincial Secretary for Resources Development in the summer of 1984, when negotiations started to come together and when the parties were put together in serious negotiations? Is it fair for the minister to characterize all the movement as having taken place after May 1985?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Jacobsen, a crown law officer in the Ministry of the Attorney General, was appointed to conduct these negotiations. The point I made was that no headway had been made in them. Mr. Jacobsen is a very competent and skilled negotiator and was working against serious obstacles. We hope some headway now can be made. We have been devoting a lot of effort to this over the past three or four months. As my friend knows, there can be few issues that are more important to the native people of Ontario than the settlement of this very difficult case.

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Ferraro: I have a question for the Minister of Education. As he is no doubt aware, the teacher's strike in Wellington county, affecting approximately 8,200 students and their families, is entering its 21st day. Having personally heard the concerns of hundreds of parents, students and community leaders in my riding, can the minister advise my constituents of his position on the matter?

Hon. Mr. Conway: At the outset, I want to indicate to my colleague the member for Wellington South that I very much share his concern and the concerns of the 8,200 secondary school students in the affected area.

I want to say to the member, and through him to the people of Wellington county, that it is my strongly held position that the best resolution of this situation is a locally negotiated settlement. In a strong and clear way, I encourage both parties, the board and the teachers' federation, to return to the bargaining table to achieve the best possible solution, which I repeat is a locally negotiated settlement.

Mr. Ferraro: Being fully aware of the procedures outlined in Bill 100, can the minister tell me and my constituents what plans or agenda he has in store to resolve this serious problem in the short term?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member will know that Bill 100 provides for a very clear procedure and timetable. The Education Relations Commission is monitoring the situation in Wellington county on a regular basis and is reporting to me almost daily. I repeat that my very strong preference and expectation is that, in the interests of those 8,200 secondary students in Wellington County, both the board and teachers' federation will return to the table and negotiate a local solution.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On the very point of a locally negotiated settlement, could the Minister of Education not use his good offices to encourage both parties to sit down and see if they can reach a settlement before it goes much further?

Hon. Mr. Conway: My colleague from Mount Forest will know, from almost 10 years' experience, that the previous government had a lot of experience in Renfrew county, where a dispute at the secondary level was allowed to go on for 44 days in 1978. I repeat that the procedures of Bill 100 are quite clear; I am monitoring the situation very carefully through the Education Relations Commission, and I will continue to do so.

NORDEV PROGRAM

Mr. Bernier: Before asking a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines, I want to recognize the comment of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) with respect to the settlement of the Grassy Narrows problem. I look forward to his early statement in the Legislature.

Turning to the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines, I point out that all of us in the House, as late as last June, were aware that the northern Ontario regional development program was running out of funds. We were all aware at that time that this party, when it had the authority and was on that side of the House, made a firm commitment to add another $10 million to that very popular program to assist in the economic development of northern Ontario.

My question to the minister is, why has the present Liberal government not lived up to this important economic development commitment that should have been made? Why has his ministry continued to accept applications when he knows full well the cupboard is bare?

Why has the minister deserted northern Ontario? As he knows, the four-month delay in answering the need by coming up with a new program will delay economic development and construction, which will produce needed jobs in the region, for at least a year. We do not want any more studies. We do not want expressions of concern. We want action.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: What is the member talking about? Je ne peux pas comprendre, parce que ce n'est pas moi qui ai laissé les tiroirs vides. It is not I who left those cupboards empty. It must be him.

First, I signed some Nordev grants not too long ago. I approved several more this week, and I will approve some more tomorrow. I invite my northern business friends to continue to make applications.

There will be some new programs fairly soon, and they will be my programs, not his, because we are a new government. We are here to change and we are going to change a few things. I know it is a good program, but still, we are Liberals and we are going to do what is best for us and for the people of northern Ontario.

The member knows quite well, from my visits to the north all summer, I never spoke against this program and I will fight for it. However, maybe I will give it another name.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Pierce: Recognizing that the Nordev program has provided much-needed industry and jobs in northwestern and northern Ontario, and knowing that the Nordev committee has not sat since July, are we to assume that only the minister is making the decisions about where the money will be allocated? Given the fact that there is more than $2.5 million awaiting approval subject to the funding, can the minister tell us today that this money is now available and that the doors for applications should be opened again?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: It is I who control the doors, not them. The doors are open and we are processing applications. It is not my fault if there were summer holidays and the people could not come all the time. Now that some people are working for the new leadership, maybe they have no time to look through those applications.

As the member knows, we did not change all on the board. They are the same people who were named by a member of the opposition. They are working at it. I saw my friends from Nordev a few weeks ago and they are working at it today and tomorrow, and they will meet in the next two weeks too. The member should not worry.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister assure us that in considering and approving Nordev grants, and whatever new programs he is about to announce for funding development in northern Ontario, that the decisions will not be made on the basis of what is good for the Liberal Party, but on the basis of equitable sharing of funds across the north and on the basis of need in the various ridings across northern Ontario that share these programs?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I am committed, as I was all through the summer, to the idea that we are going to treat everybody as equal. I do not care whether they vote New Democrat, Liberal, Conservative or Communist.

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the moosetario lottery, which is rapidly becoming the moose-Kerrio lottery.

Is the minister aware that some ministry moose biologists are allocating fewer adult bull and cow moose hunting tags in their wildlife management units than the computer projection allows for? If he is aware of that, can he inform members whether his ministry thinks the computer program upon which the lottery system is based is inadequate and whether the ministry is prepared to re-evaluate its effectiveness?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I thank the member for the question. The biggest problem we have in the ministry has to do with the public not being willing to accept many of the biologists' assessments, whether in the wildlife or the fish areas. With the greatest respect to those who are posing the question, I am inclined to believe, until it is proved different, that the biologists are doing an excellent job in the ministry.

They have agreed it is better to take calves in larger proportions than the bull moose, which is next on the list, as the member knows. I am very willing to take into account the question the member has raised and put it to the people who come to these conclusions. I will tell them of the member's concern. I am willing to do what is in the best interest of conserving our game and using it to the best assessment of the whole province.

Mr. Wildman: The minister did not exactly answer the question. If he has confidence in the biologists' assessment of the moose herd, is he saying the biologists who are not following the computer projection doubt the computer program? If that is the case, is he going to re-evaluate the whole program on which the lottery system is based and which the hunters have agreed to accept? If he does, when will that re-evaluation be completed and can he assure us there will be the allocated number of tags that the computer program says should be available?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am willing to look into the matter the member has raised. The Ministry of Natural Resources wants to maximize the full use of our forest resources, whether for timber, wildlife or whatever. I guess what the member is saying is that we have not analysed the position as it exists now. I am willing to say I am prepared to look into that matter and get back to the member specifically about that part of his question.

Mr. Harris: Is the minister saying he disagrees with his biologists' assessment of the wildlife in the units? Did I understand him to say he has reason to doubt the biologists' assessment of the number of animals in the various units?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, that is not what I said. I said the biggest problem in this ministry -- and the member opposite should know, because he was there -- is that those people who are fishing commercially, hunting or whatever, disagree with our biologists. It is a hurdle we must get over together, because if we do not find an alternative way we are always going to be at odds.

As I said, with commercial fishermen, hunters and fishermen it is one of the single most difficult questions to answer. I am proposing that before too long I am going to answer that very important question.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Treleaven: I wish to present a petition from St. Mary's Woodstock Council 8552 of the Knights of Columbus regarding separate school funding. This petition contains 246 names.

I also wish to present a petition from the Knights of Columbus Council 3515, Our Lady of Perpetual Help, on the same subject, which contains 417 names.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if I could ask for a little more quiet from the members if they are going to leave the chamber.

Mr. Laughren: I have a petition from a number of good citizens from the Lively area, which just happens to be in the riding in which I live. It is a petition concerning the extension of funding to the separate school system and a request that there be a referral to the courts, which of course has been done, and further debate, which is also being done.

M. Morin: Je présente à cette Assemblée une pétition qui réclame le parachèvement des écoles séparées. Elle contient les signatures de 317 paroissiens et paroissiennes de la paroisse Notre Dame de Lourdes de Cyrville.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions, pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 12, 1985, presented the committee's 10th report and moved that its recommendations be adopted.

Mr. Breaugh: Just to assist the members, this review of agencies was actually conducted by the previous committee. It happened to get caught between elections, so we were pleased to revive it and are happy to present it to the House today.

This is a review of the Geoscience Research Review Committee, the Fire Code Commission, the Travel Industry Compensation Fund Board of Trustees, the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship Selection Board, the Ontario Drainage Tribunal, the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, the Licence Suspension Appeal Board, the Assessment Review Board and the Health Disciplines Board.

I imagine this will evoke some comment from other members and we anticipate having a debate and a vote on this matter at some later time.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions, pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 12, 1985, presented a report on television coverage of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly and moved that its recommendations be adopted.

Mr. Breaugh: It is a pleasure to present this. Many of us have been around the assembly for some time and know this has been debated a lot. We finally have it at a point where a group of legislators did a lot of work this summer researching exactly how we might proceed with the introduction of what some refer to as an electronic Hansard, but which is really the provision of television coverage of the proceedings of the House in a proper, regular and formulated manner.

I will make a couple of distinctions and then I would like to move the adjournment of the debate because I am aware other members want to participate. I believe we are going to get the opportunity to do that on Thursday night.

I want to pay tribute to the staff and the members of the committee who, while others were enjoying the Blue Jays all summer long, sat in hard, earnest work day after day putting together a report that in other jurisdictions was done in a slightly different way. We had the advantage of being able to see what other jurisdictions had done with televising their proceedings and we had the opportunity to use the expertise for which others had perhaps paid a higher price.

We have produced a report that may not please everyone, but it does cover the basics and provides something many of us have worked towards for a long time; that is, the formal introduction of television coverage of the proceedings of this Legislature. We think in large measure it will do the people of Ontario some good. It is not to be interpreted as providing some new form of entertainment. It is an information service we think should be available to every citizen of Ontario.

I should point out that although there were some on the committee who were not terribly happy with the idea of televising the proceedings, by taking away the question of whether we should televise the proceedings and moving to the question of how we would do it, when we got to the report stage we were able to come up with a unanimous committee report, which we always try to do in this committee.

I want to congratulate the members, and the staff in particular, who spent their time this summer putting the report together.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This is not a motion. For reasons that are not clear to me, it has been agreed on all sides that the House will not sit tonight and we will adjourn at six.

Mr. McClellan: No business.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There is plenty of business.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the House not sit in the chamber on Wednesday, October 16, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that, notwithstanding standing order 64(a) and any previous order of the House, private members' public business not be considered until Thursday, October 31, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on resources development be authorized to meet on the morning of Thursday, October 17, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that this House endorses the following schedule for committee meetings during this session:

The standing committee on social development may meet on the afternoons of Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The standing committee on resources development may meet on the evenings of Tuesdays and Thursdays. The standing committee on general government may meet on Wednesday afternoons. The standing committee on administration of justice may meet on Thursday afternoons and Friday mornings.

On Wednesday mornings, no more than two of the following committees may meet without leave of the House: administration of justice, general government and resources development.

The following committees may meet on Thursday mornings: procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions, public accounts, and regulations and private bills. The standing committee on members' services may meet on Thursday afternoons.

Hon. Mr. Nixon also moved that the standing committee on social development be authorized to meet as it sees fit until the completion of public submissions on Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act, and that no standing or select committee may meet while the House is in session except in accordance with this schedule or as ordered by the House.

Mr. Gregory: For clarification, may I ask the government House leader if that is exactly the same procedure we were following before as far as the timetable is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is exactly. There is permission within that long motion to allow the resources development committee to meet to complete its work on workers' compensation. I think that is the only difference and it is for only one day.

Mr. Gregory: I heard him mention that a select committee has permission to sit. There was to be a provision that it be with the agreement of the three party whips.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am not certain. I thought that was during the summer months, but I know that, as usual, we are counting on agreement among the three party whips and House leaders for any aberrations in the schedule that require ironing out. I hope we can continue to do that.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

404 K-W WING ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. Barlow moved, seconded by Mr. McCaffrey, first reading of Bill Pr22, An Act to revive the 404 K-W Wing Royal Canadian Air Force Association.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT

Mr. Callahan moved, seconded by Mr. D. R. Cooke, first reading of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Brampton.

Motion agreed to.

3:40 p.m.

BELLEVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT

Mr. Pollock moved, seconded by Mr. Villeneuve, first reading of Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Belleville General Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. McCaffrey moved, seconded by Mr. Barlow, first reading of Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

BALFOUR BEACH ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. McCaffrey moved, seconded by Mr. Barlow, first reading of Bill Pr30, An Act to revive the Balfour Beach Association.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Charlton moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, first reading of Bill Pr41, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS REDISTRIBUTION (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Speaker: As I recall, the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) was speaking.

Mr. Mitchell: I am on the list for today, I hope, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. The member for Carleton.

Mr. Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breaugh: Wait; we should rotate.

Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry?

Mr. McClellan: We do not have any problem with that. Please continue.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, we are going to redistribute the speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will acknowledge anyone who is on the floor.

Mr. Mitchell: I am pleased to be able to have at least a few moments to discuss the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission and its report and to discuss some of the actions it has taken or recommended. In my opinion, it has taken or recommended actions while operating in a vacuum and totally ignoring the terms of reference it established for itself.

I had the opportunity of attending the hearings held in Ottawa, where I and many other representatives from eastern Ontario, from municipalities and others, made representation to the commission as to proposed changes that might take place. Instead of dealing with the presentations made to it, the commission -- at least in this humble person's opinion -- chose to use only the one criterion it had established, which meant all to it, and ignored every other flaming issue or criterion that it had established. It dealt with only one thing, and that was the issue of population.

If one looks at the riding of Carleton, I always take care to say to whoever represents the riding of Carleton, or the cities of Nepean and Kanata, that because of the homogeneity that exists between the two municipalities and the easy access between them, the riding as it is now established is easy to traverse. It is easy to get from point A to point B. As a result, it is a good area to be able to represent. I know even my colleague on the other side, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), would recognize that from his days on regional council. He is not paying any attention.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Yes, I am.

Mr. Mitchell: He is. Okay.

Earlier this afternoon I saw some representatives of the commission in the gallery, but I guess they do not feel it is too important to hear any more advice being given, because they appear to have departed. At least I do not see them up there.

I will read from its own handbook some of the criteria the commission established. They include community or diversity of interest; means of communication; topographical features; population trends -- that is one they underlined and said it had to be dealt with; the varying conditions and requirements dealing with representation; the existing boundaries of municipalities or wards; the existing and traditional boundaries of electoral districts; and special geographic considerations. If one looks at Ottawa-Carleton, in particular at the riding of Carleton, the commission totally ignored that.

Let us deal with some of those issues, such as community or diversity of interest. They have taken a section of the riding of Carleton and they are now going to add it on to a riding that is more involved with the major urban area of Ottawa-Carleton, that is the city of Ottawa. That area is different in many ways from the city of Nepean. It is an area where they look at things differently and where communications for the residents of Nepean who are now in that riding -- I am dealing now with the criterion of communications -- will be made much more difficult.

When the commission did that, it totally ignored the main topographical feature of that area, which is the Rideau River. They might as well have said: "That river does not exist. We are just going to play games to get the right numbers and the heck with it." A colleague of the members opposite, the gentleman who was my opponent during the recent election, wrote to me. I forget his exact words, but his feeling was -- and I stand to be corrected as I am interpreting from memory -- that the people in Nepean who were going to be severed were going to feel like second-hand citizens.

The commission has gone ahead and ignored its own criteria as to representation in wards and other such matters. I stand to be corrected because a long time has passed since we first started this, but they ignored a recommendation proposed by the city of Nepean, and I believe even by their own returning officer for that area, that to serve the people better it would probably be more prudent to separate the city of Nepean on a north-south basis and allow Nepean to have two representatives in the provincial Legislature.

3:50 p.m.

I would be the first to acknowledge, and I have expressed this to the mayor of the city of Kanata, that if one looks at the map of the riding of Carleton, the city of Kanata portion that is attached to the riding of Carleton seems like an appendage which really is not functional. I say this quite clearly and, in fact, council would support it.

As the member, I believe I have represented the area well and that the people there feel I have represented it well. But I suppose logic would tell you that this portion of the riding of Carleton would perhaps be better in the future as a riding on its own or attached to a riding that, to use again the words of the criteria of the commission, has more community or diversity of interest.

They have ignored all of that. The commission carried out hearings in the various areas of the province to provide some way for the people to feel they had been legitimately heard, and then it politely ignored them. In fact, what it did and what it is proposing in the latest one, if I understand it correctly -- and I admit I am perhaps reading it wrong, but I do not believe so -- is a reversal of what it had suggested on the first one.

Population trend seemed to be the criterion that was almighty. If the commission had taken all those criteria it had established for itself and had applied them to the decisions it has been making in its recommendations, I question how many of the changes it is suggesting would hold water.

I know many members want to speak on this particular issue. Frankly, it is my feeling as a member standing here that perhaps we should have abolished the commission and should have tried to start over again, maybe with a group that might listen. With all respect to the honourable learned gentlemen who were members of the commission, I really fail to believe that it listens.

Mr. Sargent: Is the member for it or against it?

Mr. Mitchell: What does the member think? I am glad to see he is wearing his iridescent tie today. The member for York South (Mr. Rae) wants it.

I really feel strongly that the commission should be directed to review again all it has done and, while doing so, to apply its own criteria. If that were done, I am sure the changes it is proposing would not occur. As a final suggestion from this member representing the riding of Carleton, if changes must be made, if changes are to be made, then use the criteria, allow the riding of Carleton to be represented by two members, allow the riding to maintain a community of interest and allow the other factors that are so important to the people of Carleton to hold sway.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The member for Bellwoods next, is it?

Mr. McClellan: No. One of my colleagues wants to speak, but I do not know whether he wants to speak right now. If he is not quite ready, we are prepared to give up our spot in the rotation.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Turner: Is he in favour?

Mr. Sargent: I am the guy.

Mr. Barlow: Is he for it or against it?

Mr. Sargent: I am sure as hell against this.

I welcome this chance to express my very firm opposition on behalf of the riding now known as Grey-Bruce, which will disappear in the plan submitted for our approval.

The member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) was singing the blues over there. Hell, it was Tory gerrymandering that brought this thing before us here. I do not know why they are crying over there.

This is not the first time this has happened in Ontario politics. About 20 years ago in my riding, when I first came on the scene here Ross Whicher, the then sitting member for Bruce, had to retire before the restructuring, and at that point I thought that was gerrymandering too. They got rid of Ross Whicher by this type of legislation.

It is no secret the farmers of Ontario are in for a hell of a time and that the former Conservative government was doing very little about it or for them. Every other province in Canada was enacting legislation to help farmers survive. For years the former government had ignored any meaningful support for farmers. The fact that agri-industry comprises less than four per cent of the voting power in Ontario is probably why it has no clout at the ballot box. This legislation takes power away from the farmers.

If this proposed plan comes into effect it will further reduce the farmer's stability.

Mr. Turner: Then change it.

Mr. Sargent: I am going to try, with the support of the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner).

There will be fewer seats in the Legislature to speak for the farmer. In effect, he will be a voice in the wilderness. This plan will reduce rural seats in the House, many currently held by Liberal members. Who will then speak for the farmers? It is a certainty the former government would do nothing for them. To bring in this bill would further reduce the clout of the farmers. Conceivably, the net result is that people in these areas will lose their representation at Queen's Park.

I said publicly it is gerrymandering and I think it is time all members took a stand to vote down this legislation. It would mean the elimination of six seats, three of them at present held by Liberal government members.

Mr. Turner: How many?

Mr. Sargent: Three. I think I can say the Conservative Party was in charge of the restructuring here by the appointment of the commission.

There is a motion to the effect that: "Pursuant to the order of the House on November 30, 1984, consideration be given by the House to an adoption of the provisions of the report of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission, respecting the electoral districts of Huron, Bruce, Grey and Middlesex on the grounds set forth hereinafter:

"That the commission was insufficiently guided by the items which were set out in the terms of reference dated June 16, 1983, amended November 30, 1984, set out in resolutions as items A to B in setting up the electoral districts of Huron, Bruce, Grey and Middlesex.

"This commission failed to give adequate consideration to the representations made to it to maintain the historic representation provided to represent the rural constituencies in the counties of Huron, Bruce and Grey in the past.

"The elimination of one riding in the Huron, Bruce, Grey and Middlesex areas would seriously erode rural representation in the Legislative Assembly."

The commission did not redistribute the populations equally across the province, in that rural ridings in central and eastern Ontario would be smaller than the proposed Grey, Bruce and Huron ridings. For example, my riding has 52,000 votes now and this redistribution would give it 75,000.

The undersigned members may consider other objections in order to carry out the resolution in question. They are as follows: The member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston), the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer), the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) and the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Poirier).

Without further belabouring the House with my views, I think it is time we had strong representation in this House, and I hope this redistribution commission report will be defeated in this House.

4 p.m.

Mr. Shymko: I am very pleased to participate in this debate and to join other members of the Legislature who have serious concerns about the present proposal, or what I would term the second proposal of the electoral commission, to make some historic changes in the present boundaries that will have a major impact not only on the socioeconomic nature of the ridings but also over the next 10 years when it is hoped the electoral commission will again be contemplating some changes.

In 1984, all of us received the excellent three-volume publication entitled Legislators and Legislatures of Ontario, beginning in 1792 and proceeding to 1984. It is a publication of historic significance. In looking up the history and the changes of our boundaries, we perceive one common denominator, namely, the demographic societal changes in this great province of ours, beginning in Upper Canada at a time when this country began to grow and prosper as a nation. At that time they were contemplating changes not only in the population trends of our country but also in the political setup.

These changes reflect certain criteria that had been established within the confines of the Representation Act and the terms of the orders of the House. To see a reversal of the trends that began in 1792, changes of boundaries that reflected the wisdom of the people who made up that commission, to see a sudden reversal of boundaries back 50 or 100 years does not make any sense to me.

My fundamental objection is to the second proposal of the commission in terms of what it does to my riding. If we look at the history of my riding, Toronto West was a term describing historically the present riding of High Park-Swansea. It was established in 1867 and eliminated in 1885. The Toronto West riding was re-created in 1894 and ended in 1914. For a period of approximately 10 years, until 1925, Toronto West did not exist.

In April 1908, a specific reference is made to Toronto West, describing the historic riding of High Park-Swansea. It consisted of all parts of the city west of Palmerston Avenue and Tecumseth Street. The eastern boundary of my riding at the time was Palmerston Avenue, which I believe is in the middle of the riding of Bellwoods. Imagine the great riding of High Park-Swansea in those days having its eastern boundary at Palmerston Avenue, right in the middle of Bellwoods! In those days, the western boundary of the riding was the western boundary of the city, which was Lansdowne Avenue.

A reference in May 1914 describes the riding in still different categories. The eastern boundary of the great riding now known as High Park-Swansea -- it was called Toronto Northwest in those days -- was Spadina. Imagine Spadina being its eastern boundary! College Street was the southern boundary and Lansdowne Avenue was the western boundary.

A major change occurred on April 14, 1925, a change described in these historic volumes.

In 1933, a change moves the entire riding, called High Park for the first time, from Lansdowne westward. We see a westward switch. High Park's boundary on the east is Lansdowne Avenue, proceeding to what was then the Canadian Northern Railway tracks, now the CN-CP railway tracks. In 1933, more than 52 years ago, the riding called High Park consisted on the east side of Lansdowne Avenue and on the west side of the Canadian Northern Railway.

Suddenly, some 20 years later, on April 6, 1954, we see a further change where the entire boundary moves to the CN-CP railway tracks, a further extension westward. On July 8, 1966, Lansdowne ceases to be the eastern boundary. What used to be the western boundary of the CN-CP railway tracks, now becomes the eastern boundary again, and the western boundary is now Jane Street and the westerly limits of the great park in the city of Toronto; namely, High Park itself.

We see a move demographically. As the population moves westward, the riding of High Park's boundaries move westward. In 1975, the former municipality of Swansea is added to High Park and the riding of High Park-Swansea is created. In the wisdom of reflecting these demographic changes of the population, as the city expanded westward so did the riding.

Presently, as the members know, there were reviews and the wisdom of the commission in its first draft added a change to my riding by taking the Humber River in the area from the lake to Bloor Street and extending the westerly boundary on the Humber River all the way to St. Clair Avenue; in other words, recognizing the topographical and geographic natural boundaries of the area and recognizing the natural historic change of the movement of population westward and moving the boundary of High Park-Swansea in that direction.

Then the second draft switches the boundary back to the east, back to 1933, back 30 to 50 years ago. It makes no sense whatsoever to destroy the socioeconomic nature of the population, to destroy natural geographic boundaries such as lakes, rivers and railway tracks by moving that entire boundary back to the east. The historical trend of the electoral boundaries and the changes that reflect the changes of the demographic composition of the population were fundamental in the history of this province. To reverse that trend does not make any sense to me. I see it as totally absurd.

In the oral and written presentations that were made to the commission in terms of its proposal of May 17, 1984, I supported the commission's proposal for the northern, western and southern boundaries of the electoral district of High Park-Swansea. I did have reservations, arguing that to shift my eastern border from Roncesvalles back to Sorauren, as it existed prior to 1975, did not make sense and the commission accepted that. Why all of a sudden now reverse this, cut the northern part of the riding of the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) in half and allocate that entire area to High Park-Swansea? It does not make any sense to me.

4:10 p.m.

I stress once again that the commission has given precedence to such important natural boundaries as municipal boundaries. Ward 1, for example, represents a cohesive unity. Why suddenly change that northeastern boundary by eliminating the boundary of my municipal ward, ward 1?

The demographic changes in the area are very important. If the changes proposed come into effect, the riding of High Park-Swansea may be the fifth-largest riding in Ontario in terms of population, according to the census calculations and projected figures that I have from the 1981 census. This does not take into consideration the fact that to the present population would be added 11,400 people if you add the present boundaries.

Consider that in my riding is the Tridel development, which will bring approximately 5,000 to 6,000 people within the confines of my riding next year. It is beautiful housing for seniors, mixed family housing, luxury condominiums -- 5,000 to 6,000 people. I also have a new wonderful senior citizens' home on the north side of Bloor at the corner of Keele and Bloor, the Lithuanian Vilnius Home, which has increased its population in the past two years. There is a fundamental project on the south side of Bloor at the corner of Parkside Drive, a nursing home and senior citizens' complex, which is now not only on the drawing board but will be approved, if not this year then next year, bringing again an expansion of the population.

Finally, let me refer to another area of my city, namely, the stockyards. There have been proposals by the city planners to review the Toronto stockyard district. As members know, I have always been concerned that this approximately 36 acres of land is prime real estate for a mixed commercial, light industry and residential area. I recall the assurances I received from the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), the then Minister of Agriculture and Food, whose excellent job in the discharge of his responsibilities has been recognized by all members of the Legislature, that within the next seven to nine years the stockyards would be reviewed and they would not be in that area, that there was a strong possibility and probability they would be outside the city boundaries.

What does one do with these lands? There is a potential of 10,000 people in residential development smack in the core of the city of Toronto, in the northern part of my riding. If the commission took into consideration the present major housing developments that have occurred already and those that are in the planning stage now and that most probably will happen in the next 10 years, I do not see why it would want to shift the northeastern boundary of my riding to include that part of the present riding of Parkdale and to shift it eastward against a 50-year trend, which has been constantly westward in the history of the boundary changes in Toronto and in my riding in particular.

I appeal to the commission to take into consideration all the points I have raised -- seven points are raised officially in the Orders and Notices, along with those of other members -- and to use its wisdom by reflecting on its original submission and allowing the Humber River to be the natural boundary in the western and northwestern part of my riding.

Mr. Hayes: My remarks will be very brief to allow some of the other members to debate the issue. I am in favour of adding new seats in the province. I agree with that part, but I do not agree that this goal should be reached at the expense of the rural areas of southwestern Ontario. Traditionally, the MPPs of Essex North and Essex South have been able to deal with representatives within the county of Essex on many common community issues.

The commission fails to give adequate consideration to the traditional boundaries of the electoral district of Essex North. If the redistribution goes through as recommended by the commission, part of the riding of Essex North will go to the city of Windsor and part to the county of Kent. By allowing the redistribution to go through, Essex county will have only one representative in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instead of two, while other areas may enjoy added representation.

As I already mentioned, I am in favour of adding more seats to the Legislative Assembly, but I am strongly opposed when this is done at the expense of a rural area, namely, Essex county. The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) is of the same opinion as I am and his party has moved the resolution. I believe they are the ones who can take the proper steps to ensure the redistribution does not reduce the number of representatives in Essex county.

When we speak of representation in the rural areas, we should not base our decisions only on the number of electors. We should look at the traditional boundaries and at the sense of community feeling that exists now in Essex North and in Essex county. I am opposed to the redistribution in Essex county because it would erode the rural representation in the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I would like to join in the debate on this matter. It is one that is very important to me as a member from the rural part of Ontario. I feel we must do everything we can to safeguard the integrity of the rural representation in this great House.

We heard earlier from the member for Grey-Bruce, who put some of these points, but I would like to indicate some of the numbers that will come to play in our part of the province if we go along with the redistribution scheme as set out. At present, based on the 1981 census, Grey has 54,775 people, Grey-Bruce has 52,125, Huron-Bruce has 58,295 and Huron-Middlesex has 45,675. Under the proposals, those four ridings would be amalgamated and moved around, so we would end up with three ridings with respective populations of 73,824 in Grey, 60,020 in Bruce and 63,971 in Huron. Those would be the equivalents based on the 1981 census data, indicating an extremely large increase in the number of people who are to be represented in the rural ridings.

I made the point in May 1984, when I appeared in front of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission in Barrie, that serving a population that large in a rural area makes a great deal of extra work for those of us who happen to represent areas in which there are very few government offices available to be contacted by members of the public.

4:20 p.m.

In the riding of Huron-Bruce as it is constituted now, with Highway 8 as the southern boundary, the riding extends north to the town of Southampton and appears like a triangle on the east shore of Lake Huron. In that great riding, there is but one government office, which is the district office of the Ministry of Natural Resources, which is well served by a very competent staff that handles a lot of inquiries. It deals very well with a district that stretches virtually down to Chatham and into parts of Lambton, taking in the great parks of The Pinery and Ipperwash.

However, it must be borne in mind that we have items under the Ministry of Health such as the Ontario health insurance plan, and questions on such things as residential tenancies or matters of industrial development and access to Ontario Development Corp. officers that must be addressed in the great riding of Huron-Bruce. There is no presence in the riding of Huron-Bruce so that people can easily access those offices of government.

Dealing with the question of OHIP in our great riding, the closest office for some would be London, the district for the southern portion of the riding, or one would have to go to Owen Sound serving the northern part of the riding and the southern part of Bruce.

As a result, my offices as a member serve a lot of the needs of individuals. On many occasions, we are the first contact. Because of the busy nature of the telephone lines to various government programs such as youth employment programs, seniors' property tax grants or farm property rebate grants, we are the first office to be contacted and we end up being the local government office.

Increasing our riding from about 58,000 to 64,000 people means there will be a tremendous increase in the amount of work that has to be done at the local level. I do not mind that. I like serving the needs of the people of the great riding of Huron-Bruce, as I know you, Mr. Speaker, like serving the needs of the people of Oxford. However, there are limits to our ability to serve the volume of inquiries that comes to us. Until recently, a riding had only one employee who was paid full-time, or in my case two part-time employees, to serve with the member, and one person employed in Toronto. That was to address those 58,000 people.

An upward swing in the generosity of allocations for constituency assistance budgets has been introduced under the auspices of the new Liberal government, an open, forward-thinking, dynamic, accessible and universally acclaimed group of individuals who are setting policy for the better service of the province's individuals. That is some help. I may have missed a particularly good adjective that others may add later on.

With regard to serving the people, there is still a very heavy reliance in the rural part. I speak not only for the riding of Huron-Bruce; I know that other members who serve rural ridings anticipate the same problem. The member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) has an extremely large geographical area to deal with. He may not have the same difficulties as the member for Huron-Bruce, but geography really does cause concern in providing equal access to government services for the people of the province. The local member plays an essential and critical role in serving them.

If we go along with the scheme as it is now constituted, we will end up putting more stress and strain on the local members. Even though we enjoy the interaction with our constituents, we have to be sure we are able to handle in a reasonable manner the case load put to us and to our associates and colleagues working with us in the ridings.

I brought a number of items before the commission when I spoke in Barrie. I will not dwell on them except to say there are areas of the province that are not now at the level of representation in terms of population as is the southwestern part of the province. It seems to me that if we are to ensure that all people are represented equally, as some members would indicate, the entire province must be represented on that basis no matter what the geography. I think we have recognized that geographically there is a reason and there is a case to be made as to why geography and population mixed together should serve as the guidepost to the setting of riding boundaries.

I sympathize with people in northern Ontario who have geographic problems to a greater degree than I have in the southern part of the province. They have fewer people to represent in a greater area and hence a problem with access to government services, very much along the same lines as I do in the riding of Huron-Bruce.

In any event, if we use that indicator, that yardstick for determining riding boundaries and representation, then it ought to be used in other places. The great riding of Huron-Bruce ought to be looked at in the same light and we ought to be able to come up with a way of setting the boundaries so that people in the southwestern part of the province -- namely, in the Grey, Grey-Bruce, Huron-Bruce and Huron-Middlesex areas -- are not disadvantaged by losing one of four seats to come up with three new ridings.

As well, from a purely political standpoint, the Legislative Assembly ought to take into consideration the historical role, and not only that but the current role, of agriculture in the affairs of this province. We have a critical role to play as individual members. I see at least four members here -- the members for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), Simcoe East, Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and Essex South -- who represent agricultural areas which play a very key role in the industry and in the generation of income for the province as a whole. These members well know we must put that case forward very strongly. In some ways we see a diminishing role for the agricultural spokesmen. I think that is inappropriate.

I am sure the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) will also agree that a louder voice is needed on occasion to represent the very specific needs of rural ridings. As a Legislative Assembly, we should take into consideration, both from historical and current points of view, why we should try to preserve as much of the agricultural representation as is necessary.

It seems to me there are ways -- I have made suggestions to the commission and I will not bore the members with those; they have already heard some of them -- in which we can deal with the redistribution report that would serve the people of Huron-Bruce and the people of Ontario in general, and certainly those who would like to have equal access for participation in the political and financial affairs of this province. They could have reason to be well satisfied.

I know there are areas of pressure within the province with respect to growth patterns which necessitate our changing boundaries. At the current time, I know there is a suggestion we should add only five seats. Perhaps we should ask the commission to examine the possibility of adding more to address those problems in the high-growth areas. I will leave it to the deliberations of this great House to determine exactly what suggestions might be made to the commission and whether those could be made. I think the province would be well served if we were able to expand our representation so that we could at least maintain or draw the line on the erosion of the number of rural-oriented seats in the province.

I want to indicate my commitment, whatever the result of this debate, to maintaining a very strong voice for the agricultural community of southwestern Ontario, as I know all of the rural members here would. I also want to indicate that my position will never be changed with respect to the need for access of those individuals to government offices and policies, whether it be through local members' offices or perhaps the expansion of government offices available to people in the province.

4:30 p.m.

If we are going to be cutting back on representation to some areas that are not nearly so close to the centres of government action, then perhaps we had best look at moving the government closer to the people. That is something the Liberal Party would like to do in opening access to all the people in the province. I, for one, as a member have made a couple of suggestions today about how we can keep the representation very close to those people and enhance the presence of the government in areas where the government is currently not well served.

All of us who are rural members would feel some sense of frustration if our ridings were increased in size without a proportionate increase in the activity of government. I believe the people of the rural ridings must be served well and must have equal access to the services made available to anyone else through the government.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for listening to my comments in this debate. I trust we can make the accommodations necessary to ensure adequate representation to our rural ridings, which include the great riding of Huron-Bruce. As you know from listening to the member for Grey-Bruce, under the current suggestion the four ridings of Grey, Huron-Bruce, Grey-Bruce and Huron-Middlesex will be realigned to end up with the three ridings of Grey, Bruce and Huron.

Although the appropriateness of a county boundary is not one I would argue, I still feel the representation for that area necessitates the retention of four ridings with populations that are not that far out of line with the guidelines that were submitted to the commission in its early mandate.

Mr. Pollock: I am pleased to have a chance to comment on the electoral commission's report, but let me first congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment as Speaker. I am sure you will be a credit to that office and a very capable chairman of this assembly.

In regard to the riding of Hastings-Peterborough, let me give members the history of the commission's report. In its first report, the commission proceeded to add the township of Thurlow to the Quinte riding and the township of Tyendinaga, the town of Deseronto and the Indian reserve to the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox. These municipalities were taken away from the county of Hastings portion of that riding.

In Peterborough county, the proposal was to remove five townships from Peterborough riding -- Otonabee, Douro, Cavan, North Monaghan and South Monaghan -- and add them to Hastings-Peterborough riding. During the appeal process, a meeting was held in the city of Peterborough which all the surrounding municipalities involved attended, as did Thurlow and Tyendinaga. I attended the meeting in Kingston to voice my concerns.

At that meeting, I stated that I did not want to see the county of Hastings carved up any more. There are already two members representing the county of Hastings and it seems more practical to leave the county intact. I felt it was unfair to remove the most populated area from what is already the largest geographical riding in southern Ontario. When I go to visit parts of my riding, I have to drive through the ridings of Northumberland and Peterborough to get there.

I agree with the comments made by the member for Grey-Bruce that rural people and rural members will lose a lot of their clout if this present proposal goes through. The residents of Thurlow, Tyendinaga and Deseronto are within a few minutes' driving distance of the city of Belleville, which is the county seat for the county of Hastings. They can call either part without long-distance telephone charges. Many services are provided from the same area. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food office is in Stirling and numerous provincial offices and agencies are in Belleville serving that area, as is the county board of education. The separate school board serves both the county of Hastings and Prince Edward county.

There was quite a long lapse before the commission brought forth its next recommendation. This proposal would add Thurlow, Tyendinaga, Deseronto and the Tyendinaga Indian reserve to Prince Edward-Lennox and they propose to add the townships of Otonabee, Douro and that eastern portion of the city of Peterborough to Hastings-Peterborough riding. This action would divide the city of Peterborough and it has protested this approach.

I strongly recommend Hastings-Peterborough be left as it is. This riding is within the criteria given to the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission, which set the ideal population of a riding at 68,000. If the commission finds the present riding has a population either 25 per cent higher or lower than that, it recommends a movement.

Peterborough constituency is over the allowable percentage and the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox is under. I predict the Prince Edward portion of the constituency will grow quite rapidly with the completion of the Norris Whitney bridge over the Bay of Quinte. The Lennox portion, which is along Highway 401 and includes the town of Napanee, because of its close proximity to the 401 and also to the city of Kingston, would expand quite rapidly too. I certainly feel that Prince Edward-Lennox will grow quite rapidly in population now and therefore should be left alone.

I also feel Peterborough riding should be left alone, despite its large population. If it is still felt it is unacceptably large, one or two rural municipalities might be added to Hastings-Peterborough. A municipality such as the city of Peterborough should not be divided as proposed. In my opinion, riding boundaries should correspond to the county and municipal boundaries as much as possible. The commission should not just play the numbers game.

My colleague the member for Peterborough has stated that even if the constituency is divided, people probably would continue to call his office. I see no reason to change on county boundaries if it can be avoided, and I would certainly prefer the riding of Hastings-Peterborough be left as it is.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I will speak very briefly on this matter. I want to share some of the concerns the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) expressed, also as a member from Essex county. The fact that the commission was limited to 130 seats has had a very negative impact on communities such as ours. The population of our area decreased during the recession. At that time, because unemployment was at 25 per cent to 30 per cent, many people moved out of Windsor and, therefore, the census on which the redistribution is based reflects the lowest possible population for the Windsor-Essex area. Based on those population figures, it was difficult to justify the maintenance of five seats.

4:40 p.m.

However, I feel that if one looks at other areas of the province, there are reasons Essex county should have five seats. Under the current proposal there will be only one seat in the city of Windsor itself. It will be purely urban. The seat I represent will take in some of the county area and the seat the member for Windsor-Sandwich represents will also take in some of the county. The only riding that will be left to represent solely the city of Windsor will be the current riding of Windsor-Walkerville. Three seats is not unreasonable for a city the size of ours, with a population of 200,000.

I certainly agree that redistribution needs to occur. The difficulties with rapid population growth in some areas of the province mean there has to be redistribution. My riding is a good example. It is bigger than any of the federal ridings in our entire region, so I need to lose some of that population and share it with another member of the Legislature from our area.

However, I think a community that represents interests as diverse as ours, that has urban as well as rural interests, deserves and needs to have five members of the Legislature to represent adequately the interests and needs of our community.

I must say this second round of redistribution is much better than the first. The first proposal had a most ridiculous riding, one called St. Clair, that was going to run from the eastern boundary of my riding all the way to Dresden in the county of Kent. It was a most unsatisfactory proposal.

However, the current proposal has some difficulties, not only in terms of the numbers, but also specifically with my riding. My constituency office and my home will be in the Windsor-Walkerville riding instead of Windsor-Riverside. That can easily be taken care of, even though I am locked into a four-year lease. I am sure I can make arrangements somehow. Perhaps it would be better to run in Windsor-Walkerville in the next election.

There is one area of the current proposal I think must be changed. I guess the only way to get that across to the commission is through this debate. There are several communities within my riding. In the first proposal, the community of Forest Glade, a new subdivision, was divided in the middle. The commission recognized that was inappropriate and it put the community back together again in the second proposal. However, instead it cut another community in the middle, one of long standing called Drouillard Road. There are a lot of older people and ethnic people in that community.

It has a silly proposal along the river. Anybody who has been in Windsor knows that. North of the railway tracks to the Detroit River will remain in my riding; south of the tracks will be pulled out of my riding until one gets to a road called Tecumseh Road; then south of Tecumseh Road one will be back in my riding. It is absolutely silly to proceed with that proposal.

In discussing the matter with other members of the Legislature from our area, I think we have come to the conclusion that it would be much more satisfactory to use the current westerly boundary of Windsor-Riverside, go up Tecumseh Road and through the centre of Tecumseh Road east to Jefferson. This would take in a community called Chrysler Centre, obviously near the Chrysler plants, and would provide the proper population shift to the riding of Windsor-Walkerville, while at the same time maintaining the communities that exist in Windsor-Walkerville and Windsor-Riverside.

That proposal would shift a bit more population back into my riding and would still result in my riding being larger than any of the other provincial ridings in our region. None the less, it would provide for better community relationships and would not disrupt the communities that exist in our ridings. There are many distinct communities in the city of Windsor.

That is my major concern. I understand the restrictions the commission has with the 130 seats. When the proposals came out, the local members of the Legislature kicked and screamed and said we deserved to have five seats, and I agree we deserve to have five seats. However, I suggest to the members of the Liberal Party that if they had accepted our proposal to go to 135 or 140 seats when the motion was originally brought to the Legislature, there would not have been a need to lose seats in southwestern Ontario.

Areas such as Scarborough, Ottawa and London, areas that have had rapid population growth and need more seats, could have achieved the increase in seats; but areas such as Windsor, which have not had population growth, could also have maintained adequate representation. We deserve that kind of protection. We were not afforded that protection with the 130-seat restriction.

Basically, I think the commission has done a remarkable job, given the restriction of 130 seats. I just hope that when the final draft comes in, if we are to stick with the upper limit of 130, that specific concern in my riding would be addressed so that we do not divide a community in the great riding of Windsor-Riverside, which I think has grown up together, has lived together and probably is a better-organized community than most. I would hate to see the Drouillard Road community split. It should be in either one riding or the other, but it should not be in both.

That is really all I had to say. I hope the commission will respond to those specific concerns.

Mr. Henderson: I rise to speak on the subject of Ontario electoral boundaries, further to the many objections that have been raised by some of my constituents to a report of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission dated November 1984.

At the outset I should say a word of appreciation to all those who laboured long and hard to prepare this very comprehensive report. Their work has been exhaustive. I believe they took great pains to facilitate and consider input from a variety of sources in the course of their deliberations. I have heard of their work and I feel the commissioners and other contributors are to be commended for their earnest and painstaking approach to this most difficult task.

However, with the passing of governments and the election of new members, there emerges a new perspective. It is in such a spirit -- that is, in the spirit of reflecting new perspectives -- that I speak now. I am, of course, speaking not to criticize the work that has been done but rather to add my voice to a new point of view brought to this Legislature by those only recently fired in the crucible of campaign experience.

I hope I do not need to add that we newly elected members, although new to the processes of this particular Legislature, are rich in our experience with the institutions and traditions that make up Ontario. Ours is therefore a seasoned voice despite our recency, and our thoughts and perspectives will, I trust, be deemed well worthy of consideration.

I shall be brief and will address my few remarks to the issues of naming and of boundaries. I believe the naming and the boundaries of electoral districts in Etobicoke should reflect the rich cultural history and the existing neighbourhoods of our city. For example, the southern portion of Etobicoke, often known as Lakeshore, is a well-defined natural community within Etobicoke, possessed of its own traditions, community spirit and political history.

The early history of one of our three established political parties in Ontario can be traced in part to Lakeshore. Some of the founding fathers and some of the earliest beginnings of that party emerged from the Lakeshore area of Etobicoke. It is surely no coincidence that the current sitting member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) represents that party. In fact, I lived there briefly myself some years ago; so I speak as a former resident.

Although I feel I myself may represent an even more noble and venerable political tradition, it would seem to me regrettable for all of these reasons to abandon the term "Lakeshore" in designating the riding that comprises the southerly portion of Etobicoke, my former home. I would therefore recommend that the term "Lakeshore" or, if necessary, "Lakeshore-Etobicoke" be preserved to designate the southern portion of the city of Etobicoke.

4:50 p.m.

In a similar way, I strongly argue for the preservation of the term "Humber" or, if necessary, "Humber-Etobicoke" to refer to the eastern and north-central portion of Etobicoke. It is now about 370 years since the French interpreter Etienne Brûlé travelled down the Humber River to become the first of European blood to gaze upon Lake Ontario.

As the historians tell us, for the historical birthday of the Humber River and for the romance and tragedy of an explorer's life, we must look to a pioneer of pioneers, the interpreter Etienne Brûlé, the youth who combined French enthusiasm, flawless courage and Indian tenacity, apparently with a total absence of self-seeking in all his motives.

Lake Ontario was discovered by him and the Humber was used as his pathway to reach it. Only the briefest mention of Etienne Brûlé is usually made by early historians of the coming of the Europeans to what is now southern Ontario. Brûlé himself left no written account, but Champlain and others recorded Brûlé's accounts of first-hand experience with the natives of the Great Lakes.

As Champlain's interpreter and servant, Brûlé spent years among the Hurons and subsequently among the Iroquois, and even provoked some jealousy on the part of his boss and mentor, Champlain. Etienne Brûlé was able to master the language and customs of the native Canadians of the Humber Valley and was able to provide Champlain with detailed information of the inland seas that we know as the Great Lakes.

Etienne Brûlé, the navigator of the Humber River, was the first European to navigate Lake Ontario. As well, he was the first European to see Georgian Bay, Lake Huron and Lake Superior. He destroyed Champlain's fondest expectation in revealing that the hoped-for north sea, Lake Superior, was in truth fresh water.

Brûlé had arrived at Lake Ontario on a mission for Champlain from the narrows of Lake Simcoe via the Holland River across land to the headwaters of the Humber, which he descended to discover Lake Ontario. That course along the north shore of Lake Ontario to the mouth of the Humber and thence up the Humber River, down the Holland River and through Lake Simcoe and the Severn River to Georgian Bay became a route well travelled by the early Europeans of North America.

There is also evidence that the native Canadians of the area travelled directly from the Humber River to the Nottawasaga and from there to Georgian Bay. It was in September 1615, 370 years ago last month, at the mouth of the Humber that Etienne Brûlé first gazed upon the broad expanse of Lake Ontario.

About 1934, Brûlé met a tragic and gruesome end, having been caught and eaten by the Hurons at their village of Toanche near Penetanguishene.

Mr. Wildman: Would that not be 1634?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, 1634.

Mr. Wildman: Things were bad in the Depression, but not that bad.

Mr. Henderson: I was not around then, so I cannot speak to that.

In the Indian way, some years after Brûlé's death, his spirit was avenged when the frightened Hurons attributed an epidemic to a visitation by a sister of Etienne Brûlé. She was alleged to have been seen flying over their country breeding pestilence and death. That is further evidence that it was 1634, not 1934.

I provide this brief summary of the contributions of Etienne Brûlé to bring to the attention of this Legislature a little of the rich history and tradition that is ours in the community of Humber. It would be a shame if this rich heritage and the brilliant discoveries of the martyred Etienne Brûlé in Humber were to succumb to the vicissitudes of electoral fashion and convenience. Etienne Brûlé is a little-sung hero of Canadian history, a man whose roots are in part native Canadian and in part French-European, who, in the service of early French and English explorers of our nation, contributed so much in Humber to the discovery of Ontario.

It would also be regrettable because the francophone heritage of our province is too little appreciated. How many Ontarians are aware of the early francophone history of the Royal York or the Kingsway in Humber? How many Ontarians are aware that Toronto, Lake Simcoe and the city of Windsor once had French names? The Humber Valley has a rich heritage which deserves to be protected in the work of our commissioners as they strive to construct the new electoral boundaries of Etobicoke.

Therefore, I recommend that the community along the west bank of the Humber River be preserved and I also submit the following recommendations to our commissioners:

First, I put forward a view, which has been articulated by some of my constituents, that the area of Etobicoke lying west of Islington and bounded by Bloor Street West on the south and Eglinton Avenue West on the north, comprising a community more remote from the Humber River, might be allowed to fall into the old riding of York West, now proposed to be referred to as Etobicoke West.

Such a step would recognize as well the sociocultural and neighbourhood affinity of the west area of Islington with the western portion of Etobicoke. It seems in many ways a sensible step. I believe this small step alone would go a long way to alleviate much of the dissatisfaction which has been expressed in regard to the revisions proposed in the November 1984 report.

A few of my constituents have asked that the larger area lying between Eglinton Avenue West on the north and Bloor Street West on the south and lying west of Royal York Road, not just west of Islington, be similarly included in York West or Etobicoke West. The fate of that idea might well depend on what decision is made about the area of my current riding of Humber which lies south of Bloor Street.

If the area south of Bloor Street is to remain in Humber, then the area between Royal York and Islington could be ceded westward also without too great an incursion into the population numbers of the riding of Humber. If the area south of Bloor is to join the riding of Lakeshore or Lakeshore-Etobicoke, then only that portion west of Islington and bounded on the north by Eglinton Avenue West and on the south by Bloor Street West should be ceded to Etobicoke West or York West, lest the population of my riding of Humber become rather unrealistically small.

Second, there is a strong argument to be made on behalf of those of my constituents who have put forth the view that the entire area of Etobicoke lying north of Eglinton and south of the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway and incorporating part of the headwaters of the Humber River should become part of the riding of Humber. That area is culturally homogeneous, contains a large ethnic population, is homogeneous with respect to neighbourhood and other cultural links and is noted for its unity in diversity. It may be artificial to define Martingrove and Kipling as the western boundaries of the northern portion of my riding.

There may well be a valid argument to be made to allow the remainder of that portion of north-central Etobicoke lying between Eglinton and the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway, that is, the portion west of Martingrove and west of Kipling, to fall towards the riding of Humber or Humber-Etobicoke as well. In other words, I am suggesting that the entire area north of Eglinton and south of the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway might join my riding of Humber or Humber-Etobicoke.

My third recommendation, to repeat, is that the term "Humber" be preserved in referring to my riding and that it continue to be known as Humber riding or, if necessary, as Humber-Etobicoke.

I have appreciated this opportunity to set forth some relevant notes from the history of Humber Valley and to put forward as well some views of some of my constituents with respect to riding boundaries for this proposed electoral redistribution.

5 p.m.

Mr. Cousens: I rise in the spirit of other members to compliment the commission for its hard work and expertise in reviewing the boundaries of the province. I do not think one can find many groups that have worked as hard or as conscientiously to meet the terms the Legislature has set for them to follow.

The fact that we as a Legislature went so far as to offer to create five extra seats is going to make it difficult for us to find room for them here. If we keep doing this every 10 years, before we know it we will have another set of problems.

Mr. Haggerty: Our side will be over here.

Mr. Cousens: No. Our side over here will be back over there, and the problems of the members opposite will begin again.

I believe the commission has done an outstanding job. The worry I have is that if they start reading all the Hansards of all the people who are objecting to everything, they are going to start disrupting those areas where they did an excellent job. I would at least like to echo the feelings of many people -- in fact, all the people in my riding with whom I have talked -- that the revised recommendations are very pleasing to the people of the present riding of York Centre.

York Centre, as they well know, is one of the fastest-growing ridings in Ontario. We have 96,172 electors, with more than 160,000 people in the riding and we are growing at the rate of more than 500 a week; so as a riding it is very fast-growing. The commission, in understanding this, has carved out of York region at least one new riding, notwithstanding the changes it has made to York-Durham, and in doing so it is recognizing the rapid growth within York region. If only other parts of the province could recognize the needs of this fast-growing area for hospitals, beds, extra police protection and all the educational services we require, we too would be very pleased. But at least the commission has made the kind of start in this understanding that is inherent to proper representation by people in Ontario.

I believe that when they reviewed the recommendations from me and from people in our community, when they carved out the new riding of Markham, which will consist of the municipal boundaries of that community, that riding, though large -- there are now more than 105,000 people in the town -- will still be viable. The new riding of York Centre, which will include the communities of Richmond Hill and Vaughan, also becomes what I feel is a viable, workable riding where there is a sense of community between those two municipalities. Consequently, as we look at what the commission has done, let us compliment it, because certainly within the area I represent I see it as having understood the needs of our community.

Talking about community, many others in this House have been concerned that their communities have been broken up and disrupted by the way the lines have come through their towns. That is not the case in our area. We in York region are glad to have Steeles Avenue to separate us from the area to the south. Although we are pleased to use the services to the south, we do like to think of ourselves as unique and distinct. In that sense we did not want to see any kind of joining-together with the area south of Steeles Avenue.

Having said that, I also feel we are now dealing with communities as a whole. The whole of Markham, the whole of Richmond Hill and the whole of Vaughan will be represented, instead of having Vaughan split up between two members sharing the responsibilities for that good community.

I believe the size the commission has looked at is also within the working reality of the guidelines it was given. The York Centre and Markham ridings will both be in the range of over 70,000, which is a workable number. I also think York North as designed is good for York region. The size of the ridings is in keeping with the guidelines that our House has given the commission.

The timing is the urgent thing. Now we have unfair representation. Although the member for York North (Mr. Sorbara) and I in York Centre work very hard to serve our constituencies, there is a need for the people within these ridings to have fairer representation, because between these two ridings alone there is room for one additional riding; so there is a need to speed up on this. I do not think there is any reason to delay and procrastinate or to see the House hold back quick approval of the recommendations, should they come along the same as they are now.

I approve of the recommendations that have come from the commission. I hope the commission does not make changes in those areas where people have expressed happiness, and I say that on behalf of the people from the present York Centre. Then we can proceed with the next step and have these new ridings implemented so the people can be represented as quickly as possible. I see that as one of the goals we have.

I believe so much is said that is criticized and so many of us are busy tearing things apart, but it is a delicate and difficult job to put together the boundaries for all the people of this province. I have a great deal of confidence in the people who are doing that. I hope they are able to do so in the continuing spirit in which they have done it until now and that they will be guided by the remarks of all the members of this House.

I also hope they will be able to do it so at least those of us who are happy stay happy and those who are not happy become happy. Then we will all go away and live happily ever after until the next time we come together to discuss it in the early 1990s.

Mrs. Grier: I am one of those who is fairly happy with the recommendations of the commission report, and I appreciate the comments of the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) in support of the retention of the name of Lakeshore. That is certainly the burden of the remarks I want to make.

The boundary as it has now been recommended is acceptable to me. I was a member of the council of the city of Etobicoke at the time the boundary recommendations were made in February 1984. With other members of city council, I was very concerned about those preliminary recommendations. Council was anxious that the four ridings that represent Etobicoke all be contained within the city boundaries, which was not done in the first recommendations.

As a result, the city established a committee to examine the question of the boundaries and had city staff do fairly extensive examination of the population in various segments of the community. It came up with a series of recommendations which were presented to the boundaries commission at its public hearings. I was present at those hearings, representing my own riding and the New Democratic Party in that area. The city was represented by its lawyer and its planners, and there were representatives of the other parties from other ridings throughout the city.

At those hearings we had a very full and useful discussion of the difficult question of how to draw the lines on the map. The recommendations that are before us now are the product of that discussion and the product of some compromise on the part of all members. For that reason, they are worthy of support.

Lakeshore riding is the smallest in the city of Etobicoke and therefore, inevitably, has to be increased in size. As we are the most southerly riding, the only way it can be increased in size is to go north. It becomes a question of whether we go north to the east taking some of the riding of Humber, or north to the west taking some of the riding that is now York West, to be called Etobicoke West under this plan.

If one takes population from that Etobicoke West riding, as was suggested in the preliminary recommendations of the commission, one is taking a small segment of a community that is totally divided from the rest of the riding of Lakeshore by an extensive industrial area.

The recommendation that the boundary of Lakeshore be extended to Bloor Street, running all the way across to the Humber River, is much the most logical. That would mean the riding of Lakeshore would have as its boundaries some very definitive natural boundaries, the Humber River on the east, the Etobicoke Creek on the west, Lake Ontario on the south and Bloor Street and that industrial area I mentioned on the north.

The history of the Lakeshore is such that we are a collection of older communities. The area at the very southern part of the riding was formerly the municipalities of Long Branch, New Toronto and Mimico. The Humber Bay area, which is to be joined to Lakeshore under this proposal, is also an older area of smaller homes and people who have lived there for a very long time, the kind of population that is entirely compatible with the existing population of the riding of Lakeshore.

5:10 p.m.

The catchment areas of many of our social and community organizations are also compatible with the proposal that Etobicoke South or Lakeshore be from the lake to Bloor Street. That is an important factor to remember in these discussions, because there are many groups who have evolved or have been defined on the basis of the community and the municipal wards as they exist. Therefore, to take part of Etobicoke West, as was first suggested, is totally incompatible with the history or the population mix of the riding.

The question of the name, as was enumerated by the member for Humber is an important one. I might not quite agree with the reverence he shows for Etienne Brûlé. I am not quite sure he was the hero he has been described as. I had some occasion, as a member of city council, to explore his history when the city was proposing to emblazen him on our coat of arms. I did not find him exactly the hero of whom we ought to be so proud. However, I recognize the historic links of the Humber River and the name of Lakeshore, and it would be unfortunate to change those as a result of this discussion.

At the hearing of the commission I attended, it was suggested by representatives of the existing riding of York West that the name of that constituency ought more properly to be Etobicoke West. City council agreed with that position, because the York West riding federally has no link to the one provincially and therefore it makes sense to have that westerly riding called Etobicoke West.

There was no discussion at the commission's public hearing of a change in the name of Lakeshore. We had some discussion around that of Humber, and I felt we had satisfied the commission that the existing name was satisfactory and adequately described the riding. Thus, I was very surprised when the recommendations emerged to find not only that York West was changed to Etobicoke West but also that we had Etobicoke East, South and North.

I think the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) is going to speak on the question as it applies to his riding, but I do not believe Etobicoke South is acceptable to the people of Lakeshore. I hope the commission will change that back to the historic and well-known name and that it will support the recommendation of the member for Humber and retain the name in that instance as well.

With that change, I think we could live with the boundary changes that have been recommended by the commission. If it can see fit to accept some of the recommendations for boundary changes that have been made by the member for Humber, I think that too can be done while retaining the recommended boundary for Etobicoke South or Lakeshore.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the issue of redistribution. Like every other member of this House, I am directly affected by the proposals that have been put before us in the past few months. Like all of us here, I am bound to support the principles of the issue; that is, the reality of one person, one vote.

There will be minor variances from what has been proposed. That is totally understandable and predictable. The commission that brought in the proposals was charged with finding a solution to redistribution based mainly on population. The members of the commission therefore focused primarily on the issue of population and did not schedule an appropriate amount of time on the details of local demographics that will be so important to each member of this House.

As an example, my riding of Hamilton Centre takes a change in direction and population numbers, almost doubling what it is now. The eastern part of the riding is carved off and a large new area is added on the west. All these neighbourhoods, however, are within the city of Hamilton; they are part of the same economic and cultural base. It would be quite a different thing if more diverse communities were being linked. An example of this is in Burlington South, where a community on the east side of the riding would be split under the proposal.

I have seen data that project the results of the last election in the proposed ridings after redistribution, and I was rather amazed to see there would be very little overall change. The growing urban areas would have more seats, and the rural areas would be shifted around substantially.

My friend the member for Grey-Bruce faces a change in his riding and he has spoken to the issue earlier this afternoon.

The simple imperative is that even as we propose minor changes to allow for local, economic or cultural alliances, we must stay away from the kind of activity that made Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts part of our language. He reconstructed the electoral districts in such a way as to give the greatest advantage to his party. He brought to us the term "gerrymandering" from the crooked shape resembling a salamander arising out of self-serving reconstruction.

I fully support the principle of equal population in each riding; that is how we will best assure the principle of one person, one vote. I also fully understand the problems faced by our colleagues in the north where travel makes it nearly impossible to create ridings of equal population. However, I wonder if the same arguments will allow for smaller populations in ridings of dense but diverse urban populations.

We do not have ghettoization in Ontario, and I hope we never do, but we do have areas where specific ethnic or economic groups are concentrated. We developed the ward system for municipal elections at the turn of the century to ensure representation for these ethnic and economic groups. I believe we are bound to consider them as we move through this job of redistributing the ridings in this province.

I am not asking for any change for my riding as it is proposed. I am not rejecting change for any other riding. I am asking all members of this House to get down to business and to approve redistribution quickly so it can be in place for any coming election, bringing the principle of one person, one vote a little closer to actuality.

Mr. Stevenson: I am pleased to join in the debate on electoral redistribution. I want to discuss briefly the situation in the riding of Durham-York as it exists today and from there develop some thoughts on one change in particular that I would be pleased to see happen.

If a change could be made in the proposed riding of York-Ontario -- I will say from the outset that I do not like that name -- I think the people in that area would be quite pleased. I see from the motion that the current member for York North would be quite pleased with my suggestion as well.

The current riding of Durham-York is a rural riding. It is small-town Ontario at its best, and small business, agriculture and tourism are the economic heartbeat of the riding. However, it is a fairly large riding for an area so close to Metro Toronto.

The westerly boundary of the current riding is Bathurst Street, equivalent to that street in Toronto. The easterly boundary is east of Bowmanville, or the equivalent of being east of Bowmanville. The southerly boundary is one concession south of Highway 7, which people in the York and Durham areas are quite familiar with. Indeed, part of my riding overlaps that of the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens). The northerly boundary is the Talbot River at Gamebridge, which is the northern boundary of Durham region.

The riding is not far off 60 miles in each direction. There are many members in the House who have larger geographical districts, but for a riding that close to Metro Toronto it is fairly significant in size and shows the rural nature of the riding.

5:20 p.m.

Redistribution has affected this riding for one reason only: there is substantial growth in the bottom end of York, the south end of York and in the south end of Durham. According to the 1981 census figures, I believe Durham-York was around 72,000. I do not have the exact figures in front of me. The proposed York-Ontario riding is 68,000. There is little change, and the effect it is having on that riding is strictly because of the growth in the southerly municipalities, creating a teeter-totter effect on that rural riding that splits York and Durham east to west across the top.

I would like to submit that the people in Durham-York have been served very well over the years with the present configuration. As we look at the people who live there, the agricultural groups there know no municipal boundaries. They get agricultural parts, equipment parts, feed supplies and so on, back and forth across municipal and regional boundaries, and business goes on in the agricultural community as if those boundaries were not in existence.

Although the offices of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food in the area are set up largely on a regional basis, when they have their area meetings it is not at all uncommon to see 10 to 20 per cent of the producers at an agricultural meeting from the opposite region.

A very important geographical structure there is Lake Simcoe, and the southeast shore of Lake Simcoe takes in the townships of Brock and Georgina. It would be a great disservice to the people of those two communities if they were separated in redistribution. Even though Brock is in the region of Durham and Georgina is in the region of York, the importance of that lake to the economy of the local area is so critical that it would be extremely unfortunate to split it in the provincial jurisdiction.

The first proposal by the electoral boundaries commission did split it. Fortunately, many people came forth and pointed out the errors of their ways, and the current proposal, which we are debating, has put Brock back into the proposed riding of York-Ontario. I certainly applaud them for that move in seeing that error.

Of course, in the present riding is the south end of Lake Scugog in the Port Perry area. If you ask many of the residents around the shores of Lake Scugog what they have in common with the people on the shores of Lake Simcoe, they will say, "Relatively little." But from a provincial-jurisdiction point of view they have a great deal in common, because both of them are on or adjacent to the Trent-Severn system. The Trent-Severn system goes through Lake Simcoe, and the Scugog River and Lake Scugog connect into the Trent system at Lindsay. So it is very easy to travel by boat from the two lakes, and it is a very scenic trip.

It is also interesting that these lakes are two of the most heavily fished lakes in Ontario. I believe Lake Simcoe is without doubt the most heavily fished lake in Ontario for sports fishing. About a million person-hours per year are spent fishing on Lake Simcoe, and when you express it on a per area basis, the fishing load on Lake Scugog is essentially the same. The bass and walleye fishing on both of those lakes and the walleye run on the Talbot River are very well known. On Lake Simcoe one usually hears of the cold-water fishery and not of the warm-water fishery.

When we look into the area, we see that our baseball teams, soccer teams and hockey teams go back and forth across these regional boundaries into Scugog and into East Gwillimbury, Georgina and Brock, and they do so in all the local leagues. Indeed, when I was attending high school there, the three high schools in question used to play in the same interschool league. Now, for various reasons, they have been separated, but they still have exhibition games between those schools. There are many cultural connections among those municipalities as well.

What I am leading up to is the situation where, under the proposed riding, Scugog is to be taken from the present Durham-York riding and put into Durham East, and Whitchurch-Stouffville is to be added to the York-Ontario riding in the place of Scugog and the north and rural part of Pickering.

Whitchurch-Stouffville is an excellent town and it has some business, sports and agricultural connections with the municipalities in Durham-York riding, but it is somewhat more urban in atmosphere. It is safe to say, as far as their work and their social activities are concerned, the people in Whitchurch-Stouffville think more along the lines of visiting Markham, Aurora and Newmarket than Metro Toronto. I understand from the motion the member for York North has put forward that he would prefer to see Whitchurch-Stouffville stay in the York North riding and it is my expectation that the people would prefer that alignment as well.

I would ask the people in the electoral commission to have another look at the situation of leaving Whitchurch-Stouffville with York North. It will increase that riding, but it will not be anywhere near the largest riding in Ontario in population, still well within the guidelines. The Scugog municipality could then be left in York-Ontario riding or Durham-York riding, as it currently is, in its place. The population there is quite similar.

To argue for leaving the rural part of Pickering in the Durham-York riding is somewhat more difficult. It is very rural and it has the same agricultural and small business connections as the rest of the Durham-York riding, but the fact that it splits the municipality of Pickering into two ridings certainly weakens the argument for leaving the Durham-York riding the way it is.

To show the agricultural connections, even in the Pickering area we had a situation where a corn dryer was creating a bit of extra noise and some local people got excited. When there was some action taken on that agricultural facility, farmers throughout the whole riding wrote to me to ask that some special consideration be given. Clearly, there are agricultural connections from many of the more northern municipalities into Pickering.

I would ask that in future redistributions the split across the north of Durham and York region be maintained. It represents those areas well. To give an example, there was a suggestion from some of the York region people that Georgina, East Gwillimbury and Newmarket be put together into one riding. I believe population numbers would be about correct, but, as a resident of Georgina, I could not support that, even though it would put that whole riding in York region.

It would mean that Newmarket would have by far the greatest percentage of the population and would get the greatest attention. It would also mean that most of the candidates coming out of that riding would largely be from Newmarket. I believe it is best that we maintain the rural communities, the rural municipalities, together whenever we possibly can. Currently, the municipalities in the riding are about the same size, meaning that everybody has about the same clout in the riding as far as trying to get attention from the provincial level of government is concerned. I strongly believe we should try to keep it that way wherever possible.

5:30 p.m.

In summary, I would say the redistribution is affecting Durham-York for one reason and one reason alone; that is, the growth in the south end of York and Durham. As we go through future redistributions, it will simply be a teeter-totter, affecting that north riding in adjusting for what is going on to the south. It confuses the voters in the area, and it is safe to say that if Whitchurch-Stouffville comes into the York-Ontario riding now, it is highly likely that the next redistribution in the early 1990s will see it taken out again because of the growth down there.

I would agree with the member for York North. Those people would be happier remaining in his riding. I would be very pleased to be the representative for the Whitchurch-Stouffville area, and I would have no hesitation to attack that situation with great vigour. However, when we have to look at how people are represented and where they would be happiest, I really suspect they would be most pleased with staying in the York North riding, largely because of their community of interests.

The tradeoff for Scugog would certainly please the people of that area. The adjustments could be made in the Durham East, Durham Centre, Durham West and Oshawa ridings and make all four of those approximately the same size. I see no difficulty with making that change in the numbers.

Mr. Philip: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I listened with attention, interest and considerable agreement to some of the comments made by my colleagues from the city of Etobicoke, namely the member for Humber and the member for Lakeshore.

I must compliment the commission on what is undoubtedly an unbiased, fairly well thought out and reasonable proposal. I will not repeat some of the sentiments of our former colleague and party leader, Donald MacDonald, who has said that to his knowledge, in the history of various commissions and redistributions, certainly this is the one open to the least amount of attack with respect to any kind of political bias. Indeed, in my conversations with Warren Bailie I expressed that sentiment to him, and my appreciation for the way in which he has managed to conduct himself in that office.

Having said that, I would like to emphasize a few of the things the members for Humber and Lakeshore said. Over the last 10 years, I have represented a riding that is called Etobicoke but which consists of a corner of the city of North York and the northern part of the city of Etobicoke. This has caused tremendous confusion.

When I was first elected, I had people throw out my riding report, saying, "This fellow cannot represent us because we live in North York and it says `Etobicoke' on it." Once that was overcome, we still have had a constant series of phone calls from people living in Lakeshore, Humber and York West. They felt that because they lived in Etobicoke I was their MPP and should handle their problems.

I suggest what has been created in this map is quite different from the preliminary one that came out. It has created a riding that essentially is a community, Rexdale. It seems to me it is the natural boundary line. While there were certain aspects of the former line that might have been to my advantage, and while I am certainly going to miss that section of North York where I did so well politically, none the less the lines that are drawn here are not open to any kind of logical argument one can make against them.

There is a community called Rexdale. Highway 401 is the natural boundary line. There is a logical population there and, indeed, the map as it is now proposed makes some sense.

What I would suggest to the commission, however, just as the member for Humber suggested his riding should retain its name and my colleague from Lakeshore has suggested her riding name should remain, is that it would make a lot of sense that the riding I would represent under redistribution should be called Rexdale. There is a community called Rexdale and people know where the boundaries are.

On the other hand, if one asked a number of people living in the Dixon Road area or perhaps even as far south as Eglinton, "Where would you think you live if we gave you a choice of four names -- Etobicoke South, Etobicoke East, Etobicoke West or Etobicoke North?" some people as far south as Eglinton might well say: "I probably live in Etobicoke North. I am fairly far north." They probably see themselves as living fairly far north in comparison to the people south of them.

Calling the riding Rexdale would make a lot of sense. It seems that general thrust is supported by three of the members who have spoken and I hope the commission will take these comments into account. I again compliment the commission on the fairness with which it has approached this and on the lack of bias and the fairness it seems to have shown in preparing this report.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I rise to make a few comments on the second effort of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission and to raise some concerns. At the outset, I might say that in proposing a second set of boundaries the commission has done much better than it did the first time as far as the riding of Windsor-Sandwich is concerned and as far as the entire community of Windsor is concerned.

The original proposal had two urban ridings, two Windsor ridings, and a third riding, Windsor-Sandwich, that was an umbrella around Windsor and returned us to a day we thought was gone for ever, when diversity rather than community of interests took precedence.

I am very pleased that in its second, revised proposal the commission appears to have gone some distance in putting back in place ridings that make some sense in terms of community of interests, which in urban areas are sometimes very difficult to put together but which are very important. It is to that community-of-interests issue I wish to speak today.

The commission will be well aware that on the western and southwestern ends of Windsor there is a fairly natural riding that does not appear to fit the commission's needs in terms of population. As a result, the commission has added to the riding of Windsor-Sandwich an area immediately to the southwest of Windsor, Sandwich West township, which is part of the county of Essex.

I might note in passing that on the eastern side the commission has added the towns of Tecumseh and St. Clair Beach to the riding of Windsor-Riverside. I think it is inappropriate that a community of nearly 200,000 people should have only one indigenous riding and that two of the three members for the Windsor area should be required to represent not only the very important matters in Windsor but also to take a substantial degree of interest in matters in Essex county as well.

5:40 p.m.

It seems to me that in adding Sandwich West township, a township about a mile to the west of where I live, the commission has simply added a pocket of population of 13,000 or 14,000 to the nearly 62,000 people who live in a compact area within the city. Having done that, the commission then seems to have arbitrarily removed a certain portion that is now in the riding of Windsor-Sandwich -- indeed, has cut a portion of a compact community -- in order to reach some numerical level. I think that is entirely inappropriate.

I am speaking most particularly of the area in the core of south Windsor. Right now the core of south Windsor -- which I would define for the commission as being the area bounded on the east by Dougall Avenue, on the south by Cabana Road, on the west by Huron Church Line Road and Huron Church Road and on the north by the E. C. Row Expressway -- is completely within the boundaries of ward 1. It is represented entirely within the boundaries of Windsor West federally. Indeed, it is a community that has very much the natural affinities of a community of interests. Yet the commission is prepared, in effect, to take a quarter of that area, carve it up and put it in the riding immediately to the east, the riding of Windsor-Walkerville.

It seems to me that in doing so the commission has simply arbitrarily chosen to reduce the numbers it found in Windsor-Sandwich. I think it is totally inappropriate that it should do so. A large number of the residents of the area have indicated their views along those lines as well.

The commission has, to be quite exact, taken census tract 1 from Windsor, the 1981 census, a census tract that runs up the centre of Dominion, south of Dougall Avenue, runs to Grand Marais Road and then runs easterly. It has taken that section of the riding of Windsor-Sandwich, removed it and placed it in the riding of Windsor-Walkerville.

In doing so, the commission has shown absolutely no regard for the fact that church communities -- Catholic, non-Catholic and Protestant -- and public elementary, separate school and secondary schools will really be torn apart by this arbitrary decision to draw a line up Dominion Avenue.

It seems to me that the commission, rather than choose a census tract, might have looked, as would have been appropriate, to finding some area where the communities of interest would not have been so vitally affected. After all, it is not choosing a census tract, as did the commission in 1981; it is delineating a provincial boundary.

It seems to me that the people of Windsor-Sandwich, the people, indeed, of all of the 130 ridings to be proposed, have the right to expect that a commission, which in many other ways has done a good job, would not, when faced with a bit of a population difficulty, delineate boundaries in a quite arbitrary fashion, using simply a census tract as its term of reference.

There can be no other justification for using Dominion Avenue. It is a fairly minor two-way thoroughfare within the community of south Windsor, which, as I pointed out, has people on both sides and spreading out in both directions who go to the same churches and the same schools, etc. One might just as easily have moved over one or two blocks in either direction, for all the sense Dominion Avenue made for choosing that boundary.

I suggest to the commission that it return that core portion of south Windsor, pull it back together and put that entire area between Cabana on the south, Huron Church on the west, E. C. Rowe Expressway on the north and Dougall on the east back into the riding of Windsor-Sandwich, rather than simply take a portion arbitrarily out of that area and put it in another riding.

I have a suggestion for the commission. I recognize the difficulty the commission has. If the commission feels it still has a problem numerically, I have a suggestion which may seem somewhat arbitrary, but I believe actually makes greater sense than the one the commission has chosen. My preference would be simply to add that additional amount of population and go with those ridings.

If the commission believes the riding then created is too large and that other ridings may be too small as a result, I suggest something which seems fairly complex on the face of it but is a fairly natural additional boundary situation, namely, in the downtown area the commission subtract from the riding of Windsor-Sandwich the area along Ouellette Avenue north to Wyandotte, moving westward to the centre of Dougall and thence to the international boundary.

I will be spelling this out in more detail in a letter to the commission, but the effect and force of this would be to take the high-rise apartments along that strip -- the area that is zoned for high-rise apartments and contains a goodly number of them -- and place them back in the riding of Windsor-Walkerville where they are now.

It would have the effect of adding population, if that is the commission's desire, of keeping the high-rise community together in one riding, in Windsor-Walkerville, and of keeping all the apartment community together in the downtown core, which under the Planning Act makes some degree of sense. It has no effect on the ward system in that all those apartments would be retained within the same ward and all those apartments would be retained, either way, within the same riding of Windsor West.

The small downtown area that would be removed to the riding of Windsor-Sandwich would be entirely single-family dwellings. It seems to me that the single-family dwellings having, as they do, children, as opposed to the apartments having virtually no children, would have more of a school affinity than would the high-rise apartments.

If, having made a decision to put the area of south Windsor back into the riding of Windsor-Sandwich, if the commission determines it would make more sense to do that, if the commission determines at that stage it still has a population difficulty in that Windsor-Sandwich is too large and other ridings may be too small, the option I would hold open to the commission would be to add back that small, very narrow, nevertheless fairly high-density strip in terms of population, to the Windsor-Walkerville riding.

By doing that, it seems to be that the community of interests will be returned into the south Windsor area and will, for the most part, be retained in the downtown area. Those are my suggestions for the commission. I hope they will act on them.

There is no doubt the commission has come a long way from its first proposal, but I suggest to the commission it has a very important way to go to ensure that at the end of this process the core area of south Windsor, which votes together in terms of its municipal, federal and, up until now, provincial politics, and goes to school and church together, will continue to be able to do that and will not be spread into two ridings and move into a riding with which it has very little community of interests, since the riding immediately to the east extends somewhat easterly into the city of Windsor. It seems to me most appropriate to keep that area together.

Mr. Eves: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate with respect to electoral boundary redistribution and to express the concerns not only of myself but those constituents of mine with respect to the proposals for the riding of Parry Sound. The proposals before us today represent the second attempt to reorganize the province's ridings in a way that recognizes and respects all the considerations, both historical and current, which must be taken into account when establishing riding boundaries.

No one would deny that the process of revising electoral boundaries is a difficult and sometimes thankless task; nor can it be denied that it is a job that must be done if we are to ensure effective representation for all Ontarians as population figures and centres change throughout the years. At the same time, though, population is not and should not be the only consideration in determining these boundaries.

The commission has clearly recognized, as a result of the resolution, that we should also consider such factors as community and diversity of interests, means of communication, varying conditions of representation between urban and rural ridings, special geographic considerations and traditional riding boundaries. In outlining its plans for the riding of Parry Sound, both in the first and second draft proposals, I would submit the commission has somewhat neglected these equally valid considerations, choosing instead to focus almost entirely on the issue of population.

The first proposals outlined by the commission for the riding suggested an amalgamation of the two ridings of Parry Sound and Muskoka into one very large riding. Opposition to this proposal was widespread both in the ridings of Parry Sound and Muskoka as well as among those people in the Nipissing portion of Parry Sound riding, who would have become instead a part of Nipissing riding. More objections were received to the Parry Sound proposal than to any other proposed riding in the entire province. I believe more than 48 alone came from the riding of Parry Sound.

Most of these objections centred on the issues of lack of community interests, concerns over the effect of a very large summer population and an MPP's ability to serve the constituents of this proposed large riding, the immense geographic size of the proposed riding and the northern status of Parry Sound riding, which most government ministries recognize. The strength of the arguments raised against this proposal is evidenced by the fact that the commission in its second redistribution report completely revised its plans for the Parry Sound riding and, in so doing, accepted many of the objections put forward at commission hearings.

With this in mind, it was with considerable surprise that both my constituents and myself received a second proposal for the Parry Sound riding. It seems obvious that, in revising the initial ideas and creating a new riding called Parry Sound-Nipissing-Renfrew, the commission has duplicated many of the failings of the Muskoka-Parry Sound proposal.

The new riding of Parry Sound-Nipissing-Renfrew would incorporate the existing electoral district of Parry Sound plus four northerly Renfrew county municipalities, the town of Deep River, the village of Chalk River and the townships of Head, Clara and Maria, along with Rolph, Buchanan, Wylie and Mckay.

In this proposed realignment, the commission suggested these municipalities would share a near-north community of interest with the rest of the electoral district. Frankly, I find it very difficult to believe the citizens of Deep River share the commission's view that they have a near-north orientation. In making this assumption, the commission did not look closely enough at the geographic realities of this region that make the idea of a community of interest tenuous at best.

Both the Ottawa River valley and Algonquin Park serve to separate and distinguish municipalities in the county of Renfrew from municipalities and districts of both Parry Sound and Nipissing. It goes without saying that the communities located along the Ottawa River have and probably always will have an eastern Ontario orientation, distinct from northern, which has characterized the riding of Parry Sound since its creation 100 years ago.

Should the proposal go forward, the riding of Parry Sound, it could be argued, would be the only riding in Ontario that would represent northern, eastern and central Ontario. This represents a substantial digression from the principle of community of interest that was to be one of the commission's foremost objectives.

In many other respects, the new proposal falls short of the guidelines offered in the resolution establishing the commission. As was the case in the commission's first proposal, for example, the idea of Parry Sound-Nipissing-Renfrew riding failed to take into account the enormous problems associated with providing effective representation to such a large geographical area. In fact, a round trip from the town of Parry Sound to the town of Deep River is an eight-hour undertaking. It goes without saying that this travel time alone would render effective representation by one MPP very difficult, if not virtually impossible.

The situation is further complicated by lack of effective road links between the two sides of the proposed riding, a fact which also argues against these two areas sharing a community of interests. I have discussed this matter with my colleague, the member for Renfrew North and Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), who is in total agreement that it is going to be very difficult for any one MPP effectively to represent the proposed riding. I have also discussed the matter with many persons in the town of Deep River and a few in the village of Chalk River, all of whom seem to agree there is no community of interests whatsoever in the proposed two sides of the new riding.

Adding to this is the fact that the current riding of Parry Sound already has 35 organized municipalities, more than any other riding in the entire province of Ontario and four times as many as the average of all ridings outside Metropolitan Toronto. The riding as it now stands also has some 47 unorganized municipalities, each and every one of which has its own interests, issues and concerns, which must be addressed by its representatives. To add to this number surely would not provide effective representation for people in the proposed constituency.

Along with neglecting the most obvious difficulties in representing so many organized and unorganized municipalities, the commission has again chosen to set aside the equally significant problems of representation posed by an increase in population in the Parry Sound riding during the summer months.

I think it is somewhat naïve to expect that summer residents of a community never bother their local member with a request or concern. In the summer, the population of Parry Sound riding as it now exists increases by some 50,000 people. It is equally unrealistic to expect any MPP would turn away his or her summer residents because they had homes elsewhere in the province.

There are many other issues I could raise in discussing the second proposal of the electoral boundaries commission for Parry Sound riding: the problems of common means of communication; the lack of a common local newspaper; the issue of reducing the number of rural ridings by amalgamating two, namely, Parry Sound and Renfrew North; the 100 years of history which stand behind the current boundaries of Parry Sound riding. All of these factors must be weighed in examining the commission's second proposal.

Indeed, most of them were examined to judge the commission's first proposal and form the basis of its decision to revise its plan. Strangely enough, most of the issues arising from the first proposal have not been laid to rest by the second attempt at redrawing Parry Sound's boundaries. Instead, what we have before us is a totally new approach that still manages to duplicate the problems of the first one.

If the commission applies the same criteria to this proposal as it did in revising the first suggestions, I believe it will see that the riding of Parry Sound-Nipissing-Renfrew is no more a workable solution than was the Muskoka-Parry Sound proposal. Almost the same problems are created and the same objections can be made. In both cases, it is the people of this region who will suffer the consequences.

As I have said before, the ultimate purpose of electoral-boundary redistribution surely is to ensure effective representation for the people of Ontario. This objective will not be met for the people of Parry Sound, Nipissing or Renfrew by the proposal which we have now before us for these regions.

On motion by Mr. Eves, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

15 octobre 1985