Journal des débats 1985-oct-17 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Although the outcome of last night's ball game was not favourable to our favourite club, the Toronto Blue Jays have just completed the most successful season in the history of the franchise and, indeed, in the history of baseball in Canada. This House is truly proud of their performance. They are deserving of the recognition of the House and of all Canadians for the outstanding performance they carried out not only during the season, when they won more ball games than any other club in the major leagues, but also in the playoffs.

It is my understanding that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has quite appropriately used the success of the Blue Jays to promote more awareness of Ontario in the United States. I believe that is commendable. There should also be some effort to promote more awareness of the Premier, since I understand that in his speaking engagement coming up in Washington, the invitations read that those who are invited are to come to hear "Premier Anderson" speak. I think that point should be cleared up.

In any event, although the Blue Jays will not be taking a trip to the World Series this year, we are proud of the team, the management of the ball club and the true spirit of Canadian sportsmanship they exhibited during the course of a most magnificent season.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether that is a point of personal privilege. Having been in Saskatchewan a few days ago at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference, I realize the Blue Jays certainly are known throughout Canada and probably did something to bring Canadians together. I have allowed the member to make a very brief comment. I notice two other members of the House on their feet; I will acknowledge them very briefly.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the point of view of the honourable leader for the day of the party opposite, let me join with him in expressing our great pride in the Blue Jays. They have provided many magic moments for people of this city, this province and indeed this country over the last little while.

Even though it did not work out the way we would have chosen last night, everyone in this province is immensely proud of that ball team, which has come such a long way from that snowy day in 1977. There is no doubt in our minds they will be back next year with a vengeance and we will look forward with the same anticipation to success next year.

I also appreciate the remarks of the member about my problem with respect to recognition in Washington. It is true, but I remind him that two months ago I was not even known in this province. Obviously, he read the article in this morning's press and was worried that we were not being treated appropriately in Washington when invited to speak to the newsmakers' breakfast.

I can assure him that a number of very distinguished people have had the same invitation opportunity; I read that the president of the wholesale shoe manufacturers, textile importers and a number of other distinguished people had received invitations. I am proud to join their company and the company of William Grenville Davis, who did the same thing.

In sadness, I must now honour the wager I had with the Governor of Missouri, who was here for one of the games. I bet him that, should we lose, I would be prepared to sing Everything's Up to Date in Kansas City in a public place somewhere in this province. I am not an accomplished musician and I may invite the help of my worthy friend opposite who could contribute a great deal in that regard.

It is my intention to honour my commitment to the governor tomorrow. I offered to send him a tape of what I was doing, but he is a Republican and does not trust tapes. The American ambassador, therefore, will be there on his behalf to make sure I perform, not only in spirit but in law, the wager we engaged in last week. Mr. Speaker, on your behalf and on behalf of all my colleagues in the House, I am about to embarrass myself but maintain the honour of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that singing will not take place between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Rae: I was afraid he was going to do it today. Can we get a piano in here, Mr. Speaker? I do not know whether the rules allow for that.

First of all, I want to say I cannot imagine a conversion more astounding, except perhaps the one that took place on the road to Damascus, than the one we have witnessed here from the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt). I want to congratulate him, without mentioning his past in any way whatsoever, for suddenly expounding on the quality of the Toronto Blue Jays. This conversion on Highway 401 is a historic occasion.

I welcome all Detroit Tigers fans, such as the member for Sarnia, who is an inveterate Tigers fan, to this new love affair he now has with the Toronto Blue Jays. Welcome to the club. I hope we do not lose the member again next year. I have a sneaking feeling that on the opening day of next year he may be as sickle in his love for baseball teams as he is in his political loyalty, which I understand has been transferred very recently. I hesitate to bring that up; nevertheless, fair is fair.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party and on my own behalf, I have already written to Mr. Cox to say we really do admire what the Blue Jays have accomplished. I was in the stands last night and there was a great sense of collective dismay and disappointment at what happened during the game. But we cannot win them all. I am an expert in that regard, speaking on behalf of my party. I have no hesitation in saying that the Blue Jays have done an enormous amount for the enjoyment and entertainment of the people of this province and the people of Canada.

They have proved themselves to be a marvellous team. We all shared in the sense that was going through the stands yesterday, which was, "You ain't seen nothin' yet; wait till 1986." I speak as a New Democrat in saying the same thing, "Wait till 1986." We are looking forward to the 1986 season in baseball; we look forward to being there.

We also wish the Premier well at whatever breakfast he may be having in Washington, or wherever it happens to be. I am sure he will overcome whatever recognition problems he may have had.

[Later]

Mr. Stevenson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: When the Premier was speaking of the Blue Jays, he stated everyone in Ontario would be pleased with their performance last night. I would like to inform him -- and I know the hog producers of the province will be very pleased to know this, after the kicking they have been taking as a result of countervail action by Midwest producers over the last several months -- our current Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) was seen wearing a Kansas City hat throughout the game last night.

Mr. Speaker: I think the points of privilege are getting somewhat out of hand.

Mr. G. I. Miller: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to bring to the attention of the House that the minister has a bit of hair on top. It was a cold, windy night and he wanted a hat for protection. They had only Blue Jays hats with sieves in them and he had to put on something solid. That is why he had to wear the Kansas City hat.

2:10 p.m.

DEATH OF ROBERT M. JOHNSTON

Hon Mr. Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of the House the passing of a former member of the Ontario Legislature, Mr. Robert M. Johnston, who was affectionately known as Bob Johnston to many of the members who have been around this House for a long time. He passed away yesterday at the age of 69.

As some people will know, Bob began his political career when he was 22 years old in what was then the village of Port Dalhousie, now a ward in the city of St. Catharines. Bob went on from there to be the reeve of Port Dalhousie and subsequently represented Port Dalhousie ward on the St. Catharines city council. In 1964 he became the mayor of the city of St. Catharines. In 1967 he was elected as the Progressive Conservative member for the newly carved-out riding, the provincial constituency of St. Catharines. He was re-elected in 1971 and again in 1975.

Mr. Johnston was probably best known as an excellent constituency person, a very popular individual in our community of St. Catharines. His colleagues who are still in the House would also remember him as a very independent-minded fellow who did not care much for procedures or protocol but who was interested in getting things done and did not mind bucking the trends or his own party when called for.

I should also note I attended a nomination convention -- I hate to admit I was a naïve student at the time -- when Robert Welch was contesting the nomination in 1963 with Mr. Johnston. Mr. Welch won on that occasion. That was my introduction to Bob Johnston and his attempts in the political field at the provincial level.

On two occasions, Mr. Johnston defeated me in my attempt to become a member of the Ontario Legislature. He was a formidable opponent at all times but a good friend of everyone. People on all sides of the House who knew Bob would agree with me that his passing is sad for all of us. He will be missed in St. Catharines, but he will be remembered fondly by his friends in this House and in our community.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I would like to add my own words to those of the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) because I was fortunate enough to have served with Mr. Johnston in this House, as a member of his party and caucus.

I arrived here in 1971 and by that time he was a seasoned veteran of this parliament. He was always a hard-working, loyal, friendly member of our caucus. He stood up for the people who voted for him. He worked hard on their behalf in his quiet, effective way, and those of us who knew him here as a warm and friendly member of our caucus keep that memory and treasure his contribution to our province.

Mr. Foulds: If I could add, on behalf of our caucus, when the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) and I were first new boys in the Legislature in 1971, Bob Johnston was the kind of guy who made you feel at home and welcome, not only in the Legislature but also when one travelled to his constituency in St. Catharines. We will remember him with fondness and we pay tribute to him and send our sympathies to his family.

Mr. Partington: As the member for Brock, the area where Bob Johnston spent all his life, I also want to express my sympathy over his passing. I had the opportunity to be president of the riding association of St. Catharines for the Progressive Conservative Party when Mr. Johnston served as a member. He was known as an unbeatable politician, as the Minister of the Environment has indicated.

He served from a very young age. He was reeve of Port Dalhousie and mayor of St. Catharines. He was an unbeatable politician and I think the current member had to wait until he decided to step aside.

He gained that popularity by being a friend of everyone. The Johnston family was a solid family in the community and there was no length to which he would not go to help somebody with a problem. That speaks for his popularity.

MEMBER'S MARRIAGE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I know you would not want this occasion to pass without the House being informed of the change in status of the dean of the House, the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil).

Having been elected many years ago and having had the tremendous responsibilities and onerous duties of supporting the former government, he had remained a bachelor. However, within weeks of being released to the responsibilities of opposition, he married. All of us in this House and his many friends everywhere wish him and his new wife the very best.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

UNIVERSITY EXCELLENCE FUND

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to begin these remarks by informing the House that next week is National Universities Week. This event represents an important recognition of the vital role of the universities in this country's intellectual, social, cultural and economic development.

Mr. Warner: You had better start funding them properly.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is what we are going to do.

As my honourable colleagues know, this government is committed to improving postsecondary education in Ontario. As part of that commitment, we will pursue excellence in our universities by bringing about their revitalization. This government wants our universities to have the capacity to contribute to the quality and texture of life in this province.

Therefore, I am pleased to inform the House of a major initiative of this government in taking steps to fulfil that commitment. This government is establishing a university excellence fund that will provide an extra $50 million in special grants to the universities and related institutions in 1986-87. This amount is in addition to the basic increase in operating and capital funds that will be announced by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in his forthcoming budget statement.

The university excellence fund will provide for the enhancement of quality in both teaching and research and will involve three major components. The first is faculty renewal, the second is research leadership, and the third is library enhancement and instructional equipment. I would like to take this opportunity to describe for the members each component of this fund.

First, there is faculty renewal. Excellence in both teaching and research is largely dependent on the human resources within our institutions. As a consequence of the current abnormal age distribution of faculty, there will be a limited number of new openings for the existing generation of young scholars and teachers in the next 10 years. However, a consistent flow of talented new faculty into the system is required to enhance the instructional quality and adaptability of our institutions and to ensure they are continually undergoing renewal.

This component of the fund permits the taking of a vitally important fast step in a program of faculty renewal in our institutions. This government has allocated $10 million to the program in 1986-87. The introduction of new faculty should improve the percentage of women, while at the same time increasing the opportunities for young Canadian scholars. This program will build on desired centres of strength and excellence within our institutions. It will be structured to meet the unique circumstances and needs of each institution.

2:20 p.m.

The second component is research leadership. As well as enhancing the quality of teaching, university research represents an investment in the social and economic development of this province. Research conducted in our universities is a major source of innovation and is increasingly important for the province's economic transformation and growth.

While applied research represents a medium-term investment in the province's future, basic university research represents a longer-term investment. Basic university research in, for example, mathematics, physics, biology and biochemistry has been an essential building block for subsequent applied research and development. We must continue to ensure our universities have the capacity to explore the frontiers of knowledge.

To enhance the research resources of our universities, the government will allocate $15 million towards the costs of special items of research equipment, specialized experimental facilities and highly skilled technical and professional research support staff. This program is expected to strengthen areas of research specialization within the universities and expand their capacities to conduct resource-intensive research.

Finally, I would like to say a few words about the third component, library enhancement and instructional equipment. The consequence of university underfunding during the last decade is particularly evident in the inability of our universities to maintain their library collections and acquire state-of-the-art instructional equipment. This situation has damaged the quality of educational experience for our university students.

Accordingly, this component of the university excellence fund will provide $25 million in 1986-87 to assist the institutions to expand and strengthen their library collections and will assist in the purchase of state-of-the-art scientific, laboratory, computing, library and other instructional equipment.

I would also like to take this opportunity to inform the members of the House that I will be asking the Ontario Council on University Affairs to advise me on certain aspects of the university excellence fund. Needless to say, the institutions themselves will be kept apprised of all developments with respect to this consultation.

Ontario's universities are a vital resource to current and future generations, but they have suffered deterioration as a result of a decade of chronic underfunding. The initiatives I have announced today represent our initial investment in the restoration of the health of our institutions. These initiatives are supplementary, of course, to the regular operating and capital grants that will be announced by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in his budget.

This government is committed to developing the full potential of our universities and making the university community an environment for individual and institutional growth and excellence. I am confident we are working towards a network of institutions united in a commitment to quality, vitality and excellence.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Elston: My first statement is with respect to northern health care services.

As Minister of Health, I believe one of the immediate issues to which our government must respond is the need to improve health care services for the residents of northern Ontario. This is an issue on which a number of promises were made by the previous government during the last several years. It is one upon which this government intends to take action.

I will, therefore, be introducing a program by the end of next month that will provide subsidies to northern residents who must travel significant distances for necessary medical care.

[Applause]

Mr. McClellan: What a good idea.

Mr. Rae: Brilliant idea.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister will continue.

Mr. Martel: The minister might like to say where the idea came from.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Ron Van Horne.

Mr. Rae: A little credit where credit is due.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I would not mind acknowledging to a very large degree the great amount of assistance all members of the Legislative Assembly have given in directing us towards this program. There have been a number of promises in past years, but I have taken the initiative, as there is a need for new directions by this government. I am preparing to fulfil the requirements of the people of northern Ontario with the assistance of my colleagues. I acknowledge that fully in every way possible.

This government also plans to proceed with several other initiatives designed to improve and expand health care services in northern Ontario. To foster greater medical self-sufficiency in the north, we will be proceeding on two fronts. First, we will develop a recruitment program to encourage more medical specialists to locate in the north during the next several years. Second, we will provide incentives to enable these medical specialists to travel from the major northern centres to patients in smaller communities.

In order to move ahead quickly with the initiatives, I am announcing today that my ministry will begin a series of consultations with hospital administrators, medical staff and local medical societies in five northern centres. The consultations will begin in Thunder Bay on October 21. They will continue in Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie on October 28 and 29, and conclude in North Bay and Timmins on October 30, 1985.

During these consultations we will seek local advice on the types of additional medical specialities now required in the north, where specialists would most appropriately be located, the patient referral patterns that might be improved to provide access to care and the travel outreach programs that specialists might undertake to serve the smaller northern communities.

As we move to put in place the various components of a northern health care program, it is also our intention to create a committee of northern general practitioners and specialists to monitor program development and to provide recommendations and advice.

I am confident that as we move into this first phase with our consultations in the five regional centres, we are beginning a process that will enable us to develop the health services that northern Ontarians both require and deserve.

BLOOD TESTING PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Elston: The second statement pertains to the continuing difficult problem of acquired immune deficiency syndrome in Ontario and to the blood testing and reporting program, about which there have been a number of statements in the press recently.

During the past month I have made a number of statements on the subject of AIDS. We have moved on a number of fronts to address the growing incidence of AIDS and increasing public concern.

On October 1, 1985, I announced two specific steps to support our efforts to confront this tragic development. Approximately $200,000 in startup and operating costs have been provided to the ministry's central laboratory in Etobicoke. On November 1 this year that lab will begin diagnostic specimen testing of suspected AIDS cases. Physicians throughout the province will be able to send specimens directly to the central lab facilities, and the tests will be covered as an insured benefit under the Ontario health insurance plan.

2:30 p.m.

I also announced that we will be providing up to $1 million to the Canadian Red Cross as part of Ontario's contribution to a nationwide blood screening and blood testing program. That screening and testing program will also begin on November 1, 1985, and will be an invaluable support to the voluntary blood donation program that is highly valued and prized by all our citizens.

Further, we will be providing up to $200,000 to establish an AIDS education panel in this province. An additional $100,000 will be provided to the AIDS Committee of Toronto for its volunteer outreach and support program, a subject about which I have spoken earlier. I commend their activities in the community.

In the past few days there have been several media accounts about Red Cross blood testing procedures for acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the reporting process that will be followed when test results prove positive. Because these accounts may have led to some confusion in the public mind about what is planned and intended, I would like to clarify, both for the members of this House and the people of Ontario, the reporting process that has been agreed upon by the provincial government and the Canadian Red Cross.

This specific topic has been the subject of discussion between the Canadian Red Cross and the City of Toronto Health Unit. Unfortunately, these discussions have highlighted a misunderstanding between the parties regarding these reporting requirements, a misunderstanding which has since been clarified.

AIDS has been designated a reportable disease since June 1983. This designation means that physicians and other health care professionals must report to their local medical officer of health persons whom they believe may have one of the 63 reportable diseases. Laboratories are required to report positive laboratory findings with respect to any of these diseases to the local medical officer of health. The legislation also contains provisions designed to protect patient confidentiality with regard to any of these diseases.

We currently have available two basic laboratory tests which can be used to assist in the diagnosis of AIDS. The first is a screening test, the Elisa test, which may be used to screen quickly for the presence of AIDS antibodies. If this quick test, which requires about 24 hours, is positive, the person may have -- and I underline "may have" -- been exposed to the AIDS virus. This is not dissimilar to screening tests used for other diseases such as syphilis.

In the event of a positive screening result, a second, more sensitive but time-consuming test to confirm or negate the initial finding is undertaken. For AIDS, this second, confirmatory test, the western blot test, takes about three to four weeks to complete.

In designing these testing programs, legislative reporting requirements and effectiveness considerations have resulted in the following protocols:

1. Within 24 hours of receipt, each blood donation is subject to the Elisa screening test.

2. If the results are negative, no further action is needed and the blood can be used for transfusions or the making of other blood products.

3. If the results are positive, a second and third screening test are performed on the blood.

4. If the second and third screening tests are both negative, the blood is deemed safe for use. 5. If either of the second screening tests are positive, samples are sent to the Red Cross National Reference Laboratory in Toronto for confirmatory testing under the western blot test program.

6. If that confirmatory test is positive, the blood is unsuitable for use and destroyed. This confirmed test result is reported to the local medical officer of health, via the Ministry of Health, in keeping with the provisions of the legislation. At the same time, the donor is notified that the blood sample has not passed the required tests and the name of the family physician will be requested.

The attending physician would then counsel and monitor the patient, who may or may not go on actually to develop AIDS. Evidence so far indicates that a very small proportion, two to five per cent, will develop AIDS. The reporting requirement placed on the laboratory ensures that confirmed test results are reported to the medical officer of health.

Also, having the donor send to the Red Cross his or her physician's name and address allows the medical officer of health to ensure that the person is under a doctor's care. When the individual does not close the reporting loop by seeing his or her physician, the medical officer of health may undertake or arrange for counselling and medical care.

This protocol meets the requirements of the legislation relating to the designated diseases, provides the local medical officer of health with necessary information and preserves the integrity of the voluntary blood donation system.

I want to stress that in this reporting process every provision of our legislation regarding patient confidentiality and reportable diseases will be adhered to.

The nature of this reporting procedure is fully understood by all the agencies involved. Any uncertainty that may have existed has been resolved. I am confident the blood testing program, which begins on November 1, will be carried out successfully and expeditiously. I am also certain this blood testing program will provide every possible protection to Ontario blood donors and recipients of blood transfusions.

There will continue to be a number of complex issues that confront us as we seek to deal with the increasing incidence of AIDS. Our efforts on this front will include the public education panel on AIDS. I feel that will enable us to meet some of these arising issues.

Today I am announcing the people who have been appointed to serve on that panel, chaired by Dr. Jay Browne, director of social work at Chedoke-McMaster hospitals in Hamilton.

The panel members are Dr. Alexander Macpherson, medical officer of health, Toronto; William Mindell, co-ordinator of community health information, Toronto; Sharon Campbell, executive director, St. Elizabeth's Order of Visiting Nurses; Thomas Alloway, professor of psychology and zoology, Erindale College, and an AIDS Committee of Toronto representative; Joan Hollobon, Toronto, media representative; Peg Folsom of the North York Health Unit, Ontario Public Health Association; Dr. Roslyn Herst, deputy medical director of the Canadian Red Cross section in Toronto; Johanne Mousseau, regional supervisor for Ontario of the Victorian Order of Nurses; Dr. Kathleen Givan, director of the department of clinical laboratories at Women's College Hospital, Toronto, and a member of the provincial advisory committee on AIDS to the minister; and Dr. Barbara Blake, director of the public health branch of the Ministry of Health.

The 11-member panel will be supported by up to $200,000 in ministry funds to identify, develop and produce educational and informational materials, including pamphlets and videotapes for physicians, other health care practitioners and the public. In addition to producing information materials, the panel will make available to interested community groups speakers who are knowledgeable about AIDS.

In creating the AIDS education panel, our intention is to respond to the many myths and misconceptions that persist about the disease and to promote a well-defined and co-ordinated approach to public information and education about this disease in our province.

ITEM PRICING

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Any member of this House who frequents any of Ontario's large grocery stores will be familiar with a concept best described as individual item pricing. Briefly explained, individual item pricing means that a price tag appears on virtually every item of merchandise on the store shelf.

While it was once a marketing necessity, the advent of computer technology, the universal product code and optical scanners now make it possible for most stores to do away with individual item pricing. It is possible, but it is unacceptable to the consumer.

I consider individual item pricing to be more than just another of our traditions being threatened by computer technology. The price sticker or pen marking on store goods is the only reliable source of price information that is mobile and can be used to compare in-store prices with cashier entries. I express the concern of many consumers in reacting to reports that Canada Safeway stores in five northwestern Ontario cities have recently done away with individual item pricing.

In 1980, the major supermarket chains in Ontario made a commitment to the provincial government that ensured the continuation of individual item pricing. Safeway stores were bound by that commitment. They were and are members of the Retail Council of Canada, which was the spokesman for the food chains. The commitment, with few exceptions, is still being honoured throughout Ontario.

We expect grocery retailers to continue the practice of individual item pricing. If Safeway or any other supermarkets had consulted with my ministry before acting, they would have recognized our continued and firm support of the 1980 commitment and realized we are not considering any alterations to the agreement.

2:40 p.m.

To clarify our position, I have arranged a meeting with representatives of Canada Safeway Ltd. on October 23, and representatives of the Retail Council of Canada have agreed to meet with me as soon as possible. In addition, I will be meeting with the Consumers' Association of Canada on October 30 to discuss this important consumer issue.

We expect Ontario supermarkets to live up to their promise to keep goods on store shelves individually priced, and we will consider introducing legislation if the grocery industry fails to co-operate. It is also important to state that we expect all stores, and not only chain stores, to item-price if equipped by scanners.

This is not the first time this House has addressed this issue. In the past a number of private members have introduced bills to show their strong concern. Bills introduced by my colleagues the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) come quickly to mind.

Legislation enforcing individual item pricing has been chosen by the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba. Manitoba, however, has not been enforcing the act, through the lack of regulations, and Quebec has not proclaimed its bill. Legislative action has been initiated in a number of states in the United States.

It is my hope that government-industry cooperation, which has made legislation unnecessary in the past, will prevail during our current discussions, but industry should be warned that we are prepared to take action on this important consumer concern if need be.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I wish to inform the House today that it is this government's intention to amend those sections of Bill 22, the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, dealing with additional regional councillors in the regional municipalities of Durham, York and Waterloo. This will directly affect the towns of Markham, Vaughan, Whitby and Ajax and the city of Waterloo.

Since the final date of the posting of notices for the offices to be contested was October 12, it will not be possible to elect these additional regional councillors directly in Durham and York during the 1985 municipal elections. In view of the representation by population ratios in the five area municipalities, it is advisable to provide for the selection of the additional regional representatives on an interim basis until these councillors can be elected in 1988.

I therefore propose to make a motion when the legislation is being considered in committee to provide for the following:

All references to the election of additional regional representatives in York and Durham will be amended to refer to 1988.

The amendments providing for an additional regional councillor for the city of Waterloo will be retained and implemented effective the later of December 1, 1985, or royal assent of the amending legislation. At present, the mayor and the two top pollers sit on regional council. This legislation will provide that the mayor and the three top pollers will be regional councillors.

Effective the later of December 1, 1985, or royal assent of the legislation, the additional regional representatives of each of Markham, Vaughan, Ajax and Whitby for the remainder of the 1985-88 term of office will be chosen by each town council in the same manner as provided in the Municipal Act for filling vacancies either by election or by appointment.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO FINANCES

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have a question for the Premier. During the election campaign the Premier went around Ontario talking a lot about the state of the finances in this province. In effect, he said we cooked the books.

On July 11, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) made a statement to this House in which he confirmed that the cash requirements of 1984-85 had been as predicted by our former Treasurer. However, he went on to say there would be deep trouble this year, $2.6 billion in cash, and the very next day he found we were on credit watch. In mid-August, with one of those chameleon-like changes which he is becoming very adept at, he issued a press release that said -- and this is the way it was reported in the Globe and Mail --

Mr. Speaker: Please ask the question.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have to put this in context.

Mr. Speaker: Could you put it in the form of a question?

Mr. F. S. Miller: "Two months after taking over the government of Ontario, the Liberals have switched from accusing the Progressive Conservatives of cooking the books to crediting them with doing a great job with the province's economy. This dramatic change contains no hint that the Conservatives formed the government up until that point."

Mr. Speaker: Is the question "Do you agree?"

Mr. F. S. Miller: I am getting to that. Recently the Premier made a speech in which he again said things were in a bad state. Yesterday he implied taxes would go up very much in the upcoming budget. Does he still plan to increase the burden on the average taxpayer in this province by two per cent of sales tax, just to keep his promises and his unreasonable expectations and to live up to the increased debt he is putting on the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Leader of the Opposition makes a number of points in his question. Most of them are wrong -- in particular, his quote from the Globe and Mail. He should know better than anybody not to believe what he reads in the press.

Let me go through the sequence for my honourable friend. The Treasurer did say in his statement on July 11 that the net cash requirements for last year were $1.7 billion, or in that range, reporting after the fact. He did say, and it was completely accurate and descriptive as opposed to prescriptive, using the numbers he inherited as Treasurer -- the current fiscal plan, with no changes in revenue or expenditures, and factoring in the former Premier's election promises in his throne speech and other things he said when he was trying to redeem himself in the later stages of the campaign and after May 2 -- that the net cash requirements, with those promises included, would have been about $2.6 billion. Even without those promises, they would have been $2.2 billion.

The Treasurer factually laid out the situation as it was presented, and the member is quite right that Standard and Poor's put the province on credit watch with negative implications that day. From his conversations with his colleagues the former Treasurer and the former Premier, I am sure he will be very familiar with the difficulties they had with that rating agency, particularly in August 1984. They went down to New York and I gather tried to appeal the process, made some promises to Standard and Poor's and, in some measure at least, turned over control of the books to them.

The member came in late with his three per cent transfers, and the previous Premier did not choose to deal with them. The member came in late with them, which did not allow the transfer agencies to plan properly. Then, in his conversion on the road to Damascus -- and so many are having them today -- he added $181 million in expenditures after May 2, after he knew what was going to happen to him.

We laid out all those facts very clearly. That is the situation which the Treasurer has had to deal with. The member will see in the budget next week a realistic interpretation of the facts. He will see assets that are valued realistically, not inflated. We will not have, for example, billion-dollar assets of no particular value on the balance sheet. We will deal with the questions of money owed on transit that was neither budgeted for nor allocated --

Mr. Bernier: Answer the question.

Mr. Turner: That is a long answer.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is my duty as Speaker to try to have as many members as possible ask questions and receive answers. To do that --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The question was too long.

Mr. Speaker: I have to admit I timed both, and they were very similar in length. Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr. F. S. Miller: Yes, I do. What the Premier has not done is deny the fact that he is planning to increase sales tax by two per cent in the budget. Does he not realize the average person in this province cannot afford $600 more per year in taxes? The Premier talks about cynicism in politics. Does he not believe breaking his promises is creating cynicism?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend has made a number of predictions lately. I could go through the list of them: the number of seats he was going to win, when we were going to call an election and everything else. He has been wrong every time and he is wrong again.

Mr. Foulds: Did I understand the Premier correctly that he handed over Ontario's books to Standard and Poor's for review? If he has, would he do so for the people of the province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member has completely misunderstood. I did not say that. We have not been down to Standard and Poor's. I said the previous Premier was visiting there, with the previous Treasurer. The member will recall that famous meeting; it was a subject of much discussion in this House a year ago. That was the one to which I was referring. We have not had any discussions with them.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Any Premier who has had the kind of positive press this Premier has had in the last while should not question the veracity of the press.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is exactly why I do not believe it.

Mr. F. S. Miller: That is with good basis. The Premier implied I was wrong again. That was his comment: "wrong again." What is it? Is it three per cent by which the government is putting up the sales tax? In this yo-yo policy the government has, "One day we are good, one day we are bad," what is today's policy?

Mr. Speaker: Is there any reply?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Could you help me out, Mr. Speaker? Was there a question? Am I a yo-yo? Was that the question? If you could help translate, you would be doing a very worthwhile service to this House. I have no idea what the member is talking about.

Mr. Speaker: I guess it is not my job to translate any of the questions or responses.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Davis: The Premier is unquestionably aware that the Commission for Planning and Implementing Change in the Governance and Administration of Secondary Education in Ontario has issued a set of highly detailed criteria to the boards of education, dated September 16, 1985, outlining what procedures must be followed in the 1986-87 school year in exchange for separate school funding.

I have some deep concerns about those criteria, because they place many restrictions on the Roman Catholic community in the expansion of its education system. Do the new guidelines reflect the government's current position on separate school funding?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that to my honourable colleague.

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is true that in recent days the planning and implementation commission has issued to separate school boards and to boards of education the criteria for second-year plans for separate school extension.

It is also true that the planning and implementation commission has been listening very carefully to the deliberations of the standing committee on social development and to the representations made by the hundreds to that commission. They have also been listening to the Minister of Education and this government, which have always been very serious in their view that separate school extension should take place within the context of a strong and positive public education system.

I have made it very clear to the planning and implementation commission and to the social development committee that for second-year plans -- the planning and implementation commission has made this clear as well, and it is quite obviously part of the second-year criteria -- that we will be looking very carefully at the breadth and viability of program, not just in the extended separate school plan but in the board of education that is impacted by the separate school extension; also, on the facilities, not just for the short term but for the long term.

This government is pleased that the planning and implementation guidelines have gone out, that they represent the views that have been presented to the social development committee and that they reflect the views of this minister that this plan will take place with some very clear and well-defined criteria that will be in the interests of both separate and public boards of education.

Mr. Davis: I ask the Minister of Education, the Premier and this government where they find the audacity to tell the people of Ontario that the final version of Bill 30 will be based on public input and careful consideration. The minister established a committee, encouraged hearings and, in spite of the hearings still going on and more than 80 delegates yet to come before us, he has already mandated most of the criteria behind the scene.

The minister has placed limitations upon expansion of the separate school system with respect to funding. In the new criteria, he has mandated the sharing of facilities in school boards. I ask the minister, is this the direction of his government, which controls the funding? Is this the way the new government is going to operate, that it will say it has openness but on the other hand it will have mandated policies?

Hon. Mr. Conway: With all due respect to the honourable member, perhaps he can help me understand his question in the light of his party's activity when it was in government. When the Tories were in government, they were paralysed with this issue over 13 months and could not introduce the legislation. They sent the planning and implementation commission out into the province without any legislative authority whatsoever to deal with first-year plans.

This government has made a commitment to do a number of things. In the first week of our tenure, we introduced the legislation and referred it to the committee and to the court. Yes, we are serious when we say this policy will develop within clear rules that will be carried forward on behalf of the government by the planning and implementation commission, a fact that is well known to the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Allen: The arcane nature of the question and the length and perhaps the convolution of the first answer suggest a good reason why my colleague has been asking for simultaneous translation in this House for francophone members.

In the light of this question and in the light of the fact that the planning and implementation commission will be before the committee on Tuesday afternoon dealing with those very terms of reference for the second-year implementation, will the minister be in the House that afternoon to discuss with us the issues that surround the implementation guidelines for 1986?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to my friend the member for Hamilton West that I will make every effort to accommodate his wish. Let me say as well --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is that yes?

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I have not already booked myself to meet a delegation from Scarborough West, I am quite prepared to be available.

However, I want to say to the member that the second-year criteria were sent to the social development committee on October 11, 1985, and I hope the planning and implementation commission gets some credit for devising criteria that reflect to a very real degree the substantial input from members opposite and others through the three months of consultation, where the concerns about viability and single-school communities were made abundantly clear.

I hope the members opposite are prepared to give the planning and implementation commission the credit it deserves for devising second-year criteria that, in my view, very properly reflect a lot of the input which that very hard-working committee, under the able leadership of the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), has offered to the commission.

3 p.m.

Mr. Davis: I will try not to use jargon which the Minister of Education and my learned colleague to my left do not understand. Since the minister was present at many of those hearings, does he not know the petitioners who came before us had great concern about and objected to the sweeping powers of the planning and implementation commission? They want the issues dealt with within the bill. We still have 80 delegates to come before us, which must mean the minister does not believe or consider their input to be important.

The fear most expressed by people before us, which is the sweeping power of the planning and implementation commission, now has been recognized because the criteria have been changed. Is the minister proposing to incorporate subsection 136s(4) in Bill 30?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I remind the honourable member that it was his government in a previous incarnation that created the commission. I hope the member for Scarborough Centre is going to offer to his friend the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) the advice he offered to me. His friend did not wait for the committee beyond about the middle of August before taking his position.

This government is serious about public consultation, but we are also committed to proceeding in an orderly fashion. I have said before and I repeat now that when the time comes to review the bill clause by clause, we will listen to all constructive suggestions the member and others may bring forward. However, the planning and implementation commission has important work to do and I am one who believes it should be encouraged to go forward and do that important work on the basis of a lot of good advice that has been offered by the member and his colleagues opposite.

NURSING HOME INSPECTIONS

Mr. Rae: I want to address some questions to the Minister of Health about the tragedy that has taken place in London at the Extendicare London Nursing Home where 18 people have died. I am not satisfied, and I hope the minister also is not satisfied, that we have all the answers to this terrible tragedy, how it could have happened and how it could have been allowed to carry on for so long.

Specifically, the minister will be aware that the fast case of diarrhoea was reported on September 8. There were 10 new cases, reported inside the home, that were discovered on September 9. There were 16 new cases discovered on September 10. During those three days, there were 27 cases of epidemic diarrhoea with extremely severe symptoms. They were not reported to the medical officer of health in the city of London until September 11, at which time 14 new cases had broken out.

The minister will know the requirements under the Health Protection and Promotion Act are very clear: as soon as an epidemic is discovered, it must be reported to the medical officer of health.

Is the minister satisfied that the basic requirements of the laws of Ontario have been met by those responsible for this situation?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The tone of my announcement last week in the city of London with respect to the whole issue, and the release of the report by Dr. Korn on his investigations into that tragic event, indicate that I have some concerns about what happened with respect to a number of items. By releasing that report, I have indicated I want the most open and public discussion of the difficulties that came about as a result of the outbreak of the disease at Extendicare.

In addition, the honourable gentleman will be aware that an inquest is to be held. A number of the items he is talking about will be deliberated upon by a jury formed under the coroner's auspices. A number of answers will come from that. However, I have not waited. I have announced initiatives with respect to coordinating the inspection capabilities of both the public health unit and the nursing homes branch. It seems to me that by my quick and open action I have indicated my very serious concerns about the manner in which this event occurred.

Mr. Rae: I asked a very specific question of the minister with respect to the health promotion act. It sets out a clear requirement. The minister referred to that requirement very specifically in his report in London on Friday.

As the minister responsible for the implementation of that act, is he satisfied the requirements of the act were met when 27 people come down with cases of epidemic diarrhoea and it is not reported for three full days?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The determination of the legal obligations will be addressed in the coroner's inquest. My concern is that there be an early reporting, and I have indicated that in each case where there is any indication of an outbreak of any sort it will be deemed to be an emergency for the purposes of reporting to the medical officer of health. These honourable gentlemen obviously do not wish to wait for a very full public discussion in the inquest.

This issue is extremely important to me and it is important to the citizens of the province. Steps have already been taken, very early, very active steps on our part, the release of a report to the public, to let them know exactly what was done by the medical officer of health. I cannot see anything at this time that indicates I do not have a great deal of concern about the events that surrounded the deaths at Extendicare.

Mr. Rae: No one is challenging the concern; that is not what is at stake here. What is at stake here is whether people died whose lives could have been saved had different actions been taken. What is also at stake here are institutions that have a special responsibility and that may not, in terms of the law, have met that responsibility. That is why he is the minister. It is a tough job, but he has to do it and he has to see that the law is protected and maintained.

With regard to Dr. Korn's report, which the minister has referred to, he will be aware that people caught this terrible epidemic diarrhoea in two ways: first, by eating whatever the substance was on or about September 5, and second, in person-to-person contact.

Dr. Korn's report says, "On September 19 a number of control strategies were implemented, including," and I am omitting some things, "exclusion of ill staff and improved inspection control procedures."

Does the minister understand the implication of that remark of Dr. Korn's? Will he confirm my understanding of what Dr. Korn has said: that between September 8 and September 19, for 11 days, staff members who caught this epidemic diarrhoea were continuing to work in the institution and to take care of other patients? Is that clear? Is the minister satisfied with that situation going on in a nursing home?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member asked several questions. The report by Dr. Korn is very specific about what occurred and about the very specific steps that were taken after Dr. Korn and the public health unit intervened to provide some isolation with respect to the care of the patients. Dr. Korn's report is very full and complete in that sense and the member opposite can read it as well as I can.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Rae: Let me go back --

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Rae: I have a new question on the same subject.

The minister will know that his department issued a Guide to the Control of Enteric Disease Outbreaks in Health Care Facilities in the summer of this year; he referred to it in his statement on Friday. It deals explicitly with this problem with respect to staff. It says specifically, "Patient care staff exclude from work all cases or suspected cases who are involved in patient care."

No one is disputing that Dr. Korn wrote his report and that he reported on what he found. Is the minister satisfied that, when he had an epidemic involving dozens of people, caused both from eating this stuff and from person-to-person contact, it took 11 days before the kinds of tough measures that were obviously required were taken to stop this epidemic? Is he satisfied with this 11-day delay in a nursing home in Ontario with literally hundreds of patients?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman probably does not understand the technical nature of the difficulty that was contracted by the patients. He would understand, if he had read the report, that the incubation period of this disease is four or five days before it takes effect.

The initial exposure means there is a considerable time delay in discovering exactly what people are suffering from. There are some indications that during the initial two or three days, before people were able to assess what was happening to those individuals, they were trying to take the best steps they could inside the nursing home.

3:10 p.m.

The inquest will be clear and specific about the steps that were taken. Dr. Korn's report to me recounts exactly what happened with respect to his interventions and what he was able to find from his work there. The inquest will be a much more thorough, intensive interview of the people who were involved. I am sure that people, staff who work at the nursing home and others, will be subpoenaed to try to discover exactly what instructions were given to each of them.

It is an extremely critical and important part of our process that the coroner's inquest not be jeopardized by statements made by people in public before there has been a chance to examine the entire record. I have been very open with respect to the reports I have made available. I am concerned that every time there is an inspection and a report with respect to the health and welfare of the people of the province, it become available for people to look at and examine.

I am encouraged that these individuals are examining these reports. There is the very full report from Dr. Korn as to his role. The inquest will determine the precise role of all the players and that is an important process we must follow.

Mr. Rae: The issues raised by Dr. Korn, and indeed by the minister's own statement, raise questions in every paragraph. Does the minister not feel those circumstances are sufficiently serious that we should have a full public inquiry, quite apart from what is going on under the Coroners Act?

I am sure the minister would agree that if 18 deaths took place in virtually any other kind of institution, the outcry would be enormous. I hope he shares my view that in many cases those residents had long and full lives to lead and that they were cheated of those long and full lives by the tragedy that took place. It is our responsibility as public servants to make sure, not only that it never happens again but also that we attach some responsibility for what took place in the past.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The question of a full public inquiry was broached earlier by two of the member's colleagues, but not by the member himself. It was shared with me by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and also by one of the members from Ottawa. We have not come to a decision with respect to that. On Tuesday, when this matter was raised with me in private conversations, I said I would be thinking about it.

They obviously have not told their leader what I told them. It is extremely important that under the inquest system we analyse exactly what happened to claim the lives of those individuals. That is one way we can come up with a number of the answers required to fill in the puzzle as to why they died. That inquest has been ordered but has not been scheduled. We intend to co-operate fully with that inquiry.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I hope the minister will quickly consider a public inquiry. As my leader said, if that number of deaths had occurred at any other institution, there would be a public inquiry.

I hope this is not a commentary on how we feel about the elderly in this province. We need a first-class inquiry to make sure we get to the bottom of this tragic incident.

There appear to have been two violations of two different pieces of legislation: the reporting mechanism under the Health Protection and Promotion Act and refrigeration of food under the Nursing Homes Act. Both are at the bottom of the initial start of this contamination and disease and the ongoing nature of it with the number of people who became ill.

Are we going to have to wait for a coroner's inquest or a public inquiry until the minister determines whether charges are going to be laid against the people responsible --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: -- or is it not perfectly clear in those instances that a charge can be laid and the people should be brought to justice?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There is no indication on my part of any delay in taking action on the circumstances that generated these tragic deaths. We have already indicated the need to coordinate the better inspection services I spoke about in the city of London. We have taken several other steps with respect to upgrading the educational background for training people in food handling. These are very practical steps to ensure that the people in the province are protected by having better information available.

After the question was asked of me on Tuesday, at which time I undertook to look into having a compliance plan made available to the member, they telephoned my office and requested several other documents. At this time I am prepared to table five documents. All the members can have access to the nutritional care inspection report, the environmental inspection report, the nutritional care follow-up inspection report, the letters and plan for temporary kitchen report, the environmental inspection report and the ministry consultant report that was given to Dr. Korn.

I have taken steps to open up this process and there is no delay with respect to action. In addition to those activities with respect to this branch, I am also undertaking an immediate external review of the operations of the nursing homes branch of my ministry. That is all being done to ensure that the protection of the public is adequately served.

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a question for the Minister of Education relating to the teachers' strike in Wellington and Grey.

We have legislation under Bill 82 that guarantees every child in this province a right to an education to meet the expectations of his or her parents. We have legislation that compels children to attend school until they are 16 years of age. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that surely applies to students as well as other citizens of this country. Then we have Bill 100 which seems to override these acts.

Would the minister give consideration to setting up an all-party committee to review Bill 100 and also the Matthews report of 1980, in the hope of making amendments that would give more protection to the rights of students affected by teachers' strikes?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Those guys are unbelievable. They really are.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Education.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) that, like him and my colleagues the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro), the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) and the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), I am concerned about the situation in which thousands of students at the secondary level in the counties of both Wellington and Grey now find themselves as a result of the difficulties there. I have said, and I repeat, that the best way to resolve such situations is a locally negotiated settlement.

In regard to the member's specific suggestion, some time later this fall or during the winter there will be an all-party committee of this Legislature, the standing committee on social development, that will deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Education. At that time, the member can come forward and make his representation on behalf of his constituents with regard to how Bill 100 might be improved upon in his view.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am not sure I am satisfied with that answer. The question was whether we should have a committee to review the whole process, not my simple interpretation of what I feel it should be.

Having said that, I also want to ask the minister if he will consult with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to determine whether Bill 100 in some way does not comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I will be happy to consult with the Attorney General on the member's specific question. I repeat to the member that I am concerned, as I know he and all the parents and students in Wellington and Grey counties are concerned, about the situation.

3:20 p.m.

Over the past number of years we have developed considerable experience with Bill 100. One of the clear results of that experience is that the best way to resolve the difficulties in the interests of quality education at the local level is to see that both local parties, the board and the teachers' federation, get together and resolve their difficulties by virtue of a locally negotiated settlement.

I would hope that in the interests of the kids, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel and others would bring pressure to bear on both parties at the local level to do that very thing.

Mr. McKessock: The parents from both Grey and Wellington counties put it quite forcefully to us today that they feel they have already pressured the teachers and the board to a great extent and they are now at an impasse.

It is my understanding the Education Relations Commission can call a jeopardy hearing. Who can call this hearing? Can the parents do it? They would like to have one now. They feel they should be pressuring the Education Relations Commission.

Mr. Gillies: You government guys are too much.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the opposition cannot ask a question, we have to do it right.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The provisions of Bill 100 are quite clear. It is the responsibility of the Education Relations Commission to determine jeopardy. Of course, it will entertain representations from parents and any other interested parties on the jeopardy question. The people of Grey and Wellington might very well wish to make representation to the ERC on the question of jeopardy. As of this moment, the ERC has not made a finding of jeopardy in either of those counties.

NURSING HOME INSPECTIONS

Mr. Rae: The Minister of Health just tabled a report which I have been seeking for a couple of days. It is a report of September 20 by a doctor who was hired with respect to this matter. In his report he says, "Our inspection revealed improper cleaning and sanitizing procedures in food handling." This was 12 days, not after the food was eaten, but after the first outbreak at Extendicare.

I would ask the minister to comment on these statements: "In the walk-in freezer, ready-to-eat products are stored with raw meats with possible cross-contamination. In the coolers, raw eggs and soiled trays were stored with ready-to-eat foods. The counter where the sandwiches were prepared was dirty. The can-opener was very dirty. The hand basin in the kitchen area was dirty. The telephone receiver in the kitchen area was heavily soiled. Stove-grill combinations were not properly cleaned."

There are 25 items listed by this gentleman, 12 days after the first outbreak of epidemic diarrhoea. Is the minister satisfied with this condition in a nursing home in Ontario in 1985? What is he going to do about it, for God's sake?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The reason for these reports and the reason this gentleman was sent there was to find out exactly what was happening.

Mr. Rae: What about the ministry inspectors?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Does the member for York South want to listen or not? I am taking some very specific action to make sure the public of this province is protected. I am very much concerned with the fact that food handling may be a problem in some institutions and, by gosh, I am going to make sure the people in this province are protected, whether the member likes it or not.

I do not care what the member wants done. My first and primary concern is that the people are protected, and I am going to make sure that information is made available to them. I have taken steps to get it out to those people and I will continue to do that. My concern is basically that reports such as that are not going to be part of the record of this province in nursing homes.

Mr. Rae: We on this side have heard this song from the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), from the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) and from every Tory Health minister going, every time we raised an issue about a nursing home. It is a disgrace.

Does the minister not agree that it is disgraceful in 1985 that we would have this going on in a nursing home and possibly contributing to the deaths of 18 people in Ontario in September? Is the minister satisfied with that and with the length of time it took his own official to tell him what was going on with respect to this matter?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The length of time my official took to inform me of what was going on was very short indeed. The release of the report was very quick, as was the release to the public. We have been very open on this whole procedure. We want to show exactly how concerned we are that this sort of thing does not happen again.

I have not seen a more open account of an incident like this in any part of the province ever before. We are making all of this material available so that the public understands and so that the people of the province who are involved in the operation of nursing homes understand how critical and important it is to have good sanitation, good food handling and other sorts of things that ensure the quality of care of the individuals who use the nursing homes in this province.

We have taken very quick steps to ensure that the information is made available for those people who operate the nursing homes and to ensure that the people in those nursing homes are very well taken care of and that sanitation procedures are in effect.

MISSISSAUGA TRANSIT LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Offer: My question is to the Minister of Labour about the current Mississauga Transit situation. The minister will be aware that there are 50,000 users of this system per day. He will be further aware that this transit system has been shut down since September 18, 1985.

In the light of this very serious matter and of the hardships being imposed on the thousands of residents of Mississauga, will the minister indicate what he is prepared to do to get the Mississauga Transit system working again?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member is correct that the dispute has been going on for some time now. My officials have been in constant touch with both parties to the dispute. Those discussions have gone on both before and after the beginning of the strike, lockout or whatever one wishes to call it.

As recently as Tuesday of this week, the mediator in the dispute, Fraser Kean, met for some period of time with the parties to the dispute. I am pleased to tell the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) and the other members from the Mississauga area, who I know are also concerned about the matter and who, like this minister, have probably been receiving a number of phone calls, that some substantial progress was made in the discussions on Tuesday. I am informed by my officials that the talks have adjourned so that both parties may carefully review the positions that have been put forward.

Mr. Offer: Can the minister indicate whether he is prepared to introduce back-to-work legislation, if the current round of talks fails, to allow these Mississauga Transit workers to return to their jobs while negotiations continue between union representatives and the city of Mississauga?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The government made it clear at earlier times that it believes, and it continues to believe now, that it would be appropriate for the two parties to put their minds to resolving the issues that divide them -- and they are difficult issues -- in this collective bargaining dispute. There is no doubt that the public is being inconvenienced, as it is in most disputes of this kind. I am sure the two parties, the leadership and the membership on the union side and the leaders on the management side, the council in Mississauga, are well aware of the inconvenience to the public, and I am sure they are lending every effort to shortening the length of that inconvenience as much as possible.

3:30 p.m.

SPILLS BILL

Mr. Brandt: I had a question I wanted to address to the Minister of the Environment, who was in his seat earlier, but in his absence perhaps I can address it to the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

An hon. member: The minister has come back.

Mr. Brandt: The minister has come back. I am sure he was out weighing acid rain samples somewhere at the outer extremities of the building.

My question relates to the minister's statement on July 5 in which he was discussing the question of the proclamation of part IX of the Environmental Protection Act, more commonly referred to as the spills bill legislation. He indicated then that the bill should be in final form early enough to give industry and insurers at least two months to take the necessary steps to comply with the law by the end of November.

It was anticipated at that time that the panel would report by October 1. Earlier I had asked the Premier whether his government was prepared to give adequate and reasonable time to all those who would be affected by this particular legislation. He assured me at the time there would be adequate input, the government would listen to input and would negotiate the situation if any amendments --

Mr. Speaker: What is the question?

Mr. Brandt: I am getting to the question very shortly.

Is the minister now prepared to change the deadline for implementation of that very serious piece of legislation, or is he going to give a shorter time frame to all those who will be impacted by the legislation requiring them to comply in what I think is already an unreasonable time frame? What are the minister's intentions?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I wonder whether six years is really a long enough time for consultation to take place in regard to this legislation.

Mr. Brandt: That is not the question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will recall that this legislation was brought forward under Dr. Harry Parrott, a former Minister of the Environment and a member of the former government. He is the author of this legislation. It was supported by the Progressive Conservative Party and the two opposition parties at that time.

Subsequent to and during that process, there were hearings in committee at which people had an opportunity to make representations, and since that time they have made representations. During the period of four years when the Tory party was in power, there was an opportunity to make any changes to that bill that might be necessary or to proclaim any regulations associated with the bill. Yet there was total inertia for some four years when the members opposite were part of the government.

As the member knows, I announced at that time that a blue-ribbon panel, as it is called, an advisory panel, was going around Ontario in a unique situation, to listen to input from various people on the proposed regulations. It is my understanding that considerable input was forthcoming. The committee report should be on my desk today. I believe I had the report of the panel yesterday and it is on my desk today, so I can evaluate that report and finalize the regulations. I hope to do so within a week, in answer to the member's question.

When I do, he will discover that, despite the efforts of all those who are opposed to the spills bill, who are opposed to one of the most progressive pieces of environmental legislation in the history of mankind -- and the former government can accept some of the credit for that -- despite the efforts to destroy the spills bill and the scare tactics that were employed, we will have a workable bill that will bring to Ontario a high level of interest and work in the prevention of spills.

Mr. Brandt: As usual, the ministers on that side refuse to answer a question. My very direct question was whether the people of this province were going to get 60 days to respond, but I do have a supplementary.

Will the minister table in this House, or indicate today to me and to the members of this House, whether there are any insurers in Ontario who are prepared to comply with the requirement to insure under what is known in the bill as absolute liability? If so, will he let us know who those insurers are?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Despite the efforts of those who are opposed to the spills bill, some of whom are the major polluters and others of whom have a reasonable interest in the specifics of the spills bill, and -- I say this in as friendly a tone as possible to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) -- despite his own efforts in expressing publicly his opposition to the proclamation of the spills bill, which his government proposed to the House and which had passed in the Legislative Assembly, there has been a good response to it from the insurance industry.

We have worked very hard to explain the exact conditions. I will be prepared to make an announcement in the very near future to the former minister. I hope he will applaud it and I hope his party will quit defending the big polluting interests in Ontario and will come down on the side of the environment, instead of on the side of those who pollute the environment.

Mrs. Grier: Will the minister be tabling in this House the report of his blue-ribbon panel when he discovers whether it is on his desk?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will be pleased to share that. This government has committed itself to freedom of information and to sharing information with everyone. I will be pleased to share it with all members of this House and with the public so that everyone may be able to evaluate it and pass his own judgement on it.

CAN-CAR RAIL

Mr. Foulds: I would like to ask a question of the Premier. As he knows, considerable uncertainty surrounds the work force in the plants of Can-Car Rail Inc. in Thunder Bay because of the rationalization plans of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. Can the Premier explain why he should add to the uncertainty of both the work force and the customers of UTDC by his public musings about selling off UTDC?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is because we are very seriously considering the privatization of those assets; that is why. I am saying exactly what I think about the situation.

With respect to the other question, that we are creating some uncertainty, it is our view that employment should be maintained and that the research and development component should be maintained. However, I am not persuaded governments are the most efficient managers of corporations. The member has seen how much money UTDC has cost over the years. He has seen some of the moves it has made, including buying Can-Car.

We are most anxious to keep that employment intact, but we are exploring private sector options to make it bigger and more successful rather than to limit it. There are some limitations -- and, in fairness, some advantages -- to having a totally public-sector-owned corporation. We are looking at the alternatives.

One of our conditions will be to maintain employment. We are not anxious to see factories close down. We are not anxious to see it go backward by any stretch of the imagination. The government is obviously committed to a number of guarantees on some of the projects. It is no secret they have not had particularly good luck lately in getting new contracts. There is a feeling that if there were private sector involvement, it could get involved in other projects to make it more viable and build more employment. That is why we are looking at the situation the way we are.

The member's point is well taken. I know there is some insecurity and I hope by his question and my response we can dispel that. We are going to fight very hard to maintain that employment.

Mr. Foulds: I fail to understand how the Premier's statement today or his previous statements add to a climate of confidence. Mr. Foley said in Thunder Bay, to an audience in which my colleague the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) and I were present, that they did not purchase Can-Car to lay off people. Because of his ideological commitment to privatization, is the Premier now saying that Can-Car was purchased to sell it off? Does he not understand what that does to the confidence of the work force, labour-management relations and the confidence of purchasers of the products of UTDC?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not exactly sure I understand the question, but let me try it.

We are not in any way trying to undermine confidence. I understand the insecurity of the workers at Can-Car, but believe me, they have been insecure for some time. There have been the same rumblings for some time. Perhaps my public discussion of our approach to some of the assets has added to that. I do not want to contribute to that. I would like to say we are anxious to maintain those employment levels and to see them grow, but there are other business opportunities that could be explored if there were some private sector involvement. That is why we are approaching it in this way.

I am certainly prepared to work with the honourable member in any way he deems constructive to maintain employment there and in Kingston. I hope research and development can be kept here and the company grow, not wither on the vine. Believe me, that is one of the great dangers for corporations of that kind. There is a substantial amount of money in that company. Even the previous government, which conceived the entire operation, turned its back on it not too long ago and changed some of the technologies because they were not competitive. The member is aware of that. We are anxious to keep it going if possible.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: It turned a profit of $13 million, so the government sells it off.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If my friend would look at the books, he would realize there has been no real profit to talk about.

Mr. Hennessy: With regard to UTDC, why did the Premier have a task force study made if he is not thinking of selling the plant? I make the accusation that I think this is a political move to take care of his colleague the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes). That is what I am concerned about. There is a plant down there.

The Premier has moved $1 million worth of machinery from Thunder Bay to Kingston. If that machinery is moved out of Kingston, he can be sure the people who operate it will not be employed. I think it is just a political gimmick to have a task force study of UTDC. I, for one, was not very enthralled by Mr. Foley's statement; as far as I am concerned, it was just a brainwashing job for the employees there.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Hennessy: Is the Premier going to guarantee the commitment that the jobs at the Can-Car Rail plant in the city of Thunder Bay will be saved, instead of having a task force or a political gimmick?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not aware of commitments Mr. Foley made there or anywhere else or of commitments that were made in the past.

Mr. Hennessy: You should be; you are the boss.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member can see that the previous government has handed us a number of difficult problems to deal with, and we are trying to deal with them as sensibly as we can. However, let me come quickly to the bottom line.

I am as concerned as the member is about that employment. I have been to the Can-Car plant on several occasions. It is no secret that I had certain opinions, which were made public at the time of the purchase. I thought it was a mistake for UTDC. If he will check the record, he will find out the things I said.

That being said, it is now in our hands and we are determined to maintain employment and to be as fair as we possibly can be in the circumstances. We think there are some options worth exploring that could bring a new vitality to that company, which has had some problems over the past year.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In a recent press release, he said he did a three-month, comprehensive review of the Valenite-Modco situation and, on the basis of that review, felt he could not prosecute.

Given the exhaustive measures the minister took and the statements he made about his concerns for organized labour, and the fact that he said he was going to become more aggressive and change things in Ontario, surely he must have sought outside counsel. Is he prepared to table any reports from other legal firms, other than those from the ministry, in this House at this time?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am sure the honourable member knows full well, as I indicated in the House in early July, that I sought counsel outside my own ministry and went to the Ministry of the Attorney General. In late September, it offered an opinion that was exactly the same as that offered in March 1985, when my friend's party was still in power -- and that opinion was offered by my ministry's legal officials -- that a prosecution would not succeed.

I know my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) may have some disagreements, but it seemed to me that to prosecute in the face of clear, direct and unambiguous advice from legal officials in both ministries would constitute an abuse of the legal process and would simply serve a political process.

Mr. Gordon: Since the minister obviously is not prepared to prosecute Valenite-Modco and has chosen to hide behind the skirts of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and has not gone to any counsel outside of a ministry, will he at the very least order comprehensive health tests to be made available for employees of Valenite-Modco to ensure that any incipient cases are treated before more workers become injured as a result of occupational disease?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I believe that kind of testing is ongoing; I would think the member would know that. I point out to him that the problems occurred before this government took office, and I want to indicate that the difficulties have continued. Earlier this month, Valenite-Modco, which agreed in March to move out of its plant 4 and into a new facility and which was given an exemption from engineering controls, asked for a release from the exemption, which was to expire at the end of this month.

On Tuesday of this week we asked Valenite-Modco and workers who agreed with the company to attend in my boardroom. We had a meeting with them. I want to report to the member and to my friends in the New Democratic Party that we have indicated once again that we expect the new plant to be in place on October 31 and that plant 4 will no longer be in operation. We have been given assurances.

I am told that the work was going on during last weekend even in the rain and that, barring an act of God, they will be out of the current plant 4 and into the new Tranby Avenue plant on October 31, perhaps even on the weekend of October 25. I hope that will happen.

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

Mr. F. S. Miller: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I have been told there are three members here -- the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) -- who 18 years ago today were first elected to this House. I have shared 14 of those years with all three of them, and while question period with its sound and fury --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Signifying nothing.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I do not quite agree with the last part. The Treasurer just whispered "signifying nothing" to prove that he sometimes reads something somewhere.

The fact remains that after these periods of opposition and hard work pass, one of the things that those of us who have hung around here for a few days have discovered is the great camaraderie and the quality of the people in this House.

I have always argued, even when I was on that side, although I preferred it there, that it was not the party one represented that mattered, it was the quality of the person who was elected. In our case it is the same. The members opposite may have missed that.

This House has been enriched very much by the keen interest of the member for Sudbury East in the work and the conditions of the people in the mines in his riding, and by his impassioned, sometimes even angry, defences and questioning in that area.

The member for Erie, with whom I had the great privilege to be on a select committee one year, sent the whole committee into a theatre, making us believe it was something obscene, only to find that it was a pretty plain movie. That is deception at its best. He has worked and brought to this House an understanding of the labour movement, of the workers in the factories and of the people in his riding.

The member for Perth, whose riding I visited during the election, trying to unseat him, through all those years has represented the people of his riding with dignity, distinction and evenhandedness.

I simply say we are richer for all three. Let as continue to enjoy both their attacks and their additions to this House.

Mr. Speaker: If I may say a word on behalf of the three of us, I know we all appreciate your kind comments. The only thing I think you missed was that you should have said we all look the same.

I know I speak on behalf of all three of us. Thank you for your kind comments.

PETITIONS

AMBULANCE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Haggerty: Following that train of thought by the former Premier, I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, support the Welland, Port Colborne and Fort Erie ambulance officers in their just fight for an immediate public investigation of the poor emergency care since July 26, 1985, and intervention in the ambulance strike."

This is signed by 6,448 petitioners. The name of my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) is mentioned on this along with mine.

3:50 p.m.

OBJECTIONS TO FILM

Mr. Shymko: I would like to submit a petition regarding the film Hail Mary and its objectionable content; it has been signed by approximately 800 citizens of this province, including about 200 from the riding of High Park-Swansea:

"We, the undersigned, consider the theme of the film Hail Mary most objectionable and, therefore, we resolve to boycott all across Canada any theatre where the film Hail Mary is shown to the public."

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have no fewer than four petitions regarding Bill 30 with a total of about 2,150 signatures. The first one is from the members of St. Teresa's parish in Kitchener and has 270 signatures, all of which support the proposed legislation in Bill 30. Perhaps it would be significant if I briefly covered the "whereas" clause with regard to this petition. The three other petitions are similar.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas it the sincere expectation of more than 500,000 students and staff of the separate school system of Ontario and nearly four million separate school supporters in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas it was clearly the intent of our forefathers to treat both sectors of our common school system equally; and

"Whereas this intent is evident in successive acts of the Legislature since 1841; and

"Whereas the rights of separate school supporters are now protected under the Constitution of Canada; and

"Whereas deviation from past practice has occurred within the last 20 years, whereby trustees of the nondenominational sector of the common school system have been given the right to administer secondary education; and

"Whereas similar rights have not been granted to the trustees of the separate school sector; and

"Whereas the then Premier, the Honourable William Davis, on June 12, 1984, informed the Legislature that it was the intent of his government to empower Roman Catholic separate school boards to operate secondary schools for secondary students, commencing September 1, 1985; and

"Whereas this intent was unanimously supported by all parties in the House;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement the policy on the funding of the completion of our separate school system without delay in order that it can applied on September 1, 1985."

That petition is dated in August 1985 and is signed by 270 people. A similar petition from St. Joseph's parish in Kitchener was signed by 302 people, one from St. Francis's parish in Kitchener was signed by 770 people and one from St. Mary's parish in Kitchener was signed by 810 people.

Mr. Partington: I wish to file a petition from students of Denis Morris High School in St. Catharines, addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and this assembly. It encourages, commends and supports members of this assembly in their efforts and desires to ensure equal opportunity for Roman Catholic students in a completed, fully funded Roman Catholic school system and asks the Lieutenant Governor and members of this assembly to support the passage of the amendments to the Education Act, as contained in Bill 30. This petition is signed by more than 500 students.

Mr. Reycraft: I have a petition signed by several constituents living in the electoral district of Middlesex. It reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: "Whereas it is the sincere expectation of more than 500,000 students and staff of the separate school system of Ontario and nearly four million separate school supporters in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas it was clearly the intent of our forefathers to treat both sectors of our common school system equally; and

"Whereas this intent is evident in successive acts of the Legislature since 1841; and

"Whereas the rights of separate school supporters are now protected under the Constitution of Canada; and

"Whereas similar rights have not been granted to the trustees of the separate school sector; and

"Whereas the then Premier, the Honourable Mr. William Davis, on June 12, 1984, informed the Legislature that it was the intent of his government to empower the Roman Catholic separate school boards to operate secondary schools for secondary school students commencing September 1, 1985; and

"Whereas this intent was unanimously supported by all parties in the House;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement the policy on the funding of the completion of our separate school system without delay in order that it can be applied on September 1, 1985.

"We further petition that this legislation protect the historic rights of Roman Catholics to maintain the special character of their separate schools."

Mr. Offer: I have a petition to the government in support of separate school funding, asking for implementation of the policy on funding the completion of the separate school system without delay and asking that this legislation protect the historic right of Roman Catholics to maintain the special character of their separate schools. It is from the John F. Kennedy council and friends chapter of the Knights of Columbus and is signed by 2,311 members of that council.

Mr. McCague: I have a petition the content of which is exactly the same as that read by the member for Middlesex, and it is submitted by the Knights of Columbus Council 5793 in Collingwood.

Mr. Reycraft: I have a second petition; it is signed by 150 people who are employed by the Middlesex County Board of Education. The effective clauses read:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government (1) to seek a constitutional referral prior to any implementation to determine whether extension would conflict with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and (2) to debate fully the issue of extension prior to any implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House, with an opportunity provided for the people to appear and be heard."

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Guindon: I have a petition bearing 253 names. It opposes the sale of beer and wine in the general stores in Ontario. It is from the stewardship committee of the Knox-St. Paul's United Church of Cornwall.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the select committee on economic affairs be authorized to meet in the morning and afternoon of Wednesday, October 23, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

4 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Gigantes moved, seconded by Mr. R. F. Johnston, first reading of Bill 37, An Act to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Gigantes: The purpose of the bill is to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in services, accommodation, contracts, employment and vocational associations in Ontario.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved, seconded by Mr. G. I. Miller, first reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This legislation will amend the Municipal Elections Act to conform with section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All persons who are patients in psychiatric facilities, inmates of penal or correctional institutions who are not under sentence of imprisonment, and judges will no longer be disqualified from voting in municipal elections. Speedy passage of these changes will permit the persons affected to exercise their municipal franchise in the November elections.

COUNTY OF ELGIN ACT

Mr. McNeil moved, seconded by Mr. McCague, first reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the County of Elgin.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF SUDBURY ACT

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Ms. Gigantes, first reading of Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Sudbury.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 1 and 17 in Orders and Notices and the responses to petitions presented to the Legislature, sessional papers 56, 62, 90 and 99 [see Hansard for Friday, October 18, 1985].

MEMBER'S REMARKS

Mr. Runciman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am not sure whether this is the appropriate position for it but I was reading Hansard and, as I recall -- discussing it with my colleague it is his recollection as well -- on Tuesday when the member for York South (Mr. Rae) was questioning the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), he made a reference to, "The Premier, wandering outside in the corridors, makes a statement every three days to whomever will listen about what might or might not happen."

It follows that Hansard has reported, "I have a very specific question for the minister, and I hope he will not screw it up again." I recall his remarks about screwing up were directed to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in reference to his wandering around the halls making comments. I think that was a very specific comment directed toward the Premier and it was reflected very clearly on the Premier's expression at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you have the Hansard officials review the reporting on that specific day. As I recall, it was directed very specifically at the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, while you are contemplating that, may I say that in my opinion some of these colloquialisms are somewhat inappropriate in this august chamber.

Mr. Speaker: The request is that I review Hansard, and I suppose I am at the behest of the members. I appreciate the comment made by the government House leader, but I will take a look at it.

Mr. Runciman: One final comment: I think it raises a question about the accuracy of Hansard reporting, that is all. I think that is a serious matter of concern.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS REDISTRIBUTION (CONTINUED)

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

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to begin my comments by congratulating the commission on the work it has done thus far. It is a very difficult task and I think I express the sentiments of everyone in this House in that we look for a speedy resolution to some of the difficulties that have arisen in the latest drawing of the line.

I will keep my comments very brief. I want to speak specifically to the problems that have been created by taking out the municipality of Whitchurch-Stouffville from its current inclusion in the boundaries of the riding of York North.

Perhaps I might refer to the comments, during the session when we last debated this, of the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson). He made the point rather well and I want to endorse his comments. He was talking about the situation that existed for his riding. I want to reflect very briefly on the specific problems relating to the people of Whitchurch-Stouffville in being excluded from York North and included in the proposed new riding of York-Ontario.

Before I do that, I also would refer to the comments made by the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens). I want to reiterate his point that the whole area of the province which includes the ridings of York Centre, York North, which is the riding I have the pleasure to represent, and Durham-York is growing very rapidly and the present boundaries do not reflect the dramatic increase in population.

In the riding I now represent, York North, there are five municipalities. The proposal is to create a new riding to be called York-Ontario, which would include Whitchurch-Stouffville, and another new riding of Markham, which is to be taken away from the riding of York Centre. Then York Centre will include the town of Vaughan and the town of Richmond Hill.

If you read the notes and the report of the commission, the commission itself makes the point that it has had difficulty in deciding what to do with Whitchurch-Stouffville. I submit that to include it in York-Ontario is completely inappropriate. The people of Whitchurch-Stouffville do not have a close affiliation with that large expanse of land which would be the new riding of York-Ontario.

The highway communication, the communications in terms of shopping, the natural boundaries, all relate to the municipalities of Markham, Aurora and Newmarket.

If, during the recent election, there was one thing that everyone in that area agreed upon it was that the people of Whitchurch-Stouffville were being unfairly treated in being included in the proposed riding of York-Ontario.

4:10 p.m.

If you look at the map, Mr. Speaker, and where the population of Whitchurch-Stouffville is located, you can see that the vast majority of the people live within one and a half or two miles of the municipality of Markham. If you talk to the people, many of them will tell you they work in the city of Toronto, in Metropolitan Toronto, or in Aurora, in Newmarket, or indeed in Markham. They certainly do not associate with Durham and with York-Ontario to the extent they associate with the areas to the south and to the east.

I regret I do not have a solution. I have not redrawn the map. It is possible to contemplate that Whitchurch-Stouffville be included in a revised drawing of York North and perhaps then York North would include the municipalities of King, Newmarket, Aurora and Whitchurch-Stouffville. If that is too many people for one riding, perhaps the township of King could be included with Vaughan in York Centre.

There must be a solution to the problem. We must find a way to properly represent the people of Whitchurch-Stouffville. The point the member for Durham York made two days ago was a very accurate one: if we were to do it this time we would find ourselves 10 years down the road doing the reverse and acknowledging the injustice that had been meted out to Whitchurch-Stouffville and we would have to redraw those lines.

In conclusion, I make a simple plea to the commissioners. They have done the people of Whitchurch-Stouffville an injustice by segregating them from their natural community and a more appropriate solution would be to include them in a southern riding, whether it be the new riding of Markham, the proposed riding of York Centre or the proposed riding of York North.

Mr. Ashe: I rise not to speak about the proposed riding boundaries of the present riding that I now have the honour and privilege to represent, Durham West, but my concern about the proposal of the commission for a new riding to be named Durham Centre. I can speak to it without anyone saying I have a direct conflict in the issue.

I am completely satisfied with the proposal for the future riding of Durham West. It very correctly identifies and recognizes the great growth that has taken place throughout the western end of the region of Durham; namely, the municipalities of Pickering, Ajax and Whitby, which I now represent, with the exception of the top part of Pickering.

In previous motions tabled on this issue, I have made suggestions and I feel they are relevant enough to put on the record again. First, in drawing the electoral map for the proposed Durham Centre riding, the commission failed to heed the representations of the citizens of the town of Whitby that the total municipality should remain intact.

Second, the commission failed to recognize the community of interest built up within the town of Whitby since the amalgamation of the former town and the former township of Whitby. In that regard, I think it is worth noting and extremely relevant for the commission to look at the fact that when the hearing officer, Judge Hughes, heard representations in Peterborough in early May 1984 on the proposed boundaries for Durham Centre, he made this comment, which was quoted in the paper:

"There is nothing historic between north Whitby and Whitby. There may be a connection now but it is by no means an historic link. Brooklin has been a part of Whitby for only the past six or seven years." It is quite obvious that the learned judge had not really looked at the electoral background of what is currently known as the town of Whitby. He would have found that he was at least 10 years wrong in his reference as to when the northern part of Whitby, then known as Whitby township, was added to the then town of Whitby to become a new, enlarged town of Whitby.

He talked about six or seven years and he was wrong by approximately a decade.

Again, there were representations made to the commission by many people who were soundly opposed to splitting Whitby. The proposal is to split it literally and geographically on a north-south basis, taking the lower part of the town -- which is the most heavily urbanized part, theme is no doubt about that -- and adding it to a chunk of what is currently Oshawa. This will create the new riding of Durham Centre.

Again, I quote from a small portion of the representation made to the hearing commissioner in Peterborough in May last year. "`We have worked for years to build a community and these new boundaries mean an end to the connection between north and south Whitby,' Whitby resident William Nurse said. `A solid social fabric has been brought about by churches, schools and community buildings and this new, artificial political boundary would upset this relationship.'"

I will go on to reinforce the record with some of the other objections which I indicated previously. "The commission failed to recognize existing boundaries of municipalities or wards thereof -- the existing and traditional boundaries of electoral districts -- both omissions in direct conflict with the commission's terms of reference.

"Fourth, the commission failed to recognize that when the region of Durham was formed in 1973" -- and in effect was consummated with an election on October 1, 1973, which was followed by the official forming of the region on January 1, 1974 -- "it was created following an in-depth planning and development study that showed the town of Whitby as constituted was the only municipality within the new region not to undergo a boundary change." This was an obvious recognition of the town of Whitby, both north and south, as an appropriate political entity.

The present member for Durham West, namely myself, representing Whitby for nearly eight and a half years, is very much aware of the community and the citizens therein. This member has not heard of even one citizen of the community -- again, I can update that to the current moment and emphasize, not one citizen -- speaking in support of splitting the town for provincial electoral purposes.

A municipality must be split when its population is obviously too large to be accommodated within the maximums of a provincial constituency, but this is definitely not the case with Whitby, which has a total population somewhere in the low 40,000s. Therefore, there is no doubt it is not a riding in itself; it is not big enough.

However, there is no reason to split Whitby as we have to do in major municipalities where two, three, four, or whatever the case may be, provincial constituencies are created by necessity.

I recommended and now reinforce that the new electoral district of Durham Centre comprise the complete town of Whitby and a smaller unit of the city of Oshawa necessary to satisfy the normal population requirement.

I would also like to put on the record an editorial that appeared in one of the local newspapers following the hearings in 1984. The headline is "No-Link, Nonsense."

"There will be new provincial electoral boundaries created in the Oshawa-Whitby area; our population growth has dictated that. What is maddening, however, is the commission mandated to make up the new boundaries has not taken into consideration municipal boundaries.

"We must challenge comments made Thursday by Ontario Supreme Court Judge Sam Hughes, the man who is chairing the electoral boundaries commission, who told a public meeting in Peterborough Thursday that there are no historic links between the town of Whitby and north Whitby; therefore, they should not be preserved in one provincial riding.

"We disagree.

"Boundaries are very important to people. If you stop to think about it. The imaginary line that separates Whitby from Oshawa and Ajax is important to its citizens. So is the line that separates Durham from Metro, Ontario from Manitoba, and Quebec and Canada from the United States.

4:20 p.m.

"The chairman of the commission should stop and think of what he is saying. To tell these people of Whitby who will be in the new riding of Durham Centre that they will not be linked with north Whitby but with a portion of the city of Oshawa because there is no historic link is ludicrous. The people of Whitby just won't buy that argument."

I want to reinforce for the public record and I hope for the benefit of the commission, when it is rethinking, relooking at and redrawing the new proposed riding boundaries, that it keep the town of Whitby intact, as it is now composed and has been for well over a decade and a half, as the main component of the new riding of Durham Centre, and just add to it whatever population is sufficient to create an appropriately-sized riding. The rest would come very properly from the adjoining municipality, the city of Oshawa.

Mr. G. I. Miller: It is a pleasure for me to rise today and participate in the debate on the redistribution of the ridings across Ontario. It is a crucial time in our democratic system when we start dividing our ridings. Stability in our overall planning is most important.

The last speaker, the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), was addressing that very issue. We have existing boundaries. The municipalities are represented by members with whom people are familiar. They know how to make those contacts. I believe stability in our overall system is very important.

Another concern I have with the distribution that is taking place and on which the commission has made recommendations is the fact that representation in rural Ontario is being taken away. Urban centres are growing. There is no doubt we need representation by population, but in rural parts of Ontario, where distances are great, population becomes less important, such as in the 15 ridings in northern Ontario. The average number of voters there is 51,000 per riding. That is the area around which the commission works.

This could be extended further into southern Ontario to provide better representation. Where there are great distances -- my own riding is 90 miles from one end to the other -- it makes it more difficult to get around and less accessible to the members of the Legislature than for someone here in Toronto who has a very small area in square mileage. Here there is access to direct communications, whereas rural areas are divided into telephone calling areas. There are many barriers besides transportation and the commission should be taking these things into consideration.

In my own riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, which represents the region of the same name, the boundaries are based on those regional lines, which were just redistributed when the regional government was implemented in 1973. It caused a lot of confusion and concern to the local people, but after almost 12 years of operation, they are getting accustomed to it, once they get into the communities and work together as a region and a community as a whole.

In the redistribution of the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, the commission is recommending using the same area but dividing it up between the former county of Norfolk as a new riding and another which will be called Brant-Haldimand. That means taking basically the same population and just shifting it around and confusing the people. That has not been considered by the commission.

I am not saying the commission has not tried to do its best by using figures and coming up with fair decisions in regard to population, but I do not believe it has taken into consideration that stability is important for our system and also making sure that as many people stay involved in the democratic system.

Whatever party one represents, maintaining that involvement is important. It is not the money one gets for contributing to the system that is important in politics. One gets more satisfaction from the involvement in making sure the democratic system is working well.

We made a presentation to the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission on April 25, 1984, when we had an opportunity to do so. At that time the commission was considering dividing the area into three ridings. They came back with an alternative that I do not believe is satisfactory.

I think we should use existing boundaries and leave the riding of Brant and Norfolk and whatever portion was allotted to Oxford to keep the balance, so we have continuity in our system. I realize 10 years is a considerable time, but time goes quickly. I cannot emphasize enough that stability is the crucial thing to let the people know how the system works and to try to create confidence in our system.

I represent the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, which consists of the former county of Haldimand, the town of Simcoe, portions of the town of Delhi and the township of Norfolk. I am familiar with the Norfolk portion of the riding of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk which is represented by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon).

Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), you are more familiar with that riding than I am. It has worked out quite well. We get many calls from people in the overlapping areas of the two ridings and we do not hesitate to co-operate and give information. We have had the opportunity of working with the town of Tillsonburg, which you represent, and we try to help in those areas where our boundaries join.

The only area of concern, if they are going to make adjustments and leave our boundaries as they are now, is that the new town of Townsend, which is very close to Jarvis, is being divided by the old county line. It is represented on one side by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and on the other side by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk.

That boundary could be adjusted to make sure the new town is represented by one member. If this were done, it would create a much better sense of community. There are 120 new homes in the town, which has a population of about 500 people. If we want to develop community spirit, it would be better to include the town in one municipality.

4:30 p.m.

Going back three years, the federal riding was based on the same boundaries, except that it took in the complete region of Haldimand-Norfolk. The population may be a little high from that point of view, around 89,000. They were going to split that into two different ridings, but we felt so strongly about it that we made a presentation. The commission did change its view and maintained the riding as Haldimand-Norfolk.

It is important that we do not shift or move every 10 years. We should rely on the growth that is possible. We are in a position to have good growth if the economy turns around. Maybe down the road the area could be divided, but at the present time that growth has not happened, and for the next 10 years perhaps it will not grow that quickly. From a stability and representation point of view and for working with the democratic system, I think stability is the most important feature the commission should be looking at.

I would like to close with one other comment to emphasize the fact that rural Ontario represents the farming community. As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I believe we need the rural ridings, particularly in these difficult times, when we all realize the farm economy is undergoing hard times and our rural municipalities are suffering as a result. We should strengthen that representation and not weaken it here at Queen's Park in the Legislature, which represents the total area of Ontario.

Again, I would hope the commission would rethink its position and relook at that. It may be they want to zero in on the high population areas and divide those up, so there is fair representation, but they should leave rural Ontario alone, so we have some stability out there and our future can be looked at with encouragement and not be repressed.

With those comments, I would hope the commission would take these views into consideration.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is a pleasure for me to rise in this House today to address the subject of redistribution. I must say it is not a very popular subject in the riding I come from.

First, let me put into context where the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is situated relative to the rest of Ontario. We are in the southeastern most section of this great province, bounded on the east side by the province of Quebec and all along the southern limit by the St. Lawrence River. The riding of Cornwall takes a small area from that particular section. The great riding of Prescott-Russell, which my colleague across the floor here represents so ably, and which has exactly the right number of population, adjoins us to the north. On the west side is the boundary between Dundas and Grenville counties.

We are talking about --

Mr. Sterling: About the great member over there.

Mr. Villeneuve: The great member over there is right here on the back benches of this very great party.

First, may I say welcome to the reeve of Williamsburg township, one of the 19 municipalities within the great riding that I am so pleased to represent. Welcome, Johnny. Johnny and I have had a number of small discussions. We had an election at one time and Johnny was a very able opponent, wearing a red tie. I see he still has it on today.

The commission recognized the fact that the county of Glengarry and the city of Cornwall in the original submission did not have a great deal in common. Therefore, when the second submission came out, most of the county of Glengarry was taken back to what has traditionally been the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

In the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, we have the cradle of Ontario. We have no end of tradition. We have the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders, who date back to the War of 1812. The Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders are very highly respected and very highly thought of. We started way back in the late 1700s as a particular area, recognized as such. This is why I say we must not fracture further the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

The present submission outlines the fact that the municipality of Charlottenburgh would be deleted from the rural area of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. Charlottenburgh has probably the most vibrant population increase within the riding I so proudly represent. Let me put it in this context. There are 14 bicentennial farms across Ontario. Seven of them are located within the riding I represent and five are situated in the township of Charlottenburgh. If this goes through, we will be affiliating Charlottenburgh with the township of Cornwall and the city of Cornwall, which is very urban.

Further to the west of the riding, it is suggested four municipalities, or basically the east half of the county of Grenville, would be tacked on to what has been traditionally known as Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I must point out to the commission the name would not change. It would still remain Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, not recognizing that the eastern half of the county of Grenville would be attached to this riding.

Likewise, I must mention that when we refer to the federal riding, which is Stormont-Dundas, everyone seems to forget that the township of Charlottenburgh is very much part of that riding. It seems to be taken for granted and is not recognized. I feel these are situations that must not be allowed.

Going back to a bit of history again, the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders fought in the battle at Crysler's Farm. Historians have written about a number of these very famous battles. Indeed, we speak again of a natural alliance. The community of diversity of interests very much addresses Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry as an area, as a common situation with county councils and school boards. The district health council incorporates the riding of Prescott-Russell, but it also covers Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and also Cornwall and Cornwall township. We certainly have a community of interests in this particular area.

Means of communication are not a great problem. We have Highway 401 and Highway 417. They address that problem, which is not a difficult one.

I come back to the situation that in the riding I represent the largest centre of population is the town of Alexandria, with slightly more than 3,000 people. We also have a number of other smaller centres, such as Winchester, Morrisburg and Chesterville in the range of 1,500 to 2,000. Since we are addressing a population of 50,000 and our metropolis is slightly more than 3,000, we have a rural distribution throughout the riding.

As many of the previous speakers addressing this have mentioned, we do not want to see the rural part of Ontario further underrepresented. I personally feel, because of the location of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and the structure and makeup of rural areas, we must retain the status quo intact. It is a situation that was addressed by a number of my colleagues and I certainly agree with them. Rural Ontario must have more, not less, representation.

4:40 p.m.

Let me go back to the type of industries within the riding I so proudly represent. We have a number of milk processors, formerly known as cheese factories; they now are big business. We have Ault's, Winchester Cheese and Nestlé's. We have Kraft at Ingleside and at Williamstown. We have Carnation. We have a number of grain elevators that have sprung up in the area, all oriented towards the rural and agricultural economy.

When the initial redistribution came up and the county of Glengarry was projected to be with the city of Cornwall, we had a great hue and cry that it was not to be. We had every municipality objecting strenuously. That was heard when the commission visited Ottawa. I say to the commission that the status quo is very important as it currently stands in and around Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

I wish to read into the record a letter I received from the reeve of Cornwall township, who belongs to the adjoining riding. Mr. Cleary says in part:

"If changes are to be made, I am bound to say the only boundary change that I would favour would be one that saw Cornwall township affiliated with the other townships and villages within the counties, rather than be isolated from them. Further to possible changes, I would state that I have objections to having another county from the west side or another part-county from the west side added to the existing Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry riding."

That letter states that a fairly rural municipality would like to divorce itself from the city of Cornwall and be affiliated with its natural ally, which is Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

I have further correspondence, from the town of Kemptville, which reads:

"This council is not in favour of these announced changes whereby Grenville county would be split with our eastern portion being added to the provincial riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

"The mayor and councillors are irate over this matter as Kemptville has absolutely nothing in common with Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. Kemptville is part of the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, with the land registry office in Prescott, functions within the Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education, the Lanark, Leeds and Grenville Board of Health, the Lanark, Leeds and Grenville assessment office, as well as other boards, courts, public groups within the two-county area. Council strongly opposes any change that would divide the county of Grenville.

"It is of the opinion that the mathematics of the change may be in order, but the effects of the change in regard to human feelings and historic background of the area may not have and never were sufficiently understood or addressed."

I will not take up much more of the time of this House. I must touch on one more situation I did not get a chance to address last Tuesday when the House reconvened. Our colleague the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) had a McIntosh apple on every desk in this Legislature, and I thank him for that. I must remind the House that the McIntosh apple originated in the heart of Dundas county at a little place called Dundela.

Mr. Mancini: I thought it came from Essex county.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It came from Niagara.

Mr. Villeneuve: It came from the cradle of Ontario, in the riding I so proudly represent.

Mr. Sterling: Right at Dundela.

Mr. Villeneuve: Right at downtown Dundela. I thank the honourable member for the McIntosh apple and for the opportunity to give Dundas county a bit of publicity in this great Legislature.

I believe I have taken up enough of the time of this House, but I must reinforce that all those who have spoken to me about redistribution tell me emphatically: "Status quo; the way it is now. Let us forget the numbers game. We are situated in a rural area at the extremity of the province. Let us not upset our apple cart."

Mr. Morin: On this, my first occasion to address the Legislative Assembly, I want to state how proud I am to be here as the member for Carleton East. I intend to make every effort to prove myself worthy of my constituents' confidence in electing me.

During the summer months I had the pleasure of sitting on four different committees. I was particularly impressed by the excellent co-operation and the nonpartisanship demonstrated by all my fellow members. I strongly believe we achieved, in an ambience of camaraderie, the objectives defined by the House. I sincerely hope this atmosphere of mutual respect will continue to exist in this House. After all, we all work for the same boss: the citizens of Ontario.

It was with a great deal of interest that I reviewed the recommendations of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission, particularly as they affect my own riding. I was impressed by the thorough and conscientious manner in which the commission has dealt with the enormous and complex task of redrawing the electoral map. I wish to express my gratitude to the commission and to comment on some of the major revisions that are proposed for Carleton East.

Because of the growth in the existing riding of Carleton East during the past few years, the riding has become too populous for one person to represent effectively. Indeed, Carleton East in recent times has been one of the fastest-growing ridings in Ontario. Historically, the riding has had a rural-suburban blend with a healthy francophone-anglophone mix, making the riding somewhat culturally and linguistically diversified. This diversity has been one of the strengths of the existing riding, as the different groups of people in Carleton East have daily demonstrated that diversity can mean harmony and an enriched appreciation of the interests, aspirations and opinions of others.

A large part of the existing riding is in the city of Gloucester -- a progressive, forward-looking city that traditionally has recognized and met the challenges associated with the cultural and linguistic diversity to which I referred earlier. Gloucester is unique in its conception of recreational areas, which is referred to in a private act, the Gloucester Act, and which is implemented pursuant to the Community Recreation Centres Act.

The result is that Gloucester is divided into eight recreational areas determined on the basis of recreational geographical communities. Each of these communities has a local recreation committee, which directs expenditures of grants in that community. All these local recreation committees are under the umbrella of a Gloucester recreation committee. Gloucester is also divided into similar planning districts, which facilitate co-ordinated planning.

Thus, one can appreciate that in two very important areas, recreation and planning, those parts of Carleton East that lie in the city of Gloucester, including the community of Cyrville, are very much integrated and share a strong community of interest.

The point of this is that one of the commission's recommendations respecting Carleton East was to remove from the riding an area bounded by the Queensway on the south, Blair Road on the east, Montreal Road on the north and St. Laurent Boulevard on the west. Most of this area is contained in the city of Gloucester and forms part of what is known as the Cyrville community for the purposes of recreation and planning within Gloucester.

4:50 p.m.

The commission's proposal is to add this area to the electoral district of Ottawa East. The report states as its rationale for this decision that the francophone community of interest within Ottawa East has been enhanced by the addition of the subject area.

It is my respectful opinion that this rationale is unsupportable for the following reasons:

1. La population francophone, qui représente environ 35 pour cent de la circonscription de Carl8eton Est, verrait son noyau d'intérêts communautaire dilué par l'ablation de cette région. Avec une telle diminution du nombre d'électeurs francophones, il est probable qu'un député anglophone soit élu et ne puisse communiquer adéquatement avec ses contribuables d'expression française, ce qui serait injuste pour ceux qui demeureraient dans la circonscription, après redistribution, parce qu'ils verraient leurs intérêts sous-représentés.

2. The subject area historically and traditionally has had a strong community of interest in recreation and planning matters with most of the rest of Carleton East. There has been no such attachment with Ottawa East. St. Laurent Boulevard is a major, six-lane transportation route that divides the Cyrville area from Ottawa East. This creates a logical boundary between the ridings and, what is more important, it is perceived by the populations on each side as dividing their respective communities.

In March 1985, the Ontario Municipal Board divided the city of Gloucester into wards. The Cyrville area is part of a ward named Gloucester North, which includes areas of Gloucester to the east and northeast of the Cyrville area. This further reinforces the historical and political ties between the Cyrville area and other parts of Caneton East.

3. The concern in proposing that Cyrville be removed to Ottawa East for a linguistic community of interest is that a francophone enclave may be created. This would be unfortunate for both Ottawa East and Carleton East. It should be noted that my colleague the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Grandmaître) does not object to the maintenance of the original electoral boundaries between his riding and my own. That is the affected Cyrville area.

4. Under the new boundaries, the member for Carleton East would still have the same number of municipalities within his riding even after redistribution, but Gloucester city council would have to deal with three MPPs, those for Ottawa East, Carleton East and Ottawa-Rideau, for the same municipal area, instead of a single MPP, as under the current distribution. The new boundaries would fragment the electoral responsibility for Gloucester so much that no one member would be the primary contact for the mayor's office. Redistribution should simplify the lines of communication between mayors and Queen's Park, not complicate them.

In conclusion, I accept the other recommendations of the commission respecting the new electoral district of Carleton East. However, I strongly believe that by leaving the Cyrville and Carson Grove areas within the electoral boundaries of Carleton East, the commission will preserve an existing historical community relationship and facilitate effective representation of that area in the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Dean: I rise to comment briefly in this debate on the redistribution recommendations. Wentworth, as most members know, is one of the ridings in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth on the south shore of Lake Ontario. We are almost in the part that is called the Niagara Peninsula, which the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) thinks is such a marvellous place, and I have to agree with him on that -- the Niagara Peninsula, that is.

At present, the riding of Wentworth comprises all of the town of Stoney Creek, all of the township of Glanbrook and all of the city of Hamilton east of Upper James Street and south of Mohawk Road; it is a little wedge on the southeast comer of the city of Hamilton on top of the escarpment.

The first two communities I have mentioned, all of the city of Stoney Creek and all of the township of Glanbrook, have a great deal of affinity from their longtime association in the former county of Wentworth, from their historic connection and from the fact that they contain people who look at life in a similar way and have a great community of interest.

The present one third of the riding of Wentworth that is in the city of Hamilton certainly adjoins the others, but the people have less in common, partly because the social relationships of the members of the riding who live in Hamilton are mostly connected with the rest of Hamilton and its downtown area, which is represented by two or three other ridings.

I have been pleased to represent the existing tiding, and I do not have any quarrel with it at all. The three parts of it, while they are somewhat different in their outlook and their background, form a harmonious riding. I have had many opportunities to meet with the people in all three areas to deal with their issues and, in short, I treat it as a unified riding.

I would be satisfied, therefore, and I think the people in the riding would be satisfied, if it continued as it is. The proposal of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission, however, involves a small change. The new riding they are proposing to call Wentworth South would still contain the city of Stoney Creek and the township of Glanbrook, but they propose to delete the portion of Hamilton that is in the present riding and, as I mentioned, is on top of the escarpment, and to put in a portion of Hamilton that is north of or below the escarpment, stretching east from the Redhill Creek to the boundary of the present city of Stoney Creek.

The portion they are proposing to put in is immediately adjacent to another portion of the riding which is going to stay in, and it has great economic, social and historical ties with the portion called Stoney Creek because of the kind of activities the people indulge in there; they belong to the same clubs, churches and so on. In fact, this piece of ground they are proposing to add to the riding of Wentworth, under the name of Wentworth South, was a part of the former township of Saltfleet, the rest of which is now part of the city of Stoney Creek.

There is more community of interest, if any, between the portion of Hamilton that the commission proposes to put into the riding of Wentworth than there is in the portion that is now in it. I think, and I believe most of the people in the riding think, that would be a very satisfactory alternative to the present boundaries. Looking at it strictly from the standpoint of community of interest, it would be a more satisfactory alternative than the present one.

However, I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the other members that I have no hesitation in suggesting that the present arrangement is okay. I know that either arrangement can be made to work, but I think that what the commission has proposed is the better of the two. Both of them meet the population criterion; so there is no problem there.

Having said all that, I want to emphasize that some features of the proposals that have already been discussed by the representatives of other ridings in the Hamilton-Wentworth area could have a domino effect on the surrounding ridings, including the riding of Wentworth.

It would be very unsatisfactory, in the case of changes that were made in other ridings in the area that had this cumulative effect, to attach to Wentworth any piece of the city of Hamilton on top of the escarpment, i.e., south of the brow of the escarpment, larger than what is now in the riding, because of the relatively low community of interest of any other portions that might be available for such a juggling of boundaries.

It would also be undesirable to separate the township of Glanbrook, which is in the riding now and which is proposed to be in the riding by the commission, to even out populations or anything of that sort because of the very great historic content and connection and the concerns of the people there, a very great present community of interest.

5 p.m.

In brief, the proposal the commission has made to create a riding called South Wentworth, which would include most of the present riding of Wentworth and a portion of the city of Hamilton below the escarpment, would be most satisfactory. The present setup in the riding of Wentworth is very satisfactory. What would be unsatisfactory in that area would be more fiddling around with the boundaries and more shuffling of communities, which would have the inevitable effect of creating a riding that did not have a great community of interest.

I want to put on the record my concern that the commission, in any further dealings it has with the electoral boundaries in the Hamilton-Wentworth area, consider very seriously implementing either the status quo or its own recommendation in its report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The member for Halton-Burlington.

[Applause]

Mr. Knight: This is the second time since I have been elected to the House that I have risen to speak. Both times I have got some deskthumping and I hope that continues throughout my long sojourn in the House.

I am pleased to participate in this debate on redistribution. I would like to preface my comments by sincerely thanking the members of the commission for the work they have put into the recommendations we are debating. As they consider our concerns, I would not blame them for thinking that theirs has been a thankless task. However, we must provide them with our constructive comments and what we see as problems in their recommendations. That is what I want to take some time to do today. I want to comment on redistribution as it affects the region of Halton. Although I represent Halton-Burlington, I would like to look at the broader area so that my concerns regarding the proposed redistribution can be better understood.

Let me stress I am not concerned that there will be redistribution in Halton, but rather about how it would best be accomplished. I wish to present the history of the boundaries in Halton, the present setup, the proposed setup and what I consider to be a better realignment. Halton has always been able to have its ridings include only Halton residents. I want to state my pleasure that the commission has striven to continue that tradition by increasing the number of ridings from three to four while still using the regional boundaries to contain all four ridings, and it will be necessary to have four ridings.

Over the past 10 years, Halton has been one of the fastest-growing regions in Ontario, indeed, in Canada. However, simply to divide the region, perhaps on the basis of census tracts or some other arbitrary rationale, without looking at the demographics and the communities of interest that exist in the region, is not the proper way to ensure it is done in the best interests of the people.

I have talked to many of my constituents, those in my present riding and those in the area that will be included in what would be my new riding under redistribution. Without exception, they think a proposal including parts of the north Halton area with the more urbanized areas of either Burlington or Oakville does not make sense.

I sincerely believe that in the best interests of my constituents an alternative to the proposed new boundaries be considered. The demographics of Halton are such that rural Nassagaweya, which is in the northwest area, has more in common with rural Esquesing, which is in the northeast area, than with urban Burlington to the southwest. Also, rural Esquesing has more in common with Nassagaweya than with urban Oakville to the southeast. Urban Halton Hills and urban Milton have a commonality of interest that should not be split. North Halton, with its unique rural-urban blend and community of interests, must remain united.

Even the other levels of government in the region and other service agencies have recognized this. For example, we have the North Halton Association for the Mentally Retarded, North Halton Volunteer Service, North Halton Hospice. Even the Halton Board of Education recognizes a north Halton educational area. A study on tourism by the region emphasizes the unique tourist potential of north Halton and its differences with south Halton.

I would go on, but any careful study of Halton region will clearly show that north Halton is distinct from the south and a homogeneous area from east to west. It has its own and differing issues: the Hydro corridor, aggregates, tourism. As much as possible, therefore, the communities of Milton and Halton Hills, which include the rural areas of Nassagaweya and Esquesing, should form one riding.

To ensure that the region is properly divided into four ridings, with which I agree, we should keep together in one riding as much of the area north of Derry Road as possible. The possible four ridings, if I may be so bold as to suggest to the commission, therefore, would be Halton North, the area north of Derry Road; the Burlington urban area; the Oakville urban area; and the balance could then be considered as Central Halton and could include that area on either side of Burloak Drive in the south end to ensure the population for that area would be equitable with the other three ridings.

I believe such a split would be in the best interests of all the people in Halton, and I encourage the commission to reconsider the recommendation.

Mr. Treleaven: I am the big cheese, with Ingersoll in the good riding of Oxford.

I also wish to object to the last report of the commission on several grounds; first, with regard to the town of Tillsonburg, which is proposed to be taken from the county and riding of Oxford and put into the new riding of Norfolk.

In each of its reports, the commission has failed to give adequate consideration to the wishes of the residents of Tillsonburg, whom it has met, and in its own report lists many representations for testing a proposed separation of Tillsonburg from the Oxford electoral district. In fact, on page 3 of its report, it states, "Many representations were received protesting the proposed separation of the town of Tillsonburg, placed in the proposed Norfolk, from the remainder of the county of Oxford, placed in the Oxford electoral district."

The town of Tillsonburg, in absolutely every representation from that municipality, stated it wished to stay with the county of Oxford. I will get back to the Tillsonburg situation a little later.

The second item to which I would like to refer is that the commission failed to give adequate consideration to the existing and traditional boundaries of the electoral district of Oxford, which has existed almost exactly in its present form since 1933 and, before that, goes back to 1867 as Oxford North and Oxford South.

Oxford county has a population in the area of 85,000. It is traditionally one county. Upon restructuring in 1975, it became the restructured county of Oxford. It is unique. It is the only restructured county in the province. It is not quite a region, but it is not a county.

Right now the federal riding of Oxford is the entire county. The restructured county also is Oxford. Currently, the provincial riding is all of Oxford county with the exception of Blandford and Blenheim townships, which are in Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. These are traditional boundaries. The commission has prayed at the altar of numbers and has totally forgotten the traditional boundaries and the closeness of the county and, now, the restructured county of Oxford.

5:10 p.m.

When Oxford county was restructured, several small townships joined together to become large ones. It has already been restructured; it has already gone through one upheaval in the last 10 years. It is not fair to take this unique municipality and tear it apart again. It has had its 10 years of trying to heal the wounds of the restructuring, and it is still going on in the areas of public utility commissions, etc.

The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) referred to public health, library services, education systems, hospital services and garbage disposal. We in Oxford had the grandest garbage disposal and landfill site fight that could possibly take place. I notice the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) disagreeing.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Second to Niagara.

Mr. Treleaven: Second to Niagara, he states. Perhaps we can compare notes on the diffculties for the last 14 years.

The landfill site situation is an example of the problems the restructured county is going through. Individual municipalities are responsible for the collection of garbage, but the restructured county is responsible for the disposal of garbage. The proposed site, which is tied up in the courts at the present time, is only a few miles from Tillsonburg, which will be, under proposed plans, one of the large contributors to this landfill site. If it is no longer in the riding of Oxford, it will then be divided from the other municipalities of Oxford, and I suggest this is unfair. The entire municipal setup in all municipal services is as a county of Oxford.

The Tillsonburg regional hospital serves a great part of the southwest part of Oxford county. Separating Tillsonburg off into a new riding will damage the cohesion among the three hospitals of Oxford county.

With regard to numbers, I fully acknowledge that the provincial riding of Oxford now is nearly 80,000 -- and that is large -- and that under the proposal, removing Tillsonburg and adding Blandford-Blenheim would reduce it only to approximately 76,000, still a large number. However, on page 3 of the report the commission has stated, in reaction to the plea that the entire county of Oxford be left as the provincial riding of Oxford, "The county's population of 85,920 is well above the population ceiling of 82,934." This figure is arrived at by taking the average population and then increasing or decreasing it by 25 per cent.

I would like to refer back to the original terms of reference of the commission. It states that several of the things the commission shall take into account, among others, are: "(a) community or diversity of interests;... (f) existing boundaries of municipalities or wards thereof; (g) the existing and traditional boundaries of electoral districts." Then it talks about population. Population is only one of the approximately eight criteria by which the commission is to make its decision.

It goes on in the terms of reference for the commission, which date from June 16, 1983, in this House:

"And, subject thereto" -- that is, to the other criteria above: existing boundaries, community of interests, etc. -- "the population quota for each electoral district shall be based on the average population, but in determining such quota the commission shall not depart from the average population to a greater extent than 25 per cent more or less, except where" -- and here is the exception -- "in the opinion of the commission, any of the above circumstances exists to such an extent that they require a greater departure, in which case the commission may depart from the average population to such greater extent as it considers necessary or desirable."

It has been suggested that this was possibly a reference that was put in there for northern Ontario. I submit that is not so. It was put in where the community or diversity of interests, the existing boundaries of municipalities and the existing boundaries of electoral districts override the population consideration.

During the hearings, at no point did anyone object to the numbers being greater than the average or greater than 25 per cent. There were no such objections. The question came up and I believe the chief commissioner, Judge Hughes, asked a question about that specifically and he was advised that was not a consideration of concern in Oxford. The fact that the restructured county of Oxford should remain as one overrode the population consideration.

Under the criteria set out by this House to the commission in 1983, I submit that the commission has the authority and the capacity to go beyond the average plus 25 per cent, so the entire restructured county of Oxford could be kept under one riding. It is a departure of fewer than 3,000 above the average plus 25 per cent.

In closing, because of the uniqueness of Oxford in being the dairy capital of Canada, in being the only restructured county in Ontario and in being the only county with a statue of a cow, a statue specifically built to Springbank Snow Countess, I ask the consideration of the commission for these reasons.

Mr. D. W. Smith: I am pleased to speak on this issue of the electoral boundaries commission. I represent Lambton riding, which is considered a rural riding made up of small towns and villages. Small towns and villages and rural people still represent a very important heritage to this great province. They play a major part in the economic growth of this province.

I have to agree with my colleague the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) and others. We cannot afford to dilute the voice of these necessary communities any longer. The very fact that we have agricultural land and woodlots within my jurisdiction means that we cannot have the numbers of voters that a city or mainly urban area would have, but we still deserve the right of representation for our people.

Over the years I have heard people from the cities in southwestern Ontario ridings say we have to maintain agricultural land and woodlots to help maintain a healthy environment. If we are to achieve these goals, therefore, we physically cannot have the numbers of people the commission thinks should be standard.

The riding of Lambton is to be enlarged into an area that is in the process of municipal boundary between the township of Sarnia and the city of Sarnia now. In my opinion, that is reason enough there should not be a change at this time. The suggested boundary change by the commission would take in an area that would include part of an area within the city limits and part in the township area, which would then be represented by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) as well as the member for Lambton. This would only create more problems for the representatives of these two ridings, as well as for the people.

The new riding that is proposed by the commission would be larger by approximately 8,500 persons and made up of more urban people than rural, so the rural and small communities would be diluted further, which I feel we do not need at this time. I firmly believe the agricultural community plays a very important part in the economic system we have in place. If we take the rural voices from the Legislative Assembly, then there will be even fewer who will understand our contribution to society.

5:20 p.m.

I realize this is a complicated issue for the people who were appointed to look into changes of boundaries and more equitable voter representation, but I hope these appointed people do not forget that the family farm and small communities are still very important and we do not want them to be pushed further back into the woods.

Mrs. Marland: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to address the subject before us today, recognizing the importance it has to Mississauga, which is currently a city of 340,000 people but has only three seats in this House.

Naturally, the city of Mississauga is looking forward with eager anticipation to having additional representation at Queen's Park. We heartily endorse the addition of the fourth seat, but the subject of the boundaries has become quite a complex issue. That also happened when we dealt with the realignment of municipal boundaries at the municipal level and during the discussion of the realignment of federal boundaries.

Part of that problem comes from the history and the pattern of growth and development in Mississauga. Currently, most of the growth and development is going out to the northwest quadrant of the city. The riding I now represent with great pleasure is Mississauga South. At present, it has boundaries which are well defined and fairly natural, one of them being the north shore of Lake Ontario. I respectfully suggest the commission cannot alter that boundary.

Mr. Callahan: Do not count on it.

Mrs. Marland: The boundary that is of concern to me today, and I share that concern with the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), is the Queen Elizabeth Way. This report of the commission proposes that the boundary be moved north and become Dundas Street at the point where it is east of Cawthra Road.

Since the reference the commission itself has developed wants to take into consideration the accessibility, size and shape of the region, of those three areas, I would personally see accessibility as being the most important. The Queen Elizabeth Way was originally built and officially opened in 1937 as a two-lane highway. Prior to that, it was obviously the horse-and-buggy track that connected the old town of York to the village of Port Credit.

The village of Port Credit is now an integral part of the city of Mississauga, having come through the growth as a town which is completely within the Mississauga South riding. The Queen Elizabeth Way today, at the point that it traverses the northern boundary of Mississauga South provincial riding, is six lanes. Obviously, a six-lane highway is a very natural delineation. It is also a tremendous impediment to accessibility of communities on either side of the six-lane highway.

Therefore, with respect, I would suggest to the electoral boundaries commission that it take into very serious consideration leaving the northern boundary of Mississauga South at the Queen Elizabeth Way. The area it has proposed to add to Mississauga South is a small residential area on the north side of the Queen Elizabeth Way. The population for my riding increases by about 6,000 people and, although I would welcome the addition of these 6,000 people because the majority of them are of the right political persuasion, in fairness to them there is no way in the words of the outline of the commission itself that they have a community of interests.

In fact, a diversity of interests is established even by this six-lane highway. The elementary school accommodation is different. The community activities are different. They do not share any services at the municipal level. The existing boundaries for the municipal boards that are covered in the ridings to which I have referred are also at the Queen Elizabeth Way.

In a review of the municipal boundaries for the wards for Mississauga, a number of revisions have been made throughout the city in the past 12 months, and they are in place for the upcoming municipal election in Mississauga. That boundary at the Queen Elizabeth Way was reviewed, considered and debated at great length, and it was decided to leave it as the boundary for all the reasons for which I am suggesting it remain the boundary provincially as well.

The representation a member of the Legislature makes on behalf of his or her constituents is the aspect that I think should be considered by the electoral commission. If the people of Ontario are serviced to the maximum ability of the elected representatives because the boundaries of their ridings facilitate the service of those people and the equity of distribution of population as far as possible, then those are the aspects the electoral boundaries commission should consider.

I feel very strongly that whether I gain 6,000 people in Mississauga South and Mississauga East loses those 6,000 is not nearly as big an issue or concern to those 6,000 people as is the question of how they are represented. If they can be represented better and more successfully by having the Queen Elizabeth Way remain as the boundary, because there is no relation between the two communities to the north and the south of it, then it would only make common sense that the boundary remain as it exists today.

The rest of my comments in support of the boundary for Mississauga South remaining at the Queen Elizabeth Way are outlined in my motion. I will not take the time of the House today to read that motion into the record. It will be in the record, I understand. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to elaborate in some detail on the arguments for my community of Mississauga South.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Reycraft: I want to take a few minutes this afternoon to address the second report of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission. I want to place on the record my satisfaction and pleasure with the manner in which the county of Middlesex has been dealt with in the second report. I also want to exercise some liberty in expressing support on behalf of the county council of Middlesex, which will also be very pleased with the result.

The county council was extremely concerned when it saw the first report published by the commission, concerned to the point that it passed a resolution in March 1984 expressing its concern about the proposal that would have divided Middlesex into three different areas, with each part becoming a portion of a different electoral district. The county council's opposition to that proposal was subsequently endorsed by municipal councils in every one of the 22 towns, villages and townships that make up Middlesex county.

The resolution further requested that the commission give serious consideration to establishing an electoral district with boundaries identical to those of the county. The county's population currently is approximately 66,000. It is recognized that this is slightly less than the objective. Last year I was honoured to have the opportunity to hold the office of warden in the county of Middlesex and in that capacity I presented the council's opinions to the commission.

There was concern at that time, and it has been expressed by others this afternoon, that far too much emphasis had been placed on the criterion of population alone in preparing the electoral map. Anyone who is familiar with the nature and needs of rural municipalities knows that many problems are created when a county or a region, particularly one that is rural in flavour, is fragmented and its areas attached to all or part of another municipality for electoral purposes. The problems created are problems not only for the electorate within the county or region but for the member who holds the responsibility of representing them as well.

If part of a largely rural county is joined to a large urban riding, and in particular if it represents a minority share in such a rural-urban constituency, the rural concerns generally tend to receive lower priority than those of the urban area.

The proposal now before us, the second report of the boundaries commission, will provide all the people in Middlesex with an opportunity to be represented by a single member. The proposal would see a small portion of the city placed within the riding of Middlesex to increase its population. It will allow the people of Middlesex county not only to maintain but even to enhance the very strong sense of community that now exists in Middlesex.

Like most rural municipalities, Middlesex has a great number of active and vibrant organizations of a rural flavour. I draw to the attention of the House as an example of that the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture, the Junior Farmers' Club, the 4-H organization and the Soil and Crop Improvement Association. That is just a small number of examples of many organizations of that type which exist in the county.

All those organizations try to work closely with their representative in the provincial government. That co-operation will be much more productive if the county is organized as a single electoral district than it will be if they are required to share a member with part of the city of London. It is going to be more productive than if they are required to work with two or more members who represent all or parts of another county.

The people of Middlesex were very pleased to see that the previous proposal of the boundaries commission, which would have divided the riding into three areas, has now been abandoned. They hope, and I hope and strongly urge, that if there is to be any further change in the electoral boundaries of the province, there will be no change in the boundary as it relates to what is now proposed for the county of Middlesex.

Mr. Brandt: I am delighted to have an opportunity to participate in this debate, specifically to speak to the issue of the proposed changes in the electoral district of Sarnia. I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague the member for Lambton (Mr. D. W. Smith), who has indicated that he favours the preservation and continuation of the riding he now represents in its present form. I not only share those comments but endorse them entirely.

In the initial changes that were proposed for the electoral district of Lambton, which appears to be the problem with respect to our geographical area of Ontario, the proposals called for some additional changes to the boundaries that would all take place to the east and would involve the riding now known as Middlesex. Because there was some confusion about the county boundaries in those changes, the commission decided it would look further to the west, to the riding of Sarnia, to bring about some alterations and balance off the population inequities in a somewhat more acceptable fashion.

At the moment, my riding contains some 73,000 people, which is considered to be slightly above the average. In fact, it is not significantly higher than the average number desired by the electoral commission that is looking at this entire problem. The riding of Sarnia is primarily made up of an urban area, with a very small portion of Sarnia township, which is the rural section of my riding.

The change being proposed in the latest modifications that are being brought forward is totally unacceptable to me. It would call for the

loss of all or part of Sarnia township, which would be annexed to the riding of Lambton. That would redistribute some 20,000 people into the riding of Lambton. I would gain the township of Moore, which would net me an additional 10,000 people. Those changes would reduce the riding of Sarnia in size to approximately 65,000 and would increase the riding of Lambton to approximately 55,000.

If we were looking only at the issue of moving numbers of people around, I would not take issue with that proposal. Obviously, it would bring one riding up to a more acceptable number and it would reduce my riding by some 10,000 people, which would not move me significantly below the provincial average that is deemed to be desirable.

The main problem I see in that -- and it was well identified by my colleague the member for Lambton in his very appropriate remarks earlier -- is that it changes the very nature of the riding. Lambton is essentially and will continue to be, to all intents and purposes in the foreseeable future, a rural riding. My riding, however, is essentially an urban riding and for the foreseeable future will remain an urban riding.

Sarnia township is an outgrowth of the city of Sarnia. Most of the population is contained immediately on the easterly boundary. As I indicated earlier, a small number of people are residents of the remainder of Sarnia township and may be identified as being more rural in character.

5:40 p.m.

I think it is completely inappropriate and wrong to change a riding such as Sarnia, which at the moment is without problems, in order to correct a problem that exists somewhere else. To include Moore township in my riding, when it does not have the same community of interest as the Sarnia urban area, would simply be an improper move. It would not give the kind of representation to Moore that I believe Lambton is able to give it at present.

I might say the flip side of that is that I do not feel the proposal for Lambton would give the same kind of service or political representation that the riding of Sarnia can offer to Sarnia township at present. I would put forth a very strong objection to any changes or modifications that would sever all or part of Sarnia township.

That view is not singular on my part, but is supported by the township of Sarnia. I have a resolution I want to read into the record, dated December 17, 1984. It was moved by councillor Peter Merchant and seconded by councillor Sam McCrea.

"Whereas there have been media reports of a proposal to revise provincial electoral districts, and whereas this proposal includes the suggestion to divide the electoral district which now includes the whole of the municipality of Sarnia township to remove therefrom a portion of Sarnia township:

"Now, therefore, be it resolved that the township of Sarnia takes grave exception to this proposal, since it would create an unnecessary and artificial division within the municipality, and be it further resolved that this concern be expressed to all members of the provincial Legislature."

I am doing that this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to bring to your attention and that of our colleagues in the House this very real concern they have.

If I may take it one step further, I believe that if the commission is really concerned about the complications that arise from splitting county boundaries, which I have heard is one of its key considerations, it should be even more concerned and should look at the question in an even more critical sense when it starts to split municipal boundaries, because there is a cohesiveness at the moment within the township of Sarnia that its people wish to retain.

I might add that, as my colleague the member for Lambton is well aware, in the most recent annexation discussions, Sarnia township has been most vociferous in its objections to any changes that would occur within its municipal boundaries. Certainly its populace would not favour any changes that would change the riding of Sarnia as well.

In conclusion, let me simply state that the first changes proposed, which would include some modifications to the east of Lambton, would not meet with the same degree of objection from my part, but I understand they are being objected to by other members of the House. However, the second proposal being brought forward, which would include the removal of all or part of Sarnia township and the addition of more townships to my riding, is something I have to oppose totally, completely and unalterably.

I want to put that position before the House as one that I feel is fair and realistic in the light of the circumstances in my riding.

Mr. South: It is with pleasure that I take part in this ongoing debate in regard to the redistribution of Ontario into electoral districts. By way of introduction, I would like to commend the commission for its work on this monumental task. Unfortunately, I was not involved in the hearings that took place in Kingston, but I am advised that those who appeared were quite impressed with the quality of the proceedings.

In reviewing the commission's report as it pertains to the riding of Frontenac-Addington, I believe there has been an error in fact. Furthermore, the report reflects a limited understanding of the opposing natures of the city of Kingston and the township of Pittsburgh.

The proposed change is to remove Pittsburgh township from the riding of Frontenac-Addington. The reason for this, to quote directly from the report, is: "The latter district" -- that is, Kingston and the Islands -- "is, even with the addition of Pittsburgh township, much more compact than the former, and to allow it to maintain a population over 7,000 lower than the population of Frontenac-Addington would be inequitable."

The reason given for changing the riding, according to this report, is based on two premises; one is equality in compactness and the other is equality in population.

In regard to the first, compactness, if, as the report indicates, a desirable objective is equality of compactness, then Kingston and the Islands, by having Pittsburgh township added to it, would still be considerably more compact than Frontenac-Addington.

By taking Pittsburgh township from the riding of Frontenac-Addington, its compactness would be improved only marginally by reducing the number of municipal councils to 22 from 23. The compactness in regard to the distance between the east and west and the north and south boundaries of Frontenac-Addington would not be reduced by removing Pittsburgh township from it.

Mr. Sargent: Give them hell.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. South: On an area basis, the compactness of Frontenac-Addington with Pittsburgh township removed would be improved by less than five per cent. In summary, the report's change would result in a very marginal improvement in the compactness of the riding of Frontenac-Addington.

In regard to equality of population, the second premise that the commission uses to adjust the boundaries, the report's proposal again is in error.

Taking the commission's desirable objective of developing ridings with populations close to the provincial average of 66,000, we make comparisons. Accepting the commission's proposal would give Kingston and the Islands a population of 64,123 people, or three per cent less than the ideal, and Frontenac-Addington a population of 51,753 persons, or 22 per cent less than the ideal. Thus, Frontenac-Addington would approach the undesirable upper limit of 25 per cent divergence from the indicated desirable provincial average.

Leaving the ridings as they are would result in the following: Kingston and the Islands, 54,311, or 17 per cent less than ideal, and Frontenac-Addington, 61,565, or seven per cent less than the ideal. In other words, contrary to the report's assertion, to leave the ridings as they are would be more equitable on a population basis.

With regard to the political and social differences, severing Pittsburgh township from the rest of Frontenac county would totally disrupt the traditional political and social ties of the past 100 years. Pittsburgh township is and always has been part of Frontenac county, whereas the city of Kingston has always been separated from the county. The people of Pittsburgh township share common social, economic and political interests with the rest of Frontenac-Addington.

5:50 p.m.

The vast majority of residents in the township and in Frontenac-Addington own their own homes -- that is, more than 80 per cent -- whereas in Kingston and the Islands that figure is only 44 per cent. In Kingston, there are many university students, professors and staff of national institutions; these people tend to be more mobile in regard to place of residence, and many are apartment dwellers or renters. This is one of the basic areas where there is a divergence; that is, the renters as opposed to the house owners.

Basic differences in attitude and lifestyle separate the residents of Pittsburgh township from the residents of the city of Kingston. Pittsburgh township is essentially rural with no industry and limited suburban development. By its nature, its social and political interests are compatible with those of Frontenac-Addington rather than with the more urban interests of Kingston and the Islands. The presence of Pittsburgh township in the riding of Frontenac-Addington is traditional, comfortable and politically appropriate.

In regard to local rejection of the proposed change, on September 3 , 1985 , the council of the township of Pittsburgh, by resolution, unanimously opposed the removal of its township from the riding of Frontenac-Addington. In addition, the Joyceville Women's Institute and the Pittsburgh Township Women's Institute opposed the removal of Pittsburgh township from Frontenac-Addington. These groups represent most of the families in this rural township.

In conclusion, removing Pittsburgh township would place the riding of Frontenac-Addington on a population basis very close to the point of rejection; that is, 25 per cent less than the provincial ideal. As stated above, to leave the two ridings of Frontenac-Addington and Kingston and the Islands is more equitable on a population basis than the proposed change. There would be no significant improvement in the compactness of the Frontenac-Addington riding by the removal of Pittsburgh township.

Severing Pittsburgh township from the riding of Frontenac-Addington would totally disrupt the political ties that have existed for more than 100 years. Pittsburgh township is part of Frontenac county, whereas the city of Kingston is separated from the county.

The community of interest for Pittsburgh township socially, economically and politically is consistent with that of Frontenac-Addington, not that of the city of Kingston. The best provincial political interests of the people of Pittsburgh township would be diluted and submerged by the city if it were placed in the riding of Kingston and the Islands.

Finally, as we would oppose the taking of a child from its mother, I am totally against the ripping of Pittsburgh township from its natural and proper place in the riding of Frontenac-Addington.

Mr. Runciman: I have a few brief comments. There has not been a large outcry in my area in respect of the latest proposal by the commission, but a number of people do have some concerns and I would like to put them on the record.

In terms of the criteria outlined for the commission, when it was arriving at the boundary changes -- perhaps it is the fault of the Legislature -- I do not think it took a close look at rural ridings in respect of the number of municipalities a member representing a rural riding is responsible for.

I have 15 municipalities in my riding, and the changes will add another four municipalities. I think the work load perhaps is not adequately recognized by the commission. As we all know, municipalities are creatures of the provincial government. Virtually everything they have to do requires some form of assistance or mandate from the province; so there is a work load that is not present in the case of a lot of members representing urban areas who have to deal with only one municipal government.

Another factor is that a member for a rural riding has a much higher profile than does a member for an urban riding. He is known and is expected to attend events in all the municipalities. If one represents 15, 20 or 25 municipalities, the work load can be heavy indeed.

Mr. Haggerty: You should get paid for it.

Mr. Runciman: That is right.

I am asking the commission to take those matters into consideration. There is also the question of travel. Many of us have to travel long distances to get around our ridings to attend events. The member for an urban riding does not have to contend with that.

Regarding my riding of Leeds, the commission is suggesting a new riding called Leeds-Grenville. It has left out two of the townships in Grenville county, and I think it has to take the matter of historical boundaries into consideration. People recognize Leeds and Grenville as part of the united counties.

Although on a personal basis I would prefer that the commission go back to its original proposal and leave Leeds as it has been, if it has to make a change I suggest it consider incorporating all of Grenville county rather than eliminating two townships, which will make it very difficult for many people in that area to recognize who their member of the Ontario Legislature is.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week. Tonight, we will deal with the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions on television coverage of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly with conclusion of the debate at 10:15 p.m.

Tomorrow, Friday, October 18, and on Monday, October 21, we will debate the motion on interim supply and, if there is time, we will resume the adjourned debate on redistribution, it is hoped to a conclusion.

On Tuesday, October 22, in the afternoon and evening, there will be second reading and committee of the whole house, if required, of Bills 38 and 27 standing in the name of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) and Bills 1, 7, 8, 11 and 14 standing in the name of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

The usual committees may meet on Wednesday.

On Thursday, October 24, the budget will be presented to the House at 4 p.m. In the evening we will continue with legislation not completed on Tuesday.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

17 octobre 1985