Journal des débats 1985-déc-13 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Lincoln Alexander, the Lieutenant Governor, transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1986, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, December 13, 1985.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

GRAPE CROP

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am pleased to announce that my ministry and the federal Department of Agriculture will release $3.4 million in payment to grape growers for the 1985 crop.

The crop was purchased by the agricultural products board and consisted of 10,800 tonnes of this year's harvest. The payment rate per tonne is 90 per cent of the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board negotiated price.

Payments are being made to the Ontario grape board for immediate disbursement to growers. Under this arrangement, the costs of the purchase are being shared equally by the federal government and Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) told this House that the government has no preference whatsoever as between a joint venture and an outright sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. Yesterday, however, the minister told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. that Ontario wants to sell UTDC for cash and does not want to enter into a joint venture.

Can he explain to us today which position is right with regard to the joint venture, his or his Premier's?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The original terms and conditions laid down were that we would prefer a cash sale. However, at this time we are prepared to entertain any negotiations with any prospective buyer.

Mr. Grossman: What the minister told the CBC yesterday he is taking back today. Yesterday he said he did not want to enter into a joint venture.

If today's answer is accurate and he is prepared to enter into a discussion for a joint venture, can he explain why British Rail Engineering Ltd., which contacted this government and says it has been trying to get an appointment with the government to discuss a prospective sale for weeks, could not even get a response from the government until it issued a press release yesterday? Immediately thereafter, Mr. Ezrin and others in the Premier's office were scurrying to arrange an appointment.

If the minister is now interested in a joint venture, why did he respond to this firm only when it issued a press release yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The company in question was indeed responded to by two of our people responsible for the transaction. A meeting has been set up for the first mutually convenient time next week for both parties.

Mr. Rae: What the minister is saying flies directly in the face of what we have been told by the BREL group itself. It has indicated that it sent a proposal, not for a sale but for a joint venture, to Wood Gundy on November 5, and sought meetings to discuss a proposal with both Wood Gundy and officials of the province. They say, "To date we have had no formal response to our proposal and no discussion."

Can the minister explain why a serious group such as BREL, which is not interested in a purchase but in a joint venture that would give Ontario access to world markets, would have the impression that a deal is being negotiated with other parties such as to exclude it from a fair chance at making its case before the minister, Mr. Kruger and indeed the Premier himself?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: There has been no action taken by this government or people representing this government that could suggest anyone has been shut out or prejudiced in any way in negotiations that are currently under way. We are meeting with the company in question.

Mr. Grossman: No. The minister has now arranged a meeting with the company in question after he locked them out and refused to talk to them for four to six weeks, after he would not answer any of their communications. Let us be clear. The minister cannot say in this House that he has met them, that he has contacted them or negotiated with them. Now he is able to say it because they issued a press release yesterday and he contacted them.

Hershell Ezrin, the principal secretary to the Premier, whose office is conducting all of these negotiations, stresses in this morning's Toronto Sun that the BREL proposal is not an offer to buy the company and is thus not the same as other offers the province has received.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Until now the Premier has suggested there were no offers. Now that Mr. Ezrin has acknowledged there are offers, can the minister tell the House what those other offers are, who they are from and why we were told there were no other offers? Tell us about the other offers now.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I can respond by telling this House that there is more than one company interested in the UTDC proposal. We do not have any firm offers.

Mr. Grossman: Maybe Ezrin and Kruger have firm offers that the minister is not aware of.

10:10 a.m.

ETHYL CARBAMATE GUIDELINES

Mr. Grossman: May I ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to try once again to answer the question he was asked yesterday?

On November 6 the minister learned that a number of products sold by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario contained ethyl carbamate, and on November 7 he ordered all products that contained a level above 500 parts per billion to be withdrawn from the shelves on the basis that they were a health hazard. Yesterday he announced that new, more stringent guidelines lower than the 500 parts per billion are now in effect; yet he told the House yesterday it would take six months at the minimum to complete testing.

Can he tell us specifically why he is not prepared to commit whatever funds are necessary to get that testing done immediately and not allow products that he himself thinks may be dangerous to stay on the shelves for six months until he has taken that extraordinary length of time to do the testing? Specifically, why can he not get the testing done now?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The problem we have is that the levels below 500 parts per billion, the new levels established by the federal government, are its levels and it is setting up the procedure for determining these levels. Until my people get the methodology, we cannot even start to test. Once we establish the methodology, which will be the federal government's methodology, we will then start testing. We have 3,000 products to test, and to test all 3,000 will take that period of time.

I want to assure all members, though, that the products we suspect -- those are products on which we have done a preliminary test to see whether they fit into the 500-parts-per-billion category -- will be tested immediately. I cannot give the member a precise time, because I am in the hands of the federal government as to what its methodology is going to be.

Mr. Grossman: How can he have been so concerned last week that he had to tell people to stop buying those same products, when this week he is saying, "Start to buy them; consume them," and he is going to sit back for six months and test them? If he was concerned enough last week to tell people not to buy them, he has to take one of two positions this week. Either he tells consumers not to buy them and not to drink them or he must say that, in his view, they are safe and consumers may go ahead and drink them. Which position is he now taking?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The Leader of the Opposition should know I have not changed my position. The federal government has changed its position.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If members want the answer, they should listen to me.

On Friday night my officials received a telex from the federal government saying that on Monday it would announce new levels for ethyl carbamate in products across Canada. On Monday morning we called and asked, "What does that mean?" We were told that, as of the announcement, that would be the law of the land and all products would have to conform to these newer numbers. I made the statement in the House on the basis of that information.

The wine industry was very concerned, not with me but with the federal government, and went to see the minister. At that point he started to waffle and said, "These are not really standards; these are guidelines." At that point I called and said, "Your officials told me these were to be standards." He said: "We are taking a look at it. I had some representations from the wine industry." I said, "You had better get your officials to Toronto so we can discuss it."

They then came to Toronto and met with my officials. We asked: "Are they guidelines? Are they standards? Is it a hazard or is it not?" At that point they said: "Yes, they are standards. It is a hazard, but not in the short term. We will set up procedures and let you know; but in the meantime, in the short term, there is not a problem."

I have conveyed that information about it to everybody.

Mr. Swart: The minister is not answering the question. If he knows so little about the dangers of ethyl carbamate that last Friday he felt there would be a real danger to the public if, for two days, they consumed those wines that the tests had shown to contain more than 500 parts per billion of ethyl carbamate and now he feels there is no danger in consuming those wines for six months, does he not know or does he not now care?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The confusion is on the part of the honourable member. The only thing I can tell him for sure is that the products with more than 500 parts per billion have been removed. They present the real hazard.

The federal government -- and we are talking about its standards -- is saying that products at the levels it has established are in danger in the long term, but not in the short term. I have no other choice but to wait until I receive its methodology to test our products. Those that do not conform will be removed.

Mr. Grossman: We accept that someone else's standards have changed, but the minister is responsible for protecting consumers, heaven help us, in Ontario. He now has to report to consumers about the product he is responsible for selling to them, given the new standards.

Saying the feds have changed their standards is academic to all this. Consumers want to know whether the products are safe to purchase and they are asking the person responsible for selling those products to them whether, in the light of these same standards, those products are safe.

Just as a minister in Ottawa had to determine ultimately, based on standards and other advice, whether tuna fish was safe for sale, I ask the minister whether he is now saying to consumers this Friday, not last Friday, that the wine being sold to them is safe to consume. Should they drink it or not?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I said yesterday and I will say today that in the short term, those wines are safe.

Mr. Eves: What is short term?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will not say it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind members this is Friday the 13th. I hope we get through it all right.

Mr. Rae: It is not only wine that improves with age.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Rae: My question to the Premier concerns the Urban Transportation Development Corp. I would like to go back to the line of questioning started earlier and ask the Premier if he can explain why Mr. Kruger told me on Tuesday that he had received only two serious bids up to that time. Both were Canadian; one was Bombardier and he would not tell me who the other one was.

Can the Premier tell me why Mr. Kruger said that, when today the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) said that is not the case? What is the real agenda here? Why was British Rail Engineering Ltd. frozen out? Why was it refused any interviews or any discussions either with Wood Gundy or with officials of the province? How can we avoid the conclusion that this deal has been fixed from the start; that the government has a hidden agenda with respect to UTDC which the Premier is not sharing with the Legislature or anybody else who is trying to bid on the deal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is getting exercised about the wrong thing because, with great respect, he is absolutely, completely wrong.

Let me quote from a telex to Mr. Plaxton, vice-president of Wood Gundy, Toronto, from Mr. Norman of BREL, which I received yesterday. It is a long one, which I will share with him. One of the lines says: "Your letter of October 21, and attached memorandum, has been discussed by members of the British Rail Engineering board. Their response is that BREL is not at this time in a position to fund an acquisition of the whole or in part of UTDC's shares or assets."

It says they took themselves out of the play.

Mr. Rae: No, no.

10:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say it is not fixed. If they have a better idea on how to enhance employment and make it grow in Ontario, we are prepared to talk to them. As a matter of fact, I have instructed them to do so. I was not even aware of this kerfuffle until yesterday. There is no secret agenda and no hidden deal being made. We are interested only in maximizing the return to the shareholders, who are the taxpayers of Ontario, and in building jobs and technology in this province. I am not fixed on how that should be done.

Everyone who is knowledgeable agrees UTDC must change in some form. Whether that is a partnership, a privatization, a joint venture or a complete sale has yet to be determined. To that extent, I welcome the views of the members opposite on how that should come about. Believe me, there is no hidden agenda.

Mr. Rae: The Premier has managed to contradict himself completely even within his own answer. He alleges British Rail has taken itself out of the bidding, while its proposal has consistently been for a joint venture, which would protect jobs and ensure continued public investment in Ontario, and not for an acquisition.

The Premier clearly does not even understand the issue at stake. British Rail is not interested in an acquisition; it is interested in a joint venture. What is at stake here is an idea that will give Ontario a continued interest and ownership and that will potentially expand markets. That is what is at stake here.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: When the Premier met with Mr. Bourassa last Thursday, did he discuss any offers made by Bombardier? In particular, did he discuss any questions surrounding the continued liability of the Ontario government for any performance bonds that will be taken up by Bombardier?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Very quickly, Mr. Bourassa asked about UTDC, and we said we were looking at the whole situation. He asked if Bombardier was making an offer, and I said it was interested. The discussions are ongoing. There was no discussion about terms, conditions, liabilities, bonds outstanding or anything like that.

Mr. Grossman: In view of the letter the Premier just read to us between the government and BREL, I remind him that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) said to us last Friday in the Legislature, "I can confirm that no foreign buyers have been talked to." On Monday, December 9, the minister said, "I have been told...we have talked to only two Canadian companies." Can the Premier explain the discrepancy between the letter he wrote and the answer given by his minister?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I told the member we have not talked to them. We got a letter from them.

Mr. Grossman: Is that the game the Premier is playing in the House? Is that the kind of game he plays in the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend opposite is getting exercised again about nothing. He projects his own motivation on to everyone. Let me tell him again, with great respect, he is absolutely out to lunch.

Mr. Grossman: The old Trudeau shrug; it looks good on him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: I will ask him in the hall. He will have the answer in the hall.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is wasting.

Mr. Rae: Last Tuesday, talking about all the terrible things in public enterprise, the Premier said, "For example, every time there is a problem with a truss falling over in Detroit, it becomes a question in this House, which is a system of accountability that is not there for so-called private enterprise."

From the Premier's comments in the House on Tuesday, can I take an absolute guarantee that Ontario will not be stuck with the performance bonds for a truss falling over in Detroit, in Vancouver or anywhere else? Is the Premier giving us his assurance today that the government of Ontario will not get stuck as the insurer and guarantor of last resort once we have sold out to private enterprise?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can give the House no guarantees of any deal, because no deal has been made and no one has discussed those situations.

As I understand it, Ontario in its own right has assumed that indemnity for the Vancouver system at least. It is an obligation of the taxpayers of this province to substantiate the guarantee of UTDC. I do not have any legal advice at the moment as to whether that is transferable. That is something we have. The previous government contracted for it. I do not know whether it will be part of the transactions. The discussions have not gone that far.

I understand that the member wants to ask all these questions, and they are quite legitimate, but I can tell him that no decisions have been made.

ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last Thursday, I asked questions about access to medical treatment for social assistance beneficiaries in Ontario. The minister indicated at the time that he thought there should be equal access to medical treatment for the poor as well as the wealthy in this province, but he said that while his review was going on, "until we come to some resolution and rationalization of the multifaceted program now in place, I am not prepared to change one aspect of it."

How long are people on welfare and social assistance, who have been denied medically necessary travel by municipalities around this province, going to have to wait for the minister to get that first principle of equal access in place and resolve the differences with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The point about access is not completely valid, because a program is in place whereby municipalities and this government share the cost of medically necessary transportation. The honourable member is correct, however, in that the municipalities at present have the discretion as to whether they are going to initiate that action before my ministry triggers its cost-sharing.

As a result of the question I was asked last week, I have asked my staff to do a survey to discover how many times we are asked to participate in this kind of transaction and how many times it has been refused. That will be part of the process of changing our relationships with the municipalities.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The problem is the number of times they are not asked by municipalities.

This morning, I would like to bring to the minister's attention the case of Alan Bristol of the village of Haliburton, who has Buerger's disease, a circulatory disease that stops the circulation going to the extremities. This man now has lost most of his fingers and toes and is to go into Peterborough Civic Hospital today for another amputation and the removal of three blood clots. However, Dysart township has refused him the finances to make it possible for him to go to Peterborough Civic Hospital.

What will the minister do for that case and all the other cases around this province that have to hold fire while he holds this review, instead of giving them now the equal access they deserve?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am quite prepared to investigate the individual circumstances surrounding Mr. Bristol's need, but at present I do not have the authority under legislation to order the municipality to participate. As I have already indicated, we would have to change our cost-sharing relationships with the municipalities so that we would pay the full shot.

Mr. Cousens: The universality principle of providing service and care to all the people of the province has been a fundamental rule and now we see the minister --

Mr. McClellan: Not with the Conservative government; it never was with those guys.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: It is feeding time again. Give them some food.

Mr. Wildman: We had to fight to get the Tories to do anything.

Mr. Speaker: Order; supplementary question.

Mr. Cousens: I am trying.

The principle stands and yet the minister is not standing by that principle. Will he do something? Now that the report is in, and we know people need this help, will he start acting on it? Will he give a commitment that he will do something rather than just look at the report?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I remind the honourable member that our funding relationships with the municipalities vary in many ways, depending on the service that is required. The member is not correct when he talks about universality. We do not have it, and that is precisely what is being re-examined.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Does the minister support the existing municipal veto, or does he think it should be changed and, if so, when is he going to do it?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As I indicated earlier, I have no intention of changing it unilaterally. It will be changed only as part of a total package with respect to our funding relationships with the municipalities.

10:30 a.m.

DOMED STADIUM

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Chairman of Management Board and it is regarding the awarding of the contract for the domed stadium in Toronto. In view of the magnitude of this project and the considerable amount of public funding involved, will the minister table in this House all relevant documentation regarding the selection process, including the cost estimates and the engineering reports on all four proposals?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I have not seen the documents to which the honourable member refers. I cannot understand the reason for his question. The member knows the Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. is an agency. I will discuss this with them and see what they have to say.

Mr. Gillies: I am somewhat surprised by the minister's answer. The minister will know, I am sure, that the stadium corporation is controlled 53 per cent by the province, and that is her government.

In view of the legitimate public interest in this contract and the questions that are already being raised in the public press regarding this contract award, and with a view to her government's commitment to open government, will she share with this House all relevant documentation, the cost estimates and the engineering reports? Will she further --

Mr. Grossman: She is getting instructions.

Mr. Gillies: The minister is getting her instructions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked sufficiently.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really heard a question.

Mr. Gillies: I did not want to interrupt the discussion over there.

Further to that, will the minister give this House, for the first time, a clear and unequivocal commitment that the provincial contribution to this project will not exceed $30 million?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I refer the member to the statements of our Premier (Mr. Peterson) regarding funding; those are on the record and clear.

As well, the member knows the relationship between the government and its agencies, boards and commissions, the scheduling of agencies, the establishment of the membership of boards and so forth. I will discuss this matter with the board. Some of the members of that board are very familiar with the procedures of this House and even with some of the members opposite.

There probably has never been a project of this magnitude that has undergone the kind of public scrutiny that this one has to date, with the kind of unequivocal statements of open and responsive --

Mr. Grossman: Who is running the government? Is the minister covering up for them?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Do the members opposite not trust Paul Godfrey? Do they not trust Bill Davis?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I was frankly delighted to hear the support and endorsement from the previous Premier of this province, William Grenville Davis. I submit that to the member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I can wait if the members want to waste the time of other members.

FAMILY BENEFITS REQUIREMENTS

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Following on the minister's refusal to consider changing the ministry policy of making a woman disclose why she will not name a father when she applies for family benefits, I want to ask the minister directly whether his policy means a woman who bears a child as a result of a rape must be willing to say she was raped, and perhaps even by whom, before she and her child will receive family benefits?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Both during question period yesterday and again last night in the late show, I clearly indicated to the member that the income maintenance officers and the directors have the discretion to waive that obligation provided they are given sufficient information on which to base their decision.

Ms. Gigantes: Can the minister understand that women in Ontario do become pregnant as a result of incest and that our law should recognize their right to refuse to reveal that incest to anyone, especially a government from which they and their children should be receiving extra help rather than extra harshness?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The application for general welfare or family benefits is based entirely upon need. It is the obligation of the income officer and the director to determine whether need exists, and they are unable to make that decision if they do not have sufficient information. As they have in the past, they will continue in the future to treat that information with confidence and sensitivity and to waive the requirement if it is deemed to be appropriate to do so.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Sargent: I have a question for the Solicitor General -- we have not rehearsed this one -- in regard to the new laws on drunk driving.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: I have been through the course; I have been impaired, yes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is question period. Will the member please put the question, and I am sure the other members will listen.

Mr. Sargent: With regard to these new laws, I bring to the minister's attention the old saying, "If you drive, do not drink because 80 per cent of the people are caused by accidents."

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is your question, "Does the Solicitor General agree"? No? Please place your question.

Mr. Sargent: There was a letter in the Globe and Mail this morning -- this is an aside here -- about a young lady who did not think she was in shape to drive because she had had a couple of drinks. She decided to let her boyfriend, who had not had a drink, drive her car. At the spot check where the car was stopped by the police, the young lady told the officer her situation was kind of shaky. Because her boyfriend had not had a drink, the police agreed he should drive. They made a deal. When he could not produce his driver's licence, they held him for three quarters of an hour and charged him $128.

What I am concerned about is --

Mr. Speaker: "Therefore, I would like to ask the Solicitor General."

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that in this House we have an all-party agreement --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, will you ask the question, please?

Mr. Sargent: Will the minister investigate things happening in situations such as this?

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: In response to the first question the member posed, I would have to say my wife might well agree that, after six children, maybe the answer is yes.

However, in answer to the second one, it was great to see that, according to the article in this morning's press, the public, including the young lady in question, supports wholeheartedly the reduce impaired driving everywhere program. That is one of the things we have found across the entire province, without exception; the public has supported and appreciated what is happening.

Of course, it is at the discretion of the police whether charges are laid in the event that a licence is not available. In this instance, the gentleman did not have a licence with him and it is true the fine for nonproduction of a licence is $128. There is no law that says one can have up to 48 hours to produce a licence, which is an impression that some people have; it is a courtesy that sometimes has been extended.

Mr. Sargent: Another flaw in this strict enforcement is that in the outlying parts of Ontario, the towns and villages have one or two hotels. Today these places are totally vacant. They are going to lose millions of dollars in real estate because of this policy of spot checks in front of the hotels. In the cities, subways, taxis and buses are available, but the small towns of Ontario are ghost towns for these hotels.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementary must flow out of the response. Please place your supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: I ask the Solicitor General to work out some way of policing so the RIDE spot checks will not sit in front of the local hotels.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I believe that was a statement rather than a question, saying he hoped we would work out some type of program that would provide an opportunity for the police not to be in front of hotels. It is not our policy to decide where they set up.

My suggestion to the honourable member would simply be that, in these areas where hotels have expressed concerns about the impact of RIDE programs on their business, they should really be somewhat innovative. We have seen many innovative programs, such as the designated-driver idea, which is wholeheartedly supported by the small hotels. In rural areas we have found there have been volunteer drivers who arrive at the hotels to take people home at night. There have been taxi fares paid. I suggest to the owners of all small hotels that if they are somewhat innovative, they can still carry on and have as much trade as they have ever had.

Mr. Gillies: Could I ask the Solicitor General to give a clear answer to the question asked by the member for Grey-Bruce? Should RIDE and similar programs be in front of public hotels or should they not?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: RIDE programs should be wherever police determine they should make spot checks to be sure there are no impaired drivers on our highways.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I realize we are all concerned, though no more so than you, about the smooth movement of question period. I would ask you to consider extending the period somewhat today, inasmuch as the original question and supplementary took more than four minutes. As important a subject as it is, perhaps by extending question period a bit today some other members would have the opportunity to raise matters of equal public importance. I would ask you to consider that.

Mr. Speaker: I will give it careful consideration.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Rowe: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, alias the captain of the Titanic. Now that the struggling Liberal firm of Vickers and Benson is feeling confident about the awarding of the tourism advertising agency contract, could the minister confirm or deny that a firm called MacLaren Advertising, a well-known supporter of the Liberal Party, is vying for the position of agency of record, a position overseeing all government advertising?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: For the first time in the memory of anyone in this Legislature, the process is open. I want to assure the member that the selection panel which has been set up has not yet reported on its findings.

The people who have served on that board are: the Assistant Deputy Minister, Tourism Division, Peter Sharper; the former tourism marketing branch director, Greg McKnight; Patricia Jacobsen, the executive co-ordinator of management policy division of the Management Board of Cabinet secretariat; Robert T. Brown, the retired president of Gulf Canada, and G. Campbell McDonald, the chairman of the Advertising Review Board.

To suggest that the process is not in place and working is to cast aspersions on these people. I think the process is good.

Mr. Rowe: Given that answer on Friday the 13th, can the minister explain to this House how his ministry proposes to mount a crucial tourism advertising campaign for the spring and summer of 1986, a campaign that everybody in the industry knows takes five to six months to put together to be effective? How can the minister put that together when he has not even awarded the contract today?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It is easy. The process for the winter has already been placed by the previous agency of record and the previous tourism branch. The member should be pleased that for the first time there is a process in place. I defy him or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) to say there is something wrong with that process.

Mr. Grossman: Does the minister want to bet on the outcome?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I point out that 14 years ago --

Mr. Grossman: I will bet the minister his seat on the outcome.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to call for a new question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Last week the Leader of the Opposition suggested that there was interference in the selection process from the Premier's office. I want to assure him he was absolutely wrong and that is not true.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the members want to continue with the question period.

PUBLIC SERVANTS' RIGHTS

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board arising from the Supreme Court of Canada judgement related to Mr. Neil Fraser. Is the minister aware that the justices unanimously condemned the blanket prohibition that exists in Ontario against public servants speaking openly and publicly on all public issues? Will the minister undertake to amend the Public Service Act which restricts that kind of freedom of speech in Ontario?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and I have discussed this matter and we are asking the Ontario Law Reform Commission to look into the rights of civil servants in the province under the act as it now stands. We expect to report some time in 1986; we hope within six months.

Mr. Philip: Other provinces have not had to ask a law reform commission; they have made the necessary changes, which the minister can simply look at.

In their decision, the justices claimed it was not sensible that a provincial employee could be fired for standing in a demonstration against the closing of his or her day care in his or her community. Does the minister agree that is unjust? Will she make the necessary changes now, or do we have to go through the costly process of court cases that will eventually force her to make the necessary changes?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: It is essential in a matter like this that all employees in the service of the government be treated fairly, equitably and the same. In the past there have been criticisms because it was not always seen to treat everyone the same.

This entire issue has been discussed at great length. We believe we should consult and look at the options available in the future. This is not an easy matter. I think we all believe in a nonpartisan civil service; how we achieve that goal while at the same time protecting the rights and freedom of speech is very important.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services with regard to a 72-year-old mentally handicapped woman named Mary.

Mary has never been to school and she has never been out of the house alone. She cannot look after herself and she has no family to look after her. She cannot get into an old age home or a nursing home because they do not handle people like her. Mary is now in a boarding home with no one to look after her and there is no place for her to live.

The minister got a letter on this case. Is it the policy of the Liberal government to leave mentally retarded senior adults homeless and uncared for?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is most certainly not the policy of this government to leave mentally retarded seniors at home and uncared for. A joint program is in place, not only to move developmentally handicapped individuals out of institutions and back into the community but also to provide residential places and day programming of various sorts for developmentally handicapped people who already live in the community, such as has been described. The total amount of money put into the community in the past couple of years to provide programs like this is approximately $33 million.

I do not recognize the specific reference the honourable member has made. If he says there is a letter in my office, I will review it and deal with it on an individual basis.

Mr. Cousens: Mary does not have a home and she needs help. The minister now is going to do something for her; it would be nice if he could do it before Christmas so Mary has a place to live and gets proper stimulation and proper care. Does the minister promise to do something for Mary before Christmas?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I certainly give a commitment to review Mary's case. If the kinds of changes that are desirable can be made as quickly as possible, then they will be done. However, I cannot make the kind of commitment the member is asking for because I do not know what the individual circumstances are.

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Because municipalities have had a hard time receiving specific information from the Ministry of Natural Resources about the emergency shoreline protection plan and the shoreline property assistance plan, and since the work cannot be done in some areas because the ground will be frozen and covered with snow, will the minister assure us that these programs will continue beyond March 1986? Also, will he tell us whether the federal government has extended its assistance for these programs?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am sure the gentleman who is asking the question is much more aware than he appears to be, because we invited him to share with us the investigation along the shores and also to share the fact that the reeve, the mayor and all the people in those municipalities that have been devastated are going to come into Toronto, as nearly as I can figure out, next week to put forward the kind of requests they are going to make.

We are not initiating. We are very accepting of those people putting forward the kind of submissions that we would then be able to address in relation to the damage that has been done. The member is invited, as are those members who represent areas that have had this kind of damage. Next week we are going to start meetings with all the interested parties.

As far as the federal government is concerned, we have sent a letter requesting it to make certain that it gives us the criteria for where it could be helpful. As yet we have not heard from them. I am more interested in hearing from those people who have been affected and in sharing that with the member when it happens.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the minister's response, but he has not said directly whether the programs in question will be extended beyond March 1986.

As well, can he give us assurance that not only people who have experienced serious damage in southwestern Ontario but also people throughout the Great Lakes area will be able to benefit from these programs? Can he indicate when a decision will be made on how these programs will be made available to the people living in the unorganized communities in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The same question would apply here. We are recipients of requests. Two other ministers are involved, including the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), more properly in relation to some of the loans that are available. This government is going to address itself to the needs out there and, more properly, to the people who have permanent homes along those shorelines that were harmed. We will look at the others and at how we can be helpful.

However, the plans and the funding would then take cabinet determination. The member can certainly rest assured that as soon as we have the necessary information, this minister will do all he can to help those people who have been affected.

Mr. Harris: The minister still has not answered the question. I want to follow up on the basic question that was asked. The people cannot get the information; they have been calling his ministry and they cannot get it. The people up along the north shore from Sault Ste. Marie and west cannot get any information. They are calling members as far away as North Bay; they are calling members all over the province asking, "Why can we not get information from the Minister of Natural Resources?"

He is the holdup. He is the reason they cannot find out what is going on. Will he guarantee that this money will be made available next spring when we get into 1986?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member must understand more than anyone else over there that the applications for this kind of help are required to come in; they are to be initiated by the people who request the help. We are going to respond and help wherever the help is needed.

The member knows full well there is money left in some of those plans that has not been requested. We certainly respond immediately when we hear. When the requests come, if more money is needed, we will go to cabinet to make sure this decision is put there and the answers will be forthcoming.

Mr. Martel: What is the minister doing for the unorganized townships?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The money is still there, and the member knows it.

11 a.m.

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

Mr. Gregory: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In view of Chairman Flynn's recent comments in support of developing a plan of action for a northwest corridor in the city of Toronto that could possibly revive the controversial Spadina Expressway, will the minister assure this House that he will oppose any move to reopen any discussions surrounding the Spadina Expressway?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am aware of the newspaper article covering the chairman's inaugural address to Metro on Tuesday in which there were some indications in this direction. I assure the member opposite that I do not concur with many of the statements made by Chairman Flynn in his statement.

Mr. Gregory: It is nice to know the minister does not concur, but does he totally disagree with the implications of that question? There is quite a difference. Will the minister convey his strong feelings of nonconcurrence to the chairman to ensure the decision of a previous government will not be overturned by this new government?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Being an open government, we welcome advice and input from the members opposite. Respecting the position of the Metro chairman, we are very interested in his opinions and what he has to say, but we are not going to build the Spadina Expressway.

Mr. McClellan: Have there been any discussions between any officials at Metro and officials in the ministry with respect to an arterial road for northwest Metro?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: None that I am aware of.

HALLEY'S COMET

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, you observed earlier that today was Friday the 13th. I have a question for the Premier that may be somewhat appropriate to the day.

By March, when Halley's comet will again be most observable in Ontario, it will have been the most observed, photographed, analysed, studied and reported astronomical event, not just in this century but in all human history as well. Past heads of state have often looked to stars and comets for their guidance. The Premier may well wish to observe this passage to see whether it holds any omen for his destiny or that of his government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would you place your question? I am wondering whether it is of urgent public importance.

Mr. Allen: I am putting my question.

The Premier may wish to observe it for those omens, but is he aware that for most of the citizens of this province who live in major urban centres, this event will be totally unobservable because of the total urban glow that obscures the heavens? What is the government doing to cope with this problem and make it possible for urban residents to view this spectacular event?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is the most insightful question we have had since we assumed the government six months ago. I thank the honourable member for his question. We on this side have been blamed for almost everything in the world, but this is the first time I have been blamed for urban glow.

In fairness and candour to the member, this is not an issue to which I have applied my mind or to which cabinet has applied its mind, but given the member's suggestion, we will. We could request that everyone turn out the lights or we could ask Ontario Hydro to pull the switch for a moment or two. I have no idea, but the government will give this urgent, high-priority question its full attention and there will be a solution to it as there is to all others.

Mr. Speaker: That is not of urgent public importance.

Mr. Allen: On a point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt).

Mr. Allen: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will listen, but very briefly. I cannot see what the point is.

Mr. Allen: I have come before this Legislature with reference to a major historical event in which most Ontarians, living in the major cities of Ontario, will not be able to participate. There is something that can be done about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member is trying to debate my ruling, which is not debatable in question period; therefore, a new question, the member for Sarnia.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Brandt: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the amount of time you have left me to raise this question. I want to address a question to the Premier with respect to a very serious problem.

Mr. Speaker: A very quick question, because I realize I took time.

Mr. Brandt: I am sorry I wasted 12 seconds on the preamble. I will move as quickly as I can.

There is a very serious problem in the riding of Lambton, immediately adjacent to and south of Sarnia. The imminent closure of the Ethyl Canada plant is in all probability going to take place as a result of the reduction in the use of tetraethyl lead. As the Premier may be aware, there were some nine plants worldwide that produced this product and, as a result of environmental concerns, those plants are virtually all shutting down. There are two plants left, Ethyl Canada being one of them.

Will the Premier speak with his cabinet colleagues, particularly the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), with respect to job readjustment and retraining programs or some assistance for those 200 workers? I say against the backdrop --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We will absolutely. I will speak to the ministers and members involved. I would like to have the help of the member for Sarnia as well. Perhaps we can all work together to devise some readjustment.

TIME AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I rise to correct a mistake I made yesterday in my speech on Bill 58. The error was that I stated, and I will read it from Instant Hansard, that I believed "Saskatchewan is about the only province that does not participate in daylight saving time." I was incorrect. Saskatchewan maintains year-round daylight saving time.

SUNDAY TRADING

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On December 10, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) asked me a question that is contained on page 2299 of Hansard. I answered the question "Yes." On reading Hansard, it is apparent he asked me two questions and the answers should be "Yes" and "No."

Mr. Speaker: Those two points of order should really be points of personal explanation.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Briefly, I would like to call the attention of the members of the House to the presence in the members' gallery of His Worship Mayor Ross Hall of Grimsby, the former member for Lincoln.

MOTIONS

HOUSING SITTING

Hon. Ms. Caplan moved that, notwithstanding any previous order of the House, the House will sit in the chamber on Wednesday, December 18, 1985, at 2 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Ms. Caplan moved that the standing committee on members' services be authorized to review and report to the House on the provision of simultaneous translation services in the House and its committees.

Motion agreed to.

11:10 a.m.

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Ms. Caplan moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Wednesday, December 18, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILDREN'S ONCOLOGY CARE OF ONTARIO INC. ACT

Ms. Fish moved, seconded by Mr. Andrewes, first reading of Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the Children's Oncology Care of Ontario Inc.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Ms. Caplan moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Conway, first reading of Bill 76, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I wish to table the answers to questions 85 to 91 and question 99 in Orders and Notices [see appendix, page 2445].

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.

Mr. McLean: I would like to make some comments with regard to the redistribution proposals of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission.

First, I want to congratulate the commission on the hard work it has done. However, I do believe that when it was initiated, the legislation that allowed this to take place was wrong because it tied the hands of the commission and did not really let it do the redistribution freely and openly. I believe two wrongs do not make a right when we are dealing with population and area.

There is a population of probably 100,000 in some Metropolitan Toronto ridings, whereas rural ridings would probably be 50,000. The rural ridings would be as hard, if not harder, to serve than the ones with a population of 100,000. What we have really done is tied the hands of the commission to a population figure, or within 25 per cent, which did not allow for boundaries in areas.

Since 1976, each member has had a constituency office, and just this year there has been approval for extra staff. I do not think we really need to increase the number of ridings in the province at all. With today's modes of transportation, with the population in Metro and urban areas and with the extra staff we have, I can see there is really no need to increase the number of seats in the Legislature.

Being from the riding of Simcoe East, I would like to speak briefly on the redistribution and the changes being made. First, for approximately 105 years Simcoe East has been together with both Midland and Orillia in the same riding. Members must think back 105 years to the transportation of those days and what it is today. I believe it would still be wise to leave it intact, because in population and area it is in the norm with 70,000 people.

If the commission wants to make five new ridings in the province, York North could include West Gwillimbury and Bradford. That would reduce the population of Simcoe Centre. There is going to be a new riding made in the York areas because of the larger population there. Brampton could have a new riding developed; a new riding could be located in Mississauga; Carleton and Ottawa area could have a new riding, and a new riding could be created in the London area. These would be the five additional seats required.

The rest of the province could then be left pretty well as it is now. However, if is not to be the case and one wants to make changes in all ridings, my first suggestion would be to include Tiny township and Penetanguishene in the new Muskoka-Georgian Bay riding, which would square off that area. In Simcoe North, one could include in the proposal the townships of Vespra, Carlng and Dalton. That would square off that riding as well and also put Matchedash back into Simcoe North.

By putting West Gwillimbury and Bradford in York North, the population of Simcoe Centre would be reduced. However, if that will not be the case, the reduction could take place north of Barrie, where Vespra, Flos and Elmvale could go to Simcoe North. Tiny and Penetanguishene would be included in the new Georgian Bay riding.

Another suggestion would be to make a new riding in the county of Simcoe, where there would then be four ridings. To do that, one would have to increase the seats probably to 133 or 135 across the province. The riding of Simcoe East would then be changed by removing the town of Midland and putting in the town of Penetanguishene, with the towns of Wasaga Beach and Collingwood, including the township of Nottawasaga, the town of Stayner, the village of Creemore, and Sunnidale and Flos townships. That would make a new riding around the horseshoe, in the Midland, Penetang and Collingwood area.

One would then have a riding south of that which would include the townships of Tosorontio and Essa, the village of Cookstown, the town of Alliston, the villages of Beaton and Tottenham, the townships of Tecumseth, Adjala and West Gwillimbury, and the town of Bradford. That would leave the Simcoe Centre riding with the city of Barrie and the townships of Innisfil and Vespra.

I do not foresee that the proposed boundaries of Simcoe North would serve a useful purpose because the Simcoe North member would have to travel through the riding of Muskoka to get to Penetanguishene and the township of Tiny. It makes sense to me to have Penetanguishene, Midland and Tiny within one riding. I can accept that. If there is a new riding established in Dufferin, there could be a deletion from the area of Mulmur, Mono and Orangeville and the inclusion of the township of West Gwillimbury and the town of Bradford in the Simcoe West riding. Then the Simcoe Centre riding would remain otherwise the same. Simcoe East would remain the same as it is now.

11:20 a.m.

Simcoe West, as proposed, could add West Gwillimbury and Bradford, thereby making Simcoe Centre smaller, while Simcoe North would remain the same, as Simcoe East has been for more than 100 years. I have maps of the different areas and the drafts I have drawn up and sent to the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission.

I must point out that the township of West Gwillimbury and the town of Bradford use the hospital and shopping facilities in Newmarket. They are more in line to use the facilities to the south than they are to the north. Therefore, it would be compatible to be part of the York North riding or to be included in the Simcoe West riding.

I have put Matchedash township back into Simcoe North because one has to go through Coldwater to get out of Matchedash and it is more compatible for it to be in Simcoe North than in any other riding.

That is a draft proposal and some maps I had redone. I sent a copy of them to the office of the chief election officer. I received a letter back from him and he agrees with the first point I raised in my speech. I will read the letter into the record.

"Thank you for sending me an advance copy of the points, complete with maps, that you intend to raise during the debate on redistribution.

"The first point you raise is certainly one that I agree with. In fact, I discussed this very concept with Tom Wells back in 1983. I was advised that after consultation, all-party agreement was not forthcoming on this approach. On reflection, I think it might be that if the opportunity to take that option was possible now, we might have quick agreement of all parties. However, the die is cast and the agreement was to have a full-scale redistribution and we must try, with the assistance such as you have given, to come up with the best possible arrangement in the circumstances."

He agrees with five ridings, but since we tied his hands with a population and areas basis, it was impossible to do that. I know there is great concern on the part of many members on that side. If they wanted to increase it, I would like to have seen five ridings added in the urban areas and the rest of the province left alone.

The only way it could be speeded up or changed now would be if there were an amendment to the legislation whereby five new ridings would be created in the urban areas and the rest of the province left as it is, with maybe some minor changes to have the areas kept, but not as large as I see happening up the Parry Sound area.

Those are some of the comments I wanted to put on the record as to how this affects the riding of Simcoe East and the Simcoe county ridings, part of Victoria and part of Dufferin. It is important that when this redistribution takes place, it should be done correctly and all ridings in the province should be treated fairly and equitably.

Mr. McClellan: I will not be speaking for more than a few minutes on this subject. I believe I am the last member of the New Democratic Party caucus to take part in the redistribution debate. I want to put a few remarks on the record. It may be appropriate inasmuch as my riding of Bellwoods is one of the ridings that is being eliminated under the proposed redistribution.

Mr. Harris: That is worth two or three minutes.

Mr. McClellan: It is perhaps worth two or three minutes.

It may surprise the members to hear that I am not objecting to the proposals of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission. I am simply rising to make what I feel is an important and urgent suggestion, that more thought be given to the naming of the new ridings being created in the west end of the city of Toronto.

I am not sure whether most members realize Bellwoods is not the only riding being eliminated west of Yonge Street. The old riding of St. Andrew-St. Patrick will no longer exist; the old riding of St. George will no longer exist; the riding of Bellwoods is, as I said, being eliminated; the old riding of Dovercourt will no longer exist; the old riding of Parkdale will no longer exist.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: What is the member talking about? The riding of Parkdale --

Mr. McClellan: The present riding of Parkdale extends from the waterfront to the northern limits of the city of Toronto, and the new riding of Parkdale is located exclusively south of Bloor Street. The name Parkdale will continue, but the riding is as fundamentally altered as the ridings of Bellwoods or Dovercourt. I know the member for Parkdale understands what I am saying.

Mr. Harris: But will the member continue?

Mr. McClellan: I am sure all the present New Democratic Party members will continue in one incarnation or another. I cannot speak for any other parties, of course.

There is going to be a great deal of confusion unless some additional thought is given to the names of the new ridings. Bellwoods will be cut in half at Bloor Street. The southern half of the riding will be put into a brand-new riding called Fort York. It is good that a brand-new name has been chosen for the new riding south of Bloor Street.

It would be unfortunate if the old title of Bellwoods were kept for the southern riding, because it is going to be confusing for people if their ridings are changed as drastically as the commission has proposed while the old names are retained. People are going to be confused about which riding they live in and who their MPP is; there is going to be a considerable amount of confusion and dislocation.

The northern half of Bellwoods, together with the northern half of Dovercourt and the northern third of Parkdale, has been amalgamated into the riding north of Bloor Street being called Dovercourt; however, it is not Dovercourt; it is partly Bellwoods, partly Dovercourt and partly Parkdale. I suggest to the commission it would make a lot more sense to do north of Bloor Street what it has done south of Bloor Street and come up with a brand-new name for the brand-new riding.

Since it is the old Hillcrest district of Toronto, that would be a possible name. Many landmarks in my riding and in Dovercourt, and I believe in Parkdale, still use the designation "Hillcrest" for the neighbourhoods north and south of the old escarpment. The name has a long history of usage in our city. The neighbourhoods between Bathurst and Lansdowne north and south of the old escarpment were called the Hillcrest area. There are many stores and shops using the name, and I believe there is a health clinic in Parkdale called the City of Toronto Hillcrest Health Clinic.

I am not being arbitrary, but it is important when the commission creates new ridings that it takes into consideration the reality that in a sense many tens of thousands of people are being arbitrarily relocated into different constituencies. This reality should be kept in mind with names that reflect the reality of major, substantial and significant change.

It is ironic that most of Dovercourt Road is not in the new Dovercourt riding. Only a tiny fraction of Dovercourt Road is in the new riding. If one wanted to name the riding after a street, Bloor Street or St. Clair West would make a lot more sense.

11:30 a.m.

I am not here to try to baptize the new riding and give it a name, but I do make the one suggestion of Hillcrest. However, I make a very strong and insistent recommendation to the commission that if it intends to proceed with this kind of fundamental realignment of the constituencies in the city of Toronto, it has an obligation to be clear and unambiguous to all the people in the city with respect to the names of the new ridings so nobody has any confusion when the redistribution takes place about the nature of the changes and the fact that a fundamental realignment has taken place.

Having said all that, despite the drastic impact of the redistribution commission on my own constituency I think the commission has done a good job of designing ridings on the basis of representation by population. It has been consistent in applying that principle throughout the province. While there are obviously areas where local considerations may not have been adequately taken into account, on balance the redistribution appears to have been fair and to have been done according to the principle of representation by population. We support it for that reason.

I will conclude with that. I hope the commission will pay attention to the recommendations I am making, because I feel I am putting forward valid and important recommendations today.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am sorry to see my friend the member for Bellwoods depart, because I wanted to tell him how much I enjoyed his contribution to the debate. I want to be brief, as is my wont these days.

Mr. Pollock: Do not overdo it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend from Stirling says not to overdo it, and he is probably right. I want to be on my way by those wonderful Hastings reaches not very many moments from now, so I will take the advice seriously.

I want to speak to the particulars of the report of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission and to be a bit personal and local in my perspective. I will begin by saying that I have some real appreciation of the difficulty of any electoral redistribution. It is never easy. As an issue, it has been coloured with a very interesting past. I am sure even in the great, historic riding of Oxford, Mr. Speaker, you could tell us tales of the redistribution of 1882 or whenever it was that the Grits were all hived across southern Ontario. At any rate, that is not what I am here to talk about.

It is always a difficult question, this matter of electoral redistribution, and it is particularly difficult as it affects the members in question. Members tend to be rather possessive about these matters, talking inadvertently about "their" ridings and their personal situations. We are, I think it is fair to say, in an apparent if not a real conflict of interest in some of this debate. I say that quite charitably. It is certainly the way I feel as someone who would like to stand for another election provincially. I look at my friend the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), who is looking on from the precincts, and I think of other elections in other places.

The difficulty has been addressed by a number of other members, and I simply want to commend the commission. Mr. Justice Hughes, Professor Thompson and our chief electoral officer, Warren Bailie, have done quite a good job under difficult circumstances.

The member for York West (Mr. Leluk) is looking very seriously at me; I worry about that. I do not know what the impact of this is in west Toronto, but perhaps my friend the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) can tell me later.

On balance, the commission has done an always difficult job reasonably well. It has been given the direction of the Legislature and of the previous government in this regard. In general, I commend the commission for its work. It is an enterprise that is not going to please everyone, and it certainly has not in this case.

I want to be particular now in my comments about what has happened in the great eastern part of the province from which I come, and more especially in Renfrew county.

Almost a year ago, the commission released its first report. At that time, there was significant impact on all electoral districts in eastern Ontario, including the urban community of Ottawa-Carleton.

What concerns me is the very significant impact of these proposals on my county and the two provincial ridings contained therein. For about 120 years, the county of Renfrew has been divided into north and south ridings, and our representation in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has been maintained since Confederation with two members.

Mr. Mancini: It should stay that way.

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Essex South points out that it should stay that way. I am concerned that what we have had for 118 years, to be specific, namely the two provincial ridings, will be substantially changed by this proposal, which contemplates essentially one electoral district for the county of Renfrew.

I speak on behalf of the 87,000 people who are resident in the county of Renfrew, and I know I speak for my colleague the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) when I say this concerns us a great deal. I know others have concerns. Earlier this morning the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) addressed some of the issues that are of real concern to rural, small-town Ontario, whether that happens to be on the Highway 11 corridor, out in my part of the province or in the area of southwestern Ontario.

There is no doubt that in communities such as the Ottawa Valley it is perceived that this revised proposal for electoral redistribution is going to have a negative effect on the access that people in the Ottawa Valley area feel they will have to their member and to their provincial government.

I am not going to thresh old straw because others have made the point very well about the importance of maintaining in the assembly a strong presence from rural, small-town Ontario. I look across at my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), and I know he will agree with me in this regard.

I hope that with the encouragement of this Legislature and the government, the commissioners will take very seriously what the members of the assembly have had to say about the impact of this revised proposal on communities such as the Ottawa Valley.

I hope they will look very carefully, again with the encouragement of the government and the Legislature, at increasing the number of electoral districts. The previous government indicated in its terms of reference that it would contemplate no more than 130 seats for the province as a whole. That represents a net increase of five. I would hope we could adjust that ceiling in the light of the views the assembly has heard from the members and their communities on this revised report.

11:40 a.m.

As I said earlier, it is difficult. I hear my friend the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling) talking about now having almost 200,000 people in that constituency, or the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) indicating there is now in excess of 150,000, perhaps 200,000, in his riding. As the member for Renfrew North with a population of no more than 45,000, or my colleague the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) with 42,000, or my colleague the member for Renfrew South with 52,000, I understand there is an imbalance there that has to be addressed, but it cannot be addressed in a way that continues to take away from the representation in the rural communities.

It saddens me very much that a county which has had two representatives in this assembly for more than 115 years will now have but one if this proposal is to be accepted.

I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, because you are keenly aware of the pressures that are placed upon a member from a county such as Oxford, which is not too dissimilar from my own, that one is often the only show in town. There is not a great panoply of government offices such as we might find in York Mills, for example. I do not know that we would, but --

Miss Stephenson: I am sorry, but the member missed on that one. We do not have any.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I suspected I did. My feeling sometimes is that one should always invite the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) to intervene.

It is quite true that in many of these rural constituencies there is simply not the availability of government service that is routinely taken for granted in the large urban communities.

For example, what is being proposed in this recommendation for my county? I do not want to go on at too great a length, but the proposed riding that my colleague the member for Renfrew South and I would have to consider standing for -- and we would have to have a family conclave to decide about this -- is the electoral district of Renfrew-Nipissing-Parry Sound.

It reminds me of the turn of the century stamp that was issued to commemorate the diamond jubilee of Queen Victoria, showing in red the map of the world as it was then configured. All the parts of the British Empire were in red. The title of that imperial stamp was A Greater Empire Than Has Been. I think of that stamp when I think of what is being proposed in this recommendation.

The riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Parry Sound is contemplated as beginning just west of the village of Petawawa and arcing some 230 miles across the neck of Ontario, ending at the town of Parry Sound on Georgian Bay.

Miss Stephenson: Just a little larger than Parry Sound.

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is not that it is just a little bit larger than Parry Sound at the present time, it is just not a very likely constituency. Notwithstanding all its good work, the electoral boundaries commission understands that in this proposal it has one of the more anomalous results of the redrawing of the electoral map. My sense is that the commission would be quite prepared to entertain submissions on correcting this difficulty.

I misspoke earlier when I said that would be the riding in which my colleague the member for Renfrew South and I would consider running. Obviously, it would not be. It would be the electoral district of my friend the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), with whom I have already had discussions. He agrees it is an unrealistic proposal. There is virtually no community of interest between the village of Chalk River in Renfrew county and the town of Parry Sound in the district of Parry Sound. It would be a shorter distance for the member for Parry Sound, if he lived in Parry Sound, to drive to the provincial capital than to that part of his electoral district. All this is in "southern" Ontario.

I think that proposal is quite unacceptable, not only to the good people of Parry Sound but also to the people in that part of the northeastern section of the county of Renfrew.

I reiterate that my sense is that the commission understands this is probably not going to fly. In fairness to the commission, looking at these matters antiseptically, one can construct an argument about how it might be so. I think I know how the commission came to this resolution after listening to the representations it heard in communities such as Ottawa and North Bay, but it does not work on the ground.

I expect there will be change. Quite frankly, my hope is that somehow we will be able to sustain the two ridings for the county of Renfrew. I want to make it official. That is the preferred outcome and I hope it can be done in the interests of maintaining the strength of rural representation from our part of the province in the assembly.

Failing that, it is my view that the communities of Chalk River, Deep River, Rolphton, Stonecliffe and Deux-Rivieres ought not to be attached to the area of Parry Sound. With all due respect to the assembly and to the commission, that is simply not acceptable. The community of interest for that area of what is now my constituency must be maintained with the county of Renfrew. Everyone accepts that. I say in the strongest possible terms on behalf of the 8,000 or 9,000 people who live in that northeastern arm of the county of Renfrew that they must be sustained and maintained with their Renfrew county community of interest.

No artificial boundary is going to change the political, social and economic patterns of the area. If one lives in Deep River or Point Alexander or Stonecliffe, one's county town is Pembroke and one's orientation for most things is down the Ottawa River valley. That is the way I believe political orientation, as far as the electoral district is concerned, should be decided.

The idea that there should be one electoral district instead of two for the county has been suggested by some. Even the proposed constituency of Renfrew outlined in this proposal is quite large. It would be one of the largest rural constituencies in terms of population and geography that one would find anywhere in southern Ontario -- all great people and wonderful territory.

That is the riding of the electoral district of Renfrew as set out in the revised submission from the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission. My colleague the member for Renfrew South and I would have to sit down and look over who would do what. In my view we should, to the very best of our ability, ask the commission to take a serious look at what is happening as a result of these proposals.

I knew they would be here somewhere. I should have looked this up before I got this far. I am glad to see at least one of the commissioners is here with, I presume, one of his staff. I want to say in their presence that I appreciate all the work they have done. I was at the Ottawa hearings last May and I thought they were indulgent to a fault with the representations that were made. There is nothing quite like a group of politicians out and about talking on the subject of their ridings. We had quite a lively debate that day in Ottawa.

11:50 a.m.

In the revised submission, the commission made a very conscientious effort to accommodate many of the representations that were made. When I looked at the Parry Sound-Nipissing-Renfrew proposal, I thought, "I know the good arguments that were put and that were responded to that led to the construction of this proposed riding." I simply say to the chief returning officer of the province, one of the said commissioners, that it might work on paper but it does not work in reality, and I sincerely hope the commission will be able to take that into account.

I was at the Deep River municipal dinner the other night and the mayor and all the good people from that community and the surrounding countryside were quite concerned about being deposited in the easterly corner of a constituency that had its largest urban population more than 200 miles to the northwest. I have every confidence that the commission will make that accommodation.

Make no mistake about it. I think the assembly and the government should, to the best of their ability and within the dictates of proper parliamentary and political decorum, strongly encourage the commission to take into account the importance of proper representation in the rural, small-town communities that are feeling more and more that they are getting less and less. Of course, if one applies rigorously the old Grit principle of representation by population, one can come to --

Miss Stephenson: Did the minister say "grid" or "Grit"?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Grit. If one applies the old Grit principle of rep by pop, one can make the case that there should be a withdrawal of representation from the rural communities to the ever-growing urban parts of the province.

However, there are other factors than just population. There is community of interest, there is history, there is economic association and there are various other factors that do play an important role. I know they have been considered.

As one of the members from the historic county of Renfrew, I simply conclude by saying I feel very strongly that what is being proposed here in the second recommendation from the commission is not acceptable. We would very much like to see the two ridings maintained; that is everyone's first preference. If that cannot be done -- and I hope it can -- then we must not isolate communities like Chalk River, Deep River and Stonecliffe in an area where they have very little, if any, common interest.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks again by thanking you for the opportunity to participate and by congratulating the commission for the good work it has done and for the important work that is yet to be accomplished.

Miss Stephenson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate, albeit relatively briefly, in this debate today. The work of the commission, as my honourable friend has just said, is indeed extremely important and I do not envy the commissioners their task. To support to the letter the principles that we who believe in democracy feel are important is an unenviable job for commissioners who are attempting to allocate electoral boundaries.

There is real concern, however, on the part of a significant number of constituents in the riding of York Mills that the proposals that have been made by the commission are inappropriate in respect of a number of the criteria that probably should be taken into account in addition to representation by population.

There is no doubt about the fact that the riding of York Mills needs to be smaller than it is at the present time. It is too large, although it is not as large as Scarborough North. It has about half the population of Scarborough North, and that is significantly larger than the vast majority of ridings in Ontario. We should be delighted to have a new riding in North York to occupy the talents of a new member of this Legislature.

One of the problems those excellent gentlemen who are members of the commission have had placed upon them is the restriction in numbers that has been suggested very strongly as a part of their terms of reference. If a little more flexibility were permitted them in that area, they would not have had to produce some of the suggestions that have been taken as an affront by some constituents and by some members of this Legislature. This is unfortunate because it was not a problem of their own making, but rather a problem of the making of those who were guiding the direction of the commission in its very early stages. We should be permitting them that greater flexibility in their decision-making following this debate on electoral boundaries.

I suggest very strongly to the commissioners that the submission which was made on behalf of York Mills in May 1984 had a great deal of rationality. It pointed out very clearly the community foundation of the riding of York Mills, which is a north-south alignment, not an alignment across Yonge Street. Yonge Street has always been a division, and although it was breached in 1974, albeit in a very small area, it is not a part of the electoral tradition in North York to have that kind of breach occur. The communities of York Mills, Willowdale, Lansing and Newton Brook are the foundation of the riding of York Mills.

We recognize very clearly that there must be some foreshortening of the length of that somewhat prolonged riding which extends at present from Lawrence Avenue in the south to Steeles Avenue in the north. It is a rather large piece of geography for an urban riding.

We, therefore, made strong suggestions that the Yonge Street boundary be retained and that the northern boundary be moved south to accommodate the numbers factor which must be addressed. We suggested that the northern boundary be moved south to the hydro transmission-line corridor immediately north of Finch Avenue in York Mills, and that this boundary be used to Bayview Avenue. Finch Avenue would then be used from Bayview to Leslie Street, with the boundary extending directly down Leslie Street to Lawrence Avenue, as it is at present.

That community has had a relationship since the very beginning of the riding of York Mills 22 years ago. It is not 118 years ago, as it is for the ridings of Renfrew North and Renfrew South. It is my understanding that the riding of York Mills per se became a riding in 1963.

The communities have been summarily separated by the construction of Highway 401, and in spite of the visible division the highway provides, it has not had an effect upon the emotional relationship which has existed among the various portions of that riding.

The riding of Armourdale on the west of Yonge Street is a very interesting and delightful area to represent, but it does not bear a relationship at all to the area of York Mills which is south of Highway 401, with respect to the activity, the North York wards and the electoral representation, federally or municipally. That is a separate area and should be left in Armourdale's tender care rather than being delivered into the hands of the riding of York Mills.

We are very much concerned that the commission has been given an extremely difficult task made more difficult by the strictures placed on it in terms of total numbers. We recognize in York Mills that the problems related to community of interest in rural ridings, which my honourable colleague elucidated so clearly, also occur and exist in urban ridings. There is a feeling of community in Metropolitan Toronto which municipal governments have tried very diligently to maintain.

12 noon

One of the strengths of Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Toronto is that successive governments have attempted over the years to ensure that the communities within those larger geographic areas are sustained, supported and encouraged. That is precisely what has happened in North York. With that, I suggest strongly that this community of interest needs to be recognized very clearly in the action which is taken by the electoral boundaries commission in determining boundaries.

It is important that the commission be aware of the concerns of the constituents who live in those ridings. Those who live in the south end and in the middle portion of York Mills riding feel very strongly that their community is being divided surgically by this procedure and they do not appreciate that kind of activity. They may have a physician representing them, but they certainly do not want me to do any kind of radical surgery on the riding.

It is incumbent on me to suggest very strongly that the north portion of the riding, which encompasses a significant part of the riding of York Mills and part of Armourdale, could become a greater part of the riding of Armourdale.

I would like to suggest very clearly as well that we believe the riding of York Mills should remain intact with respect to its western boundary, which would be Yonge Street; its eastern boundary, which would be Leslie Street all the way; its northern boundary, which would be Finch Avenue and the Hydro right of way from Yonge Street to Bayview Avenue, and its southern boundary should remain as it is at Lawrence Avenue to the corner of Leslie Street.

I sincerely hope the commissioners will take into consideration the kind of community concern which has been expressed so clearly to me by so many constituents since this information was made public. There is a factor of human relationship which is essential even in urban ridings. That essential nature of the riding of York Mills should be sustained by considering seriously the kinds of suggestions we are making related to the new boundaries.

Mr. Mancini: I am pleased to have at last the opportunity to make some public comments for the record in regard to the redistribution of the Legislative Assembly seats in Ontario.

I see Warren Bailie, the chief commissioner, in the Speaker's galley -- I should say gallery.

An hon. member: He may be in the galley.

Mr. Mancini: Yes, he may be.

He and I have met often over these past couple of months, and I want to thank him publicly for the courtesies he has extended to me.

I would like to say, however, I had hoped the other two commissioners would have been here today. I understand other obligations and work they are doing at present may prohibit that, but I find this such a serious matter that I would have appreciated it if the whole commission that had done the study on the boundaries could have been here today. The way I understand it, one person cannot make all the decisions; it is going to have to be at least a majority of two. I just wanted to say that, while at the same time acknowledging there probably is a good reason for their not being here.

I have several comments I would like to make. First, I want to talk about the system of redistribution, how it works and how it worked in my instance, because I think members would be interested to know this.

The first map was published after the commissioners themselves took time to review the existing boundaries, demographic changes and whatever else the legislation asked them to review. They produced the map, made it public and then allowed for public discussion.

In my particular instance, the constituency of Essex South was changed in a very minor way. The village of Wheatley, which I have been very privileged to represent over the past 10 years, was removed and placed in a constituency at that time called St. Clair. I received objections from the municipal council of the village of Wheatley and I informed them that, at the time for debate in the Legislature, I would express the complaints of the village.

After the maps were produced and held out for public debate, the commission then very rightly started having its public hearings. They had hearings in Windsor for Windsor, Essex county and area. Several of my colleagues went to those hearings, but I did not attend. In retrospect, that was a very major mistake. I am assuming that the commission came to its decision on information given to it at that time. This information was such that when the second map was produced it had no similarity whatsoever with the first, which I found quite shocking at the time. There was a tremendous disparity between the first and second maps of the area of Essex county. I canvassed around and asked. "Who was giving advice to the commission and why would they be giving this advice?"

I discovered that some people who had appeared before the commission said -- and I have to say very frankly that some of these arguments were politically motivated, and I shall address that matter in a moment -- that the county no longer should be split north and south with the boundaries running east and west. This may cause some confusion. The boundaries run east and west but that splits the county north and south; so when I refer to the north part of the county, it is actually in regard to the boundaries running east and west.

Some people had wanted the county to be split in exactly the opposite way. I have done a transposition of the voting pattern in Essex county for the last little while and I find that our political party does very well no matter which way the boundaries may lie, whether we keep the traditional pattern of north and south or we go to the new pattern as has been presented by the commission. The transposition of votes indicates very clearly that we should continue to do very well.

I have spoken to many people about the redistribution and I should say many of them have spoken to me. I have not gone out of my way to organize public meetings, although probably that could have been beneficial. However, I have met with several of the municipalities most affected, for example, the town of Leamington, the township of Mersea and the village of Wheatley, and I have had representations from and communications with the township of Pelee.

All four of these municipalities -- and I am sorry I do not have their resolutions to read into the record today, but I will be forwarding them to Mr. Bailie along with a copy of Hansard -- every single municipality which has been removed from the old Essex South riding and been placed in a new Essex-Kent riding, passed a unanimous resolution indicating that it is not to the benefit of the people they represent. Those municipalities have members of council from all three political parties.

On the one hand, it may appear that some people have political motives. On the other hand, the municipal councils, which are charged with the responsibility of dealing with their local residents, have seen it differently and have so stated.

12:10 p.m.

I heard my friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) speak about the historical nature of his constituency. In Essex county we have quite a bit of history and pride in the area also. The Essex South riding, which is going to be dismantled if the second map of the commission is accepted, is nearly 120 years old. For almost 120 years, the core of the riding has been virtually the same, possibly with the elimination of one municipality and the addition of another. I have to say to myself, all of the commissions that have reviewed the county of Essex over these last 120 years must have had some good reasons to keep the constituency the way it is. There must have been some historical, economic and cultural reasons. The most important reason is the community of interest. There must have been some reason for keeping the municipalities in the constituency of Essex South.

That raises in my mind a question I have not been able to answer, a question I have not been able to get answered. Why, all of a sudden, is the community of interest, everything that had been rightfully respected for 120 years, now not as important as it used to be?

Take a look at the map of Essex country. In the Essex South riding one will see that Highway 18, the Queen's Highway, runs from the town of Amherstburg, which is on the Detroit River on the far west end of the riding, through every single municipality in the riding except the village of Wheatley. There must be a reason for a single highway connecting every single municipality.

The reason is there is a strong community of interest that binds these municipalities together. We set up a road system to make sure the roads go in the direction of the community of interest. We do not build roads that take people where they do not want to go. If one looks at the northern half of the riding, one will find that Highway 2 does exactly the same thing for the northern half of the riding, except possibly for Sandwich West township which is at the far west end of the Essex North riding.

In the county of Essex this past Tuesday night we elected another warden, Carl Davison, the reeve of the township of Colchester North. I extend my congratulations to Mr. Davison. We have a system in the county of Essex of electing the wardens on a north and south basis, a tradition we have clung to for more than 100 years.

There must be a reason for all the municipalities in the county of Essex to say it is right to elect a warden from the north one year and one from the south the next year and continue that tradition. It is not done just for fun. The reason is the community of interest is separate and distinct and the county and municipal councils, all 22 of them, know it is an honour and a privilege to have the warden. In order to ensure that everyone has access to this honour and privilege, they alternate so that every part of the county can feel part of the system and part of making Essex county great.

I have also talked to the former mayor of Kingsville, who is now the reeve, Mr. Pat O'Neil. He stepped down from mayor and was elected as reeve. Kingsville was also prepared to send a unanimous resolution from its town council. I suggested to the mayor at that time that it was not necessary, that it was more important for these other four municipalities, if they wished, to send in their resolutions, and that I would put his remarks on the public record. I want to clarify one thing. When I say, Leamington, I mean Leamington, Mersea, Wheatley, and Pelee Island, so I do not have to continue to repeat all the names.

I say to the commission that we cannot separate the Leamington area and Kingsville, economically, culturally or in the matter of community of interest. It cannot be done. One can draw the line -- they have already drawn the line -- but one cannot separate them. They are one and the same. Harrow has grown towards both Kingsville and Amherstburg, and one cannot separate them. Amherstburg has been part of the Essex South riding for the whole of 120 years or something like that. One cannot separate Amherstburg from the riding.

Municipal officials, particularly in the Amherstburg area, ask themselves, "What community of interest do we have not only with the north shore but with Belle River, Maidstone township and Rochester?" They have asked themselves that question. I cannot give them an answer and they cannot come up with an answer. I am assuming their community ties are stronger with Harrow, Colchester South and Colchester North and the other municipalities as we go east towards Kent county.

The people who appeared before the commission to make representations to split the county in exactly opposite directions did not know what they were talking about. The members should not take my word for it. They should wait until the resolutions and letters come from the municipalities.

They should wait until they get the resolution from the associated growers, one of the largest farm organizations if not the largest farm organization in the county of Essex, which I met with a week ago. They said: "Our organization goes as far away as Malden. How can they do this to us? How can they split us in half like this?"

The National Farmers Union, with which I work closely, has a local in the southern part of Essex county. They are now considering forming a local in the northern part of the county. They did not split the county the way the commission suggested. They split the county the way the provincial boundaries are now.

They must have done that for a reason. They must have done it because it makes sense and because people are drawn together under these circumstances. The provincial boundaries would not have prevented them from doing it in any other way, because the community of interest is greater than provincial boundaries. People congregate in a fashion that suits them best.

For the last 120 years, the riding boundaries in the county of Essex have been the same as the community of interest. Now I am told they are going to be different. I am also told there may be some changes. However, I have studied the changes made by previous commissions. Unless this commission breaks completely with the tradition set by previous commissions, which, after they had drawn their second maps and made them public, did very little other than change a name, a street or whatever, then this map is reality.

We can call for more seats and we can call for greater change. After having looked at the situation and tried to be realistic about it, unless this commission is willing to break significantly with what has been done in the past, what we see is what we get. That is fine. I will decide on a personal basis which constituency to run in. I will make that decision.

12:20 p.m.

Politically, they are equally the same; there are no problems. I say this about the traditional voting pattern and nothing else. All of us hold that to be important; however, the members of the Legislature do not serve for ever. When the boundaries are changed by the commission and when we realize some boundaries have been the same for 120 years, we can understand the impact that will have on our communities long after we are gone. That is why the municipalities in the Leamington area passed the resolutions they did. They know they are not going to be on municipal council for ever, but they know what the boundaries will mean to their term of office and in the future.

Once we change these boundaries, it may be a long time before we correct the problems we create. That is at the heart of my objection to what the commission has done. A decision has been made to change the boundaries; it appears it will stand. The boundaries will stand for at least 10 years, so we will be out of whack for at least 10 years and probably for a lot longer.

We talked about rural representation in this House. We do have special status for the north; I believe we have guaranteed that area 12 or 15 seats. We are at the point now where we will seriously erode the representation of rural Ontario. If not now then at some time in the future, we will have to guarantee rural Ontario a certain amount of representation. We will come to that point. I think we are very close to that point now.

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: My colleagues the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) say we are already at that point.

The commission says it is okay for the riding of Essex to contain 14 good-sized municipalities. As the member for Renfrew North said, in most areas outside the urban centres, the member does a lot of the work that many of the agencies would do in a city. That is fine; that is our job and we accept it. As a matter of fact, we have just been given more staff, which is great and makes our service to the people better.

Does the commission not believe that the 14 municipalities it has placed in the district of Essex should have equal representation and equal benefits with the people in Windsor? Does the commission not realize that the people in Maidstone or Malden -- that is, from one end of the proposed riding to the other -- have to deal with many agencies in Windsor and that most times they have to go through their member? Does the commission not realize that a rural member meets with a municipal council at least once a month, formally or informally, or with a committee of two or three representatives from the council?

In the city of Toronto, it is possible for a member of the Legislature to serve a whole four-year term without having a meeting with the mayor of the city. That is absolutely impossible in a rural riding.

Mr. Jackson: The mayor of Toronto is a Liberal.

Mr. Mancini: Let us use Mr. Godfrey as an example then. When Mr. Godfrey was chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, it was very possible that members of this Legislature could serve a four-year term without having a meeting with Mr. Godfrey. That is impossible in a rural municipality.

My friends the member for Haldimand-Norfolk and the member for Grey can tell members of the work they do on behalf of their municipalities. When one of the municipalities I represent has a problem with a ministry, it does not --

Mr. Davis: Is the member filibustering?

Mr. Mancini: This is not a filibuster. What the members opposite did on the revenue bills was a filibuster.

The commission wishes to change dramatically the representation of almost 120,000 people in the county of Essex, and as long as I am the member for one of those ridings I am going to make sure they get a fair kick at the can.

This is the only chance I get, and I am taking advantage of it. I want to make sure I have done as good a job as possible on behalf of the people in small communities such as St. Joachim, McGregor, Woodslee and all those other small communities who do not have the clout of a chairman like Dennis Flynn or a former chairman like Paul Godfrey. On behalf of all those people who do not have that kind of clout, I am going to ensure they are going to get their day right now.

Mr. Leluk: They have their member.

Mr. Mancini: That is right, thanks. Where was I?

Mr. Barlow: The member is not going to start over again, is he?

Mr. Mancini: I am going to have to start over. Does Mr. Bailie object if I start over?

Mr. McKessock: If it was worth saying once, it is worth saying again.

Mr. Mancini: That is right. We were talking about the work a rural member does for the municipal councils.

Mr. Dean: The member was saying how harrowing it is in Essex.

Mr. Mancini: Harrow is a wonderful municipality. We have an excellent winery in Harrow, Colio Wines of Canada Ltd. We have another winery in Kingsville, the Pelee Island Winery Inc., and that is excellent too. Neither is on the list of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter), so the members are free to drink as much as they like.

The rural member is the liaison between every municipality and every ministry of this government. In each rural municipality the rural member is the liaison. I have always said that every member of the House, particularly the urban members, should be forced to represent a rural constituency for at least one year, just to understand the work we do gladly, the work that is necessary and the liaison and the communications that are necessary.

As the former mayor of a small town, the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) knows exactly what I am talking about. He knows very well the work he has to do on behalf of the municipalities he represents.

Before the commission lumps 12, 14 or 16 municipalities together, it should think of these things as well as both the positive and negative effects of what it does.

I have said all along, and I have even told my colleagues from the Niagara area, that they got preferential treatment in these hearings. It is not because anybody set out to give them preferential treatment; I do not believe that. However, the way things turned out, they pretty well kept all the representation they had, while places such as Essex and some other parts of southwestern Ontario lost representation. Frankly, I find that offensive.

I want to get back to the boundaries for a moment.

An hon. member: Promise?

Mr. Mancini: I promise.

Mr. Shymko: For just one moment.

12:30 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: For several moments. I want to educate the people over there. They do not understand Essex county, and part of my job is to educate those guys over there. They did not understand Essex county when they were in government and they do not understand it now.

The Leamington area is going to be placed in the Essex-Kent riding. Leamington is the largest urban centre in the county of Essex. We are removing politically the largest urban area in the county of Essex and placing it in a Kent county riding. We are going to make Leamington the hub of an Essex-Kent riding that will stretch from the Gosfield-Mersea town line all the way out to Orford township. If I were a resident of Kent county, I would not particularly appreciate that.

When we have 38 per cent of this new constituency in the Leamington area and another major portion of the constituency just north of it in Tilbury, if I lived out around Highgate, Howard township or Orford township, I would be very unhappy because I would realize very quickly that all the action was going to be in Leamington; it is all going to take place there.

Whoever can carry Leamington politically and do reasonably well every place else is going to be the member. Those are the straight numbers of it. Orford township may never get a member. Orford township will not be heard as well as Leamington, and that is strictly because of numbers. It will happen because of a disruption of the community of interest.

All these municipalities that will be placed in this new riding will be vying for the member's attention, and any member who does represent this riding will try to treat all the municipalities equally, but it is obvious to anyone that where the population is greater there will be greater demand. That is a fact of life.

If I lived in Orford township, I would be just as unhappy as the people in Leamington, who are being politically removed from their county council, from their county and from their community of interest. The largest urban centre in the county of Essex will now be in a Kent county riding. I say to the commission, and I say to the people who made representation to the commission and planted this idea as something to consider, I do not understand what actual benefits they thought would accrue to our county by having that done.

As I wind up this opportunity, I want to say directly to the commission that I have several objections. First, the system that was used, in retrospect, is unfair. They placed before the public a map that changed part of the county in some small way. Then the second map that was produced, when people had no opportunity for objection, changed it drastically. Rural representation has been significantly eroded. The community of interest in the county of Essex is being ignored.

The decisions made by the commission are going to last for decades. The people who have to live under the decisions that have been made are the ones who either are going to benefit or not benefit. It is all about whether we are going to ensure that the benefits we wish to accrue to these people do accrue or whether we place an obstacle in their way.

I say to the commission, please consider what I have said. Please consider the resolutions, which were passed unanimously, from the municipalities; I have copies in my office. Please consider what the associated growers are going to do. Please consider what I have said about the National Farmers Union, about the highway system and about the small municipalities in the far east end of Kent county.

I ask the commissioners to consider these matters. If, after they have done all of this, they can honestly say to themselves, "Yes, this is for the benefit of the people of the county of Essex," we will live with their decision. If they cannot honestly come to that conclusion, then somehow they have to make another decision. We want to have a decision they agree to.

I am not going to stand here and tell the commission to add another five seats. That would be wrong. It is for the commission to tell us. Maybe we made our first mistake in telling the commission it could go from 125 to 130 seats. Maybe we should have given it more leeway; even that is debatable. I want to hear from the commission after it has heard from the members. We are all prepared and we all have to live by what the commission finally decides.

I thank the members for their attention and the commission for the work it is doing.

Mr. Davis: I commend the commission for the work it has done, particularly in the very challenging aspect of trying to realign boundaries to meet population changes.

I point out to it that with the proposed Scarborough Centre boundaries, the commission has gone back to the original boundaries of the riding that were established in 1963. From 1963 to 1974, in the elections of 1963, 1967 and 1971, the boundaries of the riding were identical to the proposed new boundaries. For the past 10 years, in the elections of 1975, 1977, 1981 and 1985, the boundaries were the existing ones.

It is my view and that of my riding association that to return to the old boundaries is not fair to the constituents, who only now are getting used to their electoral riding. The constituents are already confused because of the different boundaries of federal and provincial ridings that have the same names. Our provincial riding is overlapped by three federal ridings and people become extremely confused.

As I read the report, one of the goals of redistribution is an attempt to make it easier for voters to know their constituency. To return to the former boundaries when there has been no population change and no other significant development in the area, in our view would tend to upset and confuse the voters of Scarborough Centre.

Our present population is just 2,000 less than what the commission deems to be an equitable number of 72,000. If I understand the report correctly, the commission has failed to recognize and take note of what I like to call the natural boundaries that separate and divide communities and force groups of people in our culture and society to create their own types of communities.

One of those boundaries in Scarborough Centre is the rail lines. The rail lines create two distinct communities within the present boundaries. Those who live west of the rail lines in the proposed addition to Scarborough Centre are in a different location. The rail lines are a significant barrier in the whole essence of creating communities. People use different transportation corridors to move to the shopping areas. Their shopping areas are different. There is no sense of community between the two jurisdictions.

I urge the commission to do one of two things. It can retain the present boundaries of Scarborough Centre, which I believe are fair and just and which meet the criteria the commission has indicated are the criteria for the redistribution. Alternatively, if it wishes to make boundary changes: the eastern boundary should become Markham Road, as it suggests, from the lake to Lawrence Avenue; on the western boundary, I strongly suggest it continue to use the rail lines to Danforth and then go south along Midland Avenue to the lake. That would give a very compact area in which I believe there exists that identity known as a community.

12:40 p.m.

If the commission fails to respond to the suggestion that comes from myself and my association, then I strongly suggest that it retains the original boundaries, those boundaries that the people in Scarborough Centre have had from 1974 to the present day. They are familiar with those boundaries. The individuals in those areas -- the constituents, the senior citizens -- know who their representative is, where the riding office is; to begin to encroach on and change those boundaries will just create confusion.

In my humble judgement, the commission has not definitively been able to ascertain or prove why there should be a boundary change in Scarborough Centre. I would urge the commission to either adopt our suggestions, specifically on the western boundary using the rail lines and Markham Road, and Midland Avenue south to the lake; or leave Scarborough Centre as it is currently constituted.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this redistribution debate. I was no sooner elected in the by-election of 1973 in a riding which at that time was known as Huron, than I was running in 1975 in a new riding with new boundaries known as Huron-Middlesex.

When the draft copy of that new boundary change came to our attention, I well recall the former member for Middlesex coming to me and saying, "Do you realize what the commission has done?" I said, "Yes, I think I do." He said: "They have put Strathroy in your riding. They have taken it out of my riding of Middlesex and put it in your riding." I said, "So what?" He said, "Strathroy alone can defeat you." I said, "I will take that chance." I do not know what happened in the meantime, but in the next draft Strathroy was taken out of the Huron-Middlesex riding and put back into the Middlesex riding. I had not even heard of the word "gerrymandering" until that time, but I know what it is all about now. However, I feel that I ended up with a clear conscience, and I am still here.

I recognize that redistribution is necessary. One might even say it is as sacred to the democratic system as is secret balloting. We have to keep in mind the principle of representation by population, by which the people of this province equitably delegate the responsibility to the members of this House to govern this province. With these points in mind and given the province's population growth in the last decade, I recognize there has to be some dramatic realignment of riding boundaries if we truly wish to maintain this representation by population ideal.

It is most appropriate to commend the redistribution commission on its efforts to make the best of a very difficult assignment. The terms of reference given to the commission by the government of the day restricted its options and inevitably led to some angry criticism. I do not know why the government should tell the commission that it had certain parameters in which to work and that it could enlarge the Legislature by only five ridings. Why did it not let the commission do the job?

It should not have given them restrictions or put on these so-called parameters. It should have told the commission to do the best job it possibly could to end up with representation by population. Even if it means another 10 ridings, let them do the job. There should not be restrictions put on before they even had the opportunity to get down to the task for which they were appointed.

I do not envy the commission its task of having to redraw constituency boundaries, and being given only five new ridings to accommodate the growth in provincial population of almost 1,000,000 people in 10 years.

In the rural areas of the province there was an outcry against the proposed loss of rural seats and thus the loss of rural representation in the House. For example, as my colleague the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) noted earlier in the debate, the four ridings of Huron-Middlesex, Huron-Bruce, Grey-Bruce and Grey have been diminished to the three proposed ridings of Huron, Bruce and Grey.

However, it is important to note during this debate that it was not the commission's wish to drop any rural seats. The terms of reference restricted the number of seats the commission could add to compensate for urban growth, forcing it to remove some rural seats as well. After their long travel across the province for public hearings, the commission members probably found themselves wishing for just a few additional seats to diffuse the criticisms aimed at them.

Looking ahead to future redistributions, it is important to give some thought to the general effects of adding any given number of seats. It should be evident at the outset of any redistribution that unless increases in riding numbers are proportionate to increases in population, the size of rural ridings and the size of the work load for the rural members will continue to become even more unmanageable.

I hope future redistributions can take into account that there are few government offices in rural communities and that not all problems can be solved over the phone. Rural members take on an extra work load because of this. They not only investigate their constituents' problems in dealing with government offices, but also keep them informed as to where to find the appropriate government service to start with.

The commission probably realizes many constituents request a personal appearance by their member to look into some of their problems. I have handicapped people who cannot get out of the house and they ask me to pay them a personal visit. If a handicapped person in Goderich asks me to visit him on a Sunday, which is not unusual, and another handicapped person in the Strathroy area asks me to visit him the same day, that is more than a 100-mile drive from one end of my riding to the other. My riding may not even be as large as some of the ridings, particularly in northern Ontario where members have to travel miles and miles to see their constituents.

What is not taken into consideration is the travelling we have to do to meet our constituents, as compared to some of these urban members who can walk around their ridings in 20 minutes. That is what one has to take into consideration. This same point was made at the time of the last redistribution in 1975.

Some members pointed out that the establishment of constituency offices would solve the problem of constituent demands on rural members' time, and I was pleased that this past summer there was some increase in the funds to constituency services. The need and our appreciation for this funding is in itself a symptom of the difficulties of serving our constituents.

I note that of the 18 members who have taken it upon themselves to open more than one constituency office, none is an urban member. I want to know if there is one rural member in this House who does not feel an increasing burden on his or her time due to increasing constituent responsibilities. After the redistribution, our work loads will increase further as our ridings increase in size. I am sure constituents in urban ridings also put a substantial work load on their members, but they will be getting some relief from this redistribution through additional members.

The point I reiterate here is that this redistribution will expand the average size and population of rural ridings at a time when these same members are struggling to meet the constituent needs of their existing ridings. I do not have to tell members how busy the rural members are in their ridings. It is not uncommon for me to be dealing with constituents all Sunday. At one time I used to pride myself that I could go to church. Now it is generally constituents I am meeting with, instead of the minister. That is how busy we have become in our rural ridings. The fact that we have to travel such a distance compounds the problem.

12:50 p.m.

I am speaking to not only the commission when I say this; I am putting these comments on record for when the next redistribution commission is established seven to 10 years from now. I hope the Liberal government in 1995 will take these comments into serious consideration.

Looking at my own area, the Huron-Middlesex riding will undergo some dramatic boundary changes, losing the Middlesex county township and adding the rest of the Huron county townships, to become the proposed new riding of Huron. I admit I will be sad no longer to have the opportunity to serve the Middlesex municipalities of McGillvray, Biddulph, West and East Williams, Adelaide, Parkhill, Ailsa Craig and Lucan.

These areas are like home to me because I was born and raised in London in Middlesex county. My father served as the agricultural representative for 42 years, and I am very familiar with those areas that I am going to lose if this redistribution takes place.

My colleague the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) spoke earlier in this redistribution debate regarding the expansion of his riding to add these same municipalities. I would like to take this moment to assure those constituents they will be most ably served for many years to come by the current member for Middlesex.

On the other side of my riding, the municipalities of Ashfield, Colborne, West and East Wawanosh, Wingham, Turnberry, Howick, Morns, Grey, Hullett, McKillop, Blyth and Brussels have been added, making the proposed riding of Huron the same as the county of Huron. I look forward to the chance to represent the constituents of this other half of the great county of Huron if redistribution goes through in its present form.

To bring my remarks to a close, I would like to note once again my dismay at the loss of rural ridings in this redistribution. The farmers are saying now that they have very little voice in what goes on in the province. Fewer than four per cent, closer to three per cent, of the population are now farmers. When they see more urban ridings being established and fewer rural ridings, they begin to think their voices will not be heard. They will be nothing more than voices in the wilderness. It is getting that close.

We will have this Legislature loaded with urban representatives and there will be fewer rural representatives all the time. I do not think this is fair to the farmers and the people living in rural Ontario. The other rural members participating in this debate have reiterated the same point. I hope our collective voices of concern on this issue will indicate the need to re-examine the loss of these constituencies.

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to be able to rise in the House this morning to comment on behalf of the riding of Burlington South in relation to the boundary commission's review. I was pleased to appear before the commission when it was in Hamilton last year to put forward my objections as a private citizen to the first draft and I was pleased as a member of this Legislature on June 13 to file a motion objecting to the second draft.

This whole procedure reads like a good-news-bad-news story. In fairness to the commissioners who are present in the House today, I wish to compliment them on their work to date. The difference between the first and second draft shows a sincere willingness on their part to respond to the many concerns raised by Aldershot residents vis-à-vis the splitting of West Burlington along Plains Road. I am pleased to see their interest in moving that division up to Highway 403.

The other good news was the reference in the report to the fact that it is more equitable that Halton region receive the additional one half electoral district, which would, in effect, increase representation for Halton region as a total from three to four representatives. On behalf of the three representatives, I will say that we appreciate the sensitive attention the commission has given to Halton.

However, there is some bad news. The bad news was that the commission admits quite clearly in its report, and I will quote it, "One undesirable concomitant of use of the regional boundary is that the region's constituent municipalities must be divided up in order to avoid population imbalances."

This is unfortunate, but it does not mean that the final draft we anticipate cannot be amended at this time in order to reflect a more positive feeling about the community of interest. If there is any criticism I can raise with the commission, it is that it has been preoccupied with population trends and not with the more substantive human interests of community of interest, existing municipal boundaries and communications among the citizens to be represented in this House.

It is important to note that the commission makes reference to a report from the region. For the purposes of the record, I would like to note that the reference in the report is that the commission was guided by the four recommendations contained in the report from the regional municipality of Halton. However, the report presented only one recommendation. There were four suggestions, but only one recommendation. The commission has chosen to look at recommendation 3, which was not officially recommended before the commission by the regional municipality of Halton.

Specifically, the area of concern is the area in east Burlington bounded by Burloak Drive to the east --

The Deputy Speaker: Might I draw the member's attention to the clock? Since he seems to be starting on a new topic or a new area of his presentation, perhaps it would be an opportune time to move adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Jackson: If it is the chair's wish. I have about four minutes to go.

The Deputy Speaker: We will have to adjourn before four minutes.

Mr. Jackson: You have never had four minutes for me.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Burlington South has moved adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Jackson: No, I did not.

The Deputy Speaker: Then carry on, please.

Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was in the process of describing the area in question. With the full support of the remaining members of the House, I will make this as quick as possible.

The area I wish to describe is the area bounded by Burloak Drive to the east, New Street to the north, Appleby Line to the west and Lake Ontario to the south. It is this specific area that is being proposed to be included in the Oakville riding. In other words, a small section of the city of Burlington would be included with Oakville.

I wish to impress upon the commissioners the fact that I have consulted with my two colleagues in this House who represent Halton and we have reached unanimity on the fact that this section of land should not be removed from Burlington South or any other Burlington riding for the purposes of representation by Oakville. The member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) has agreed. Both of us are willing to represent our entire communities, he the town of Oakville and I the city of Burlington, but the commission's population requirements prevent us from doing so.

It would appear that if this area were left in Burlington South, we would not violate the guidelines of the commission. We would still be within 10 per cent variance of the southern average of 68,267 souls. I would also note for the record the motion by the Burlington city council wherein it specifically objects to and protests this recommendation. A copy of this has been forwarded to the commissioner's office.

I have received in the neighbourhood of 65 letters --

The Deputy Speaker: I would draw the member's attention to the clock. It is now past one o'clock. Do you wish to move adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Jackson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Before the House adjourns, I would remind members of the Lucia Festival of Light program on the grand staircase. Perhaps members could go around that or use the elevators.

The House adjourned at 1:02 p.m.

13 décembre 1985