role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

January 6, 1986

33rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L078 - Mon 6 Jan 1986 / Lun 6 jan 1986

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOB EVALUATION PLAN

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

SUNDAY TRADING

VISITOR

PRESS REPORT

ORAL QUESTIONS

INSURANCE RATES

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

INSURANCE RATES

EMISSION DISCHARGES

FUTURES PROGRAM

EDUCATION FUNDING

JOB CREATION

REGULATION OF REST HOMES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

PLANT SHUTDOWN

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS REDISTRIBUTION (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT

ONTARIO LOAN ACT (CONTINUED)

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members to join me in welcoming the third group of legislative pages to serve in the First Session of the 33rd Parliament. They are as follows:

Paula Arrindell, Downsview; Elise Brady, Burlington South; Dawn Brodack, Port Arthur; Michael Buckborough, Niagara Falls; Mark Crow, Wellington South; Kip Daynard, Perth; Susan Docherty, Leeds; Ali Ghiassi, Lakeshore; Amy James, Simcoe Centre; Justin Kropp, Hamilton Centre; Anjeanette LeMay, Oakville; Tifanie Levy, Kingston and the Islands;

Kimberly MacDonald, Cochrane South; Christine Makuch, Lambton; Jaime Marasigan, Scarborough North; Annamie Paul, Brampton; Mark Popov, Essex North; Francis Savage, Humber; Andrew Sneyd, Dufferin-Simcoe; Andrea Stach, Fort William; Patrick St. Onge, Sudbury East, and David Willer, London South. Please join me in welcoming these pages.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOB EVALUATION PLAN

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I wish to inform the House that the Management Board of Cabinet and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union have signed a memorandum of understanding whereby the union has agreed to recommend to its members a new job evaluation plan for office and clerical jobs in the public service.

The new plan, when implemented, will be of benefit to many employees in the office services and clerical services categories. Representing more than 14,000 employees, these categories are primarily made up of secretaries, clerks, typists and receptionists, jobs that traditionally have been filled by women.

The plan reflects the changing work environment within government. It also reflects a concern on the part of both this government and the union to simplify and strengthen job evaluation systems in the Ontario public service. This simplification of the job evaluation system should in turn make it easier for this government to achieve one of our primary objectives, namely, implementation of pay equity in the public service.

I am looking forward to ratification of the proposed plan, a process which will take approximately six weeks to complete. Until the ratification process has been completed by the members of OPSEU, I am not at liberty to report details of the plan. However, it is my sincere hope that the plan will be ratified by the union's membership, following which I will have an opportunity to make a detailed report to this House.

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The advent of the equality rights provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has cast a new light on many of the laws and practices in our society. The debate that has been precipitated by the charter is truly encouraging. This continuing review of Canada's legal framework will lead to significant reform as well as the affirmation of important social values.

One established employment practice which is under scrutiny as a result of the charter is mandatory retirement. The Ontario Human Rights Code affords protection against discrimination in employment until 65 years of age, after which individuals may be required to retire. The opponents of mandatory retirement have submitted that the limit on age protection in the code deprives individuals of their right to equality under

section 15 of the charter.

Counter-arguments have been made justifying mandatory retirement as a socially desirable practice, permitting individuals to leave the work force with dignity and facilitating effective personnel planning and employment opportunity for younger workers. In early jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of Ontario has held that mandatory retirement is a reasonable limit to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter.

But the legal analysis is only one aspect of the issue. Clearly, any decision to alter existing retirement practices would have profound social, economic and labour-market consequences. Accordingly, the government has decided to establish a task force to examine existing laws and practices that permit mandatory retirement at the age of 65 and to assess the implications of any change in the existing laws which would restrict or prohibit mandatory-retirement practices.

Specifically, the task force will be asked to consider the conflicting interests of older and younger workers; the appropriateness of automatic nondiscretionary practices flowing from pension plans and/or collective agreements; the ramifications of the abolition of mandatory retirement for personnel and human resources planning practices, and the funding and design consequences for pension plans should mandatory retirement be prohibited. A public dialogue will assist the government in addressing this important issue.

I am very pleased to announce that Dr. Ronald Ianni has agreed to serve as the chairman of the task force. Dr. Ianni, a distinguished academic, is the president of the University of Windsor and formerly the dean of its faculty of law. He is an individual of strong social commitment, having served on a number of community organizations. He is a member of the advisory board of the Hospice of Windsor; he was co-chairman of the mayor's committee on services for the unemployed, and he was appointed chairman of the Windsor community adjustment committee by the federal government to implement its industrial labour adjustment program for Windsor and Essex county in 1981 to 1983.

I know Dr. Ianni will bring great skill and enthusiasm to his duties as chairman of the task force. I expect to be announcing other members of the task force in the very near future.

SUNDAY TRADING

Hon. Mr. Keyes: A number of questions have been raised about the government's intention with respect to the Retail Business Holidays Act. Questions have been raised as to the status of the case now before the Supreme Court of Canada, the prospective policy pending that appeal and the government's intention with respect to any review of the present legislation.

The legislation involves a number of ministries, including those of the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, Labour, and Municipal Affairs.

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a number of convictions under the present act and generally upheld the constitutionality of the Retail Business Holidays Act. The appeals by the convicted merchants to the Supreme Court of Canada will be heard as soon as possible and an application will be made to have the matter heard early in March.

Pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the police have been advised to continue to enforce the law and lay charges. Crown attorneys have been advised to take all appropriate legal steps in the prosecution of these matters.

It is unlikely that a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada will be handed down before early summer.

2:10 p.m.

The present law involves questions of widespread social and economic issues that affect people throughout the entire province. There is a need for a thorough, public review of these issues. However, it would be premature to begin this review before the Supreme Court of Canada judgement that will determine the legal validity and constitutional framework of any provincial legislation in this area.

Therefore, after receipt of the Supreme Court of Canada judgement, I propose to refer the entire issue of holiday closing to a committee of the Legislative Assembly to undertake a review of the issue, providing the opportunity for full, public discussion and the expression of the entire range of public concern directly to the members of this assembly.

In the meantime, I invite the municipalities to consider their roles in this issue and the various options available to them. They are free to consider the options open to them under the current legislation.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention that the Honourable Robert Kaplan, a former Solicitor General for Canada, is in the gallery? I know the members would like to join in welcoming him.

PRESS REPORT

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to correct a statement that was attributed to me last week by the press over the wire. A report came out saying Dave Cooke, MPP for Windsor-Riverside, opposed sections of legislation that had been passed dealing with drunk drivers, particularly the one-year licence suspension.

I would like to point out that the letter criticizing government policy was sent out by the government member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), not me.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In the absence of affordable liability insurance coverage, many municipalities, including many smaller communities, have indicated they will now be forced to self-insure. The recent court award against the city of Brampton was in excess of $6 million. Can the minister explain to the House how municipalities the size of Listowel, Kingsville or Goderich, where the entire municipal budgets do not exceed $6 million, will be able to pay such a settlement if they find themselves in the same circumstances as Brampton?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The Leader of the Opposition has brought forward a problem we have been addressing for some time. He should be aware that various groups are meeting to try to resolve it. There is no doubt a $6-million award would cause a great problem for any municipality.

We are hoping to establish a pool whereby the larger municipalities can pool money to help the smaller municipalities. Very shortly, I will be announcing a task force that will refer recommendations back to an all-party committee on how to solve this problem.

At present, the self-insurance process seems to be working not only for municipalities but for school boards. It is a solution with which I am not happy, but we are dealing with the problem in a way that, in the short term, is working. It is not satisfactory but it is working.

Mr. Grossman: We are six days into the new year. It remains to be seen whether the alleged system the minister has in place is working.

I think the question is not, are we going to wait until there is an award, until a task force reports, which, like testing Ontario wine, could take six months or a year? What are we going to do for these municipalities, some of which want to go out today and get additional coverage? Specifically, is the government prepared to say to those municipalities that if they can get insurance, the province will cover the cost of the increased premiums, or is the minister prepared to say to them that it will immediately establish a government liability pool?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am not prepared to make a commitment to either of them. We will do what we are continuing to do. We will monitor the situation and, as a problem develops, we will address it.

Mr. Grossman: Is the minister suggesting that he is saying to the municipalities, whose entire year's budget could be eliminated by one award, that they should go on a wish and a prayer, and if there is a settlement, the province will perhaps come in and help to some degree afterwards? Is that the circumstance he is prepared to tell municipalities and school boards to live with, or is he going to take some action today to alleviate their concerns?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We have taken action. We have met with the municipalities and the school boards. At present, there is not a school board or municipality that is not covered. When we have that problem, we will address it.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I wonder whether he could update the House on the offer made by the Can-Car employees' group in Thunder Bay to purchase the Urban Transportation Development Corp.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am aware of a letter that I think was received by the ministry just this morning. I understand there was some involvement with the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). There is no offer.

Mr. Hennessy: What about me?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I have not yet received a communication from the member for Thunder Bay, but I am sure it is in transit.

Mr. Hennessy: Fort William, not Thunder Bay.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Sorry about that.

There is only a letter indicating some degree of interest and nothing further.

Mr. Grossman: On December 19, a communication was made between the lawyers acting for the Can-Car employees' group and Mark Larcatt-Smith, assistant deputy minister, office of the special adviser to the Premier (Mr. Peterson). That letter was sent on December 19, and I presume it was received shortly thereafter by the now famous John Kruger.

I wonder whether the minister could give an assurance to this House that no offer to sell will be approved or signed by the government or anyone on the government's behalf until the Can-Car employees have been given a full and complete opportunity to make a complete offer to purchase.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The Leader of the Opposition is correct. The letter was dated December 19, but as I said in my previous answer, it was received in Toronto only on Friday. The answer is yes, we will certainly entertain any complete offer from the organization in that letter.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister give his assurance that he will inform the group seeking to make this offer that it has full access, the same access Bombardier and other competitors have had? Would he mind making public, because it has not been made public, what it is he is offering for sale?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I give the member the assurance that any interested purchaser, whether it be the employees of Can-Car or any other interested purchaser, will have equal access and opportunity to acquire the full assets of the corporation in question and that the member for Port Arthur will be the first to hear about it.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Hennessy: I would like to remind the minister that I am a member of the Legislature and I would appreciate some courtesy in that respect. It is all right to have an accord, but he should not show it so publicly.

I say to the minister and the Premier that the employees and management are a group of people who are concerned that if the plant is sold to Bombardier, they will lose their jobs. I have to agree with them to some extent because I do not think Quebec is going to put up money to provide jobs for Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Hennessy: I would like to ask the minister to keep that in mind, to protect the jobs in Thunder Bay and Fort William, and in Kingston and these other areas concerned, because they do not know where they are going at present. Will he keep that in mind?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: If I follow the question, I assure the honourable member he will get all the respect he so richly deserves from this minister, and we will make every effort, as we have said repeatedly, to ensure jobs are maintained in Thunder Bay.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and concerns the same matter first raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman).

It is of great concern to me that in the midst of an insurance crisis affecting our municipalities, all the minister can think to do is to hope and to meet and to monitor. Does he not realize that as of today, January 6, the cities of Toronto, Etobicoke and York, the borough of East York and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto have no liability insurance and that they are self-insured? Is he not concerned about those municipalities' budgets? Is he not concerned about the property taxpayers --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister.

Mr. Reville: -- and is he not concerned about individuals who may be exposed to risk in the city today?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am very concerned about it. The honourable member should realize that all those municipalities had an option to have insurance but they were not happy with the rates. They made the decision that they would rather self-insure than pay the rates and look after it that way. If the member had been noticing some of the premiums, he would have seen some of the municipalities were being asked to pay $400,000 for $1 million worth of coverage, and they decided they would rather self-insure than pay those premiums. They had the option, and they have made the conscious decision to self-insure.

Mr. Reville: The minister will know it is of little moment to cite back the details of the problem as a solution to the problem. Will the minister not immediately pick up the phone and summon the Association of Municipalities of Ontario or leading municipalities and work out with them a municipal public liability insurance program, to which they and this government will contribute?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) tells me he has been doing this, and they are meeting next week. We have been having ongoing discussions with them. This is not something that happened today or yesterday. We have been aware of this for some time, and we are working on it.

Mr. Grossman: Perhaps the minister can tell us whether he is now taking the position, pursuant to his last answer, that all municipalities have coverage, which was his answer to me a few minutes ago, or is he taking the position that some municipalities do not have coverage and that it is their problem because they would not pay the premiums? Which is his position?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: My position is that all municipalities and all school boards are functioning. If they do not have coverage -- they either have insurance or they have decided to self-insure

Mr. Davis: School boards cannot sell insurance.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: No. They either have insurance or they have decided to self-insure. It is self-insurance, but it is insurance.

Mr. Reville: Surely the minister will know that one catastrophic loss will wipe out the entire fund the Metro insurance group has set aside for self-insurance. Will he tell us what day this program will be in place to protect municipalities, property taxpayers and individuals who are exposed to risk? I want to know when the program is going to be in place.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I cannot tell the member the exact date. I can tell him that AMO is meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs next week, and we will come to a resolution.

Mr. Foulds: I have a second question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Can the minister tell us what concrete and practical steps he and his government will take immediately to protect Ontario motorists from the huge increases in auto insurance premiums they face this year?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The automobile premium rates are a factor of the marketplace, and at this point we have no intention of interfering with that marketplace.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell us why the marketplace in the province is such that the Ontario motorist faces a whopping increase of 15 to 25 per cent -- one of his own officials qualifies that as "soaring" -- while other jurisdictions in this country, such as Manitoba, are able to increase services to the consumer and hold the line on premium increases?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The premiums are set by insurance experience. Anyone would realize that the chances of having an automobile accident in Metropolitan Toronto or in any other builtup area in Ontario are far greater than those of having an automobile accident in some northern community in Manitoba. As a result, Ontario has a higher rate only because it has a higher risk factor. That again is a factor of the marketplace.

Mr. Runciman: The minister says this is simply a factor of the marketplace and he is prepared to sit back and let this kind of price increase be inflicted upon the consumers of the province. Is he not prepared to initiate an investigation or to take some action, for a change?

Mr. Speaker: Was the minister able to hear that?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: No.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked whether the minister heard the question; he said he did not.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: The member does not wish to place it again?

Mr. Foulds: If it is a factor of the marketplace and a factor of high density, can the minister tell me why the rates in northern Ontario and in Kitchener are higher than those in Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I just told the member the reason: Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton are not in Ontario.

Mr. Grossman: I will ask another question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As the minister has indicated, there was a lot of advance warning of this problem; on November 24, I raised the case of the Ontario Motor Coach Association, whose members were predicting bankruptcy because of the skyrocketing insurance costs. I pointed out at the time that some of those increases would be as high as 1,000 per cent.

I asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) whether he would be kind enough to meet the Ontario Motor Coach Association, which was very concerned about this upcoming problem. The association flagged it and the minister was aware of it. Can the minister explain why, to date, the Premier has not met with these people and why no action has been taken to help the motor coach association?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I respectfully submit that the honourable member should address the question to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the minister wish to redirect the question? No?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member did not ask me a question, and then I redirected it. The member asked me why the Premier had not responded. I do not understand why I should have to answer for the Premier.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: The Premier has to answer for the minister. Fair is fair.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I understand the minister to say he wanted it redirected?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: No.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

Mr. Rowe: Give him a multiple choice. Maybe he can answer that.

Mr. Grossman: He cannot have more than three choices.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: The minister is doing very well in his valiant attempt to help the Premier out of this problem. When he does get a chance to talk with the Premier, will the minister ask him why the president of the Ontario Motor Coach Association wrote on September 18, on November 8 --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Monday is laugh day.

Mr. Grossman: The minister should listen to this one. On November 8, the president of that association wrote to the Premier, with copies to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On December 2, he wrote again begging for some action.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: He has heard nothing from the Premier, he did not get a meeting with the Premier as he requested and he has not had the phone call the Premier offered to make.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: When he gets a chance, will the minister ask the Premier when he will fulfil the undertaking he gave in this House to meet with these people, who have been seeking a meeting on this issue for two months?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will be delighted to do that.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell us whether he and his ministry are willing to take any steps to protect the consumers of this province, whether they be consumers of auto insurance as individuals, the Ontario Motor Coach Association or the municipalities that my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) referred to?

Mr. Wiseman: The answer is no.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The answer is yes, we will. We are doing that now. We are looking at the total problem. I hope to be making some recommendations to my cabinet colleagues, and that will be happening as soon as we can get it resolved. We are working on it now.

EMISSION DISCHARGES

Mr. Laughren: My question is to the Premier concerning the new emission standards his Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is imposing on Inco.

Is the Premier aware that if Inco is required to build a new smelter as a result of those new standards, that could create thousands of jobs in the construction industry when it is doing so and reduce dramatically the sulphur emissions? The excess acids could then be used in conjunction with phosphate deposits to build a fertilizer plant in the Sudbury community.

Will the Premier assure us that he will personally intervene to pursue this matter because of the enormous boost it could give to the Sudbury economy?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure of the question. Is the honourable member asking me to put those arguments that he put so eloquently and well in this House to the chairman of Inco? Is that what he is asking me?

If that is what he is asking me, I can tell the member that I have already put those arguments to Inco. As he knows, the chairman of Inco was not particularly pleased with the new emission standards set by my colleague. We did put the proposition to Inco that we feel it is very important in the interest of the whole province and we are prepared to work with the company. I hope, over the time it has to work on this matter, it will find viable commercial and economic ways to do that. We are very hopeful that everyone will win with this new control order put on by the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Laughren: With all due respect, I do not believe the Premier understood my question. Perhaps he did not hear it.

What I am asking is, as a result of the new standards, since there will be excess acid taken out of the ore before it goes up the stack and that excess acid must be used in some way, will the Premier ensure that excess acid will be used in conjunction with phosphate deposits up in Cargill township, north of Timmins, to create a fertilizer enterprise in the Sudbury basin?

We have an enormous opportunity here, a real once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create jobs for the construction industry and ongoing jobs to replace the jobs that have been lost in the mining industry over the past few years. Will he personally intervene in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said, I have already discussed that. One of the arguments put forward at the moment is that there is getting close to an excess capacity of sulphuric acid now as a byproduct of the process. Everyone is looking for other commercial uses of that. One of them obviously is the fertilizer business, and we are prepared to work with whoever is interested in taking up that excess sulphuric acid in conjunction with reducing possible causes.

The answer is that we are prepared to work with Inco or any other enterprise that is interested in that. It is certainly one worth looking at, but it is ultimately going to be a commercial decision, as I know the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) knows. It is going to be dictated by the marketplace and not by the whim of some government. Let me say again, we are prepared to work with anyone who is interested in exploiting that commercial possibility.

Mr. Timbrell: Will the Premier undertake to pull from the files the existing proposal, which was reviewed by government officials about eight months ago, submitted by Hatch and Associates --

Mr. Foulds: The Tories had that destroyed.

Mr. Timbrell: No, it was not.

Given the latest control orders imposed on Inco, will he see whether that proposal, which was deemed not to be feasible in the spring of 1985, might now be feasible and could become a viable new industry for the Sudbury basin?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am most interested in pursuing any good ideas, and if by chance we have found one the previous government has not burned, we will take advantage of it -- or any files that have not been destroyed; we will search for those files. Anything we have that is of value we will share with Inco, with the honourable member or with anyone else. If it is a viable proposition, I thank the member for bringing it to my attention. If by chance the file has been destroyed, perhaps the member will give me his copy and I will pass it on to the minister.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. Partington: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development, who has stated the government would spend $133 million to provide support to 56,000 hard-to-employ young people under the Futures program. As of December 24 there were 7,000 applications and only 1,200 placements; by now there may be 1,500 placements.

The minister's bleak Futures program leaves 54,500 young people dangling. Will he admit his program is off to an inauspicious beginning, is a dismal failure and needs a complete rethinking?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I will not admit anything of the sort. What I will say about the Futures program is that, in our estimation, it has been a marvellous success. What we attempted to do in the Futures program, and what we have succeeded in doing, was to take all the good parts of the previous government's programs -- because there were some good elements there -- consolidate them and make them even better, to stress in the Futures program the element of on-the-job training and to bring the program to virtually every community in Ontario.

As for the figures the honourable member is quoting -- I do not know where he got them -- my understanding is that applications to the Futures program and the continuation of the employment programs under the predecessors of Futures have been far greater than our original expectations, and we anticipate applications for next year will be even greater than we originally estimated.

Mr. Partington: To date there has been one application for every eight of the 56,000 hard-to-employ young people identified by the minister, and under this program only one placement for every four or five applications made. How can this be considered anything but a failure? Will the minister at least do what he can to expedite the placement process so those few people who do apply -- more than one in five -- can get some relief from their plight?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Brock is attempting to cast aspersions on a program the previous critic over there acknowledged was an excellent program. If he wants to play politics on the first day back, this is a very good time to play politics with an extremely successful program. The fact is that placements are being made at a very rapid rate and my understanding is that virtually every applicant in the Futures program is placed immediately or undertakes the pre-employment preparation if it is seen that such is necessary.

The program is delivered by 22 community colleges throughout the province and 55 youth employment counselling centres. In each case, an applicant who goes to a youth employment counselling centre may be involved in the Futures program, but there are a number of other programs the youth employment counselling centre delivers to the local community. I suspect the member for Brock is confusing placements that happened in other programs delivered by youth employment counselling centres with those placements in the Futures program delivered by the youth employment counselling centres.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister could show me on the record where I ever said the Futures program was excellent.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: Since the minister now admits the program is simply an amalgamation of what the previous Tory government had tried to accomplish -- and it, too, was a failure -- would he be willing to remove one of the serious barriers he has put in place for people who are prepared to hire apprentices, and that is to allow rates above minimum wage so that he does not undercut the unions and the union contracts, and allow employers the opportunity to hire apprentices through this program?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I did no such thing. I would never admit -- and the suggestion is repugnant to me -- that we simply dealt with the program of the previous government. What I did say, and what I reiterate, is that there were certain elements in the programs of the previous government which we found effective and we incorporated those into the new program. The new program provides on-the-job training and offers young people a full year of guaranteed employment that is relevant employment because it has an on-the-job training component to it.

As for the business of a supplemental wage, it was our decision, and we think it is an excellent decision, not to allow a tagging-on, because the purpose of the program is not to provide employers with an opportunity of using Futures participants for jobs they would hire others for. That is not the purpose of the program, and in fact that is prohibited in the program. The program is designed to give young people on-the-job training and one year's guaranteed on-the-job training. It is not designed simply to allow employers an easy access to the labour market.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Education concerning the gap between the elementary and secondary per pupil grant ceilings, which now stands at $879 per student and amounts to a total of one third of the total grant for the elementary students in the system. The minister is aware this gap creates considerable problems in the funding of elementary education concerning the provision of an adequate number of teachers, adequate numbers and quality of textbooks, computer purchases and so on.

Would the minister tell us why elementary students in our school system are worth $879 less than secondary, and what is his government's commitment to funding of the elementary panel in such a way as to be fair and equitable to those students?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to make it very clear that in the view of this government no student is worth less than any other student in the educational system of this province.

As the honourable member knows full well, there has been developed over the past number of years a funding formula that took into account certain costs that were prevalent in the secondary panel that were not to be found in the elementary panel. Those issues have been addressed over the past number of months by the Macdonald Commission on the Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education, which commission will report publicly, I expect, in the very near future, and which report will provide a timely and important opportunity to review the very question the member has raised.

Mr. Allen: I know the minister would not want to hide behind the Macdonald commission. He is quite aware, I believe, that the answers given by officials in his ministry in recent years pertaining to the differences in the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the two panels, the different scale and nature of the plants entailed in elementary and secondary education and the differential in costs that school boards in their consolidated and more expanded bureaucracies entail for one system or the other, all are now past arguments that are no longer valid.

Will the minister, knowing those facts, now make a commitment that his ministry and his government will close the gap by 1990 by moving significantly in the coming year?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am sure my friend the member for Hamilton West would want me to take this opportunity to congratulate the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) of this new government once again for the important and positive steps he took in his first budget of last October to address some of the real concerns in the area of education finance. In addition, I say to my friends the member for Hamilton and the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) that this government is committed to the equitable financing of both panels of education, elementary and secondary.

I am sure my friend will read with much interest the wide-ranging recommendations that are expected to come from the Macdonald commission, and I know that he, like other members of the assembly, has very carefully pored over the recent submission of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, which has also addressed these issues.

We as a new government are committed to affording genuine equality of educational opportunity and we will move forward in a sensible and practical way during the coming months and years to address the kinds of inequities that have been raised over time by this member and by others.

Mr. Davis: The Minister of Education hides behind shadows and mirrors when he suggests the Treasurer has increased education budgets.

I have a very straight question for the minister with respect to the $879 difference between secondary and elementary funding. Would he give a commitment to this House today that he will take half of that, around $450, and give it to the elementary panel for primary education, where it is needed now, and not after we spend six months looking at the Macdonald commission report and not after he tries to bring in a new budget in April? Would he make that commitment now if he is really committed to equitable education funding?

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Scarborough Centre can be assured that, in the interests of genuine equality of educational opportunity and program in this province, this government will proceed in a thoughtful and deliberative way to address the inequities that developed in the previous administration.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Given the rather shocking information provided by the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) on the rate of placement in Futures, where it appears that about one in five of the applicants to that program has been placed; and given the fact that for the first time in six or seven years the budget of the Treasurer (Mr.

Nixon) contained not one single job-creation-incentive program for either large or small business, particularly for those people who are over 25 and unemployed, what specific recommendations is the minister making to his cabinet colleagues with respect to job creation to attempt to stimulate employment in the industrial sector?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: First, I congratulate the minister for the great job he has been doing in the area the honourable member talks about. If not only the member but also the rest of his party were to look at the record, which shows that 180,000 more people were employed in Ontario during the year, that 51,000 more people were employed from the end of October until the end of November and that we had more than 29,000 more people employed in the previous month, he will see that this government is indeed doing a great job in employment creation in the province.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Andrewes: I really did not expect the minister to be an apologist for the inadequacies of the programs of either the Minister of Skills Development or his government; nor did I expect to be reminded of the job creation that went on in this province as a result of the previous government's initiatives.

If the minister will cast his mind back to the recent election campaign, he will recall that his leader proposed a program to assist and help small businesses to hire new employees. He proposed a 25 per cent wage subsidy. That was aptly illustrated in an

article --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Andrewes: -- in the Toronto Star where his leader was trying on lamp shades and other things. The minister will know that we made a similar proposal during the debate on the budget bills. That proposal was rejected by the government as being premature, too expensive and unnecessary at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Andrewes: It was rejected by the government and it was rejected by the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member please place his supplementary?

Mr. Andrewes: In the light of the failure of the government to do anything about unemployment, to do anything about employment stimulation for those in this province who are over 25, is the minister prepared to recommend immediate implementation of this proposal, which was part of a Liberal promise during the election campaign?

Non. Mr. O'Neil: Besides showing the great number of jobs that have been created over the last few months, I would also like to elaborate on a few other things in answer to the member's question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) have a question on Toyota?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes, we could mention Toyota, a plant that has brought in more than $400 million, and the $100-million increase in Honda's expansion.

Let me go into a couple of others. Export sales from 1984, which amounted to $142 million, have increased in 1985 to $167 million. This is for June 26 to October 31. That is an increase of 18 per cent. As to new plant facilities in operation, from June 26 to October 31, 1984, there were 14 plants and in 1985 there were 21 plants, for an increase of seven plants or 50 per cent.

The technology centre contracts will also be of interest to members. In 1984 there were 157 contracts for a total of $2.7 million, but in 1985 there were 229 contracts for a total of $2.9 million.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Surely the minister must recognize that the continuing high unemployment rate is particularly severe in northern Ontario. Related to this question of the need for industrial encouragement and industrial growth, we particularly need it in northern Ontario for workers over age 25 as well as for those up to age 25, which is what many of the government programs have been oriented towards.

What action has the minister taken to encourage industrial development and the broadening of the economic base in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: That is a very good question. As the member knows, being the critic for his party and being from that area, he and I have met and discussed it. I, along with the minister from the north, hope to give him and all the members from the north our full co-operation in putting together the committees that will do something to give us job creation in the north.

REGULATION OF REST HOMES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to ask the Minister of Health. The minister might be aware that on September 21 of last year, an 86-year-old woman died after falling from a rooftop at Regency Park Lodge in Windsor. Also in September, an 84-year-old diabetic wandered away from Bruce Rest Home of Windsor Ltd. and was found dead a couple of days later. The minister will certainly be aware of the fiasco in Ridgetown where 34 residents were moved into an unlicensed rest home in the middle of the night by another rest home operator in a nearby town.

When is the minister going to bring in legislation to regulate rest and lodging homes in this province to make sure the residents of these homes are protected?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the member for his question. I think he knows, as do the other members in this Legislature, that for some time there has been discussion about bringing rest homes under regulation in this province. I would be very pleased to have that member provide me with his outline of ideas as to how that might be developed in relation to the ongoing steps that are being taken by my colleague the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne). Together we could fashion a very good program to ensure that seniors in this province will have very good places to stay even though they may not be in the nursing home field, which is certainly under my jurisdiction.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We are waiting for the government to do something on its own and not always wait for us to give it our ideas.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: "Does the minister not believe that the time has come for the province to undertake immediately the drafting of comprehensive legislation and the integration of existing legislation with respect to the licensing standard, funding, monitoring and jurisdictional responsibility as it relates to adult residential facilities?"

I would like to point out to the minister that was a direct quote from Hansard from the former Community and Social Services critic for his party, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye). He said at that time the government should bring in legislation immediately.

Has his government changed its policy?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I would like to wish the member for Windsor-Riverside a happy new year too. I really do like to consult with him and other members of the Legislature with respect to policies and I am not going to be deterred from doing that.

The exercise that is now going on through the auspices of the minister without portfolio, my colleague the member for London North, is a very important one. We are taking steps to address all concerns which have been raised by the member in that question and other issues which have come up with respect to services for seniors in the province.

We have not changed our commitment to the betterment of the lifestyle of the seniors in this province one bit. We have and are resolved to put in place the best services possible for the seniors in this province and, together with the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) and the member for London North, the Ministry of Health intends to take steps very shortly.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. McFadden: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. At a public meeting at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced recently that the government had an intention to rationalize Ontario's universities.

Since the Treasurer has declined to define what he meant by his remarks, could the minister outline to the House today what rationalization of Ontario's universities is now under consideration by the government, either on the part of his ministry or any other ministry?

An hon. member: Thank you for the question.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Happy new year to the member too.

I am not sure whether the member is asking me to define for the Treasurer what the Treasurer means by rationalization, but let me say that we in this ministry and in this government believe that post-secondary education is an absolutely primary and vital component of the successful continuing development and enhancement of the quality of life in this province. Rationalization simply means that we need to be able to deliver post-secondary education in an even better way and more efficiently because the costs are very severe, it is very expensive.

There are no particular plans to rationalize any particular element of the system, but we are looking at ways to deliver post-secondary education in an even better way and to do it as efficiently as possible at the least possible cost.

Mr. McFadden: Could the minister confirm or deny that the closing of Brock and Trent universities is under consideration now as part of the rationalization?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: We are really getting silly now. It is absolutely not under consideration and never has been and I cannot contemplate that it ever will be.

Mr. Allen: I presume the previous questioner was dredging up a memory from the past Tory caucus and some of its contemplations.

May I ask the minister if he would be a little more explicit with us about what rationalization means? In this House we have been through several years of trying to get a previous minister to define what was meant by it. We could never get an answer and the universities could not get an answer. That kind of vague bafflegab is not good enough at this time in history on that issue. Will the minister please define what he means by rationalization?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I did not use the word, so I am surprised to be asked to define it. Let me use the example of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education to explain rationalization somewhat. It was our government's belief that the union of two institutions operating as one would be a better way of delivering the services and the program that OISE had, has and will have. We think that is an appropriate example.

As for the suggestion of the critic in the Conservative Party about the closing of Trent and Brock, it is absolutely ridiculous. We are not in the business of closing institutions. We are in the business of enhancing the ability of every one of the institutions to do the job it is mandated to do and to do it even better than it has in the past.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Can he tell the House what role his ministry is playing in regard to the employees at Ellensweig Bakery in Hamilton, who will all be out of a job as of January 17?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I can take the question as notice. The member knows there are a number of closures. I assume efforts are under way in the normal course of events to ensure those workers are getting all proper severance and termination notice payments and, as we usually do, that we have offered them the opportunity to get new job placements.

Mr. Mackenzie: I ask the minister again to take serious consideration of what has happened in this plant. At the end of September, we had what one might call a sunshine letter to the employees from Weston after the purchase of the plant, then a follow-up letter which said there might be some problems with respect to some layoffs. Six weeks later, the entire work force was notified it was finished. The company has totally refused to give anything over and above the minimum requirements under the law. We are dealing with employees who have 25 or 30 years of seniority.

Surely to goodness we are not going to let a meaner, leaner approach on the part of the companies mean that the people who always pay are the workers, like throwing an old pair of socks down the drain. What is the minister going to do in this matters?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As I said, if notice was given and there are more than 50 employees, I assume those workers will receive any payments under the severance pay provision, although I would note that any of those payments would be deducted from unemployment insurance payments as a result of the federal regulations now in place.

I will take a look at the circumstances involved in the closure and at the letter the member suggests was sent by Weston and see whether anything can be done in addition.

Mr. Gillies: The minister will know that this is by no means isolated to the Hamilton area. There have been other plant closures and layoffs. Could he not see his way clear to getting together with some of his cabinet colleagues and initiating the type of action he is attempting in the Sudbury area? Does he not think Hamilton is worthy of some of that same type of attention?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is unfortunate and at times tragic that there are layoffs and plant closures announced almost on a daily basis. I have not seen the latest employment statistics as they pertain to the Hamilton area. In some of the situations, comparisons can be made with respect to the major employer having diminishing capacity of employment. We are constantly reviewing our policies in terms of initiatives. I am glad the member joins with the government in supporting the initiative I and my colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) announced recently for the Sudbury basin.

If we believe further initiatives are needed in Hamilton or any other area, those will receive consideration by the government.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mr. Runciman: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Given the minister's obvious indecision in July of last year with respect to the future of the Ontario Film Review Board, can he indicate to the House today whether the

summary dismissal on New Year's Eve of seven well-qualified members indicates a hidden agenda to do away with the board, or is it simply a purge to replace those members with Grit hacks?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There was no

summary dismissal of seven employees on New Year's Eve.

Mr. Runciman: That is not the information I have been made aware of. There were seven members, including three vice-chairmen, who were given their notice and dismissed effective New Year's Eve. Obviously, the minister is not aware of what is happening. He is too busy counting his cars.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Runciman: A few weeks ago in a speech to Brockville Liberals, a rare breed indeed, the minister's colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes), urged area Liberals to send their Liberal résumés for appointments to provincial agencies, boards and commissions.

Did the minister personally review the qualifications of people being dismissed, people such as community leader Austin Clarke, before deciding to replace them with Liberals?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member does not hear very well. I said to him in reply to his first question that there were no dismissals of seven members on New Year's Eve.

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Premier. In the past number of weeks we have seen a number of stories in the papers about various groups that have sprung up around the province helping the poor and feeding the poor, such as food banks, culminating in the last few days with the whole public school system in Toronto talking about giving food to the poor in the city of Toronto.

What is the Premier's response to all these initiatives that are taking place? Is he pleased this is happening or does he see this, as I do, as some kind of major failure at the moment of our safety net which needs major repair?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member raises a question that is very troubling to every one of us as we travel across this province. On one hand, one could say there has been a community response, measured by many volunteer agencies as well as by government help. The member will be aware we increased our support for those groups.

Any time one sees a community response of volunteers such as that, one has to derive some satisfaction. On the other hand, the fact that it is necessary is even a greater source of disappointment to everyone.

3:10 p.m.

The member will be aware that the minister has looked at the income support program. He would argue, I assume, that it should be higher. It was increased this year. We have a number of exceptional circumstances, to which these food banks cater. We are worried from some points of view that they will become an alternative system of welfare delivery and be too bureaucratic.

On the other hand, when I visit one of these places -- and I am sure the member is like me -- and I see a young family, a mother with two or three small children at the end of the month, and it is the only place to get hot food, then I say, "Thank God they exist." However, I get no joy from that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I do not intend to demean the work they do at all; just the opposite. I am asking the Premier whether he does not see this as a reflection of a major failing within our system. We are supposedly in the middle of a recovery, and yet this kind of dire need is greater than ever.

I therefore ask the Premier, along with the minister, who is not present today, to please consider a major review of all the social assistance programs in this province. It should be a public review and it should look at them in very large terms. While we increase payments and provide this emergency help to people, something is wrong when we are supposedly recovering and the rest of us are doing well, yet these people are suffering so badly.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not wedded to the past in any sense with respect to the delivery of our programs. If the honourable member or others have better ideas, I will be delighted to work with them. I would like to hear the member's specific ideas on what the review should encompass.

He and I have, I am sure, heard discussions in the policy groups of all three parties here of things such as a guaranteed annual income and other ways of dealing with the situation. My colleagues and I are amenable to any kind of constructive suggestions to get the moneys to where they are needed to make sure they are spent effectively for single mothers and for kids who do not have enough to eat, because those are realities today. Whether it is one system breeding another system or how we can make the delivery of services more efficient, we are struggling with it, we will continue to struggle with it and we will welcome every constructive idea in that regard.

Mr. Gillies: Will the Premier undertake at the very least to consult with his colleague the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) to ensure that the unemployed help centres will not be impeded from operating food banks if they wish? Officials of his government have told some of those unemployed help centres they cannot operate food banks. Would the Premier agree that this is mean-spirited and that he should reverse this stand?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This government would never condone anything that was mean-spirited. Obviously, we have been great fans of the unemployed help centres, as the leader of the member's party will be aware. We encouraged that party, when it was in power, to proceed and create more. One of the objectives of the budget of the former Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), was to create 100 of them across the province in order to help deliver the programs that now exist.

We are prepared to help people in responding to community needs in the most appropriate role possible. Obviously, we have to avoid duplication; there is no point in having seven different people do the same thing. However, we would be prepared to consider any suggestions the member has.

Mr. Speaker: There seem to be a lot of private conversations. Some may be necessary, but I do not think they all are.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Morin: I have a petition, signed by 191 members of the Coalition for Public Education, in opposition to the extension of public funding to the Roman Catholic separate school system.

Mr. Brandt: I have a petition from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 3, Lambton county, from the same organization that was indicated by the previous member, the Coalition for Public Education. It is signed by 187 individuals and indicates their opposition to the extension of funding to Roman Catholic separate schools.

Mr. Villeneuve: I also have a petition, which is signed by 164 individuals and presented by the Grand Knight of the North Stormont Council 6809, Crysler, Ontario, to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and which supports the funding of separate schools.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Andrewes: Before we go to orders of the day, I wish to give notice under

section 28(

a) of the standing orders of my dissatisfaction with the response to my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil).

[Later]

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it is an opportune time before five o'clock to advise the members that pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) concerning job creation programs. This matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: Just before we recess, I inform the House that earlier today the member for Lincoln gave notice under standing order 28 of his dissatisfaction with a response to a question.

At that time, the chair indicated that would be heard this evening at 10:30. However, under standing order 28 that is impossible. That discussion will take place tomorrow evening at 10:30.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the answers to questions 101, 105, 117, 136, 137, 138 and 140 in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Friday, January 10].

Mr. Speaker: There are quite a few private conversations again. I do not feel they are necessary in such great volume.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 47,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS REDISTRIBUTION (CONTINUED)

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

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I rise to speak about redistribution in the electoral district of Niagara Falls.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Before we listen to the honourable member who is on his feet, I understand the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) had not completed his remarks.

Mr. Jackson: In my comments at the last sitting on this subject, I was in the process of referring to some statements made by members of my community who wished their comments read into Hansard.

I wish to quote from one who said: "I wish to protest against the recommendations of the commission to make Elizabeth Gardens part of an Oakville riding. It seems to me that if we have to vote with an Oakville riding, we will not only be alienated from Burlington but also from Oakville. This is a time to bring people closer to government, not move them further away."

This message, like many others, comes from east Burlington. It is from Mr. and Mrs. Fabok. They have lived in Burlington for 21 years and have watched their children grow up in Burlington. They are concerned that the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission has taken very little notice of them, has simply satisfied population quotas and has artificially ripped them out of the Burlington South riding and planted them in Oakville.

There are comments such as that from Violet Dalton, who worked for the East Burlington Homeowners Association for many years. She said, "We do not have much chance of getting anything done if we are just a little bit of land at the end of Oakville."

The Coltons wrote: "We are Burlingtonians and wish to be treated as such. We feel that if this recommendation goes through, we will not have a voice in either community."

On and on the people of east Burlington have written to make it clear they are residents of Burlington, constituents of Burlington South and see no reason they should be ignored in the fashion suggested by the commission.

Specifically, the council of the city of Burlington has written to me and to the commission on more than one occasion to express its continuing concern about the proposal to put a

section of east Burlington known as Elizabeth Gardens into Oakville merely to balance population figures.

3:20 p.m.

"This, it would seem, goes against the grain of remaining criteria contained in the terms of reference," the city says, "particularly those related to the community of interest and respect for existing ward or municipal boundaries. The position of east Burlington singled out has always been included in a Burlington-only riding, so major problems in voter identification could be expected to result.

"In the spirit of the city's earlier submission, this report recommends petitioning to retain the integrity of the eastern boundary of the Burlington South riding and that city council resolve that the Legislative Assembly be petitioned through the city of Burlington's elected representatives to request the commission to restore Burloak Drive from the Queen Elizabeth Way to Lake Ontario as the eastern boundary for the Burlington South riding. This, as you know, was originally proposed by the commission."

As I said before, the commission has generally done a good job, given the complexities of its mandate. It has maintained the integrity of Halton's boundaries, and in most of Burlington South it has recognized the Highway 403-Queen Elizabeth Way transportation corridor as the natural boundary line marking the communities of interest. Having done so much, it is unfortunate the commission could not have followed through logically with consideration for all of its mandate on all the criteria for riding boundaries.

The southern Ontario ridings all have an average population of 68,267. Under the proposal as suggested, Burlington South would have a population of 66,457. The commission has endeavoured to keep all the Halton ridings within a few thousand voters of each other. This is certainly a laudable objective, but not when it means tinkering with established historical boundaries, as is proposed for Burlington South.

The people, the city and I have all asked that the boundaries be restored to Burloak Drive rather than cutting out an integral part of east Burlington and adding it to the proposed Oakville South riding. In fact, the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) has stated that the wishes of east Burlington residents should be respected by the commission in its final report. It is a move that fits all the criteria for the commission.

It has been the historical boundary for the riding since 1874, and the south has been intact as a voting area. It adheres to the natural means of communication, which is very important. The local newspapers serve these individual communities. No Oakville newspaper or cable TV station has coverage in the affected area of east Burlington. That area is served by the Burlington Post, the Burlington Gazette and Burlington Cablenet, all of which are well known and respected in the community as providers of community news and information for the people of Burlington.

As stated in my petition, "The commission failed to give due consideration to the means of communication by failing to recognize the absence of any significant communication that exists between and in any way unites the area known as ward 8, currently in Burlington South and proposed by the commission for inclusion in the Oakville South riding, thereby rendering more difficult adequate representation for its people in parliament."

Burlington South would be a slightly larger riding by population than some of the others in Halton, but as I have said, I am not afraid to represent more people in Burlington South. They are my constituents, and I am very proud to represent them.

I should add that it would be only slightly larger than the norm, using the Ministry of Revenue's own figures for the October assessments. Restoring the Elizabeth Gardens area to Burlington South would give the riding a population of 75,111. That is exactly 10 per cent larger than the average riding, well within the bounds acceptable to the commission and close to what the commission considered acceptable for Burlington in its first proposal at 73,141 constituents. It would be closer to the average than 55 of the riding proposals currently being debated in this House.

We must also look to the future. South of the Queen Elizabeth Way, the city of Burlington is established and stable. Without exception, there are no plans for growth, nor is there room to accommodate it. In fact, in the planning district the commission proposes to take away from Burlington South there has been a net decline in population over the past three years, according to the provincial assessment figure.

While it may be larger now, the other ridings in Halton will very soon catch up. It only makes sense to make the more stable areas and ridings larger than the potential growth areas so that changes we make now will remain equitable for five or 10 years. Why should we remove people from a stable riding if it means creating imbalances in a couple of years as the growth areas in Halton catch up in population?

I urge the electoral boundaries commission to follow all the criteria of its mandate when determining the final recommendation for the riding of Burlington South, to acknowledge the traditional riding and municipal boundaries of Burlington as the rightful boundary line for the east end of Burlington South, as it has recognized traditional boundaries and communities of interest throughout the rest of this great riding.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I rise to speak to the change of boundaries in the city of Niagara Falls. I would like to bring a couple of things into perspective as to why I am opposed to change on the southernmost boundary line of the electoral district of Niagara Falls.

When I came to the Legislature in 1975, it appeared as though we were making a major breakthrough in serving the people of the various districts with constituency offices. I thought that step was a long time coming and much needed in that the prime responsibility of most of us here is to represent the people from a given district.

The change that has taken place in this boundary is going to transfer some 4,000 or 5,000 people from the riding of Niagara Falls to the riding of Erie. I point out, without going into too much detail, that what is happening here is that it is taking four or five city blocks in width from the southern boundary and transferring it to the city of Fort Erie.

My main contention is that this does not change the numbers enough to warrant the inconvenience those people are going to suffer in having to go to Fort Erie to visit constituency offices, rather than being able to go to an office that is now serving them very well within the bounds of the city of Niagara Falls. I am very disappointed that it would even consider such a change, taking into account that it is some 12 miles removed from the city of Fort Erie and is part of the city of Niagara Falls.

I will not dwell too much longer on this, but the fact is they have had to go to a major indentation of my district to make this change and the southerly limit now is one with which I do not concur. I hope it will be given the kind of consideration it is due so I can properly serve those people who are being taken out of this district. I hope the serving of my constituents will be taken into account as the highest priority in the dividing or arranging of districts for the electors.

Having said that, I hope due consideration will be given to referring that line. If some minor changes have to be made, I hope that at least those people who reside within the city of Niagara Falls will be left within the electoral district of Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wiseman: I am pleased to be able to speak on the redistribution bill.

I noticed Mr. Bailie was in the Speaker's Gallery a few minutes ago -- he may still be up there; yes, he is -- and I am glad he is here to listen to all the members. I thank him and the other members of the commission who travelled to the hearings in Ottawa to listen to many of us from eastern Ontario.

As it pertains to Lanark county, I am pleased that he and the other members of the commission listened to some of our suggestions and reduced the area that Lanark would take in to add four more townships and the town of Arnprior. That would give me, under this proposal, 17 townships and five towns, or a population of 57,400.

3:30 p.m.

My concern as a member from a rural riding has always been that we be able to serve that riding as it has been accustomed to being served in the past, not only by this member but by other members who have gone before me. The people in rural Ontario want a little more and expect a little more of their members because they feel closer to them.

One can think of a rural member as being almost like the old country doctor. I am sure every rural member in the Legislature will agree that as long as one's car is in the garage or in the driveway, people will come in and say, "I should not bother you at home, but ... ." They feel free to be able to do that because over the years one has built up a working relationship with them.

This is no reflection on the members from the city, but many times I ask people who come from the city who their provincial or federal member is, and many of them cannot tell me unless he is a high-profile person, either a cabinet minister or somebody who is rocking the boat quite a bit and gets in the press. They think they are in the riding of such a member, but when one questions them a little bit further, lots of times one finds they are not in that riding at all. Unless they have worked for a provincial or federal member, they do not know which riding they are in or who their member is.

However, that is not the case in rural Ontario. I am sure most members are the same as the member for Lanark. Many times when I go to a parade or a fair, I run into seven- or eight-year-olds who say: "Hi, Doug. How are you today?" The parents will grab hold of them and say, "He is not `Doug' to you. That is Mr. Wiseman." I feel a bit of gratitude in knowing they know who I am. The example I gave of the city members certainly is not true in rural Ontario.

By the same token, many of us in rural Ontario -- like some in the city, I am sure -- attend a lot of 50th or 60th wedding anniversaries, 90th or 100th birthdays and so on. When a member is from a rural riding and his constituents get to know him, he is like one of the family and he is asked to go to many other functions that I am sure city members wish they could get in on but do not because they lack the closeness.

Let us look at the areas to which many of us have to drive. Lanark under present conditions is 50 miles long and about 40 miles wide. I can honestly say that on a Saturday when I make two or three stops and end up at the north end of my riding, which is a good hour and 15 or 20 minutes away from home at the current speed limit, when I go home, if my good wife did not drive I do not think I would make it lots of times. It certainly is not from the influence of alcohol or anything like that; it is sheer exhaustion at the end of a long day.

The report speaks of widening the territories. I talked to the present member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), and I looked at the riding that will encompass his, the riding of Parry Sound-Nipissing-Renfrew. When one looks at that on the map -- and I speak now to Mr. Bailie and his commission -- if the members of that commission were the member and had to serve that; or look at the riding of the member for --

Mr. Guindon: Cornwall.

Mr. Wiseman: Cornwall is not too bad. Look at the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, which comes right up to the border of Lanark county, a little east of Merrickville, and takes in everything from Merrickville right through to the Quebec border. I am sure it will not be humanly possible for him to give the kind of service he has given in his time around the Legislature, and others before him such as Osie Villeneuve have given to that area. When one sees the size of that area, I am sure the electoral boundaries commission will want to take another look at it.

Another area I am concerned about in the proposal to go to 130 seats, and have been right from the start, is rural Ontario. I am familiar with it and hate to see it eroded any more than it is. It is going from 32 seats to 28 seats. Urban Ontario jumps by nine seats. We all expect that where there is growth in the cities the number of ridings will grow, but we do not want to see the voice of rural Ontario eroded from the present 32 to 28. Goodness knows what it will be a few years down the road when redistribution comes in again.

Rural Ontario will be squeezed, as it is now, into larger pieces of the pie and probably will drop to 20 seats so the voice of rural Ontario will be heard less and less.

We who represent rural municipalities would be doing a real injustice if we do not stand on our feet and say we have had enough of this; we want the 32 seats to remain. However, if the electoral boundaries commission sees fit to adjust it to keep those four rural seats, I am sure all the people in rural Ontario will appreciate it. I hope all the rural members who have not spoken in the Legislature will get up on their feet so Mr. Bailie can take back to his counterpart the strong objection we have to the voice of rural Ontario being reduced. Our children who are coming after us will not have the same representation we had over the years as young people, growing up to where we are today.

With those words, I would ask the government and Mr. Bailie to look at those and to give us areas that are humanly possible to serve, because the rural people demand more service from their members. I wonder how many people in the Legislature have talked to one of the people from a city riding or some place close by, who have often said, "You fellows from rural Ontario are a couple of hundred miles away; you have to be here anyway." They go home and have their constituency office hours a couple of times through the week. I see the odd one from rural Ontario shaking his or her head.

If we could do that, it would free up an awful lot of time on the weekends. They expect us to be here. We are a couple of hundred miles from home, so we cannot run home for meetings or constituency office hours. I do not think it is too much for us to ask to be considered and to have the 32 seats reinstated.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Cordiano: Over the past 10 years, a sense of real community has developed in what is now known as the riding of Downsview. Under the proposed boundary changes, the existing riding of Downsview will basically be split in half. Highway 401 is used as an artificial boundary line to divide the riding in half.

The

section north of Highway 401 retains the name of Downsview, while the

section south of the 401 becomes part of a newly created riding. The

section south of the 401, representing better than 50 per cent of the present riding of Downsview, is sectioned off and becomes the better part of the new riding of Lawrence. The southern

section of what is now the riding of Downsview is really an integral part of the community that makes up the present riding.

The people north of Highway 401 are well served by various institutions south of the highway, such as churches, schools, libraries and various community centres. The cultural links are very strong. As I say, the community has really developed over the last 10 years. Drawing a line at Highway 401 arbitrarily cuts off those cultural links. It cuts off the people south of Highway 401 from electoral expression in the riding of Downsview.

In its attempts to draw lines on the map, the commission no doubt has given a great deal of consideration, as has been pointed out by numerous other members, and has a very difficult set of decisions to make. Nevertheless, it is a question that must be dealt with. I might make a few suggestions regarding the riding of Downsview and I hope the commission will consider them.

First, I believe the

section of the proposed riding of Downsview as described in the present arrangement, bounded on the south by Finch Avenue West, on the east by Keele Street, on the north by Steeles Avenue and on the west by Black Creek, should be retained in what is now the present riding of Yorkview. This area includes York University and has long been an historical part of the riding of Yorkview; an integral part of it.

Second, I would recommend the commission consider including the area west of Jane Street and bounded on the north by Sheppard Avenue and on the south by Highway 400 in the riding of Downsview.

Third, and last, I also recommend retaining the portion of the southern

section of what is now the riding of Downsview; namely that area bounded on the east by the Canadian National Railway tracks, on the south by Lawrence Avenue, and the western boundary should be Black Creek Drive and the Highway 400 extension.

In addition, the commission might consider including the area north of Highway 401 and just south of the Downsview airport, bounded on the west by the CNR tracks and by Dufferin Street on the east, as part of one of the other neighbouring ridings immediately to the east.

Those are my recommendations. I hope the commission will take them into consideration.

Mr. Turner: I would like to take a few minutes to address some problems arising out of the redistribution of the electoral district of Peterborough. Before I get started, I would like to wish everyone a happy new year. No doubt it is going to be a great year.

Mr. Sargent: Having said that.

Mr. Turner: Be careful. I also want to pay tribute to the electoral boundaries commission for the task it has assumed. It is a very difficult one. Undoubtedly the commission's members see it perhaps somewhat more objectively than we do. Yet I think we, as members, have a more complete understanding of the local areas and boundaries and of what disruptions can be caused by what may appear to the commission to be a minor variance, if you will.

In its final recommendation, the commission recommended that the Otonabee River, which runs roughly north and south through the city of Peterborough, be used as a boundary or dividing line.

Mr. Mancini: That sounds logical.

Mr. Turner: Not really, if the member will just stop and listen for a moment.

The area that lies east of the Otonabee River was, up until the turn of the century or shortly thereafter, a separate community known as Ashburnham, now popularly referred to as East City, but for the old-time residents who remember the separate municipality the name is jealously guarded.

The original population of the electoral district of Peterborough was 89,435. In its first recommendation, the commission made a division which reduced the electoral district to 74,299, which was approximately nine per cent over the recommended size.

Keeping in mind the terms under which the commission was appointed and asked to take a look at these various regions and ridings, it was, I believe, allowed a 25 per cent plus or minus variance. We were nine per cent, and there were objections to that. There were hearings held in the city of Peterborough at the courthouse, which I think emphasizes some of the problems that I will deal with a little later.

The hearings were held in May 1984 in the county courthouse in the city of Peterborough, at which time various submissions were made by various people, including myself. I made a very strong point that the commission should give very serious consideration to recognizing the existing municipal boundaries and providing as little disruption as possible.

Mr. Speaker, you are going to have to bear with me, sir. As well organized as I was, I have misplaced some notes, and I know that in the spirit --

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Give it off the cuff.

Mr. Turner: I do not want to take up too much time. Here it is. Thank you very much.

The electoral district of Peterborough, as currently defined, includes the townships of Ennismore, Smith and Douro, the village of Lakefield, the townships of North and South Monaghan, the township of Cavan, Otonabee township, the village of Millbrook and Indian reserves 35 and 36.

Despite the fact that the population figures are on the high side, there is no doubt the actual boundaries of the riding are quite compact.

3:50 p.m.

In its subsequent recommendation, the commission recommended in 1984 that the electoral district should consist of the villages of Millbrook and Lakefield, the townships of Cavan, Ennismore, North Monaghan, South Monaghan and Smith, and Indian reserve 35 and that part of the city of Peterborough lying westerly of a line defined as follows: commencing at the intersection of the southerly limit of the city of Peterborough with the Otonabee River, thence northerly along the Otonabee River to the southerly prolongation of the course in the northerly limit of the city of Peterborough oriented in a northerly and southerly direction and situated immediately west of Champlain Crescent, thence northerly along the said prolongation to the northerly limit of the city of Peterborough.

Keep in mind that when we made the submission to the commission in Peterborough, we emphasized the lines of communication were centred on the city. The county seat of government is located right in the centre of Peterborough. It is the centre of all our media and communications facilities. The radio stations, television stations and local newspapers are all centred in the city of Peterborough and they serve the whole rural outlying area as well as, I might say, some of the bordering ridings as well.

The main bone of contention in meeting with representatives of the city and representatives of the county seems to be the suggestion or recommendation of using the Otonabee River as a boundary. Trent University, which was mentioned earlier in this House under somewhat different circumstances, lies on both sides of the river. One can imagine the confusion and difficulty in having two representatives being of service to that one institution. It would be a very difficult situation for the members involved and a more difficult situation for the institution itself.

The Quaker Oats Co. of Canada, which is based in Peterborough, lies on both sides of the river. If they have a problem, with which member do they deal? I can foresee the rather complicated set of circumstances that would evolve from that.

St. Joseph's General Hospital lies on the eastern part of the river and thus would be divided from the city of Peterborough as a political entity. Do they deal through the district health council; through their local member, whoever that may be? It creates all kinds of problems from social, economic and political points of view.

The way the riding of Peterborough is now constituted, from boundary to boundary, either east and west or north and south, at the maximum would be about an hour's drive. There would be no difficulty in servicing it and I have never heard anyone complain about the level of service or indeed the lack of service.

Interjection.

Mr. Turner: I am being provoked. I have an

article taken from the Thursday, December 13, 1984, Peterborough Examiner wherein it states, "Trent and the NDP Protest Proposal." By Trent they mean Trent University.

Mr. Gillies: And by the NDP?

Mr. Turner: We all know what they mean by the NDP.

Mr. Gillies: That is what Mike said when he was there.

Mr. Breaugh: They used to be in opposition.

Mr. Turner: You just wish it were so. I refer to an editorial taken from the Peterborough Examiner of November 28, 1984, that states very emphatically that East City is indeed Peterborough. As has been noted before, Mr. Bailie is sitting in the Speaker's gallery taking copious notes and paying close attention to what is being said.

Mr. Breaugh: He cannot take notes up there. That is highly illegal.

Mr. Turner: No, he is not. He has a very benign smile on his face. I know he will give every consideration, keeping in mind, if I may take a few more seconds and quote from the commission's --

Mr. Wiseman: Take 20 minutes.

Mr. Turner: I will continue, with the indulgence of my friends -- and I use that word advisedly -- to the left.

Under the latest revised proposal, the population would come out at 70,813, which is a plus variance of 3.7 per cent. However, when I read the commission's recommendations in its own documents, I see a Mississauga riding at 76,000 for a plus variance of 11 per cent. There is another Mississauga riding at 80,000 for a plus variance of 18.2 per cent, and there is another Mississauga riding at 77,000 for a plus variance of 13 per cent.

Mr. Breaugh: What about Oshawa?

Mr. Turner: Oshawa; I am glad he asked that. Oshawa is at 76,805 for a plus variance of 12.5 per cent. I will not bore the members with the details because I know they can read as well as I. Do they want me to go on?

Mr. Gillies: Brantford.

Mr. Turner: Brantford?

Mr. Breaugh: Brantford is not on the map any more. There used to be a member in Brantford, but not any more.

Mr. Turner: Yes, it is. For heaven's sakes, Brantford is at 74,315 for a plus variance of 8.9 per cent. I submit, and I hope Mr. Bailie is tuned in, as I know he is --

Mr. Wiseman: He is smiling; he is listening.

Mr. Turner: Good. I just wonder why we in the great riding of Peterborough are discriminated against to the point where we are held down while more urban metropolitan municipalities are allowed, for whatever reason -- I would not want to second-guess the commission and I would not want to impute motives either.

Mr. Breaugh: It sounds as if you are trying to suck them in.

Mr. Turner: No; I just ask myself what is wrong with the great riding of Peterborough when we are being held so close to the recommendations, with a variance of plus three?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The former Speaker brings up a good point, but this is a case of Tory gerrymandering that has backfired.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Turner: I am not going to be provoked at the beginning of the year by my good friend the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), but if I may refer to this, I see they have a plus variance of --

Mr. Breaugh: They do not even have a riding any more. They put him totally out of business.

Mr. Turner: As a matter of fact, the member is quite right. I can find Grey -- but anyway with all respect --

Mr. Breaugh: How many can that guy represent? Zero.

Mr. Ruprecht: We will find room for him in Parkdale.

Mr. Breaugh: We know about your rooms in Parkdale.

Mr. Gillies: We know about your rooms.

4 p.m.

Mr. Turner: Wherever. I would like to be serious for a moment and ask the commission to give very serious and thoughtful consideration to looking at the proposed electoral boundaries of the riding of Peterborough as they affect the city of Peterborough. It is totally unfair and unwise to try to divide a municipality. The commission was asked to honour, respect or recognize existing municipal boundaries as much as possible. I respectfully ask the commission to give very serious consideration to including the whole of the city of Peterborough in the riding which is named after that great city and that great county.

Mr. Sargent: There is this big flap about redistribution as if it were the end of the world. Henny Youngman, the comedian, said, "I have all the money I need for the rest of my life as long as I die by four o'clock this afternoon."

This is not as serious as we think it is. This is only a commission we have appointed and there is no statute in place dealing with this subject. For this reason, we can be very flexible. The member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner), great Speaker that he was, should know there is no one in a better position to advise about the boundaries for Peterborough than the member himself. I am advised that every one of these deals can be negotiated --

Mr. Turner: What kind of negotiations?

Mr. Sargent: The member should wait and see. This is only a commission we appointed.

Mr. Turner: What does the member mean by "only a commission"?

Mr. Sargent: We appointed a commission to bring in recommendations, but they are not carved in stone. We are a democratic group of people who know our own ridings and what we need for boundaries. The member for Peterborough spoke about his riding. He should know what the boundaries should be, not a couple of appointed commissioners, as good as they may be.

I admire both of them for their backgrounds in serving the public. They are John Thompson and Mr. Justice Sam Hughes. There are no set, firm guidelines. They should be established now. For a man in my position -- I have been here about 100 years -- to wake up and find I do not have a riding any more.

Mr. Turner: The member is kidding.

Mr. Sargent: Grey disappears. That may be good in the eyes of a lot of people. Custom has it that every 10 years a legislature -- American, Canadian or provincial -- has the option to redefine the boundaries as changes may warrant, but there are no set, firm guidelines. At the outset, it would seem to be the desire of the commission to try to run this show on a county guideline basis. That does not work. Some ridings, such as Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, have three county names.

We have great disparities in the population. The basic concept of democracy is representation by population. We sure as hell do not have rep by pop here. Scarborough North, for example, has 161,000 people; York Centre, 118,000; and York North, 100,000. The game plan there might be to have a net increase of two seats. Brampton has 149,000 voters; Mississauga North, 140,000; and Mississauga East, 100,000. Most ridings across the province have around 50,000 or 60,000 people; so we have to do some very intelligent manoeuvring and negotiating.

Mr. Breaugh: It is called gerrymandering.

Mr. Sargent: This party is not a party to gerrymandering. We do not have to do that. There is a map here. Let us lay this out on the floor so we get a good chance to look at it. The exciting thing about this whole map, members will note, is that there are a lot of red pieces on it. We used to see a lot of blue around Toronto, Ottawa, Carleton East and London; now it is mostly red.

Mr. Sheppard: Does the member want a pointer so that he can point out what he is talking about?

Mr. Sargent: We are not gerrymandering. We are talking about intelligence here.

We have heard about the craziness of having 161,000 voters or 118,000 voters in one riding. That is not good business on anyone's part. The House can pass a resolution at any time setting up this commission, as it has done, for a negotiated deal.

Mr. Turner: It does not say anything about a negotiated deal.

Mr. Sargent: The member had better think about that.

The bottom line is that we can change five seats in rapidly growing areas and leave all the rest of the province alone. That is the bottom line. All this hocus-pocus about going through this exercise every 10 years is not carved in stone. We have a good case to be intelligent and break down those ridings of 150,000. There will be a gain of five seats in those major ridings that will settle the whole issue.

Mr. Sterling: First, I would like to pass along my understanding of the problem the commissioners must face in dealing with a very difficult situation in trying to satisfy the wants of members like the member for Grey-Bruce, who has just spoken, who would see his riding disappear or would see three ridings become two. That same problem exists in the Ottawa area with the ridings of Lanark, Renfrew North and Renfrew South.

I appreciate the problems that exist. Perhaps I view it a little differently from some of the other members, not being as concerned with my own longevity or with that of any other MPP in a personal sense. I am more interested in how this chamber operates and in how each MPP operates after the next election.

4:10 p.m.

In that regard, I would have changed two things in the instructions given in the resolution of 1983. I know the commission is not supposed to do this according to that particular resolution, but perhaps I could urge the House leaders to amend the original charge, if that is possible within the framework of the legislation.

The commission was asked to look at drawing the lines on the basis of the 1981 census. We have much better information available to us now. The electoral enumeration lists of the election of May 2, 1985, give us a much better picture of the number of voters in each riding.

I know the lists do not give the population, the basis on which the commission was responsible to divide the ridings. I would rather it divide on the basis of electors rather than population anyway. It should look at the 1985 electoral lists and draw its resulting boundaries from those. Instead of looking at a population of about 70,000, it should look at a voter base that comes in somewhere between 45,000 and 50,000 electors.

Second, although the instructions given to the commission were to tie the commission, the instructions were that there should not be fewer than 125 seats nor more than 130 seats on redistribution. If we are going back to the drawing board, if that is a consideration of the government, I would like --

Mr. Hennessy: The member is not suggesting 90 seats, is he?

Mr. Sterling: I am suggesting 94 seats actually.

I suggest we take a fairly radical move to 94 seats, which is the number of federal members of Parliament in this province, and that the ridings be coincident with the federal riding boundaries. That would mean a larger population for each and every one of us to represent, but for the population it would make politics or its understanding of the situation much easier. That would mean we would go from 125 to 94 seats. It would eliminate some of our usefulness around here after the next election, notwithstanding the change in the winds of our ability to get elected.

This is not the first time it has been done since 1867. In 1867, 82 ridings in this province were carved out. This grew to 112 ridings for the election of 1926. Between 1926 and 1934, the ridings were reduced to 90; they went from 112 to 90 ridings. It is not an impossible situation to face.

As I said, the most important reason for my wanting this would be to try to make the political organization easier for all the parties to organize within each riding. Also, it would make it much easier for the population to understand there is a provincial member and a federal member for Grey-Bruce or whatever riding one picks.

It would also elevate the importance of an MPP in relation to his federal colleague. In some ways we are viewed by the public as the junior legislature. If one views our Constitution and our powers within this Legislative Assembly, one will find we are not junior in the effect we can have on the population in making rules.

I know it is not within the commission's mandate to consider that suggestion, but if that were done in the future, it would be of great benefit to the electorate.

Next, I would like to make some general remarks regarding the factors the commission has been instructed to take into account, with particular regard the riding of Carleton-Grenville which I have been honoured to represent for the past eight and a half years. At the outset, nothing would please me more than if the commission found it would leave the boundaries of Carleton-Grenville intact. If it looks at the criteria, the existing situation in Carleton-Grenville is almost perfect in terms of the population and the number of voters. The only question about Carleton-Grenville is that it is growing very rapidly in the north end at this time, in the city of Kanata and the township of Goulbourn.

I recognize that Carleton-Grenville is touched on seven sides by seven different ridings. Because of the elongated nature of Carleton-Grenville, I was prepared for the fact that in redistribution Carleton-Grenville would be under attack, if one might say that. However, I do not feel that at the Grenville county end in particular the commission has paid close enough attention to what it is charged with in terms of community of interest.

In community of interest and diversity of interest, the two have different effects when one talks about the elected representative or about the population. With respect to representative, as the member for Carleton-Grenville I have enjoyed and benefited greatly by representing the high-tech centre of Canada, the city of Kanata, and by representing a very industrial area at the other end of my riding along the northern shore of the St. Lawrence River. In the north, the area represents a stable employment situation;

whereas in the southern end, in Grenville county, that unfortunately is not the case.

As an elected representative, I say the commissioners should not be as concerned about the elected representative as about the concerns of the people of the community and with whom they want to be joined. I do not care much; in fact, the more kinds of people I have the privilege to represent the stronger I would be as the member for all those communities.

The major objection I have to the second submission is the severing of Grenville county down the centre. At Confederation, Grenville county was roughly equivalent to one and a half ridings. There was a riding for southern Grenville, a riding for southern Leeds and a riding for the northern part of Leeds-Grenville.

That association between Leeds and Grenville has gone on for a long time. Under the present makeup, in terms of population and voter density, Grenville county now equates to about two fifths of a riding. It represents about 40 per cent of the riding of Carleton-Grenville, which I said before probably represents about the ideal population the commissioners are trying to achieve in their redistribution. That association with Leeds county, as I will exhibit later --

Mr. Mancini: Take your time.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Sterling: I submit to the member for Essex South that it is a very important matter to Grenville county and to the people of eastern Ontario that the commission be properly informed. This is the only route my people have to the commission as set out in the legislation, and I will speak for as long as necessary to put that forward.

If the pattern of community interests is changing in Grenville county -- and, as I say, the ties are very strong with Leeds-Grenville -- it is going to the north, if anywhere, rather than to the east, and this is happening because of a number of factors. As members know, and as I am certain the commission knows, Grenville county, I guess from the last redistribution in 1967, was joined with Dundas county, which is to the east.

Also during that period, until the election of 1979, there was a federal riding of Grenville-Carleton, the provincial riding being the flip-flop of it with respect to its name. Grenville-Carleton was represented by a very notable politician. Of course, I am talking about the late honourable Walter Baker, who forged a tremendous association between the Ottawa-Carleton area and the southern part of Grenville county.

However, since then there have been other events which have meant that at least the northern part of Grenville county is turning towards the north rather than to the east or even the traditional neighbours to the west. I am not sure whether transportation could come under the heading of communications, which is part of the commission's considerations. I guess one could put it within it.

Highway 416, which basically runs up the gut of Grenville county, recently has been extended by 10 miles from the Rideau River, as members might be aware, from the edge of Grenville county down through the township of Rideau to the edge of the city of Nepean. The route for Highway 416 has been designated in Nepean to bring it into the Queensway, and it is expected construction will take place within perhaps five years if the promises the former government made are fulfilled by the present one, and I hope they are.

That road is drawing the Grenville county area very much to the north, and in fact Highway 416 now is used by a number of Ottawa residents to come to Toronto as a shorter route, not in distance but in time. If members want to put it this way, Grenville county is getting much closer to the city of Ottawa as these highway and transportation improvements take place. It is quite interesting to note that, if Highway 416 also becomes a four-lane highway through Nepean, which was the plan of our previous government, that will again increase the access to the Ottawa area.

I might also outline to the commission that there are other outlying communities not within the Ottawa-Carleton area which relate very closely with Ottawa-Carleton at this time. They are communities such as the village of Winchester in the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; the town of Rockland and the township of Russell in the riding of Prescott-Russell; the towns of Carleton Place and Almonte in the riding of Lanark; and the town of Arnprior in the riding of Renfrew South.

All those communities have been growing and gaining more importance in the Ottawa-Carleton area; many of the people who live in them work for the federal government and drive to work each day. In essence, the Ottawa-Carleton area is expanding outward. Members will see my reason for bringing this forward when I make some recommendations about how the commission might approach the problem of looking at the boundaries when it brings forward its final suggestions in the form of

an act before this Legislature.

One other matter I would like to mention concerns community of interest and diversity of interest. I represent both urban and rural communities and both fast-growing and older, more established communities. While I recognize no community likes to see lines splitting it in two, the trauma associated with doing so is greater in the rural community, because in a lot of cases I have found they are more politically aware and have to utilize their member of the provincial parliament to a much greater degree than do some of the urban centres.

Therefore, I would suggest that if the commission has the choice between dividing a smaller rural or an older, established community and dividing a younger community, the younger community would be better able to adapt to the change than would the older community. I have both older and newer communities to deal with.

An example of this is the splitting of the city of Kanata between the ridings of Carleton and Carleton-Grenville. I represent the majority of the population, but the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) represents the majority of the geographical area. The only objection I have ever heard to the fact that two members represent the 27,500 people who now live in Kanata is that it is difficult to delineate the boundary because it is on an old township line.

If the commission found it still had to split Kanata, that would not be a great problem for a lot of the people in this community, because they are new to the community and are perhaps more accustomed to change than are some of the other people I represent in rural or small-town areas.

I have a number of documents I would like to read into the record. I know this is a bit slow and tedious for some of the members. Unfortunately, however, this is the fashion in which I can get these matters before the Legislative Assembly, and I intend to do it this way.

First, I would like to read from a resolution by the county council of Leeds and Grenville. I will try to read only those parts that are pertinent to the debate this afternoon. This is dated January 28, 1985, which was close on the heels of the second --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. Speak to your colleagues, not to the gallery.

Mr. Sterling: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned only with those who are going to be making the decisions on the words I might be saying today. I will make another speech, I promise, when the bill is before us. I will go through all of this again for your benefit in case you have missed any of it.

4:30 p.m.

"The council" -- this is the county council of Leeds and Grenville -- "goes on record objecting to the splitting of the county of Grenville riding for the Legislature seat.

"Our first preference is to leave the riding as Carleton-Grenville. However, if changes must be made in the riding, this council would strongly feel that a new riding should be established comprising totally Leeds and Grenville. The counties of Leeds and Grenville now jointly provide municipal services such as education, health services, homes for the aged, roads, etc. Grenville has no mutual interest with the counties to the east, and it would seem more acceptable to be joined with a county that has common interests and service-sharing with Grenville."

On December 10, 1984, the town council of Kemptville passed a resolution:

"In view of the proposed boundary changes announced by the electoral boundaries commission, this council is not in favour of these announced changes whereby Grenville county would be split, with our eastern portion being added to the provincial riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry."

Attached to that resolution was a letter from the clerk, M. R. McIntyre, who was instructed to do so. I will read from four paragraphs contained in that letter, which is dated December 12, 1984.

"The mayor and councillors are irate over this matter as Kemptville has absolutely nothing in common with Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

"Kemptville is a part of the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, with land registry office in Prescott, functions within the Leeds-Grenville County Board of Education, the Lanark-Leeds-Grenville Board of Health, the Lanark-Leeds-Grenville assessment office, as well as all other boards, courts and public groups in the two counties.

"Council strongly opposes any change that would divide the county of Grenville. It is of the opinion that the mathematics of the changes may be in order, but the effects of the change in regards to human feelings and historic background of the area may not have been sufficiently understood.

"Council would support leaving as is our Grenville county being incorporated with Leeds county so that there is a continuity in the management of the services for the people concerned."

That was a letter from the town clerk of Kemptville, and a resolution, which I read in full because the council of the township of Edwardsburgh also passed a resolution supporting that resolution. On December 27, the council of the township of Edwardsburgh passed a resolution supporting the resolution of the town council of Kemptville.

The township of South Gower basically supported the town council of Kemptville in a resolution as well. Grant Christie, the then and present reeve of the township of South Gower, wrote to the then Premier, William G. Davis at that time. I think it is important that his letter be read into the record as well because it also has a flavour in it, the part about the association with the north.

"If this proposal takes effect, South Gower would be amalgamated with the counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. The sitting member of the Legislature would be Mr. Noble Villeneuve, whose centre of activity is in Cornwall, Ontario. While council is sure Mr. Villeneuve is a fine representative" -- and I can attest to that -- "he should be so distant from our local township and its concerns that, with the best will in the world, he would not be able to represent our interests, nor should he be expected to do so."

I am not sure whether that is correct. I am sure the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry would be capable of doing a very good job. However, I am reading the letter of a reeve in this instance.

"It is also clear to council that many of our residents commute to work in Ottawa, and South Gower's interests lie northward with Ottawa, some 30 miles distant, and not with Cornwall some 90 miles away. The current electoral boundaries recognize this reality."

I hesitate to read the following paragraph, but I will:

"I might add that our provincial Conservative member is Norm Sterling, whose good offices are readily available to us and for whom we have the highest regard. The council has no desire to change this relationship."

In addition, I received a letter from Wesley Baldwin, the clerk-treasurer of the village of Cardinal. This is a letter to me:

"Please be advised that it was unanimously agreed by all members of the village of Cardinal council at their regular meeting held on Monday, December 3, 1984, that they oppose any boundary changes to the existing riding represented by yourself."

The council of the township of Augusta passed this resolution, dated December 10, 1984: "That this council goes on record objecting to the splitting of Grenville county. Our first preference is to leave the riding as Carleton-Grenville. If changes must be made in ridings, this council would prefer that the new riding be established and made up totally of Leeds-Grenville. The counties of Leeds-Grenville now jointly provide services such as education, health services, homes for the aged, roads, etc. Grenville has no contacts with the counties to the east and it would seem more acceptable to be joined with a county that has everything in common with Grenville."

There were many editorials and articles in the local newspapers, the Kemptville Weekly Advance and the Prescott Journal. Both those papers expressed the view that there was little interest between Grenville county and those counties particularly to the far eastern end of the riding of the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Those editorials expressed outrage, I guess, not only at the splitting and joining with the east, but also -- and I hope the commission members remember this -- at the fact that Grenville county has been bounced around in both federal and provincial riding redistributions to a very great extent over the past while. Federally, I think it was Leeds-Grenville first, then it was Grenville-Carleton and now it is back to Leeds-Grenville. Provincially, it was Grenville-Dundas, then Carleton-Grenville and now it is going to be half one way and half the other. I guess they feel they are caught in a squeeze to satisfy everybody else's needs and their needs are down at the bottom.

In

summary, in terms of the priorities dealing with Leeds and Grenville counties, I guess their first priority would be to stay as one, their second priority would be to try to move to the west, if that is possible, and I would say the third priority would be to move to the north.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I realize the difficulty the commission is faced with. I suspect that when the commissioners were deciding on the boundaries for the ridings in eastern Ontario they probably started at the Quebec boundary thinking they could not go any farther east and they had to start from there and come west.

I would suggest that an alternative way of approaching the problem of dealing with eastern Ontario would be to start at the centre of population. As we know, the centre of population for eastern Ontario is the Ottawa-Carleton region. The Ottawa-Carleton region has half of the population of eastern Ontario.

4:40 p.m.

Currently, in the Ottawa-Carleton area -- if we start in that area and move outwards, which I would like the commission to consider as an approach -- we have six full ridings plus parts of Prescott-Russell and Carleton-Grenville and a small part of Renfrew South. The two ridings that cause the greatest problem are Carleton and Carleton East; in particular Carleton East because of its large size, and it is still growing at a rapid rate. My riding of Carleton-Grenville and the ridings of Carleton and Prescott-Russell are also growing at rapid rates. If any ridings in eastern Ontario are going to be undersized, they should be in those areas in the fringe around Ottawa-Carleton.

I propose that the commission create six or seven inner Ottawa-Carleton ridings that will have limited growth in future. I suggest it use not only municipal boundaries but also the National Capital Commission greenbelt as a possible boundary, because of communities such as Barnhaven and Bridlewood. While part of the city of Kanata they are outside the greenbelt. There is a natural boundary there as well as the municipality's boundaries, even though both sides are in the city of Nepean. Nepean and Gloucester will have to be split and I suggest the greenbelt be considered as a good partition.

Those are the inner Ottawa-Carleton ridings, and if they can be made to correspond as much as possible to the existing ridings, that would be appreciated by the existing political structures that are there and I am sure by the existing members. It would then create three or four outer ridings, which is not the way the commission has put it forward.

I suggest the commission look at creating three or four outer Ottawa-Carleton ridings. These ridings would be in communities that are growing rapidly. I recognize that in the next redistribution after this one, if we ever get to it, they will require another change. However, there are six or seven inner ridings that could probably stay intact the next time around.

Outside the Ottawa-Carleton outer ridings, I suggest the commission try to create ridings that are as closely associated as possible with the federal boundaries. Leeds-Grenville would be created to be as close as possible to the federal riding. Prescott-Russell would be made as close as possible to the federal riding by rotating it around a little into Glengarry county.

I know my friends the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) and the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry would not agree with me, but a Cornwall-centred riding would be created that would stretch into the rural riding to a greater extent. The commission would make up the deficiencies for Lanark county or Renfrew South by creating spokes into those four transitional ridings that slop in and out over the Ottawa-Carleton boundary.

That is where towns such as Arnprior, Winchester, Almonte, Carleton Place, Kemptville, Merrickville and Rockland are. Those people are the ones going in and out, and therefore I think they are more suitable for a riding that spokes out into eastern Ontario.

Lastly, I would like to say that in terms of the representation out into the rural areas, it is my feeling the Grenville county feeling is so strong in this circumstance that it would probably put up with a lesser degree of service from its MPP if the commission saw fit to join it with Leeds-Grenville than be joined to the east. They feel that strongly on this issue.

I think the commission can come forward with a more innovative plan than its last existing plan. I accept, acknowledge and understand their difficulties in dealing with the problem, but I would hope they would look at my suggestion of how to approach it and perhaps come up with some different resolutions in the act.

No doubt, as the member for Grey-Bruce indicated, we can negotiate for the final boundaries, but that is going to have be done after the act is brought in. Those negotiations are going to be difficult because what may be good for the seven other members around me may not be good for the communities in Carleton-Grenville. Therefore, I say Godspeed to the commission and thank members for the opportunity to speak on this matter.

It is extremely important to Grenville county that it be unified or go to the north. If the commission has to split it, I suggest it be split on a north-south basis rather than an east-west basis. I do not submit to any splitting at all, but that would be more logical in the present circumstances of the social and economic situation of Grenville county.

Mr. McGuigan: I am glad to enter this debate. I would like to say that redistribution and change to the boundary is no stranger to Kent-Elgin. Going back to pre-Confederation, the riding of Kent covered most of southwestern Ontario. It reached up into the Georgian Bay area. In those days it was probably the largest riding in the province.

It has had a rather storied history in that one of the very first members from Kent was capture