EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 3, 1995

.0903

[English]

The Chairman: Good morning, all.

Good morning, Mr. Minister.

We had a fairly successful day yesterday for the first try at this and we have a jam-packed agenda until about noon today.

Mr. Minister, we're giving about twenty-minute intervals. I assume you're here representing the effects the proposed legislation is going to have on your own riding, and you're also speaking for Metro. That's what the sheet says.

We want to go with the assumption that we can do that in two twenties with you, but you don't have to feel obligated to take your full time. The more time you take, the less time there is for questions.

Yesterday, when we heard six or eight, there was a common thread running through most of what the people were saying. I won't tell you what that was, but I'd be interested in seeing if what you say is in keeping with what we heard yesterday. I suspect it likely will be.

Is there anything from the committee that I've forgotten to mention? We will stay here until noonish.

Okay, Mr. Minister.

.0905

Hon. David M. Collenette, MP (Don Valley East): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm here on two fronts, number one as the member for Don Valley East and secondly as a minister from Metropolitan Toronto concerned, as my colleagues are, with the attitude of the commission with respect to urban areas in general, but specifically Metropolitan Toronto.

I did make a submission to the commission before. They were very courteous in listening to me. However, they did not accept any of the objections I made. I understand the reasons they've given, and certainly I can accept those reasons at face value, except those reasons are based on a premise that my colleagues and I reject, and I think you will get that from other ministers from Toronto.

In this census Metropolitan Toronto will lose one constituency. It's the largest city in the country, with an incredibly heavy workload as a result of immigration in particular, and also the concomitant reduction in federal government services is pushing more and more pressure onto members' offices and they are unable to cope.

It's not unusual for members to have line-ups of people trying to get into their offices on Friday evenings or Saturdays. Much of it is respecting immigration, and a lot of it is unemployment insurance grievances. In the case of Don Valley East, with the second largest number of pensioners in the country, it has to do with old age pension matters as well as veterans' pensions.

So it appears that at a time when government is cutting back its expenditures and services, we in Metropolitan Toronto are also faced with a cut-back of one member to deal with this high volume of work.

I have a number of objections to the methodology deployed by the commission. This is the third or fourth redistribution I've been through in my career, which dates back to when I was first elected in 1974.

What they have done consistently as commissioners is started off at a corner of the Humber River and Lake Ontario, worked up Etobicoke, then down through the city along North York. They've kept the city of Scarborough separate, with the boundary Victoria Park Avenue.

The area of Don Valley, the east end of Toronto - what they refer to historically as East Central Metro - got jerked around the most in terms of boundaries. I'm particularly sensitive about this, having grown up in the borough of East York.

You may have noticed on your record the presentation made by the mayor of East York, Michael Prue. This is a community of 102,000 people, which was established in 1923 and has an incredibly strong sense of community, yet redistribution after redistribution we have been faced with the bifurcation, if you will, of that particular area.

In the most recent redistribution, which went into effect in the 1988 election, a big chunk of the old York East, as the riding then was called, went into Beaches and the new riding of Don Valley East was pushed further north.

What the commission has proposed to do this time is take the remaining chunk of East York and put it in with the Beaches constituency. I suppose that is logical and it does deal with some of the problems you have now, because there will be one less constituency representing East York, except the mayor feels not enough has been done to try to keep East York as a community in one constituency.

He points out there are 102,000 people in the borough of East York and the quotient used for Metropolitan Toronto is 101,000. Those are his arguments. I argue that as someone who represents East York and has grown up in that particular area.

I don't think the commissioners really will accept those arguments. What I'm concerned about - I don't know if you have the maps in front of you - is there is a sliver of North York south of Eglinton Avenue on the East York boundary, starting around Sunrise Avenue at Victoria Park Avenue and proceeding in an easterly direction to the Don Valley. This area should be incorporated into the new Don Valley East rather than the Beaches, because this area has always been North York. It has nothing to do with East York.

.0910

It's an area bounded by Eglinton Avenue East on the north, Victoria Park briefly on the east, and the East York boundary just south of Sunrise Avenue, bordering Amsterdam or Yardley Avenue, over to the Don Valley. That's the first change that I would ask the commissioners to look into.

The second thing I tried to have them accept was the community known as Flemingdon Park.

Mr. Hanrahan (Edmonton - Strathcona): You're going too fast for me, Mr. Minister. What is your first concern with regard to East York?

Mr. Collenette: I don't have a map. Does anybody have a map? It's all in my head.

Why don't I just point this out. That might be easy.

You can see what has happened. Historically, they have started their redistributions at the boundary of the Humber River and Lake Ontario, and they've tried to keep the city of Etobicoke as one unit with three constituencies. They've done some rejigging and that's fine.

The city of Toronto is an odd-shaped thing, but they've gone up and then down from Steeles Avenue to the lake until they get up here. Lo and behold, Don Valley North disappears. There's no rhyme or reason to it.

Don Valley East, which is the constituency I currently represent, was the old York East that originally started off down here and has been consistently moved northeast. It's an odd constituency. It's made up of a number of different communities and it straddles the Don Valley. Actually there's a lack of community interest, but I'm not here to argue that. That decision was made some time ago.

I'm here to argue this. You can see that this is Eglinton Avenue. That's Eglinton Avenue East and the dotted line to the south is the boundary of East York. I forget how many polls there are here, how many people live here - probably two or three thousand.

This area has never had anything to do with East York. It relates to the city of North York, and as a minor change I would ask that they incorporate this area into Don Valley East. In giving their reasons as to why they didn't agree with me, the commissioners said this would make the Beaches population too low.

The second argument I would make is that this area here, which is to the east of Don Mills Road, bordered by the east branch of the Don River and the CPR tracks, is known as Flemingdon Park. The top end is known as Wynford. Historically, this has always been in York East, and even though it's in North York it has a lot in common with East York and the people in this area, and thus should remain in the Don Valley East constituency. To do that you would have to make Don Valley West larger. I suggested that they take it up to Willowdale, but the commission refused.

The real problem is that Metropolitan Toronto is being denied representation, as I started off by saying. We're going from 24 to 23 or 23 to 22 seats under this redistribution at a time when we need those seats. In some respects illogic is being applied by the commission. For some reason they want to keep Metropolitan Toronto as an entity, but they obviously don't know Metropolitan Toronto and don't know what's happened there.

The fact is that Metropolitan Toronto doesn't end here any more. It ends in Richmond Hill and Aurora and goes over to Mississauga and Pickering. The provincial government will have to redesign it. They will probably decide to abolish Metropolitan Toronto because of the eroding tax base in the core and call it the Greater Toronto Regional Authority. It will be a large region.

.0915

The problem is that within Metropolitan Toronto we have an unemployment rate that's published at 11% but is, I suspect, a lot higher. We have 10% of the workforce on welfare or other forms of social assistance. We are the largest recipient area of immigrants to Canada with all of the problems that entails in servicing these newcomers.

We as a government are committed to deficit reduction. Every department is being cut back, including Immigration, UI and all of the administration. What's happening is that the government services normally performed by the public servants are being pushed onto the members. It's a cheaper way to do it, because our staff members are not unionized. We have some part-time and we have a lot of volunteers. We now cannot cope without volunteers in our constituency offices.

So I challenge the basic thrust of this redistribution, which has arbitrarily said there will be a higher quotient in Metropolitan Toronto - I think it's 102,000 - yet constituencies outside Metropolitan Toronto will have a quotient of I think 96,000. This is total illogic.

In other words, you have taken away one member and one level of his administrative staff - or hers, although in this case it is a he - to deal with all these constituent problems and they've upped the quotient considerably, yet in the areas outside of Toronto they have kept the quotient at 96,000. They argue that it is because they anticipate future growth.

Maybe I'm rusty, because it's been a long time since I looked at the act, but I thought the commission did not have the entitlement to anticipate future growth. They had to deal with the world as it is, not with the world as it may be. In previous redistributions I believe there were submissions made by members to change that, to anticipate growth. Maybe that was reflected in the change to the act. I'm sorry, I don't know the answer, but certainly I would submit that you have to deal with the reality of the situation. That reality is that the Metropolitan Toronto area, for the reasons I've given, is penalized.

I would advocate readjustment to add the other constituency and to then readjust the ones outside of Metropolitan Toronto and right across the province. It could be done in not too difficult a fashion. That would have the same effect in Hamilton and London and Ottawa as what I am advocating here, because those cities are also being squeezed.

If you look at the boundaries in Ottawa, I believe you'll find that the quotients are higher. The commission is quite open about this. They've made the determination that urban areas can survive with a higher quotient because, they say, it's easier for members to serve.

Well, I know, Mr. Chairman, you're from a rural area. It's tough for you to get around. But one shouldn't think that serving a riding in urban areas is based on getting around in a car. I could serve my riding by going on a bus, but that's not really the service we're talking about. We're talking about volume and caseload.

I would submit to you, even though I know you have a busy practice, that we probably have doubled the caseload in the Metropolitan Toronto constituencies than you would have in a rural area by virtue of the problems I've outlined.

I've probably gone on too long.

Mr. Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): Just for clarification, Mr. Minister, on the two things you pointed out, what's the name of that little island? Is that a hydro line or is that a street with a zigzag down the middle of it?

Mr. Collenette: You're right, the zigzag is a hydro line, but it is the municipal boundary. It's an Ontario Hydro right of way.

Mr. Richardson: So if we were to put in our description, we'd call that the Ontario Hydro right of way.

Mr. Collenette: No, you should call it the municipal boundary, the North York-East York municipal boundary.

Mr. Richardson: As defined by the Ontario Hydro line.

Mr. Collenette: Partially.

Mr. Richardson: Okay.

The other point for clarification is that you're talking about the section over on the valley where the Flemingdon Park apartments are.

Mr. Collenette: Yes.

Mr. Richardson: I forget the name of the school. There's a secondary school over there.

Mr. Collenette: There are two. There's Overlea Secondary School, now called Marc Garneau Collegiate, and there's Valley Park Middle School. I've been around so long, the names change.

Mr. Richardson: They are East York or North York schools.

.0920

Mr. Collenette: Funnily enough, they are East York schools that serve North York kids. The commission probably thinks that because there's a main shopping centre in Thorncliffe, there's a community of interest between the two. Sure, in many an urban area there is a community of interest.

Historically, Thorncliffe Park has been part of East York. It was the old racetrack that was dissolved. It is now becoming the centre of East York and is now called not Thorncliffe Park but East York City Centre.

The area east of Don Mills Road - Flemingdon Park - always related to the North York city council and North York concerns and Don Mills in general. There is more of an affinity with Don Mills than with East York. This is the first time that these two areas have been linked in one constituency.

Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Flemingdon and Thorncliffe?

Mr. Richardson: Thorncliffe is a little more to the west. Could you give us an estimate - it is a kind of number-crunching exercise - of the number of people who live between the municipal boundary and Eglinton Avenue on the north and Victoria Avenue, that little box in there? Do you have any idea as to the population numbers?

Mr. Collenette: I should know this, but I'd be surprised if it was more than five polls, which would be 1,500 people or maybe closer to 2,000.

Mrs. Stewart: What's the the opportunity for growth?

Mr. Collenette: I don't think there is much opportunity for growth there. It's largely industrial. That whole area is becoming like the South Bronx because the factories are being demolished and rubble is being left there. There will be pressure to build residential units and rezone, but on the face of it, I don't think there will be too much growth.

Mr. Richardson: As for the other area that we would then propose to move to Don Valley West, what's the trade-off in population there? Could we pick this one up in your riding and take it off Beaches - Woodbine? That's a recommendation or simply a hypothesis. Let's say we move that up into your riding in the area served by the Marc Garneau School area or the Thorncliffe area?

Mr. Collenette: You mean Flemingdon or Thorncliffe?

Mr. Richardson: I'm thinking of the area that the Marc Garneau school serves.

Mr. Collenette: Flemingdon Park probably has about 15,000 to 20,000 people living there, but there are so many immigrants. The fact is, though, that the number of people who vote is extremely low because it is composed largely of non-citizens. There is a strong community even though it is right in the middle of all the immigrants surrounding it.

So there aren't really any equal trade-offs. If you're going to keep Flemingdon Park in my constituency, you really have to make adjustments at the north end, which would then mean that Willowdale would have to move further east and Don Valley West would move further north. The commission rejected that.

I have to tell you that, if I was smart I'd keep quiet, because Don Valley East on the map becomes a much more Liberal riding.

What I'm concerned about is the community interest, generally, and the whole question of being denied a member, and the fact that one of my colleagues will unjustifiably lose his seat where there is still a heavy need for representation.

Mr. Hanrahan: Being relatively unfamiliar with this map, I'm going to try to keep my questions somewhat broad, if I may. To your knowledge, Minister, did the commission people ever visit these areas? Did they go out and look around and talk to people, or did they just give their submissions?

Mr. Collenette: I don't know. I'm going to contradict myself. It seems to me that when I was at the commission, there was a female member of the commission who lived in Willowdale. I forget her name. She may have some knowledge.

Professor Sancton is not from Toronto; he's either from London or Kingston. He's experienced. He was on the previous two redistributions. I found him quite amenable to this kind of logic.

.0925

I made a case here for Flemingdon Park, but I don't expect that radical of an adjustment will be made. But when you're talking about small slivers, such as the one we described south of Eglinton Avenue.... It's an orphan area. If it goes into East York, it's bounded by factories before you get to the residential area of East York. It really belongs to the community to the north.

In past redistributions there has been some sensitivity to these requests, and I found him, in particular, to be sensitive. But this time, for whatever reason - they have their arguments - they chose not to accept it.

Mr. Hanrahan: But you do see a pattern whereby, as you pointed out, they're starting here and going there in an up and down fashion.

Mr. Collenette: What they do is this. They say, all right, Scarborough; we're going to keep the city of Scarborough on the east there. There are going to be four or five constituencies, or whatever, and those boundaries will be inviolate. For Etobicoke you're going to have three.

In the central area, as I say, they start from the Humber and the lake, which is the southeastern corner of the boundary of Etobicoke - Lakeshore. So what they do is go up and down from there to Steeles Avenue. They go Hyde Park - Parkdale, York South - Weston, Eglinton - Lawrence; they come down and they go Davenport, they come down Trinity. They go up and down like that. What happens is they come down to Broadview, they move over to the Beaches, and they move the Beaches up. Then they push us up in Don Valley East and they push Don Valley North into no-man's land, because they've decided they want to eliminate a constituency in Toronto. So Don Valley North is eliminated.

Mr. Hanrahan: Again, the logic you suggest here is future growth, but you're going to be talking about 101,000 versus 96,000 for the rest of Ontario, I guess, as an average.

Mr. Collenette: That's right.

Mr. Hanrahan: Yet there will continue to be enormous growth, I would think, in this whole area of the map.

Mr. Collenette: Of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes.

Mr. Collenette: The problem is that with the recession there has been, I think, a slight decline in population - not much - in Metropolitan Toronto. This is the first time Toronto has had such a tough time. We are trying, obviously, to rebuild industry and try to get the city back on its feet. But there's a lot of redevelopable land within Metro. Given building costs and financing costs, I suspect there will be more and more redevelopment within Metropolitan Toronto. People are now starting to object to moving way out into the suburbs and commuting. The provincial government is cutting back subsidies to the GO Transit, which is the commuter railway system. So I think you're going to get more of a trend of people coming back to the city.

I've talked to a lot of builders and they're interested in taking small lots in built-up areas like East York or Don Mills. In fact, the whole of the Don Mills quadrant, Don Mills Road and Lawrence, which was the old model community built in the 1950s, is being totally redeveloped and is being made higher density, with better quality buildings for retirees. You're going to get that throughout Metropolitan Toronto.

So the population really won't decline within that boundary of Metro.

The Chairman: Jane.

Mrs. Stewart: Don Valley North is a relatively new riding. Was it just constituted last shift -

Mr. Collenette: It was constituted -

Mrs. Stewart: - or was it brought in and it's now being removed again?

Mr. Collenette: No, it has survived two redistributions.

Mrs. Stewart: Two?

Mr. Collenette: It came out of the redistribution that came into effect in the 1984 election.

Mrs. Stewart: Okay, 1984.

Mr. Collenette: It came out of the exponential growth in Scarborough. It's part of the old York - Scarborough, part of Willowdale, and part of what was then known as Don Valley. All this area was developed in the 1970s -

Mrs. Stewart: All to indicate, as you point out, that this valley centre has always been problematic in terms of trying to identify the correct boundary. It seems to be getting the squeeze on both sides and just seems to be shifted around every time there's a redistribution.

Mr. Collenette: Yes. If you look at my present constituency - you probably have the present boundaries there - we have a chunk in a ward 1 of East York; we have the orphan part, which belongs really to North York, the one we're talking about; you have an area known as Victoria Village, which is from Lawrence to Eglinton, and which is a very strong community but doesn't really have as much of a relationship with the area to the south and not much relationship with the area to the north.

.0930

Then you have an area called O'Connor Hills, north of Lawrence Avenue, and on the periphery you have apartments. That is a community. Then you have a small area north of York Mills Road to the 401 that really doesn't have much to do with the area south of York Mills Road.

Then you have the eastern remnant of the old community of Don Mills, east of Don Mills Road, north and south of Lawrence, which has really been orphaned because its centre is the shopping centre there on the west side. All of Don Mills should be together, but it is split.

We lost those battles a long time ago. All we're trying to do now is to make it a little bit meaningful for some of the residents. But if you went to the extra riding, then you probably wouldn't have much change in the boundaries in Toronto generally.

Mrs. Stewart: You mean if we kept Don Valley North?

Mr. Collenette: Well, yes, if you kept the 23 ridings or whatever we have within Metro, only minor tinkering would be required. You would preserve the extra member, the current member, or the current constituency so that they could serve this high demand I talked about.

Mr. Richardson: The first priority is to get the section of East York back into your riding; that's from the southern boundary line north.

Mr. Collenette: No, not East York. I'm resigned to that part, but -

Mr. Richardson: I'm just naming it as the municipality of East York.

Mr. Collenette: Well, no. If I could come out of it...I'm not losing any sleep over this, but the residents in the area feel they are in a no-man's land. The little sliver north of the East York-North York boundary to Eglinton Avenue East along Victoria Park, the valley, that little sliver there that I showed you -

Mr. Richardson: I described it as southern municipal boundary. North is Eglinton Avenue, east is Victoria Park and west is the east branch of the Don River.

Mr. Collenette: Yes, this area right here. That's largely factories, I should tell you, but at the north end here - you can see little streets - there are only a few little polls there, a couple of low-rise apartment buildings, and the rest are all residences. These people don't relate in any way down here. They're really part of this community.

Look, on Flemingdon Park, it would be nice because I represented it for so long, but that's sentimentality and there are only so many battles you can win in life.

Mr. Richardson: I'm just going to pass on to you, Mr. Chairman.

It's approximately 1,500, and we can only work in approximates here. That would give you a riding of 104,426. It is not unreasonable and well within the variance deviations allowed. It would have...with Beaches - Woodbine at 100,525...not unreasonable and within the variances allowed. We're talking about a deviation of 2% here.

Mr. Collenette: But they say on page 11 of the revision that the boundary between Don Valley East and Beaches - Woodbine was reviewed; however, to delete the area north of the borough of East York would create an unacceptably low population for the Beaches. But unacceptable to whom? In the previous paragraph they talk about the population of the Beaches being 102,000. So that means it's going to be lower. This doesn't take into account - although I'm arguing against my own argument - the fact that the old Greenwood racetrack is going to be redeveloped and more senior citizens' housing is now going closer to the lake in the Beaches area. But it's not really a big chunk. They can make the adjustment.

Mr. Richardson: Well, it's within the rules as defined that that's a deviation of 15%. We're looking for a deviation from that of about 2% - even less than that, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Collenette: They have York West at 99,230; they have York South - Weston at 104,000; Parkdale - High Park at 104,000; Don Valley East would be 102,926; Beaches - Woodbine at 102,025. So they're basically even. They say it would be unacceptably low, yet it defies the logic they've already put earlier on page 10, where they outline the fact that there are two constituencies with 104,000 and York West, which I didn't really know is so low, at 99,000. It's crazy. I just don't understand why....

.0935

Mr. Richardson: I think we have a problem with this. Whether it's sellable or not, it's just an observation that can be made.

Mr. Collenette: I think the real point, Mr. Richardson, that has to be made forcefully, when you look at Ontario, is that the urban areas are being unfavoured, the old urban areas, and these are areas with the highest demand on the services of the MP because of the nature of the population in terms of social dependency and newness to Canada.

The Chairman: Mr. Hanrahan has a short one and then we'll have to close.

Mr. Hanrahan: Just one quick one, Minister. One of our concerns is the domino effect here. If I understand this correctly, I think it's perhaps more significant than most of the points, the area of Beaches - Woodbine that would go to yours is the only area that would truly be affected. We're not talking about any of the Scarborough areas, Don Valley or any of that.

Mr. Collenette: If you just stopped at that, which certainly I would consider to be a nice victory for the local people, who are somewhat orphaned in that area.... You have to visit it. It's an odd place. Yes, it would mean that the Beaches - Woodbine would have a population of 100,000 or thereabouts and Don Valley East would have a population of...what did I say, 106,000? Maybe that's too high.

Mr. Richardson: It's 104,000.

Mr. Collenette: Yes, because they're both at 102,000 right now, so it would be 104,000. But there are two examples I gave you of 104,000 and change and another example I gave you of York West at 99,000.

So the argument they gave on page 11 doesn't seem to jibe with what they've done elsewhere.

The Chairman: Mrs. Stewart, and that's going to close it for sure.

Mrs. Stewart: Just a final consolidation of my thinking. Specifically, when it comes to your riding, the critical piece is to bring some 1,500 back into the fold and, more broadly, from the point of view of Toronto, to recognize that even though the numbers may not buoy up to the 102,000, there's not logic with that when we look at the rest of the country, and why, given the servicing you have to do, should we have an incremental quota internally. Why can't it look like the rural section? The rural presentations are, look, give us a lower number because we have distance to travel. The urban message is, give us a lower number because we have a level of servicing to deal with.

Mr. Collenette: That's exactly right.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Collenette: Thank you.

The Chairman: We have two or three minutes before our next witness and I notice he's here. Could we go in camera for about five minutes? I just want to establish something with the rest of the committee here.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

.0946

[Public proceedings resume]

The Chairman: The second witness of the day is Mr. Jim Peterson from Willowdale. He has approximately 20 minutes, which includes question time.

Mr. Jim Peterson, MP (Willowdale): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members.

I am blessed to be the member of Parliament for Willowdale, and this is Willowdale as it currently exists.

Do you have my coloured map? What I've lost is in green, and what I am getting is in pink. It is really the green I want to concentrate on.

The green on this larger map consists of this triangle, which is west of Bathurst, over to the Don River West branch. You will also notice that I have lost a little bit that goes over to Chelmsford and cuts from Steeles down to Finch.

Let me explain what Willowdale is all about. Yonge Street is the centre, the 401 is the southerly boundary, and Steeles is the north boundary. This triangle, which consists of approximately 28,000 people, is really the centre of the Jewish community in Toronto.

Mr. Hanrahan: I'm sorry, but I missed that. Which area is the centre of the Jewish community?

Mr. Peterson: It's along Bathurst, particularly to the west of Bathurst.

With this redistribution, the Jewish community has in essence been cut in half.

Mrs. Stewart: What are some of the streets in there?

Mr. Peterson: The main street north and south is Bathurst, which is -

Mrs. Stewart: Just to the west of Bathurst.

Mr. Peterson: The streets just to the west of Bathurst are all cul-de-sacs. One of the biggest streets is Torresdale, which runs north and south, and another is Fisherville, which runs east and west, just south of Steeles.

We also have Finch going through there. Because of the river, the only bridges across the Don River are at Steeles, then south at Finch and south at Sheppard. The river is a natural boundary on the west.

Let me go through some of the institutions contained here. We have at the southerly dot, right at Bathurst and the river - I didn't put it on your little map; it is on my big one here - the Jewish Community Centre. It's really an athletic cultural centre for the entire Jewish population of Toronto. It has a very large membership and does many, many activities. It is a YMCA-type operation. Part of that is Leah Poslun's Theatre and another part is a major art gallery. They are both part of that complex.

.0950

Just to the north of that is the Lipa Green Building, which is built into the side of the hill and contains the head offices for most of the Jewish organizations in Toronto. It also includes one of the finest libraries in North America for Jewish literature.

Then just to the north of that, again on Bathurst, is the home of the National Council of Jewish Women.

Up to the north, on both sides of Bathurst, taken out of Willowdale by the redistribution are the three major synagogues in the area. One is B'nai Torah, which is an orthodox synagogue, and, as you know, it's very important for the orthodox community that they be within walking distance of the synagogue for Shabbat and other holy days.

Just to the north of that on Bathurst we have the Pride of Israel, which is a conservative synagogue that draws from all of this area around here as well.

Then just to the west of Bathurst on Rockford is a new synagogue, which is the home for the Soviet Jewry community. Ever since the Soviet Jews started to pour out of Russia in 1970 - the stream virtually cut off in the early 1980s and perestroika then opened up - this has probably been the major home for Soviet Jews coming to Canada. They have established their own community centre and synagogue with a very active rabbi, Rabbi Zaltzman, and this is really their first home in Toronto.

Both sides of this Bathurst area have high-rise apartments, usually with 22 stories. It's a natural gathering point for this entire community.

Servicing this community as well, apart from all the schools they have, is the Bernard Betel Centre for Creative Living, which is on Steeles Avenue just west of Bathurst. This is a seniors' centre that has over 2,000 members. They have ongoing activities every day of the week there - cultural, craft and learning. They have a library and speakers. They have a cafeteria where they have very cheap food.

It's one of the great experiments in community living, with seniors having a very fulfilling life. Some of those volunteers put in more than 1,000 hours a week. Again, this is all drawn from this Jewish community that is on both sides of Bathurst.

When I saw what had happened to the riding, the first word that came to my mind - and I use this term advisedly - was ``gerrymander''. They took a natural boundary, the river, and made it Bathurst, which splits the Jewish community from the river up to Finch.

If they'd even made Bathurst the boundary, I would have said well, at least Bathurst is a major artery. But what did they do? They took a jog at Finch. They took a jog east to Chelmsford and came up Chelmsford, which is a minor street with stop signs along the way. It just blew my mind that any person would try to juggle a riding like that, with no sense of what it was doing to the community, and without even using a major artery.

So what I'm asking is that this community not be severed - that this natural boundary, the river, be respected as the westerly boundary of Willowdale.

The Chairman: What about the part you've gained? Are you suggesting your riding should be left alone?

Mr. Peterson: They're within 3,000 population of one another, okay? I've lost about 28,000 and gained about 31,000 over there.

In terms of community, this new area - this area in pink - represents many different cultural groups. There's really no reason for drawing the line anywhere. It's currently drawn at Bayview. A more natural boundary would be the east branch of the Don River. There's also a railway track going through there. That is another very natural boundary.

.0955

This is just an add-on. Somebody has given it to me, with no sense. I wouldn't say it belongs to anybody. The more natural is the way it is now, flowing north and south. Those are the lines of communication in the streets.

Mrs. Stewart: When you say it's cut the community in half, describe half to me, Jim.

Mr. Peterson: I wouldn't say half; it's severed it. The Jewish community goes right over to Hilda, really, which is right here on this map.

Mrs. Stewart: Where is Bayview from there?

Mr. Peterson: Here's Bayview, Yonge and Bathurst. What they've really done is to draw that line right down Chelmsford here, a minor street, and to take that little corner out there and then run it down there.

Mrs. Stewart: Is there really any logic at all for Chelmsford?

Mr. Peterson: No, unless somebody has just done a numbers game.

Mrs. Stewart: Yes. That's the only...if it's not gerrymandering, it's strictly numbers. They needed either apartment buildings that added up really -

Mr. Peterson: There are apartment buildings all along Steeles Avenue right over to Yonge, between Yonge and Bathurst.

Mrs. Stewart: So by taking a couple of streets you can add numbers or subtract them pretty quickly.

Mr. Peterson: Whether that was the motive of the drafters of this, I don't know. I'm very suspicious, but I just... I was absolutely shocked when I saw this had happened. I can't understand it.

I have with me copies of letters from some of the people who are affected by the splitting of this community. They're before you. You will see that I have a letter from the chairman and the past-chair of the B'nai Brith Health Centre. They have this close affiliation with Willowdale, from where most of their members have come over the years. The rabbis have written letters from two of these synagogues.

I can get a lot more, if you wish. I don't know what's most helpful to members. I don't want to plague you with letters.

The Chairman: I think if you could leave those you have here with us, you can then decide whether or not you want to muster up more.

Mrs. Stewart: Is that section going to go to York Centre?

Mr. Peterson: Yes. That will be moved into York Centre - again, split by the river.

Let me also say that Willowdale is going to grow rapidly. There is lots of room for development. A lot of new apartment buildings and condos are going up on Yonge Street. There's lots of room for expansion in Willowdale, and it is growing very quickly.

Because of the very nature of the people who have come to Willowdale, we have a very heavy caseload. I suspect that my office in Toronto has almost the heaviest caseload, in terms of immigration, of any riding in the country. We also have all of the things for working with people who have recently come to Canada and who don't know the system. It's going to keep expanding.

Mel Lastman is the mayor of North York. He has a lot more plans for development along Yonge Street. We're getting a lot more development, too, along Finch and along Steeles. The subway, of course, will be going along Sheppard, which is bringing a lot of development into Sheppard.

So my feeling is that in another 10 years Willowdale will be much more populated than it is today.

The Chairman: Hugh.

.1000

Mr. Hanrahan: Thank you, Jim. That's an excellent map.

I'd like you to speculate. I don't want to put you on the spot and I don't want you to feel you have to do this, but this is the first time in our committee that we've heard the term ``gerrymandering''. The splitting of the community makes it obvious to me why this jumps into your brain. Can you speculate at all as to why you think this is happening?

Mr. Peterson: I don't know. I wish I knew why; I wish I'd been at the table. It makes absolutely no sense unless somebody adjusted all the ridings around Willowdale and said the only way we can respect the other boundaries is to chop Willowdale up, in probably the stupidest way that anybody could in terms of respecting community and the way people work.

You see, the Bathurst corridor, apart from all the high-rise apartments, also has all the shopping - specialized shops that serve the community. To put it as charitably as I can, they probably ended up leaving Willowdale as the 99th riding in Ontario that they had to look at, and they said ``Oh, well, we'll just'' -

Mr. Hanrahan: So you were kind of the sacrificial lamb.

Mr. Peterson: Well, I don't mind myself. It's just my people.

Mr. Hanrahan: I have one more question. The letters that you have here are of significance, I think, and we will of course submit them. Did these people appear before the boundaries commission, and if so, were they given any justification for this?

Mr. Peterson: Look, I apologize. I've maybe been asleep at the switch. I can't imagine that any of these were brought before the former boundaries commission, the one that brought this new map into being. I certainly didn't, and if I was not aware of the necessity of having done it, I don't think any of my constituents would have been.

Mr. Hanrahan: That's happened to a lot of us.

Mr. Peterson: I apologize; that's my fault for being asleep at the switch. There's no question that I could get petitions and hundreds of letters, but I felt this was a smattering of what the community consists of and that these letters represent the groups that are there, including the Russian Jewish community and the conservative Jewish community and the Orthodox Jewish community.

Mr. Richardson: Jim, my first question is, was this the first map you saw, or was there a previous map before this one that you saw?

Mr. Peterson: John, this is the first one I've seen.

Mr. Richardson: Remember, this is the revised edition you're looking at.

Mr. Peterson: This is the same. I don't think there have been any revisions to Willowdale, have there?

Mr. Richardson: Then this one's been out for a long time now.

Mr. Peterson: Yes, and I assumed that -

Mrs. Stewart: No one could be so silly?

Mr. Peterson: - the proper procedure was to appear before this group.

The Chairman: That is the proper procedure.

Mr. Peterson: So I got something right today.

Mr. Richardson: But there was a hearing earlier in the ridings, Jim, that we could -

The Chairman: Oh, yes, but what he has done is qualified himself to appear before this group. That's what you should have done.

Mr. Richardson: Yes, okay.

The questions I have are number-type questions. You can see that there was a similarity. They were trying to get to a target number here, and that didn't include ethnic groups or a darn thing when they were crunching this out. That belongs in the second factor, and that's the community of interest aspect.

For the section in green that you lost, do you have an estimate number?

Mr. Peterson: Yes; 28,686.

Mr. Richardson: Whew! And what was the gain, again?

Mr. Peterson: It was 31,415.

Mr. Richardson: Well, that's a significant homogeneous community that you're losing. The section on the right, the northeast section, has not been your riding before?

Mr. Peterson: No, and it is less dense in terms of the population. There are a lot more single family houses and there's no really identifiable community in terms of cultural background or in terms of the divisions, because it just splits up these north-south arteries, including the river, the railway tracks, Leslie Street and Victoria Park.

.1005

Mr. Richardson: I can see what you're talking about. I know a bit about the area, particularly the area you're talking about. Those objections will certainly -

Mr. Peterson: I have not seen, in my life, what I would really call a community based on people of the same beliefs and customs, shopping in the same areas, worshipping together, going to school together. It's a very unique part of Toronto and Canada, as far as I know.

Mr. Richardson: Can I ask one last question? When Bob had what was known as the Downsview riding, the southern part of it to the southeast section had a heavy Jewish community as well.

Mr. Peterson: Bob Kaplan?

Mr. Richardson: Yes. It ran along Sheppard Avenue and south. But it wasn't of the same nature as the one that's in the northeast corner of yours?

Mr. Peterson: Bathurst Street right from about Sinclair north to Steeles is really where the Jewish community in Toronto lives. Sinclair up to Steeles would be maybe six or seven miles. Consider Sinclair to Eglinton, to Lawrence, to Wilson and the 401, then up to Sheppard and then to Finch. It sort of bulges in and out in terms of population density for the community. That is really the heart of the Jewish community in Toronto.

But the densest population is in this particular area, because you not only have the single-family homes, which extend equidistantly out on both sides of Bathurst, but you have the real density of high-rises. This means you get a great number of seniors and a lot of the newly arrived people, some of whom are being sponsored by JIAS, the Jewish Immigrant Aid Services of Canada. A lot of the people who come initially are in subsidized housing. Some of these apartments have been devoted to that.

We have wonderful seniors centres. There are not only the seniors centres, but some apartments here are devoted to seniors and low-income people. Some of them were put up by Metro.

The Chairman: So your main concern, Jim, is that they failed to recognize the importance of community.

Mr. Peterson: Yes, geography is very important because of religion and culture.

The Chairman: We're going to have to move on. Is everybody satisfied? Thanks very much.

.1010

We have Andrew Telegdi from Waterloo, accompanied by John English, who follows him at 10:20 a.m. We're already running 10 minutes late.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi, MP (Waterloo): Maybe, Mr. Chairman, we could save some time. Kitchener - Waterloo is the proposed name, and Kitchener -

The Chairman: Do you want to make a joint presentation?

Mr. John English, MP (Kitchener): We could do that. He could start with his presentation. He's got a written one. I'll follow and comment on his.

The Chairman: We'll think in terms of a half hour then. You can take as much time as you want. But what's left over of that half hour would be for questions from the committee. Is that understood? All right, you may begin. Mr. Hanrahan will be the third. He's here now.

Mr. Telegdi: Very quickly, I'll give an introduction. Certainly in our community, Waterloo region, the proposal on the new boundaries was one that met with a great number of objections. There was a coming together very early of community leaders, municipal councils and local government within the Waterloo region. The local media very much supported our efforts. They did an editorial referring to drawing borders that make sense.

Essentially in their first proposal in January they were going to have a Waterloo region and they were going to add Perth and Wellington to it. We went to the hearings in May and they made some amendments to that. There are a couple of amendments that we'd like to make because we feel that they much ignored the community of interest as it pertains to the city of Waterloo and to the present riding of Kitchener.

I might say that at the local level, at the level of the Waterloo region, we had the coming together of the various political parties, if you will. In the case of Waterloo, the person who ran as a Reform candidate in the last election, who actually ended up filling my seat on the city council, was the person who moved the motion that the city of Waterloo not be divvied up.

Now, if you look at the proposed boundary for the Waterloo riding -

Mr. Hanrahan: I want you to have a copy of the map.

Mr. Telegdi: If you look at the Waterloo boundary, at the top of the map you have the township of Woolwich running across. They've taken out a section of the city of Waterloo, which according to the census has a population of 71,000 plus, and they've added on - this is about 22,000 - a corresponding number and extended the former riding by adding on a corresponding number from Kitchener. That's at the bottom part. If you look from Highland Road over to the Expressway, that's an addition that's being taken away from the existing riding of Kitchener. It didn't make any sense to us to take away a chunk of Waterloo on the one hand and then add to it a chunk of Kitchener.

.1015

Do you have a copy of my presentation?

The Chairman: If you submitted it, we have a copy of it here.

Mr. Telegdi: Basically the presentation recommends giving back to the riding the section in Waterloo at the north end so that the city of Waterloo is intact and giving back to the Kitchener riding the portion that they added to the Waterloo riding.

The Chairman: What would that do to the population?

Mr. Telegdi: The population stays the same. I have it in table 4 on the last page. It gives me a population of 105,765, which is very close to the other one, which was 106,000. So population-wise, the numbers work out quite well.

It allows us to maintain as much of the old riding as possible versus taking some away from Waterloo and giving us some more of Kitchener, which has been represented by the Kitchener riding.

We made that presentation to the commission. They told us that they were there to look at community of interest. At the presentation, we had the mayor of Waterloo making the presentation for keeping Waterloo and not chopping it up the way it was proposed. Unfortunately, that was ignored.

This can be accomplished within the boundaries that they are dedicating to Waterloo, Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo - Wellington. We're not asking them to change the perimeters. We're asking for them to be redrawn so they end up making more sense.

The Chairman: The concern, though, is the failure to respect community.

Mr. Telegdi: That's right. To respect the community of Waterloo and on top of...chop off one section and give us another section over in Kitchener.

The Chairman: Are there any questions? We'll start over here this time.

Mr. Richardson: Andrew, I see what you're trying to do. The centre line faded out on my map.

Mr. Telegdi: This is another map.

Mr. English: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I should speak now. It's a complementary presentation. So probably it might be more useful if I spoke now.

The Chairman: Perhaps we can settle down here with these maps.

John English is going to speak now and then we can direct questions to either or both of them at the same time.

Mr. English: I'll be very brief. I just want to expand upon Mr. Telegdi's comments.

We made a joint presentation to the boundaries commission. We argued that fundamentally Waterloo region has a population of 400,000. At the provincial level there are four seats and for the community the boundaries are quite comfortable. People have identified themselves with these boundaries. They make sense.

We have therefore suggested to the boundaries commissioners that in general the provincial boundaries should be followed because they respect quite fully community of interest and there's also some tradition attached. There is a problem that we don't have quite enough population based on the 1991 census for four ridings, but a small portion could be taken from elsewhere.

Subsequent to the report of the boundaries commission, Mr. Telegdi carefully analysed the numbers and came up with a satisfactory proposal for me as the member for Kitchener. As he indicated before, we have very widespread support within the community. At the presentation in Hamilton to the boundaries commissioners, we had representatives of the Reform Party, of the New Democratic Party - both the candidates who ran against Mr. Telegdi - as well as the mayor of Waterloo, who is identified prominently with the Conservative Party, and support from the Conservative Party as well.

.1020

Moreover, the regional council unanimously supported the proposals we put forward, as did the local newspaper, as Mr. Telegdi has indicated. A very strong editorial and several articles were written in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record suggesting that the kinds of proposals we were bringing forward to in general follow the provincial boundaries were appropriate for the community.

When the final presentations were made by the boundaries commission, we found that they had accepted one of our suggestions, which was that the Waterloo riding be called Kitchener - Waterloo, but in general there had been very little revision to proposals they had put...North Dumfries Township, but not in the context of Kitchener - Waterloo. Very little attention was paid to the community of interest that had been expressed by all these local journalists, local politicians and the community in general.

As Mr. Telegdi said, the fundamental difficulty with this new boundary is that parts of Kitchener that have been associated for a very long time with the Kitchener riding are separated. Indeed, the actual boundary line for Kitchener Centre riding in Kitchener - Waterloo runs through the middle of streets, through the middle of...not houses, but it isn't a clear-cut natural boundary.

I raised this point along with Mr. Telegdi in Hamilton, and one of the commissioners indicated that he knew the area fairly well because his wife came from the area. But in the discussion as it developed, there was an indication that we were sort of left over, that the commission had started in Windsor, and I suppose in Ottawa, and ended up in Kitchener - Waterloo and had to put the pieces together. I fear that's exactly what we ended up with.

Consequently, we were left with the situation where the Waterloo riding, which as a community is a city of roughly 85,000 people -

Mr. Telegdi: Depending on how -

Mr. English: - but 85,000 now, which has a long tradition of separateness from the city of Kitchener - in fact, emphasis perhaps on their separation from that city. It now loses part of the community to a largely rural riding and then picks up a part of Kitchener that has long been identified with the city of Kitchener. Consequently, Mr. Telegdi will become an MP who has most of his electors from the city of Kitchener; Waterloo is, within that riding, a minority. In terms of community of interest in representing the interests of that city, I think it's a most unfortunate outcome.

The Chairman: When you relate it to the provincial boundaries, you're aware that's likely to change.

Mr. English: Sure.

The Chairman: You wouldn't want to get too firmly fixed to that.

Mr. English: No, we were making the argument at the time that those boundaries, which are more or less what Mr. Telegdi has proposed, are satisfactory in terms of the community.

The Chairman: Now we will have questions to either or both of you.

Mr. Hanrahan: I'm interested in two areas. The public input that you have obtained and submitted seems extensive, yet it had little influence on the committee itself. Did they basically ignore it?

Mr. English: One of the commissioners said very clearly that we presented a problem, because they did end up in our area coming up from Niagara and coming up from Windsor. When they got to our area, they had to patch it together to make the numbers fit. To give the commissioners some credit for their difficulties, perhaps there was a problem once they got to our region in terms of sorting out the numbers. But Mr. Telegdi has gone very carefully through the numbers and has come up with a much more effective system of division of boundaries. It's really just by looking at it very carefully and knowing the community and where the lines of community of interest do run.

Mr. Telegdi: What we didn't do with the commission, and in retrospect we should have done, was to draw up the map putting in the boundaries and what have you. At this point we're not arguing about the perimeter of the four ridings. What we're saying is how you've divvying it up.

.1025

There have been three existing ridings, and a new riding is being created as well, which sort of corresponds somewhat to Kitchener - Wilmot, a provincial riding.

If I had to go to the commission again, I would go with maps and say these numbers work, and it best protects the communities of interest the commission said was one of their primary considerations.

Mr. Hanrahan: Are these other two ridings basically in agreement with what you are saying?

Mr. Telegdi: The other riding is Cambridge. The argument - and Mrs. Stewart would be familiar with this - is that North Dumfries, a township with long historical ties to Cambridge, should be part of the Cambridge riding instead of being put off into a riding to the south. They listened on that one.

What they messed up on, as far as we're concerned, was drawing the fine lines.

Mr. English: We argued that on behalf of Mr. Peric, the member for Cambridge. They did listen to us when we argued on his behalf, but I guess not on our own behalf.

The Chairman: You made some progress.

Mr. Richardson: Not on our behalf, though.

Mr. Hanrahan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Jane.

Mrs. Stewart: No, go ahead, John.

Mr. Richardson: I haven't broken the code, because the additions - John or Andrew, either one of you can answer - for 101.02 equal 4,600. Is that a square block or part of the gridding of the community here?

Mr. Telegdi: That's part of the census map. I assumed you guys would have this one, because you do in your book.

Mr. Richardson: Yes, we do.

Mr. Telegdi: That was the census map, and it's one one of the things we used. We used community district maps to come up with those figures.

Mr. Richardson: Could you just identify where 101.02 is, so that we can orient ourselves?

Mrs. Stewart: It's here, John.

Mr. Richardson: Okay, we have it.

Mr. Telegdi: You're looking at the Waterloo - Wellington, which comes along here and takes in the townships.

Mr. Richardson: That's what it is. In other words, this is where the people did the census. This is the block they worked out of.

Mr. Telegdi: Yes.

Mr. Richardson: That tells you the amount of people: 014.01 in Kitchener Centre for John. That would be here. There are 7,000 people living there.

Mr. Telegdi: That's right.

Mr. Richardson: There must be a lot of high-rise apartments in that area.

I see what you've done. You've taken the census map and translated the data from that onto this.

Certainly, if anything, there's balance. The new map....

This is confusing. When we transpose that map on top of an overlay on this map, it does seem to take out a lot of the wrinkles.

These areas down, 004.01, would go into the Waterloo - Wellington....

Mr. English: It would be like a doughnut there.

Mr. Richardson: They would then...out around the airport. Does that go into it as well?

Mr. Telegdi: Yes.

Mr. Richardson: Okay. Then your two ridings essentially become urban only.

Mr. Telegdi: It would be like Kitchener - Wilmot, to some extent. The provincial boundary would....

Mr. English: I think the major difficulty we have with this - and it may seem I'm arguing for Andrew's case more than my own - is that in the city of Waterloo, in the situation where you have twin cities, as anyone can imagine there is a really strong identity within that community. What has been done here, taking an old community of Kitchener, an old part of the community of Kitchener, and taking one of the newer parts of Waterloo and putting it into the Waterloo - Wellington riding, a largely rural riding, it really undermines that community quite fully.

.1030

The final thing is that Andrew Telegdi is a 50-50 MP, with 50% in Waterloo and 50% in Kitchener. It creates difficulty for representation, relations with the councils, questions of this kind. In terms of the basic question of representation, it is a much more difficult situation for both of us for the future because the identity is not so clear: what do you represent?

The Chairman: Research staff, I was wondering if you would mark in on the big map.... How would you...?

Mr. Richardson: I can see here that, really, the hollow on the north for Andrew is no longer dipping down along the County Squire Road. Everything up to County Squire Road would now be in the new Waterloo riding.

Mr. Telegdi: That's right, the city of Waterloo, basically.

Mr. Richardson: Is Victoria Street the main boundary between Waterloo and Kitchener?

Mr. Telegdi: That is the main boundary. The new proposal is that we come down Highland Road West, which is the existing boundary, and run down Queen Street to Joseph, and cut over to Victoria Street. There's a little jig in there to....

I have the verbal description for those two ridings on the back.

With the present proposal, actually, Waterloo would be a minority within the riding, and by the next census Waterloo will.... According to the census figures it has a population of 17,000, but what they don't count is the 15,000 students because that's not picked up by the census. So I ended up having 120,000 electors in the last election, which is quite a bit higher than the surrounding ridings. Be that as it may, Waterloo will ultimately be a riding by itself, and there'll be a new riding coming into Kitchener -

Mr. Richardson: Because of its size.

Mr. Telegdi: - because Kitchener keeps growing.

Mr. Hanrahan: Are they not counting the students at the University of Waterloo?

Mr. Telegdi: No. According to the legislation, they're not counted.

Mr. Richardson: By enumeration only.

Mr. Hanrahan: Oh, I see.

The Chairman: For the census they would be registered at home, I guess.

Mr. Richardson: Yes.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions? Is everybody happy?

As soon as that map is fixed the way the research staff would like, we'll be ready for our next witness.

Mr. Richardson: I have one suggestion from this. In regard to those ridings that have large universities, there has to be a caveat in there somewhere that traditionally, if an election is held during the time that the students are in place, that would add another 20,000 votes to it. That's a significant appreciation in votes.

The Chairman: But it's a tough one, though.

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes, I think it's something we want to look at in terms of, perhaps, our comments.

My own riding has the University of Alberta. That's 35,000 students.

The Chairman: We'll make a note of that as a factor, but it would be rather tricky to build it in. It depends on when the election is. So how would you account for that?

Mr. Hanrahan: But I think they could work something out.

The Chairman: I think it's worth mentioning.

Mr. Telegdi: The only good part about the students is that they give you a bigger budget. But in terms of the accounting....

The Chairman: Is that satisfactory, John and Andrew?

Mr. English: The streets aren't marked on that map, so we'll have to get a copy of it and....

The Chairman: We have enough.

Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate your coming out.

Mr. Hanrahan: Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. English: Thank you.

The Chairman: The next witness is here. It's Ed Harper from Simcoe Centre.

Ed, we're running about five minutes early.

Mr. Ed Harper, MP (Simcoe Centre): Gee, do I get an extra five minutes?

The Chairman: It is my thinking that you were to start at 10:40 a.m. and it's only 10:35 a.m. You get 20 minutes, Ed, and you can use as much as you like of that 20 minutes to talk, but we'll use whatever is left over for questions to you. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Harper: Fair enough.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to talk about the proposed boundary changes.

.1035

I'll say at the outset that the task of doing this is indeed an onerous one - and I appreciate that - because of the population increases and the shifts in populations that have taken place since 1981. I can reflect on my own city of Barrie. In 1981 I think Barrie had a population of 44,000; by 1991 the population had jumped to 60,000. Presently, we're posting a sign at the boundaries that says 70,000.

There is tremendous growth in some areas, and to accommodate this was a tremendous challenge for the people who were resetting the boundaries.

I will say that I am not one who believes anyone was changing the boundary lines to reinforce or destroy particular ridings.

I think the people who had the task had a great challenge in front of them. When you are changing boundaries and move one line in your particular riding, it causes a change in another riding and sets off what could be a chain reaction across Canada or Ontario.

The concern I have was expressed by some people in what is known as the village of Midhurst, just north of my riding.

Mr. Hanrahan: Ed, what page are you on in the book?

Mr. Harper: I have in front of me the map of my riding; it's southern Ontario, map number 2. That's what we're discussing today.

I was approached by some of the people in the village of Midhurst, because they were concerned about the proposed changes and how it would impact on them. What we're looking at is the riding of Simcoe - Grey, which will take in the village of Midhurst, versus the new riding of Barrie - Simcoe.

Midhurst, as a village, has some 3,000 voters in it. There are a good number of voters in that village. When we take a look at the new riding of Simcoe - Grey, I think the population indicated in there is some 99,000. The major centre in that new riding would appear to be Collingwood, with a population of 14,700.

In all likelihood, if that riding were to stay as it is, the riding office of whoever ends up representing the federal government and being the MP would certainly be in Collingwood, since that is the major centre in the riding.

On that assumption, people living in the village of Midhurst would have a 45-kilometre drive, or a one-hour drive, because there is not what you would call a super highway up to the Collingwood riding. It's a good distance away from the people who are going to be represented in that riding. At the moment they are only about 5 kilometres away from Barrie, where I have my riding office.

I think even more important than that is what is referred to quite often as this community of interest. With Midhurst being on Barrie's doorstep, the people in the main are employed in Barrie. Their jobs are in Barrie. The schools are in Barrie, the malls are in Barrie, the library is in Barrie, and the arena is in Barrie. So the community of interest is very much in the city of Barrie.

I would suggest that there is little or no community of interest in Collingwood or what would be the northern part of that new riding.

It's therefore this concern about doing the best for the voters in that area that has motivated me to come and make the presentation on their behalf today.

In looking at the downside of what I'm suggesting, the downside would be that the township of Springwater, the new township that was formed between Vespra and Flos, would have two members of Parliament. I am not so sure that it is all bad. I am not so sure that it is a deterrent. I think having two members of Parliament could probably work more often in their favour than if they were represented by just one.

Briefly, I'm here today to ask you to take a look at what would best serve the voters in that area, and I would suggest to you very strongly that the voters in that area are very much Barrie oriented. They would have much more in common with Barrie - Simcoe than with the new riding it is proposed they be a part of. On that basis, I would ask you to take a look at that submission and, in the end, indeed do what would be best for our voters. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

.1040

The Chairman: Thank you. To summarize it, you would say the report, as you see it now, failed to respect the community as a community?

Mr. Harper: Yes. The needs, wants and interests of the community of Midhurst are not in the new riding.

Mr. Hanrahan: Ed, I'm sorry. I've been trying to follow these areas on the map, and I might have missed it. What are the changes in numbers in terms of the boundary changes?

Mr. Harper: The current Simcoe - Grey riding is shown as a population of 99,500. Barrie - Simcoe is, I believe, 102,000. So what I'm suggesting, if it were to go through, would increase that 102,000 up to about 106,000. You would increase Barrie - Simcoe and decrease Simcoe - Grey by approximately 4,000, which would go down.

Mr. Hanrahan: Have you made a presentation to the boundaries committee itself?

Mr. Harper: No, I have not.

Mr. Hanrahan: You have no reaction from them whatsoever?

Mr. Harper: No.

Mr. Hanrahan: The feeling within the constituency and the community would be supportive, I would assume, of what you're saying here? Have you any editorials from papers or organizations who have written you that object to the boundary changes?

Mr. Harper: I don't have editorials or anything in writing. What I'm basing my presentation on is verbal requests to my office. At town hall meetings I've held in my riding, people have come to me and indicated they had a concern with it. They asked me to express that concern to this committee.

Mr. Richardson: I think that Ed makes a point based on a community of interest. His neighbouring riding is going to be quite a riding to service.

Mrs. Stewart: How far up is Midhurst, Ed? We see Vespra on this map.

Mr. Harper: Midhurst is about three kilometres north of Barrie.

Mrs. Stewart: So it's just outside your boundary?

Mr. Harper: Yes, it's just outside the boundary.

Mrs. Stewart: In terms of distance to Collingwood, as you point out, it is certainly a lot closer than some of the southern parts of Simcoe - Grey. The proximity to Barrie is approximately three kilometres.

Mr. Harper: Oh yes. Let's assume that Collingwood would have the riding office. There would be a riding office there, whether the MP could afford two or not. That's a drive of 45 kilometres for those people to see their MP if they wish to go to the riding office.

The Chairman: Part of what you have left with us, Ed, becomes part of the report that will be submitted along with the other voluminous pile of paper. Have you anything further to add?

Mr. Harper: In closing, I appreciate the difficulty of this job. I know it is not easy redrawing boundaries. As I said at the beginning, I don't believe for a minute that anybody has been attempting to do this for political purposes. It was a tough job, and I appreciate that. I do think these communities of interest are very important, because, in the final analysis, we have to do what is best for the voters we're representing, and I think this change would do that.

The Chairman: We appreciate that very much.

.1045

PAUSE

.1056

The Chairman: The next witness is Karen Kraft Sloan from York - Simcoe.

Karen, you have twenty minutes. You can talk for the full twenty minutes or you can give us some time to ask questions, but it's a twenty-minute time slot.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Mr. Chairman, my submission is very brief. I have a brief brief, you might say. You need a little bit of humour. It's been a long morning, right?

Thank you for this opportunity to speak this morning. As I said, my request is a simple one. I would ask that the committee consider changing the proposed name for my new riding from Newmarket - Georgina to the more inclusive label of York North.

I filed a submission with the committee back in July requesting the name change. The commission failed to give consideration to the following.

First, the name of the proposed electoral riding, Newmarket - Georgina, ignores the other two municipalities that make up the riding, specifically East Gwillimbury and King Township. As well there is the loss of a historical identifier for the area through the loss of the York name.

The riding name of York North has been in existence since the turn of the century. In fact, the riding of York North was once represented by the Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King. I requested that the committee consider changing the name from Newmarket - Georgina to York North.

The name York North is preferable because it does not leave out municipalities not included in the riding name, specifically East Gwillimbury and King Township. As an MP and a representative of the government, I do not wish to slight any part of the riding. As well, I'm a resident of East Gwillimbury.

It is representative of the geography the riding occupies: the northern part of the York region. The present riding of York North is eliminated in the proposed boundary changes and therefore no confusion will be made. Finally, it maintains the historical identifier of the riding.

Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions you might have.

The Chairman: Thank you. That's very succinct.

Mr. Hanrahan: In terms of the name change, have you submitted this to the committee already?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, I did.

Mr. Hanrahan: Have they rejected it?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I don't know. I don't have any information on that. All I know is that I was to appear before this subcommittee.

Also, three local councils supported the name change.

Mr. Hanrahan: That was my second question - the community support for the name change. Is it extensive?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, it's far more inclusive.

Newmarket was one of the towns mentioned in the name change and one of the municipalities that suggested we look at York North.

Mr. Hanrahan: Do you have documentation showing support from councils?

.1100

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I have one letter of support from one of the councils and I can certainly provide the other documentation as well. I believe the other documents were submitted with my request that was undertaken in July.

Mr. Hanrahan: Thank you.

The Chairman: We have to have this report in, Karen, by the 16th of this month, so if you have anything to add you'll have to move ahead with it and get it in to the clerk.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, we'll get that to you right away.

Mr. Hanrahan: There are no boundary changes. You're happy with what you have.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Well, it is with a great deal of sadness that I lose almost one-third of my riding because I have a lot of friends in the other parts of the riding and I have certainly enjoyed working with those municipalities. However, it is a very large riding both in geography and population. It is unfortunate that I do lose sections of the riding. However, that's not for me to say. I understand why decisions have to be made. I'm most concerned about the name and that it reflect the historical, geographic and political considerations of the area in terms of the municipalities.

The Chairman: What will that lead to, Karen, number-wise?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Ninety-nine.

The Chairman: So you're right around the 100. Questions, Jane?

Mrs. Stewart: No, I'm just looking at the other monikers for the ridings: York South - Weston, York Centre, York West. Why not a York North?

The Chairman: John?

Mr. Richardson: I just saw that too. The difference here is the York that Karen is talking about is quite a bit out of that. It's up in the far north.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes. It is indeed the northern part of York region and so it makes a lot of sense.

The Chairman: Any further questions?

Mrs. Stewart: Was there any reference in the -

Mr. Richardson: Yes, there was.

Mrs. Stewart: And what did it say?

Mr. Richardson: It says the proposed name of York North was considered confusing given the names of certain districts of Metropolitan Toronto area and the existing district of York North. Therefore the name of Newmarket - Georgina was chosen.

Mrs. Stewart: Tough. Who is the name for? It's for the people who live there, not the people who are drawing the map.

The Chairman: You're familiar with the reasoning there, are you, Karen? You don't agree with it?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Are you referring to North York? Well, this is York North.

Mr. Richardson: This was the decision made by the boundary commissioners.

Mrs. Stewart: On your submission they turned you down.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I hadn't been made aware of that, but how do I -

Mrs. Stewart: By doing this.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay.

It's not acceptable. There is a large number of people who live in East Gwillimbury and King and they are left out of this. As I said earlier, the Municipality of Newmarket, which is certainly reflected in the dual name, is very much in support of changing the name to York North. I think it's very important if we want to be inclusive.

I represent people in Newmarket and Georgina, but I represent people in East Gwillimbury and King. I don't think we would want to be Newmarket - Georgina - East Gwillimbury - King. There has always been a riding called York North since pre-Confederation. I think it's very important to continue that historical tradition.

The Chairman: You don't agree with their rationale here?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: No, I don't.

Mrs. Stewart: In the definition of the new riding it starts out:

consisting of (a) that part of the Regional Municipality of York contained in

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The northern part of -

Mrs. Stewart: Exactly.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Previously my riding was York - Simcoe and had a large portion of its boundary area within Simcoe county. But now all of it is contained within the region of York.

The Chairman: How many municipalities would there be in the riding that you're going to get, the new riding?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Four.

The Chairman: And you've heard from three of them that they wouldn't object to York North.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, and I'm sure the other municipality wouldn't object either, because this is far more inclusive.

The Chairman: Further questions? Thank you very much, Karen. Have you anything further to submit to us?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: If we're unable to undertake a name change through this process then I would be forced to put a private member's bill or something on the floor of the House, and we certainly wouldn't want to have to take up House time.

The Chairman: It's important that that will be in the record, that you're prepared to go all the way if they're not willing to do it this way.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, absolutely.

From the kind of response that I've had from the committee this morning, I sincerely appreciate your support. I think it's a very clear, very simple request, and I think it makes a lot of sense. My constituents thank you as well.

The Chairman: We thank you for coming here this morning, Karen.

.1105

We've asked for Jerry Pickard, who's next up at 11:20 a.m., to get over here as soon as he can. Let's suspend for five minutes until Pickard gets here.

.1106

PAUSE

.1107

The Chairman: Jerry Pickard is here and we're back in business. Jerry is from the current riding of Essex - Kent.

There's a total of twenty minutes for your presentation and the questions it may generate. Go ahead.

Mr. Jerry Pickard, MP (Essex - Kent): Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I have to say that your task is a daunting one, there's no question about that, but I appreciate the opportunity to come forward and present maybe a different perspective from the one we got from the electoral commission that went out and did the work looking at riding distribution.

I could focus on many, many issues. When I was originally notified that I would have a chance to come before the committee, they suggested I might have seven to ten minutes to bring forth some of my concerns. Well, I think it's really important to focus on a couple of issues that are of great concern to me in Ontario.

Each area has to look at the problems that are generated by legislation, by the Constitution, by all the different bodies and pieces of legislation that affect each riding. I have no question that when we look at the clauses that are in effect, the Senate floor clauses that would protect P.E.I., having four seats.... When we look at numbers, the general thrust of this country has been to make sure that representation at least comes on a fair basis from all areas, regardless of the population, regardless of the numbers of people. I could use Saskatchewan as an example. It has a million people. According to the formula being used nationally, they probably should have ten seats in the House of Commons, but they have fourteen.

We can go province by province and come to the realization that the only ones that are held very closely by the averages are Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. The rest seem to have little variances that allow special clauses, special representation, province by province. The point isn't that there shouldn't be consideration given to those. The point is that we have to show within that whole representation by population that the needs may be different in different localities.

That being a basis on which we can start thinking, let's look at Ontario. Ontario being the most populated province, maybe we didn't take into account the same concerns when this commission did its final boundary line drawing. I had an opportunity to look at the maps, and it appears they started at one end of the province and haphazardly drew lines and said, okay, here's 100,000 people - zap; here's another 100,000 people - zap.

The city of Windsor is a good example. You divide it into 108,000 in one riding and 107,000 in the other. Those are just lines that are drawn to give a number relevance so that representation by population is upheld. Then they came across Essex County and did the same kind of thing: 100,000 in Sue Whelan's riding - zap - the new riding is created; going over another 107,000, draw another line. That's one means by which to do it.

.1110

Why we have academics doing that kind of work is questionable in my mind. I think it has been clearly shown that there are other elements to representation. I don't think they took into account the community of interest or the nature of the development of the areas. They didn't take into account a lot of other factors that should have been taken into account, such as the differences in rural representation in comparison to urban representation in this House.

So I would like to review a couple of them. First and foremost I would point out that the area I represent right now is a predominantly rural riding. That rural riding is composed of a very high agriculture industry and the largest fishing industry in the world as far as freshwater fishing goes. I have a very high connection with the auto industry, with subsidiary plants and workers migrating into the city of Windsor and the city of Chatham to work. So the nature of the riding is very much rural with some urban employment that is created from bedroom communities moving into the larger community.

Interestingly enough, the way the divisions have occurred, the town of Leamington, which has approximately 15,000 people, is merged with the city of Chatham, which has some 40,000 people. In reality it makes a rural riding into an urban riding with a much larger urban population, albeit a low urban population. But it changes it from a rural aspect to an urban aspect. So it takes out a lot of the rural viewpoints and concerns.

That's a major concern I have. The rural communities are losing a fair amount of voice and there's a shift towards small urban community as such. When we look at the number of urban dwellers we would have in the newly structured riding, it would be well over half, which before it was not.

Southwestern Ontario is losing one seat in Parliament. It seems to me you're adding a burden to our southwestern area by removing a seat in that area. Is it because there's not adequate representation? Is it because there's too much representation? Is it because of other factors?

I think the driving, motivating force of that whole change is the very rapid growth of our urban population around the cities of Toronto, Ottawa and Kitchener. We're seeing very rapid, expanding urban growth.

We have some ridings with 250,000 people in them. That's unacceptable and I certainly understand that. But should Essex - Kent and the small rural areas be the ones that pay the price? Why is it not possible to look collectively at Toronto and at the immediate Toronto area, show where that population growth is occurring and do some readjustments within that community? I think that would resolve a lot of problems.

When people argue that representation by population is the way to go, I want to point out another fact. I think statistical data would show that representation by population in this government is not necessarily fair for the rural communities in the first place.

I would use the example of the Senate as what I think is paramount in looking at representation. If we look at the number of senators in Ontario, there were 24 as of six months ago. Since then Jean-Robert Gauthier, a lady from Brampton and a lady from Sudbury have been appointed to the Senate. That would give 27 seats in the Senate from Ontario.

There had to be some alterations because some people were out. Six months ago there were 24. I'm not sure how that adjustment in Ontario has occurred, but we have to be close to those numbers. I would make the point that there's not one senator from southwestern Ontario. That means there's no representation in that House from southwestern Ontario.

.1115

There are 13 senators listed for Metro Toronto with Metro Toronto addresses. There are six senators from Ottawa and the Ottawa region. Including Jean-Robert Gauthier would make that seven. There are three with addresses near Toronto, and there are two remaining senators, one from Sudbury and one from Sault Ste. Marie. The recently appointed one from Sudbury would mean that every senator represents the urban community of Ontario.

So rural Ontario has 27 or 25 - whatever number of voices that is - fewer voices in this government. Maybe they're not representing the House of Commons, but they are representing this government and they are voices for people.

You can either look at Metro Toronto as one individual government or you can look at it as a collection of several large communities. When an issue arises - the waterfront is a good example - you have 20 members of Parliament, 10 ministers, and 10 senators who are ready to act. You have a collection of a lot of people. If that same issue arises in Leamington, you don't have a senator or cabinet minister there; you have a member of Parliament who has to handle it individually, not as part of a collective group.

The identity of a rural member of Parliament is more important to those small communities than the identity of an individual member of Parliament in a Toronto riding. There's no question about that.

Certainly I think you have to look at the nature of the type of representation. I'm glad to see we have some rural members of Parliament sitting here, because you certainly know the difference in the types of representations you have to make.

In my riding, I have 31 municipalities, including five school boards and all kinds of groups of people I have to meet. If somebody asks me to go to a legion, I have to identify which one it is of seven. If the mayor wants to meet, I have to decide which one it is of 30. When we're talking about infrastructure programs, I have to decide all of the different paperwork. Everything that's happening within all the different communities is an aspect of mine.

If I were a member of Parliament from Toronto, I would be in concert with maybe ten other members of Parliament who deal with the city of Toronto. I certainly don't have the same obligation and the same work to do. I think it's been very clear that rural members of Parliament, in fact, are in a very different perspective when they talk about representation.

That leads me to some of the conclusions that have been given by the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to representation. All one has to do is look at some of the Supreme Court rulings under J. McLachlin. It was pointed out that there should be a 25% variation in electoral boundaries because it is more difficult to represent a rural riding. Look at the pressures of time, the number of communities you represent, the number of different interest groups you represent, and the travel involved. All of those issues bring up a very different nature.

I hear the urban arguments in some of these very large ridings. Someone says he has more immigration cases than anybody else, so he has to have all of these office people and this and that. That's surely a matter of going over the same issues and dealing with a community.

Say you have 250,000 people within your riding. I've heard Carolyn Parrish would be very concerned about this. I have some sympathy with that as well. But that could be alleviated by redistribution within the Toronto area rather than taking from the rest of rural Ontario and bringing it back into the collectivity of enforcing and strengthening the Toronto concerns.

I think we have a very strong voice in the cabinet, Senate and House of Commons from Toronto. If an issue comes up, we have a huge lobby. So there's no question about this balance of representation. I don't see it being reflected in rural, small communities as I see it in large communities.

The judges' determination, when they were talking about it, made it very clear that there should be other factors involved. I quite frankly think that if we don't take into account that community of interest, the difference in representation, and the changes and dynamics that occur when we make adjustments then we're not dealing with the issue properly.

.1120

Coming back specifically to my riding, I have the city of Chatham, a community of 45,000 people, and the town of Leamington, a community of basically 15,000 people. What have been historic connections? Well, the major centre in Essex County being the city of Windsor, most of Essex County has always looked for jobs, looked for connections, looked for newspaper and media connections, all of it, with the city of Windsor. There's a very strong relationship correlation there.

The city of Chatham is in another area, in Kent County, and is a very different community. I don't know of anybody who travels from Leamington to Chatham or Chatham to Leamington for employment. Those circumstances, those connections, just are not there. However, they're very strong the other way. As a result, the city of Chatham made very strong representation to not connect Leamington and Chatham and make that.... It just doesn't make any sense at all. Geographically it doesn't make sense and historically it doesn't make sense. The industries they represent - it doesn't make sense.

However, it does make sense to deal with the boundaries that previously were there. It's a much better scenario for both Kent County and Essex County. It's a better scenario for Windsor and Leamington. It's a better scenario for Chatham and Kent County.

As a result, there are pretty strong connections with communities of interest that weren't even looked at by the commission. They looked at numbers. I've repeated a few things because I think they're significant and important in what was done. It was done by a sheer division of numbers rather than by looking at all the other factors that are important. It was done to appease expanding growth at the edges of large urban centres to the detriment of what I would say is rural Ontario. Ontario's in a very different situation from the rest of Canada. Each province has certain protections built into the Constitution, built into agreements we have made. As a result, I think Ontario is taking the bottom kick from most of what's going on.

The Chairman: We have a few minutes for questions.

Mrs. Stewart: You are aware that Toronto is losing a seat, too.

Mr. Pickard: I really -

Mrs. Stewart: It's just interesting that the arguments you're making are for the rural sections -

Mr. Pickard: There is a change in a seat in Toronto -

Mrs. Stewart: One gone.

Mr. Pickard: - but number-wise, my suggestion isn't that we identify something and run a number across the province. My whole point is that if there are areas of growth that are causing major problems - a 250,000-seat riding is a major problem - let's take the region it's composed in, the metropolitan area, and let's reassess the whole metropolitan area rather than spill it all over the province and make your corrections completely across the province.

That's against the nature of any kind of community of interests. That's just a straight mathematical thing. Quite frankly, I think anybody in elementary school could have done that exercise and come up with straight numbers. I'm not sure that accomplishes what we're after.

Yes, I am aware that there's a riding change in Toronto.

Mr. Hanrahan: Jerry, you've given us some very philosophical and deep considerations here that we haven't quite been used to, really, in that most people are arguing this section of my constituency should be over here, or whatever. But when you get into areas such as urban versus rural, Senate in addition to the members of the House, I don't know if that's within the area of responsibility we have or even if there's anything we can -

Mr. Pickard: May I point out that the argument this affects is that, yes, you're dealing with representation by area to area to area. Representation in the Canadian government is not just the representation in the House of Commons; it's also the representation in the cabinet, it's the representation in the Senate, and it's the representation that we see.

.1125

There's no representation in the Senate for rural Canada, so the argument that the House of Commons should have 100,000 people by each seat doesn't necessarily hold true. That's a pretty false argument when you look at what the Senate has done, and our continued process appoints senators from urban areas. In the cabinet we have urban representation as well.

What we don't have is that extra representation in rural Canada. Why do we have to have just as many people in each riding in a rural seat? It doesn't make sense.

Mr. Hanrahan: I don't necessarily disagree with you, Jerry, and I appreciate your using these arguments, ultimately, to keep Leamington in a separate constituency from Chatham. Is that the bottom line that we're arguing here?

Mr. Pickard: My bottom line is that if the process is allowed to continue on numbers, eventually rural Canada will be totally without a voice, decimated to a greater extent than it is now. With no voice in the Senate, that's a problem. With no voice in the cabinet, that's a problem. Reduce the voice in the House of Commons, that's a problem. I'm pointing out a problem, rural versus urban, and I think it's critical.

Mr. Hanrahan: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a presentation that we must be very aware of and one that we want to make sure is submitted in our comments. I think Jerry has some very valid points here. I don't know how to deal with them at this particular moment. It's more of a philosophical thing.

I see it as a practical thing, as well. However, it does seem to me to this point that yes, you're right, there was kind of a ruler and a number, and that seemed to be the predominant concern in many of these redistributions. We have three days, and to integrate this into our arguments is going to be very difficult.

The Chairman: Can you leave your report with us?

Mr. Pickard: I have no report. I can give you a ton of information.

This was a presentation I made to the committee in 1994, which had similar arguments about rural-urban. This has the quotations from the Supreme Court justice. I presented that to the committee. I will give you that. I also have a presentation I made to the committee during the original study in our area. That deals with Chatham - Kent County.

Mrs. Stewart: Susan's line of thinking will be similar to yours, I suspect.

Mr. Pickard: I think Susan has used some of the things that I took out of the Supreme Court. She had McLachlin's comments.

I can show you the Windsor growth. Windsor is interesting, because we are getting cut back in Windsor and Essex County. Since 1990 $6 billion has been spent in Windsor and Essex County in just the manufacturing sector - $6 billion in five years. That's a growth area. I don't care how it's coming down.

Eventually, they are going to have a hell of a lot of people, whether they move in quickly or not. Windsor is a vastly growing area as far as industry goes. I have no question that exploitation of that Michigan market...there are more people within a half a day's drive of the city of Windsor than there are sitting in Canada. Most people don't realize that.

The Chairman: So you're saying they failed to recognize the anticipated growth of the area.

Mr. Pickard: Yes. I could only touch on a few things, but if you would like more information, I'll give you all you want. I'll leave you those two documents.

The Chairman: The clerk would be glad to pick them up.

We've exhausted the 20 minutes, Jerry, and gone over by a minute or two, but we want to thank you for coming out. We're trying to keep to a schedule. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Pickard: I'm sorry I wasn't as organized and had a prepared brief for you, but I hope I left some thoughts that are different from others.

The Chairman: You've done very well.

To the committee, our next witness is here. We thank you, Rose-Marie, for coming over just a little early for your 20 minutes.

Rose-Marie Ur is from Lambton - Middlesex.

.1130

I guess you already heard, Rose-Marie, that we're limiting it to 20 minutes. You can speak for 20 minutes if you like or you can leave a few minutes for questioning. You can start any time you're ready.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur, MP (Lambton - Middlesex): My format will probably be much the same as Jerry's. I am sure you're well aware of the map. Sometimes it's a little easier to follow a delivery if you have a map to follow.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to bring my concerns regarding the proposed reconfiguration of my present riding of Lambton - Middlesex into the new riding of Lambton - Kent - Middlesex.

This is not a new proposal. From 1964 to 1969, a riding consisting of the same counties was in place. It was not workable then and because of the geographic inconsistencies I can't see it being workable now.

My first comment deals with numbers. While I certainly recognize the importance of the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission aiming for the creation of ridings with as little variation in population as possible, the plus or minus 25% provision in each province's average riding population should allow each commission a good deal of leeway in designing ridings that consider the human factor.

I am speaking of the many unique factors that, taken together, form the community of interest that is particular to each riding - things like traffic flow, schools, commercial interests, migration patterns and so on. I would respectfully submit to you that in the redesign of my riding, these factors were largely overlooked.

As the yellow portions of the map indicate, my current riding would lose four townships on the east - McGillvray, East Williams, Lobo and Delaware - and gain four townships and a city to the south - the townships of Dover, Chatham, Camden, Zone and the city of Wallaceburg. Wallaceburg would represent the largest urban centre in this new riding, but it would be located in the new riding's extreme southwest corner.

Because of the large geographical size of the riding - it is the largest riding in southwestern Ontario - the addition of Wallaceburg would force me to open a fifth constituency office and hire another staff person, which I simply cannot afford. By contrast people in urban ridings are usually only a few kilometres away from their MP's office, and the MP only requires one full-time office in the riding. I appreciate that any changes to the boundaries will result in some kind of reaction, but I believe there are a number of valid reasons for reconsideration of the proposals currently before us.

There are many areas of economic or community activity that focus on county boundaries. While they may not be direct federal responsibilities, they are nonetheless areas of common effort or activity that contribute to the building of a community of interest among the three levels of government.

I mentioned the loss of four townships in Middlesex county that are located along the current eastern border of my riding. Three of these townships would be transferred to the riding of Perth - Middlesex. No disrespect to Mr. Richardson, but the township of Delaware would find itself in the riding of Elgin - Middlesex - London.

This carving up of Middlesex County and dispersing its townships among three different ridings would create chaos for county administrators. Roads and traffic patterns, schools, telephone systems and farm organizations, each of which have developed strong historical patterns over the years, would be adversely affected by these boundary changes.

Historically, the townships of McGillvray, East Williams and Lobo, each of which is located in Middlesex County, have never had administrative or cultural ties with Perth, which lies far to the east. Residents of these townships have always dealt either with the Town of Strathroy or the City of London.

Under the new configuration, one would have to presume that a number of arrangements would have to be undertaken with either St. Mary's or Stratford. This is something that has never occurred in the past, nor is it logical.

As for Delaware, which is also part of Middlesex County, and which would become part of the riding of Elgin - Middlesex - London, the same applies. Residents have always dealt with either Strathroy or London. Under this configuration they would have to deal with Elgin County authorities in Saint Thomas. This would totally remove Delaware from the normal flow within the community. I'm sure you do not need to be reminded of the added burden that would be placed on members who had to live with community organizations and not just two but three county jurisdictions.

.1135

I strongly believe it would be detrimental to the interaction between the affected counties and the members that jointly represent them, as it would force members to dramatically expand the number of community organizations through which these members would normally seek input. Members would have to share jurisdictions, so to speak. While this would certainly add to the burden of members belonging to the same political party, it would even degenerate into a wholly destructive turf war between members of different political stripe. In the end, the local communities and organizations would suffer the most.

In my opinion - and I do not believe I'm overstating the case here - residents of such ridings would be discriminated against because no member of Parliament could service such a riding in a way that constituents are demanding. Constituents in rural Canada expect, and should receive, the same consideration as urban ridings.

Based on experience and knowledge of the area and the proposed changes, I respectively point out that such a riding would be almost as large as Prince Edward Island, which is presently represented by four members of Parliament. Such a change would deprive a large number of Canadians in southwestern Ontario of access to their member of Parliament and severely limit their active participation in the democratic process.

In my opinion, there is one further principle that should guide boundary commissions in their work. The principle is this: commissions should strive as far as possible to limit their redesign of riding boundaries to those particular areas of the province where the actual increase in population has taken place.

For example, since 1981 the regions of Durham, York, Peel and Halton have experienced the greatest population growth in the province of Ontario. To my way of thinking, that is where Ontario's additional four seats should be drawn from.

Why should areas that have experienced virtually no population growth during the same period be subject to any redesign of their ridings? It just doesn't make sense.

There are at least two Metro Toronto ridings that exceed the provincial quota by more than 50%. It seems to me that half of Ontario's allotment of four seats could be met simply by bisecting these two ridings.

What we must avoid in the future is the domino effect that was evident in the Ontario commission's last two reports. By this process, virtually all the ridings of southwestern Ontario were altered, some quite radically, simply to satisfy the requirement of an additional four seats in the province. Certainly, there was no population shift in this part of the province that suggested such drastic changes in the redrawing of the electoral map.

As I indicated earlier, if the commission were obligated to effect a change only in those areas of the province experiencing significant population shifts - and again I'm speaking of the Halton, Peel, York, and Durham regions, as well as Metropolitan Toronto - then I believe changes to the province's electoral map would be minimal and the principle of representation by population would be adhered to in the maximum degree.

For these reasons, our request is that the existing boundaries of Lambton - Middlesex be left intact.

Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions and comments.

The Chairman: Thank you, Rose-Marie.

John.

Mr. Richardson: Rose-Marie, I understand the problems you're faced with there because you have to interact with, first of all, the county governments you're dealing with and then the city. Strathroy is your biggest community, isn't it?

Mrs. Ur: At the present time, yes. It has 11,000.

Mr. Richardson: Wallaceburg is not that big, is it?

Mrs. Ur: It's a close proportion, I understand.

Mr. Richardson: Pretty close?

Mrs. Ur: That's what I was told. I haven't the exact figures on that. I was told it exceeds Strathroy, but they haven't called me back prior to getting here this morning. So, I'm sorry, I don't have the answer.

Mr. Richardson: I didn't think it was, but maybe it is.

I know the drain on it, because Wallaceburg will want as much time as Strathroy. The other communities in your riding will also want that. You will have three reservations on your riding, I think. You have two now.

Mrs. Ur: I'll have more than that. I would be gaining Walpole Island.

Mr. Richardson: Yes, and you'll have Ipperwash.

Mrs. Ur: And Muncey and Oneida.

Mr. Richardson: There's no doubt about it; it's a big one in territory, and you have three counties to interact with.

Is Petrolia or Forest the next biggest?

Mrs. Ur: Petrolia.

Mr. Richardson: Is Petrolia bigger than Forest?

.1140

Mrs. Ur: Yes. If you look at the map, Dover, Chatham, Camden and Zone, there too it's much the same scenario as my colleague who preceded me has stated. The flow is within that community, with Chatham. It has no direction to go into the other part of Lambton - Middlesex. Its flow of people, schools, etc., is not with Lambton - Middlesex; it's with Kent. It would be moving a group of individuals and isolating them from Lambton - Middlesex.

As I said, this happened in the early 1960s and they experienced the same difficulties with representation of the constituents in that area. It did not pan out because they did not have the community of interest with the people from those four townships compared to the rest of the riding.

Mr. Richardson: I certainly can agree with you on that. One thing that was made apparent to us in Metro Toronto was that there was community of interest that was almost bigger than some of the towns. For instance, there will be an Italian or Portuguese or Jewish section where they're close-knit. They build their churches and community centres and they like to identify with the MP there. If these are divided by two, maybe they'll get two to support their cases. So every little perspective is brought into play. One of the beauties of sitting on this committee is we're seeing some of that.

You've got the largest riding in southwestern Ontario, there's no doubt. But when we heard some of the sizes of some of the other ridings that they had, for instance, in northern Ontario, we thanked God that we have this small riding.

Mrs. Ur: That's right. I'd like to expand on that, John. I can certainly understand the larger ridings in the northern part of Ontario, but they have communities you have to fly to. It's not like Lambton - Middlesex at the present time. It's large, but whether you live in Carlisle, Ontario, or in Strathroy or Petrolia, they want to see you. But in the northern parts there are large masses where there aren't any little villages located. The distances between the little towns and villages are certainly a lot greater than in my riding.

In my riding there are a lot of little towns and villages. They feel thrilled and honoured that I take time to go and see them, whether it's a population of 500 or 5,000. They feel I really do care and that I am there representing them - it's not just by numbers - and the rural part of Canada. For them that's just as important as a large urban centre.

Mr. Richardson: One of the things that happened is that first of all they were given two mandates: one to bring reasonable balance in numbers and the other to keep the community of interest alive and in place. Southwestern Ontario lost a seat - but not really, because the Kitchener-Waterloo area picked up a seat. So it was balanced off with the tremendous growth that has taken place in that area. Even at that, all those seats in the Kitchener - Waterloo area are going to be at or above requirement.

I don't know where they would get it. We have all those in Mississauga and the areas in the Markham - Richmond Hill area where Maurizio Bevilacqua has his huge riding. We have the Mississauga situation with Carolyn Parrish. We only picked up four seats. So they lost one in northern Ontario and one in southern Ontario, but we gained it back through the Kitchener - Waterloo area. The city of Toronto also lost a seat; it went to the suburbs.

Mrs. Ur: I'm aware of that.

Mr. Richardson: We gained five or maybe four seats in Ontario.

Mrs. Stewart: Four and two, for a total of six.

Mrs. Ur: You just have to look at the map, and you're well aware of it, I'm sure, John, being part of the riding, and see that even now with Lobo Township, which has Kilworth in it - and they like to think they're part of London, not even in Lambton - Middlesex - to be put into Perth - Middlesex, I can just hear the -

Mr. Richardson: I've been down talking to them in London Township. They're sitting on the hill looking down into the city of London. Relating to Stratford, they say -

.1145

Mrs. Ur: They wondered what night this was prepared, after what function. That was some of the reaction. It certainly is not logistical to put Delaware into Elgin - Middlesex - London. It's no reflection on Elgin, but there's no continuity of community interest. Delaware migrates to London, not to St. Thomas.

Mr. Richardson: Well, they had to put them somewhere. That's the bottom line. We can't disenfranchise them. All of the London ones were over the 100,000 mark in population.

Mrs. Ur: Like Jerry said, figures are important, but I think we should be addressing more than just figures.

Mr. Richardson: If we gave it to each one of us on this committee to redraw the map, I'll tell you, I wouldn't want to stand up and let everyone take a shot at it. It would be full of holes.

But I'm not saying you're wrong. Your riding is big and it covers three counties. I had one of those last time. Everyone at the county council wants you at their county council meetings.

Mrs. Stewart: If there is going to be one riding short there, Rose-Marie, is there obviously a better cut in terms of north-south relationship than east-west?

Mrs. Ur: The flow pattern is usually east-west. If they're going to use only the factor of east-west pattern travel, then I guess I can't argue that point by putting the four Kent County townships into Lambton - Kent - Middlesex, because it still has the east-west flow. But with those four, they do not gravitate to the rest of the riding. They go south, so there is -

Mrs. Stewart: I'm just asking if it would have been better to cut it this way instead of -

Mrs. Ur: It was that way the first time. I went from Lake Huron to Lake Erie. The first I heard about it, I had a call from a radio station asking me if I had my pilot's licence. I said no. I thought maybe he was watching me travel back and forth to work once in a while. He said, well, you'll need to have your pilot's licence to be able to touch base with your constituents. So they did change that.

The Chairman: Hugh, you have three or four minutes.

Mr. Hanrahan: I think this is one of the worst I've seen. My sympathies, Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Ur: It's not sympathies I'm asking for; it's change.

Mr. Hanrahan: Mr. Chairman, I think the comment Rose-Marie made was very wise, with regard to constituencies like Carolyn Parrish's with 250,000, to divide those into two and leave everything else alone rather than this hopscotching and mix and match and whatever. I would like to see that in our observations.

Other than that, it's just a comment, Rose-Marie. I recognize what you're up against.

The Chairman: Rose-Marie, some of the things you said, and you heard Jerry say them...that if this is a Metro problem, let them solve it in Metro and not have it arranged in such a way that everybody in the province is affected because there's a problem, if you want to call it a problem, or a situation in Metro. That's where it should have been solved, not having it work its way out through all the townships and municipalities.

Mrs. Ur: I totally agree with you on that, Mr. Chair. I can understand the problems with having to address those numbers for a constituency, but you're very focused; you're in a small area. The travel time and a lot of the problems, as Jerry said, will be much the same. But here it's very diverse. You have urban and rural. You have to meet with these people. You have to travel two hours sometimes to get to a function. That's not their problem; that's my problem. I'm elected to serve them and they expect me there. They don't care that my riding is that big. They're part of that riding and I have to make it.

We should take into account that if we have these large growth areas - and I recognize my colleagues' problems in the large centres - let's just deal with it there. Do we have to make something difficult all the time? Why can't we just look at something in a more effective, efficient manner rather than having to reinvent the wheel?

The Chairman: I think we hear you.

.1150

Mrs. Ur: Good.

The Chairman: Is there anything further?

Thanks, Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Ur: Thank you.

The Chairman: We're going to adjourn now. Remember, it's finished for today but not for tomorrow. It's not here. Don't come here tomorrow. It's in room 705 of La Promenade.