Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 4, 1995

.1535

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

I want to welcome Sue Barnes, our first witness. We're running just a little bit late.

Sue, we have twenty minutes. If you want to use it all to talk, that's fine, but if there's time left for questions, it will have to come out of the twenty minutes. That way we'll try to stick to schedule.

Mrs. Sue Barnes, MP (London West): Midway through I'll stop and look around to see if people have questions, because I certainly can fill the time. But it's more important to answer questions.

The Chairman: We won't cut into your twenty minutes. You have until 4 p.m.

.1540

Mrs. Barnes: I very much welcome the chance to put forth my submissions directly to you. I worked with my riding association at the first instance of challenge, and what we put forward was changed slightly.

I've tried to condense my concerns into three main areas for London West. They all are based on the community of interest of the city of London and the surrounding area. They will centre on three main positions. I'll spend some time, but visually, I'd like to help you locate the area.

I borrowed from my municipality something that shows you the surrounding townships and the urban and rural clusters. Southwestern Ontario, as you know, is a large urban centre, London, Ontario, immediately surrounded by rural. What I want to point out as a starting base is the riding that was there since the last riding redistribution. What I want you to note about it is that this is absolutely intensely urban. There is no rural mix whatsoever in this community.

The other thing I want you to realize about this is that the blank spaces are basically parkland spaces, and this is the developed urban centre. So this is not a growth area for the city of London. It's totally urban.

As we go along here, you have your maps that show the new redistribution of the area. What I have borrowed from my municipality is their plan.

The first focus I want to give is that the riding used in 1993 is outlined in pink. As you see, it corresponds to totally urban. What has been added as my new riding is the riding outlined in green. With this little arm here, a very minor portion has been added on. It has a population of 3,000. The riding as it exists now has nearly 114,000 people in it. So I'm a bit above average.

The new boundaries will bring me down to 101,000. I can categorically state that I have no problem managing the 114,000, and very much get drawn into the whole London issues from my colleagues in the two other London ridings.

What I want to show is this area, which is very rural. This is what's been added on. This rural area 1, according to Elections Canada, has a population of approximately 840 people, but it's fairly large geographically.

Now, you wonder why - and I tried to put myself in the place of the commissioners who made these recommendations - they would do this, adding this rural area to something that's 100,000-plus people, knowing that it's going to be 800 to 100,000.

This dotted green line - and that's why I chose to use this city map - shows you the major function that happened with the municipality of London, Ontario, in January 1993. The City of London annexed 64,220 acres of land. That is outlined - and maybe I'll leave this as an exhibit - in London Ontario Canada Marketing Facts.

I just want to read this line:

It goes on and ties in the new official plan currently being developed by the Vision 96 team.

I have met with the economic development people of the City of London. I have met with planning people of the City of London. With a provincial piece of legislation, apparently, this land here that has now been included cannot for at least a decade be changed from agricultural to any other usage. In fact, they are telling me that for the most part, other than small pockets that centre maybe in the Hyde Park area, it will probably be a generation before there's the money and the will to develop that into a riding that resembles the current one of London West.

.1545

In other words, even though this is now within the official city boundaries, there will be no community of interest between this fairly large geographic area vis-à-vis...and we'll have a disproportionate representation by the members of Parliament.

I think MPs are certainly capable of understanding both sets of issues, the rural versus the urban. I just think the reality will be that for the next couple of boundary redistributions, this one area, as I've outlined it here, would be best served by a member who was primarily agriculturally focused. This would be the member to the north, from Perth, coming down a slight bit here, and that's just a matter of a couple of concession roads, or the member west coming in a bit further or the member from the south, as outlined here.

So Lambton - Middlesex, Perth - Middlesex, Township of London and London - Middlesex - Elgin are all primarily rural ridings surrounding London that very easily, given the population, would be able to well deal with this issue here.

It's what I have lost that is my major concern. This area that I call number 2 has a population of 16,276 according to Elections Canada officials. It's not the matter of the population so much as that I have always considered this little region over here to be the anchor of the issues of the riding. This is where the University of Western Ontario is located, which historically has always been present in this riding. It is where University Hospital is located. It is where the industrial research park of the community of London is located. It is where medical research facilities are located.

When I talk about my riding and describe it to somebody, I say I'm in London, Ontario, a residential and fairly affluent area, given national standards. This part is predominantly Anglo-Saxon, white collar or professional, highly educated, with above-average incomes.

The issues I spend my time on as an MP in both the riding and Ottawa would probably break down such that about 30% of my effort as an MP revolves around the issues that concern the population out here but emanate from the fact that we have this in the riding. In other words, it's theR and D issues, the teaching issues, the health issues, the student issues. Very major employers here are the University Hospital and the University of Western Ontario. They live in this area down here.

The community of interest has never been with what is now London East and will turn into London - Adelaide. My concern is twofold here. My neighbour - whoever it will be in future, or whether it'll even be me in future - in the London - Adelaide riding has most of the municipal offices, the NGOs, the chambers of commerce. This area that will be left here will really be bedroom communities where people live and sleep, but there won't be major head offices here. There will be strip malls. Most of the anchors on those malls are large nationals. Small business will still be an issue in here, but this portion, I think, is crucial to the community of interest of the whole riding. It's what we focus on. It's what people send their member of Parliament to discuss and talk about that is connected here.

My second point is that the amalgamation.... This is also very recent, in fact from the last set of hearings. London is known as a health centre. There is a number of hospitals. There are hospital amalgamations. This little part here that has been added on adds Victoria Hospital, down here, and University Hospital. These have recently merged into one unit. In fact, it's an ongoing situation. It is the largest corporate merger in the city's history. So it has amazing impact here. As well, there's another teaching hospital over in the next riding.

.1550

I think that if this is given back, or is given to me, then the community of interest in this particular sector would not have half of the hospital in one riding and half in the other. The centre of the focus of the health care industry is in mergers, not in splitting up, and these two hospitals should remain together.

As I say, this has been added on as 3,000. It's not a large number. This would not even matter to me much if my colleague - That traditionally identifies with the east. The head office is more likely to be up in here, but that truly has not been decided. But it wouldn't hurt to have those areas, 2 and 3, remain together.

I shall just look at my notes again.

I wanted to point out that, according to Elections Canada officials, I could go to 122,390 in this riding. That would be manageable here, and I know that if you give back area 2, adding 16,000, and take off here - even if I keep area 3, which has been given - I would still be well within the maximum allowable.

This riding has worked very well. The tremendous pressure put on the workload of the member of Parliament in London - Adelaide would make his workload very unequal. He'll be appearing right after me to reinforce this point to you.

I might add, for your own interest, that area 2, which I'm fighting to retain, traditionally is probably the most conservative area, historically, of the riding. So, from a purely political point of view, the boundary that has been drawn probably would be adverse to my own personal political interest. I am saying that it is absolutely essential for this area to stay connected to London West, because, again, it anchors the riding, it anchors the issue, people identify with it.

I'll open it up to questions. Those are my three main points. I have tried to display it visually for you.

The Chairman: Thanks.

Mr. Hanrahan (Edmonton - Strathcona): Thank you, Sue, for your presentation.

I'm Hugh Hanrahan, by the way. I don't know if we've met formally.

Mrs. Barnes: Yes, we have met formally, Hugh.

Mr. Hanrahan: I think the essential argument you make is between 2 and 3: you are gaining 3, losing 2, but they are now united in terms of hospitals. That seems to lack some logic, as far as I'm concerned. It's almost like dividing a plant in two and having an MP represent one but -

Is Joe the other member?

Mrs. Barnes: Joe is the member for London East, and he will speak after my presentation.

Mr. Hanrahan: We are always concerned with the domino effect, in that if we were to observe that perhaps 2 and 3 should go together, that would affect the next guy, which would affect the next guy, and so on.

Mrs. Barnes: Absolutely.

Mr. Hanrahan: Do you see that happening in this case?

Mrs. Barnes: Not unless Joe is giving me a surprise of which I'm not aware. I don't believe so.

The Chairman: Would the committee agree to let Joe speak right now, because if he's going to talk in isolation from Sue and Sue in isolation from him, it won't make any sense.

Why don't you go ahead, Joe? The two of you can tell us the story.

Mrs. Barnes: We'll share this time then?

The Chairman: We'll try to be fair there.

Mr. Joe Fontana, MP (London East): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. It's a pleasure to be here.

While my other colleague, the member of Parliament for London - Middlesex, didn't submit an objection, in the first instance, in the first round of objections, he indicated his real concerns.

As Sue has pointed out to you, maybe I can give you a little bit of context.

It would appear to me, not having the wisdom of the commissioner's thoughts on this, as if they started from the outside and moved in. In other words, they started putting this puzzle together from the outside, and then all of a sudden were left with a real problem when they got to London, and then tried to make a hodge-podge to make all the things fit.

One has only to look at not only what Sue has said but also my riding and that of London - Middlesex. Now we complicate it with the new riding of Perth - Middlesex.Mr. Richardson, in fact, comes all the way to the border of London on its easterly and westerly sides. Sue gets a rural part of a riding that has absolutely no community of interest with the rest of London West whatsoever.

.1555

Lo and behold, we also bring in Mr. Gar Knutson, who presently is in Elgin - Norfolk, with a new riding to be known as Elgin - Middlesex - London. What Mr. Knutson takes over is a very big part of urban London. Tell me where the community of interest is between that riding of St. Thomas, where there's all the rural area, and then, all of a sudden, the city of London.

It would seem to me that if the commissioners started with London, which has a population of 317,000 and a projected population in the next 10 or 15 years of something in the neighbourhood of 400,000, then you could draw three urban ridings in London. Then the community of interest, as Sue has pointed out, would be totally protected.

Hence, we have essentially five MPs touching in some way, shape or form the city of London. That doesn't sound logical. It doesn't seem as if the community of interest, for anybody's part, is going to be well served.

As I indicated, Sue has been given a part of northwest London that is now rural. They have absolutely nothing in common with the urban part of the riding.

Also, as I indicated, Mr. Richardson, who will inherit parts of the boundary that is now part of London - Middlesex, is going to come all the way over from Stratford into the London area.

I don't believe there is a community of interest. The fact that Mr. Knutson comes all the way from St. Thomas into southwest London is absolutely absurd.

What if the commissioners had started in the middle, which is the city of London, and formed three logical, urban ridings, which we are entitled to and which we now have? This is even though London - Middlesex now is part rural and part urban. That was manageable. You could do that, as there was a community of interest. But they have now completely thrown all of the logic out by doing it the way they did.

In order to rectify that situation, Sue has pointed out one way of doing it. It is to give her back certain areas. If you did that, as Hugh pointed out very clearly, there is going to be a domino effect.

In my humble opinion, this is what should happen.

Say you leave the ridings as they are. That would be not too bad. But if you had to move some, you should give Sue back what is coming to me. Then, if that makes a problem for me, we will assume the area I'm taking from Mr. O'Brien, or Mr. O'Brien is taking from me, hence, London - Fanshawe.... Mr. Knutson should be given back what he has. Therefore, you will in fact get three truly urban ridings.

The domino effect can be very positive, not negative. It can be very positive by doing the restructuring of the three urban ridings in London.

There are a few more. I think Sue touched on the workload. There is no doubt that when you have the physical presence of a number of institutions - universities, hospitals, industries, downtown groups, municipal groups and NGOs - all concentrated in one area - namely mine - that this will increase the workload of one MP to the benefit, I guess, of the others.

That's not entirely fair. I think we want to share the workload among the three urban ridings in a way that makes a lot of sense. Hence, there's the community-of-interest argument such that one could accomplish that by making sure the boundaries truly reflected some semblance of logic.

I don't know if you have the present map there, but I should point out that the London East boundaries have been in place since 1980. Therefore, they've been there for 15 years. The growth has been nominal at best. It has worked fairly well.

.1600

I should point out to you that the City of London has just completed its annexation proposal and increased its coverage area by about 30%. I can tell you that in the next ten years all residential growth in the city of London is going to be in the new riding of London - Adelaide, which is this particular area. With the projected population increase in the next five to ten years of something in the neighbourhood of 15,000 to 20,000 people, there won't be any growth in the new London West, and there's going to be very little growth in London - Fanshawe. All the growth is going to come here.

Hence you will find that is going to be problematic. That's why if the adjustments were made right now, that growth could be accomplished in a very balanced way between London West and the present London - Middlesex, without having these kinds of problems of reformatting it to have these four or five new ridings, as it is.

Mr. Hanrahan: Just one further question. Joe, did you and Sue approach the boundaries committee jointly, or did the three of you approach them as a group?

Mrs. Barnes: Pat and I went separately. That's the London - Middlesex. I did mine together with my riding association. They actually did the presentation for me, because I had a conflict here in Ottawa.

They got some of it changed. At one point they added back in a part down in here. They added it back in and actually took it a little further than we'd asked for. That's what brought in the half of the hospital that we weren't expecting. I'm not sure whether the merger had been publicly announced at that time.

I can re-emphasize about this public merger...London, Ontario, by the time all the restructuring is done on the hospital issue, I think will be something like the second-largest medical teaching facility in Canada. So this is not a minor issue; this is a major issue. I think about 22,000 people are directly or indirectly employed in London in this health sector.

Mr. Hanrahan: Essentially, you and Joe and the third member are philosophically in agreement on where the boundaries should be.

Mrs. Barnes: I can't speak for Pat directly.

Mr. Fontana: He's philosophically in agreement?

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes.

Mrs. Barnes: Yes.

Mr. Fontana: With where the boundaries -

Mr. Hanrahan: Should be; not where they are, but where they should be.

Mrs. Barnes: Yes.

Mr. Fontana: I should also indicate that not only have we objected to the commission but other people have objected to the commission for exactly the same reasons, including other political parties that have objected to the present or the proposed realignment of these ridings along these boundary lines. It is for exactly the same reasons. I'm not talking about partisan politics or anything else. It just doesn't make logical, demographic, geographic sense whatsoever essentially to carve up the city in this way when in fact it can be done in a very logical way, and that's to start with London and create three urban ridings, because that's accomplished. That would not adversely impact on Perth - Middlesex or Elgin - London, because that can be done too.

Mrs. Barnes: The area in 2 I'm most concerned with keeping in this riding...that population is roughly equivalent to what we expect the population growth in Joe's riding would increase. I don't think they've taken that into account. It's going to be relatively flat over here.

My argument in losing 1 is more for the benefit of the people in 1. I could handle that. Handling the 800 more people is not the issue. The issue is whether they will feel they're best represented by being attached to a primarily urban riding. In a decade or two it would be entirely appropriate to do what this map has done. For sure, absolutely, for at least one more election, redistribution is inappropriate. It will not serve the community of interests of those areas, even though it looks small.

Mr. Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): Is that the St. Joseph's Hospital you're talking about, Susan?

Mrs. Barnes: No, this is University Hospital in Westminster. St. Joseph's is in Joe's riding.

Mr. Richardson: It's in Joe's riding. Is Westminster on both sides of the street?

Mrs. Barnes: There's a south campus, which according to the....

Mr. Richardson: We're talking about the old -

Mrs. Barnes: The south campus, according to this report released Monday, is going to be closed by the year 2000. The Westminster campus, it has already been announced, will be joined with University Hospital.

Mr. Richardson: Then it's a non-issue.

Mrs. Barnes: Yes. Joe will still have a major medical centre over here, but it won't be this one, which is the joint factor, which is truly important, from my point of view.

.1605

The other part in this area is the industrial research park. Again, totally the same issues are attached, whether it's medical research, university, teaching issues, industrial research, all in one little clump.

Mr. Richardson: That's important to you, but from the boundary drawing perspective we're going to have a clockwise movement here that's quite strong. It's going to bump down and affect the members for London - Fanshawe, London - Middlesex, and Elgin - Norfolk. You're talking about a fairly large chunk of people when you move 16,000. We're looking at moves considerably less than that in our adjustment.

The boundary commission only takes account of the population as it is at that time. It doesn't project at all. I can agree with Joe. I know the area he's talking about on the north end of that riding. It is active at the moment.

Mrs. Barnes: This will give me basically what I already have.

The Chairman: Number-wise.

Mrs. Barnes: Number-wise. It will not change my riding.

Mr. Richardson: Yes, but that's not the issue, because there are other people. You see, what you agree to is -

Mrs. Barnes: And the growth there isn't shown.

Mr. Richardson: About five other people will be affected by that move. Joe seems to be compliant with what you have proposed, but I'm not so sure whether Pat is on that side.

Mr. Fontana: Excuse me, John. If Sue's boundary were moved to where she has indicated, obviously you would have to make an adjustment to Pat's. Pat's not here but he indicated, with respect to the initial hearing of the commission, that he could retrieve what he is losing to Elgin - Middlesex - London, which is approximately 15,000 or 16,000 people in the White Oak area. So once you make that adjustment for Sue, it comes to me, it's made up for Pat, and that's solved.

The biggest problem is what Elgin - Norfolk is left with. Obviously, in order for that riding to touch London they must have tried to come up with enough numbers to make that particular riding more viable. That's convoluted logic. You don't take a piece of an urban centre and just plunk it in with an urban, a semi-urban and a rural riding to make the numbers fit. You lose all kinds of perspective and community of interest.

If the rule of thumb is roughly 100,000 constituents in each riding, give or take 20% or 25%, and the present population of London, Ontario is 317,000, you can accommodate three urban ridings in the city of London. You're not affected whatsoever by this. The only person who is affected by moving these lines is Sue. What do you do with Elgin - Norfolk? I suggest you could even let Elgin - Norfolk come to where they suggested and take in the rural parts of London, Ontario, but not the urban part of London, Ontario, which is the White Oak subdivision. There is going to be industrial growth, so Elgin - Norfolk will grow. It will still be within that 25% range, albeit it's going to be 25% or 20% less and not 20% more.

I am going to suffer in another five or seven years when I get all that population. So if you make those kinds of adjustments now, I think you can remedy the whole situation for the next 10 or 15 years without a problem.

Mrs. Barnes: I just want to stress that the two areas I'm talking about with the university anchor, as far as I'm concerned, are the number one priority as a riding issue. If it's determined in the commission's wisdom that I should keep one, I don't think it's the best community of interest, but I can certainly cope with it. That's not the issue. If it makes a huge difference to whomever is north or west of me, it's not really going to have a disastrous effect. I don't think it's a very useful way to do it at this time, but I can live with it.

.1610

It's the same here. If you need to pick up 3,000 people to make the numbers right, I could live with this little addition. Leaving this with an MP representing a massive 100,000 people, with no anchors.... I don't think anybody elected to Parliament would want to come here and take a vacation and watch his or her neighbour right beside him or her in the same city working very hard.

Mr. Richardson: I just want to quote from the commissioners on this, and you've probably read this one paragraph. It begins:

But it seems that at the time - and we're coming into the late stretches - there weren't very strong arguments being made, Joe and Sue.

Mrs. Barnes: I'm sorry, I have to object. I have what was submitted; I know what's there.

Mr. Fontana: I can only tell you that the objections that were submitted were substantial, maybe not by numbers, but by who the representations were made from. That's all I can tell you.

Mrs. Barnes: I do want to clear this point up because when I read that I was very surprised. I have a copy of what the London West Liberal Association submitted, which I worked on. The three areas were the transfer of the northwest area of the riding to London East, which is my number 2 area; the addition of a rural area at the extreme west end of the riding, which is my number 1 area; and the break-up of the country of Middlesex and other surrounding counties into ridings containing parts of other counties. We have the three pages, and other than the emphasis I've now put on the health merger, which was not there at the time at the same level of authority, it's there. But I agree it's not reflected in that paragraph.

The Chairman: Sue, can we have a copy of that, or could you send it to us?

Mrs. Barnes: No, I'll give it to you now. Would you also like to have the 1994 version as an exhibit? The updated version is being printed now, but it's the updated economic development marketing facts. It shows population trends in various areas of the city.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mrs. Stewart (Brant): The questions I would have asked have been put.

The Chairman: They have already been asked and answered appropriately.

Mrs. Stewart: Yes.

The Chairman: Hugh, we have a couple of minutes.

Mr. Hanrahan: No, I'm satisfied with the answers.

The Chairman: Sue, if you were to describe in a sentence or two what the commission failed to recognize in dealing with the London ridings, what would you say?

Mrs. Barnes: I don't think it took into account the community of interest that the members of Parliament would have to represent here in Ottawa. It has unfairly divided the workload between the members, as represented by the population counts, without taking into account at all the interest of the communities.

The Chairman: Can you add to that, Joe?

Mr. Fontana: What it has done is not logical in a demographic, geographic or community of interest sense. As I indicated to you, its fundamental problem was that it started on the outside and moved in. It then had to make this puzzle fit, so it had to cut all kinds of pieces and introduce other members into it. Had it started at the centre and moved out, I think it could have accomplished a lot more.

The Chairman: What you have said is part of the record, of course. What you've sent in and handed in just now becomes part of the record. We want to thank you for coming over and making your presentation. Joe, don't forget your map.

Mrs. Barnes: I'll give you these as my exhibits and maybe ask that you get me a copy back in due course. Is that all right?

The Chairman: This lady right here will look after you. Don't give it to me because I'd lose it before I got to my office.

We have a couple of minutes now. John's here, but he's a couple of minutes early. Do you want to go in camera right now? All right.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

.1634

[Public proceedings resume]

The Chairman: We're ready to get back at it. We're right on schedule.

The witness is John Maloney, from Erie.

Mr. John Maloney, MP (Erie): I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.

I want to explain the geography of the riding, existing and proposed.

Erie - Lincoln, when considered with other southern Ontario ridings, is a very large riding. In the Niagara Peninsula, it would be as large as the other three ridings combined. That has some management problems, as you can appreciate.

I say this knowing full well how our western ridings and some of our northern ridings are constituted. Perhaps the strength of the argument leaves a little bit to be desired, but certainly in our area my constituents are concerned about how I can represent them as effectively as my colleagues in the Niagara Peninsula represent their constituents.

It's roughly a horseshoe-shaped riding, running from the American border at Fort Erie along Lake Erie to Dunnville. Then it goes up into West Lincoln and the new addition, the town of Lincoln and the township of Wainfleet. The change to the riding is the addition of the town of Lincoln and the deletion of the town of Pelham. I say ``town'', but this is a regional area. It's regional Niagara. So the town of West Lincoln would include the town of Smithville and the hamlets of Fulton, Grassie, St. Anns, Caistor Centre, and Abington. The township of Wainfleet includes the village of Wainfleet and the hamlets of Wellandport and Winger. Port Colborne includes the hamlets of Bethel, Gasline, and Sherkston, as well as the city of Port Colborne. Fort Erie includes the town of Fort Erie per se, as well as the villages of Ridgeway, Crystal Beach, and Stevensville.

.1635

Pelham basically is an area comprising the village of Fenwick and Fonthill. Dunnville is really the town of Dunnville per se and Port Maitland.

So when I say ``a town of'', its a large geographic area, not just the urban area.

The Chairman: Is the town of Lincoln a municipality with elected representation, such as a council? How does that work?

Mr. Maloney: Yes. But it's a large area, as you can see. It's larger than a regular town or village as we would know it, because it has an urban component and a rural component. As I've indicated, those towns and villages are all included in...for example, the town of West Lincoln is a bunch of little villages.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Maloney: We run roughly to the Niagara River, out to the Hamilton - Wentworth border on the west. The difficulty we have there is again the community of interest. I would certainly say Fort Erie has a community of interest with Niagara Falls as well as the American border. Many people who live in Fort Erie work in the States as well.

Port Colborne's community of interest really lies with Welland and St. Catharines. It's a north-south instead of east-west orientation.

The town of Pelham, which has been excluded now, is the hub of the peninsula. It is a residential area, and if we move to the west, it has a tender fruit and agricultural component. West Lincoln is predominantly rural, agricultural, with chicken farms and dairy farms. Port Colborne, again, has some agricultural component, but it's not great. Small industry.... It had some heavy industry, but as time marches on it has shrunk considerably.

Wainfleet is a mixed agricultural area and certainly has a Dunnville - Port Colborne orientation.

We have to envision also that there is a sort of geographic division between the town of Lincoln and the balance of the riding because it is below the Niagara Escarpment. It lies between Lake Ontario and the Niagara Escarpment. That is predominantly a tender fruit area. Wineries are coming into the area as well.

It really is a mixed bag. All these little communities have their own community newspapers. There are radio stations there, of course, but the radio stations are almost like peninsular radio stations, where you have someone in St. Catharines and Niagara Falls, etc. They all have their little components independent of themselves. Pelham, as I indicated, is predominantly a bedroom community.

There are parts of the adjustment that make sense to me politically and I'd just as soon they stayed that way. It makes sense that the south part of Welland is now added into Welland. It doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me to break up municipalities if you can avoid it. Certainly in the south part of Welland they were and are better off represented by what would now be Niagara Centre. That's probably a positive move - not positive for me but positive for the people who live there.

It's the community of interest that I think is key. It's a mixed bag. People are all over the place. As I say, Dunnville has a Port Colborne - Wainfleet orientation. The town of Lincoln has a St. Catharines...along the Queen Elizabeth they either go that way or go westward towards Hamilton, again below the escarpment along the Queen Elizabeth Way. Port Colborne has more of an affinity with Wainfleet, Fort Erie again with Niagara Falls. Certainly Fort Erie and Port Colborne have a stronger community of interest than some of the other communities there.

That's the gist of my presentation. I feel they've taken the population base and jiggled the other ones in the Niagara Peninsula. What was left over has gone into Erie without addressing the community-of-interest situation. My main objection is to the addition of the town of Lincoln and the deletion of the town of Pelham, because Pelham certainly has a greater affinity. On a municipal basis, Pelham's always concerned that Welland's going to annex them, and municipally there's a little bit of rivalry there. Lincoln has more affinity to Hamilton or easterly towards St. Catharines.

.1640

I can understand or appreciate Dunnville being added on. I don't have any difficulty with that, again because of the community of interest aspects of it.

The Chairman: What is the population of your riding now, John?

Mr. Maloney: It's on the low side, around 77,000 to 79,000, I believe.

The Chairman: What would it move to?

Mr. Maloney: It's going up to 91,000.

The Chairman: Primarily because of the addition of Lincoln and Dunnville?

Mr. Maloney: Yes.

The Chairman: Are there questions?

Jane, do you have a question?

Mrs. Stewart: Well, it's a wild riding, I can see that. So what's the solution, John?

Mr. Maloney: The solution as I see it would be to leave Pelham in the riding and divide up Lincoln to wherever it wants to go, however you would do it.

Mrs. Stewart: Nobody wants it, is that it? From the submissions it looks like there were strong arguments that nobody wants it. Is that the gist of it?

Mr. Maloney: It's a fine area.

The Chairman: This is on record, you know, John.

Mr. Maloney: Along Lake Erie it's difficult to represent another area with such close proximity to Lake Ontario and Hamilton and St. Catharines. Certainly adding on the town of Dunnville is a natural adjunct, notwithstanding that it's another regional municipality.

Mrs. Stewart: As far as the community of interest goes, it's really a lake-to-lake issue. You're okay with Dunnville, Wainfleet, and Fort Erie?

Mr. Maloney: Yes.

Mrs. Stewart: But it's a north-south split?

Mr. Maloney: Well, really the Niagara Escarpment is a geographical boundary as well as a community of interest boundary.

Mrs. Stewart: Yes. People either stay south or they go north of it; you go to Hamilton or else you go to -

Mr. Maloney: Your agricultural base north of the Niagara Escarpment between Lake Ontario and the escarpment is predominantly tender fruit. On the south side of the escarpment our agriculture is mixed farming - poultry and dairy - although in Pelham there is some tender fruit, predominantly cherries and strawberries. There are cherries along the north shore of Lake Erie as well, but we don't have the prime tender fruit lands or the wineries that we do north of the escarpment, between Lake Ontario and the escarpment.

The Chairman: John.

Mr. Richardson: I can see the problem he's faced with.

I'm looking for something common here, John, and I'm trying hard to find it.

Mr. Maloney: Well, it's not. It's a mixed riding and it's difficult to represent.

Mr. Richardson: Do you have one newspaper that touches all of them?

Mr. Maloney: No. They're all different.

Fort Erie has what's called the Fort Erie Times Review and the Niagara Falls Review. Port Colborne has an evening Tribune and the Port Colborne News. Pelham would use the Pelham Herald and sometimes The St. Catharines Standard, as well as the Welland-Port Colborne Tribune. Wainfleet would have the Welland-Port Colborne Tribune and probably the Dunnville Chronicle. West Lincoln has the West Lincoln Review. I'm not sure what Lincoln has, whether they have a paper or not.

Mr. Richardson: They're probably serviced by the Buffalo television station and the Hamilton television station and Toronto.

Mr. Maloney: Oh, yes, definitely.

Mr. Richardson: But is there a radio station, in Welland or Erie, for example, that would pull everything together?

Mr. Maloney: There's a radio station in Welland that would serve predominantly the Welland, Port Colborne, and Wainfleet area. It's very insular. There are radio stations in St. Catharines, again strictly with a St. Catharines focus, and similarly in Niagara Falls.

When I send a press release, it goes out to five or six different communities. It's difficult for me to get way out to the west end, let's say on Remembrance Day. It's just a nightmare. I can't represent everywhere, and they all get upset when you don't appear. But they're all scheduling at the same time, so it's impossible.

.1645

Mr. Richardson: I've made a four-year schedule. I'm trying to get to the bigger places twice and to all of the small ones once.

Mr. Hanrahan: Most of my questions have been answered. The only question I would ask is this. As reported here, numerous strong objections were made to the proposal to include St. George in Port Weller. Did they change that for you?

Mr. Maloney: No, you must have mixed that up with something else. Port Weller is definitely in St. Catharines.

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes. Okay. My apologies.

Other than that, I think that the community of interest argument and the size of the riding are both valid concerns.

Mrs. Stewart: How many people are in that?

Mr. Maloney: My assistant will extract that.

The Chairman: Is there much local resistance to this change, John? Did you get a lot of feedback?

Mr. Maloney: The only feedback I get is, ``How can you represent a riding of that diversity and that size?'' Again, when you compare it to the north and the west, it pales, but if you compare it with southern Ontario, then it certainly is a valid argument.

I have some population scenarios. If we combine the populations of Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Wainfleet, and Dunnville, that gives us 64,605 people. If we add Pelham, with 13,800, and West Lincoln, with 11,200, then we come up to 89,605 people.

If we added Pelham and Lincoln to the original base of Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Wainfleet, and Dunnville, we'd come to 96,605, which is in the area. The difficulty with that is we're now below the escarpment, which is one of my biggest complaints or concerns.

To me, it makes sense: Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Wainfleet, Dunnville, Pelham, and West Lincoln would be a total of 89,605, which I believe is within the range.

Mrs. Stewart: But you'd have to give the town of Lincoln to Stoney Creek, because St. Catharines -

Mr. Maloney: That's where it is now.

Mrs. Stewart: The numbers in St. Catharines prohibit it. Now it's 105,000 and Stoney Creek is at 98,000. So if it's 89,000, then minus 11,000 that is 78,000, up to 96,000. The town of Lincoln is pretty big.

Mr. Maloney: What's the population?

Mrs. Stewart: About 18,000.

Mr. Maloney: It is 18,200.

I can leave this population scenario with you.

The Chairman: If you wouldn't mind. Anything else that you've submitted becomes part of the report.

Do you have anything further to submit, John?

Mr. Maloney: No.

The Chairman: Are you satisfied, Jane?

Mrs. Stewart: Yes, I am.

The Chairman: Do any of the three of you want to go into the committee of the whole after this presentation? No?

Thanks, John.

To keep to our schedule, we can move right on to Beryl Gaffney, from Nepean.

Thanks, Beryl, for coming out, and right on time. We thank you for your submission, which everyone now has a copy of.

.1650

There are twenty minutes, Beryl. You can talk for the full twenty or leave us a few minutes to ask some questions.

Mrs. Beryl Gaffney, MP (Nepean): Thank you.

Unfortunately, we forgot the map, but you do have it in your books if you need it. My staff has just gone back to get it.

I appeared before the commission back in 1994, so this is my second time to present my point of view. I'm going to present a different side of it this time. Rather than looking at it from a Nepean point of view, I'm going to look at the whole Ottawa-Carleton area, where we have four cities and seven municipalities, I believe.

I think this is the major error the boundaries commission made when looking at the ridings in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

The regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has a population of 650,000. Of that, 300,000 are in the city of Ottawa and 350,000 are in the city of Nepean, the city of Gloucester, the city of Kanata and the four other municipalities.

What you have, then, is seven ridings. Four are in the city of Ottawa and three are in the others. I'm putting Nepean in the others. So you have four ridings for a population of 300,000 and three ridings for a population of 350,000.

The growth area is in those outer municipalities, townships and cities. The south end of Nepean and the south end of Gloucester are heavy growth areas. The south end of John Manley's riding, Ottawa South, is a growth area, as is the area of Kanata, which is in Lanark - Carleton, Ian Murray's riding. There is heavy population growth in those four areas.

What they've done is this. There is Ottawa West, Ottawa Centre and Ottawa - Vanier, with only 80,000 population. Manley's is okay because it is a growth area. However, because those people only have 80,000, they're saying they have to up their numbers. How do they up their numbers? They encroach on Carleton - Gloucester or on Nepean, rather than saying there should be another riding created in the south area of the RMOC. Do away with one of the Ottawa ridings. They do not need four.

One of my colleagues in Ottawa agrees with me on this. Believe it or not, there is one. So I say let's do away with his riding. Isn't that awful?

Anyway, that is the problem.

To go back in history a little bit, both Nepean and Gloucester were townships formed long before Ottawa was ever even heard of. At that time is was called the old Bytown. It was before this was made the capital city of Canada.

Since Ottawa was formed, Nepean, as an example - I don't know how many times it is for Gloucester - has been annexed by the city of Ottawa seven times. The regional government was formed in this area in 1969. As most people know, regional government was formed to be a decentralized arm of the provincial government and to ensure that services are provided equally throughout the whole region.

In 1978 the province of Ontario went one step further. Ottawa was starting to make noises again; they were going to annex a piece of Gloucester and a piece of Nepean. So the Province of Ontario made Gloucester, Nepean and Kanata cities, which in essence meant Ottawa could no longer annex a piece of them if it was growing. It had no place else to expand except out into our area. That was the way the province stopped that - by making us cities.

What we have now is a case of Ottawa West moving into Nepean. The proposed change is taking 50% of Nepean, by the way. What you have is the boundaries commission doing what the province of Ontario stopped, which was annexation. They're now saying Ottawa West can't grow. It has a population of only 80,000 and there's nowhere for it to grow, so let's let it grow into Nepean.

They've done the same thing with Mauril Bélanger's riding. They've left Mac Harb virtually untouched in the middle, but he has moved a little bit into Ottawa South and Ottawa - Vanier.

Nepean is reduced by 50%. They will take over the three townships in the south end of the area, which are Osgoode Township, Rideau Township and Goulbourn Township. Goulbourn is presently part of Lanark - Carleton, which is Ian Murray's. The other two are presently part of Eugène Bellemare's, which is Carleton - Gloucester.

.1655

It makes eminently more sense to create that southern riding, which will pick up all those townships. It would pick up the south end of Nepean. I agree that Nepean, with a present population of 115,000, needs to be pulled back a little bit towards 100,000. I agree with that, but the south end of Nepean should be moved into that new southern riding that could be created. If they don't create that riding now, the problem is still there ten years down the road. In fact, it'll be exacerbated.

They're not solving a situation. They're delaying a solution that should be implemented now. There is no room for future growth in Ottawa. There is so much growth in Gloucester, Nepean, Ottawa South and Lanark - Carleton. There needs to be a southern riding.

Rideau Township is an example. In the last boundary change ten years ago, it was with Nepean. They then put it with Carleton - Gloucester. They don't have any affinity with Carleton - Gloucester. I know they've got affinity with Nepean. I recognize that, but it's time those townships and the south end of our present municipalities were given a separate riding of their own, because they're going to need it. In fact, they will outgrow it within ten years because they are growing so rapidly.

The Chairman: Beryl, is it fair to say they've neglected to take anticipated growth into account?

Mrs. Gaffney: That's exactly right. They're trying to accommodate a section of the region that will never grow any larger.

Let's change it now before it becomes a monster. This is it.

The north part of Nepean is the older part of Nepean. That's the part they're going to take. They will want to combine with Ottawa West. World War II veterans settled in a major part of that portion of the riding.

Even Ottawa City Hall will be in Marlene Catterall's riding. We're losing the historical part of the riding. It will be in Ottawa West.

Are there any questions, ladies and gentlemen?

The Chairman: Yes.

Hugh, do you have any questions?

Mr. Hanrahan: In view of our considerations, I have a question. I don't know if you would even know the answer. Ottawa has four seats and the surrounding area has three. The difference in population is so minimal that I don't see the logic of this. Did they try and justify why they're doing this in terms of one person, one vote?

Mrs. Gaffney: I'm sorry. I don't understand you.

Mr. Hanrahan: Well, it would seem that -

Mrs. Gaffney: Do you mean the commission?

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes.

Mrs. Gaffney: No. The commission has never tried to justify it. I have no idea why they did it that way. There have been been four ridings in Ottawa since I don't know when. I think that Ottawa Centre is probably the newest riding in Ottawa.

Mr. Hanrahan: Okay. That's my main concern.

Mrs. Gaffney: It doesn't make sense.

The Chairman: Jane.

Mrs. Stewart: I'm following your logic, Beryl, and looking at the comments made by the commission. You asked for Nepean to remain as one district. The commission considered this not feasible. In view of the surrounding areas, Ottawa Centre needed to be expanded. The area preference indicated in most other submissions was Ottawa West. You're not accepting that basic premise.

Mrs. Gaffney: No.

Mrs. Stewart: That's the key difference.

Mrs. Gaffney: That's the difference.

If you take three ridings of 80,000 people, that's a population of 240,000 where they're not going to grow. Divide that by two and what do you get? You get 120,000, which is not an unmanageable size of riding, is it? And there's no future growth potential there.

Already in Nepean I'm managing 115,000. The south end of my present riding should be with that new riding that was created. I'm not arguing that point. I'm prepared to let the south end go, the Barrhaven area of Nepean.

Jim, you probably would know that area.

Mrs. Stewart: Fundamentally, you're challenging the principle of Ottawa Centre remaining intact.

Mrs. Gaffney: Yes, absolutely.

Mrs. Stewart: Okay.

.1700

The Chairman: All right. That's a nice way of summarizing.

Mrs. Gaffney: Nice way to get in trouble with your colleagues, too, isn't it?

The Chairman: Well, it's on the record.

John, do you have some questions?

Mr. Richardson: I think the logic is pretty strong, Beryl, but one of the two priorities given to the commission was that it was based on rep by pop. They're trying to make it as close as they can, except for the extreme northern areas that just don't allow it. The territory would be just unmanageable.

Certainly you're getting 600,000, but I gather that the suburbs are bigger than the city now.

Mrs. Gaffney: They are.

Mr. Richardson: I don't know what to do at this stage, whether that would mean a total redoing if we took the theory that Ottawa had two, and four in the suburbs.

The Chairman: Two or three?

Mr. Richardson: Three. Somebody's going to be out of business, then.

Mrs. Gaffney: Ottawa has four.

The Chairman: But you are suggesting it could get by with three.

Mrs. Gaffney: Yes.

Mr. Richardson: Ottawa - Nepean is basically more Nepean than Ottawa, isn't it?

Mrs. Gaffney: Yes. You're looking at the new map.

Mr. Richardson: Yes.

Mrs. Gaffney: That's right. It's coming out into the suburbs. That's what is happening there.

The Chairman: If there are no further questions, thanks, Beryl. We have your submission. It will become part of the report.

Mrs. Gaffney: Thank you.

The Chairman: Does the committee want to go in camera for a couple of minutes?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

.1747

[Public proceedings resume]

The Chairman: Thank you for coming back so promptly. We have Joe Volpe, from Eglinton - Lawrence.

Joe, you have twenty minutes. You can talk for twenty minutes or give us some time to ask questions inside those twenty minutes.

Mr. Joseph Volpe, MP (Eglinton - Lawrence): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to try to give you some time to ask questions.

I've already presented a written brief. I'm not going to deviate too much from it. I think the key words are all in the first introductory paragraph, which says the commission has ignored community of interest and community of identity in drawing up the proposals for Eglinton - Lawrence. The third factor is that there are no population considerations that would prompt the proposed boundary changes.

The commission initially took the riding and decided, in my view rather arbitrarily, because the suggestions for the boundaries didn't reflect any of those three basic points I thought the commission would have to consider if it was going to propose changes to Eglinton - Lawrence.... In fact, it added onto Eglinton - Lawrence a section of the riding that had been taken away from Eglinton - Lawrence in the redistribution of 1987.

In 1987 the commission did it with a very specific reason in mind. That section is the part that extends east on Yonge Street and south down to Eglinton. In other words, the old Forest Hill and south North Toronto area of the riding was not considered to be part of the community of Eglinton - Lawrence, for a lot of demographic reasons, for economic reasons, and for housing reasons, because the housing develops differently in that area from how it does in the rest of the riding.

What this round of the commission did was it took that and brought it back into Eglinton - Lawrence and then removed from the western section, west of Caledonia Road and the CNR tracks, an area that is really part of Eglinton - Lawrence. Geographically it can't be anything else, because the real dividing line for the riding on the west is Keele Street. Both to the west and to the east, the riding is characterized not so much by the distribution one might normally look at in a city...but there are key centres that are focal points for the community.

For me, the community of interest that was ignored by the commission had to do with not understanding the way the community developed around the churches. There are Catholic churches, Anglican churches, and several synagogues, and those were just hived off completely. Communities have worked around those parishes and those community centres. In essence, what the commission did was it just divided them arbitrarily. It picked a street and said okay, everything to the left goes here and everything to the right goes there. But the community as a whole develops socially, culturally, and economically around Eglinton Avenue, and then, further north, along Lawrence.

When we saw the first submissions...and you'll notice in my brief I say we didn't bother to make an initial submission because the boundaries were so irrational. The commission left a little strip, like a lollipop stick, right down Dufferin Street. It took houses on either side of Dufferin Street for a kilometre and said that belongs to Eglinton - Lawrence. It made absolutely no sense to anybody, and the commission righted it in this latest proposal you have before you. It said if we're going to keep anything south of Eglinton in Eglinton - Lawrence, then we should include all that area from the Allen Roadway to the east right over to Dufferin Street on the west.

.1750

Once the commission does that, it acknowledges that it is making arbitrary decisions about where the community goes and how it develops.

In fact, Dufferin Street is a geographical designation, but both the community centres and parishes, Anglican and Catholic, and the school communities feed on both sides of Dufferin Street. For the commission to ignore that completely and present this map for Parliament's consideration is inconsistent with the traditions of the riding.

The riding has developed over several elections. The southern part used to be a part of Davenport, but it was there as an entire unit. Now they've halved that unit.

The western component used to be part of old York Southwest and was represented by David Lewis. Well, they halved that again. So in the past they've looked at it as being parts of a whole and transferred the whole into the initial riding of Eglinton. And now they've, willy-nilly, added on and taken off.

You will note that I indicate that there are no pressing population issues. The population of the riding stays more or less the same, but, most importantly, several very important high-rise developments are taking place right in the centre of the riding. By the time we come to another census, those will probably bring the population up by another 4,000 votes.

So the riding has maintained a consistent population that has ranged between 97,000 and change in 1984 to just under 100,000 in 1993, and now it is marginally over 100,000. None of these changes really affect those numbers. What they do affect is a community that is going to see neighbours split on one half for all of their cultural and business reasons, doing activity in one area, and now, for political reasons, having to divide, and really for no apparently good reason.

In the three-page brief I presented to you I've taken some trouble to itemize the demarcation lines. I closed by saying - and it's worth repeating, at least from my perspective - that in 1987, when the commission looked at what to do with Eglinton - Lawrence, they found some very compelling and persuasive arguments to keep Keele Street as the natural geographic and community dividing line for the western part of the riding. They again resisted changes to the riding to keep the portion north of Rogers Road, which is the extreme southern end of the riding, because the part between Rogers Road and Eglinton develops and continues to develop as one unit. In fact, ethnically it's largely Portuguese today and it's served by three churches.

The commission in 1987 looked at all of those changes and said that the only inconsistency in the riding was the section that went from the northern boundary of Toronto and the southern boundary of North York, east of Yonge Street and north of Eglinton. They said that they would take that away, and they did.

For the commission today to revisit all of those decisions and essentially represent an Eglinton - Lawrence that was between 1980 and 1984 is to revisit decisions that can no longer withstand the scrutiny of both housing developments and demographic developments in the riding in the past ten years.

I'll stop there, because it will probably be better if I just answer some questions.

Mr. Hanrahan: The one thing I would be interested in here is, if your wishes were addressed, the effect it would have on the surrounding ridings, the domino effect and that kind of thing. If they change it to where you wish it to go, then what's going to happen to successive ridings?

Mr. Volpe: A question that's probably even more germane is why the commission decided to make these kinds of changes. When it proposed its first plan, it found that the people who objected - because I didn't object, my riding association didn't object - were Metro councillors who served the North Toronto-old Forest Hill area and two other partisan political associations from ridings adjacent. They essentially said, we want to maintain the integrity of the riding - to wit, St. Paul's and Davenport - and we think by making these adjustments to Eglinton - Lawrence you're doing us great damage from a community point of view - community development and traditional interest point of view - but you're also not taking into consideration a very important element of that community of identity, which is the political tradition of the area.

.1755

This is what the people bordering Eglinton - Lawrence said to these changes.

It's a roundabout way of turning the question back to you and saying that those who would be affected don't want the new changes. They would prefer to see the old Eglinton - Lawrence. That's what they would like to see.

Mr. Hanrahan: These municipal politicians then were accommodated in everything they asked for.

Mr. Volpe: No; in part. There is a partial consideration, but they are still objecting to the map you see there before you. If you take a look at the North York and Toronto boundary that starts at Yonge Street - Yonge Street and Wilson Avenue, or York Mills - then all that area heading west towards the Allen Roadway and south down to Eglinton is the part they say should not be appended to Eglinton - Lawrence, because that is a much more traditional and stable community and it has its own characteristics, whereas the areas that are adjacent to it immediately to the north and immediately to the west are the areas of the city where there is the largest concentration of what is called in-fill housing. It's undergoing an enormous transformation. Its interests are so completely different from that area and the southeast corner of the riding that it would be akin to adding a municipality from another province. It's that distinct.

Mrs. Stewart: Just two things. One, can you confirm that the representations that were made by the city councillors are in support of your position right now?

Mr. Volpe: That's right.

Mrs. Stewart: Secondly, has the development in the area really supported the boundary changes -

Mr. Volpe: In 1987.

Mrs. Stewart: - in 1987; the determinations made in 1987 were really brought to fruition and you're seeing the developments that supported those original boundaries?

Mr. Volpe: Exactly. I think they foresaw some of the demographic developments, they saw some of the housing developments and large apartment complexes that were going into the riding, and they said this makes the most sense, given the way the riding is developing, and we should respect that.

By the way, the partisan organizations were the PC riding association for St. Paul and the PC association for Eglinton - Lawrence. Both wanted to maintain what I'm suggesting. We had no communication. I had to research the fact that they were the ones who intervened when we didn't.

Mr. Richardson: Joe, I'm trying to follow a couple of rationales here. I know you're talking about the movement of that boundary from the west to the east, but it doesn't follow logically that there's that blip above Eglinton that comes into your riding. Why is that there?

Mr. Volpe: The boundary between North York and York is about half a kilometre north of Eglinton. The southern boundary of the city of York is actually Rogers Road; one block south of Rogers Road. But historically, Rogers Road has been the dividing line between the city of Toronto and the city of York. So when the determination was made initially to extend to Eglinton - Lawrence along Eglinton Avenue right out to Keele Street in 1987, the commission said it doesn't make sense to leave it only at this; you have to include the part south of Eglinton down to Rogers Road.

There are four parishes there: St. Thomas, St. John Bosco, St. Hilda's Anglican, and the Immaculate Conception. They serve all that area. The community has grown around those churches, plus the Fairbank community centre. Those people, aside from being serviced by those parishes in that community centre, are also very closely tied to the commercial development of Eglinton Avenue, to the north.

.1800

So it didn't make sense, if you were going to consider development of identity and community, to leave it as part of Davenport, because they would then go down to St. Clair, which is the next major street. For those who are at Rogers Road, it's closer to Eglinton, especially because their social and cultural and religious life would be tied to the centres I indicated.

Mr. Richardson: Could I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Richardson: If you were seeking a boundary change, Joe, and we gave you this map, without distorting the numerical balance that much, what would you like to see it moved to?

Mr. Volpe: The numerical balance will be restored if you go right back to Keele Street to the west.

Mr. Richardson: What are you giving up, though, from the east?

Mr. Volpe: You'd have to give up that part of the city of Toronto. The riding right now essentially combines the city of York, or a very large portion of the city of York, and a significant portion of the city of North York. The way the commission has proposed it, it reduces the representation from the city of York but includes, then, representation from the city of Toronto, and maintains almost all of what it is in the city of North York.

So you have a riding that has gone from essentially addressing two municipal issues to one that now has to address issues in the city of Toronto from a municipal point of view. The locus for the generation of that interest is much further south, about six kilometres southeast of Eglinton - Lawrence. That quite frankly doesn't make any sense at all from maintaining a community of identity, a community of interest, and a political tradition.

Mr. Richardson: Thank you.

The Chairman: So in summary, Joe, you'd say it would be the community of interest they've neglected to address or concern themselves with and the anticipated growth that I think you mentioned.

Mr. Volpe: That's right. I don't think they took those two into consideration when they proposed the map that's before you right now. If in fact they had taken that into consideration and population was a concern to them, their best option would have been to leave the riding exactly as it was. That then would have been consistent with the plan they outlined when they last redistributed the riding.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Hanrahan: No. I see the logic of what Joe's saying here.

The Chairman: Thanks, Joe. I appreciate it. Whatever you've submitted will become part of the report.

Mr. Volpe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members.

The Chairman: Does anyone want an in camera after that?

Mr. Hanrahan: No. I think you have summarized essentially what I would have said in terms of this report.

The Chairman: Okay.

Sue Whelan is here. She is the representative for Windsor West.

Sue, you have a maximum of twenty minutes. You can use the whole twenty to talk or give us some time for questions, but that's the arrangement that's been made.

Ms Susan Whelan, MP (Essex - Windsor): I'm here today as the member of Parliament from the riding of Essex - Windsor. I want to thank you for allowing me to appear before the committee to stress my objections to the 1994 Report of the Electoral (Federal) Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario, tabled in the House on June 22, 1995.

If you have had a chance to read my submission you'll know that I say in it that the commission failed to respect paragraph 15(2)(b), to ``maintain a manageable geographic size for districts and sparsely populated, rural, or northern regions of the province''.

It's my opinion that the commission failed to respect the unique rural nature of southwestern Ontario, which is demonstrated by the fact that southwestern Ontario is losing one rural seat, resulting in the remaining seats increasing to an unmanageable size in comparison with the surrounding urban ridings. The reduction will be from seven rural districts to six. In my opinion, it's unacceptable.

I believe this proposal is contrary to the sentiments of the Supreme Court ruling that established that 25% population variations between electoral districts were not only allowable but desirable, as expressed by Judge McLachlin.

.1805

I will quote from Judge McLachlin's ruling:

As you know, within Ontario, regions such as southwestern Ontario have strong ties socially and economically to the smaller provinces - Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Yet under the proposal they are not accorded equal representation.

Saskatchewan, for example, has a population of 998,928 and 14 electoral districts. Southwestern Ontario has a population of 992,428 and has been allocated only 10 electoral districts under the plan. Saskatchewan's population per riding will be 70,638 under the plan. That's 22% less than the national average of 90,687. Southwestern Ontario, if allowed to retain its present 11 seats, would have close to 0% deviation from the national average of 90,220 and only 8% deviation over the provincial quota of 97,912 - well within the allowable 25% deviation.

I want to stress that if allowed to retain its 11 seats, southwestern Ontario would have close to 0% deviation from the population of the national average riding size of 90,220, based on the 1991 census.

Judge McLachlin recognized that rural and urban communities demand different attentions and methods from their members of Parliament, and I believe this should be recognized by the elections commission.

One such difference is the organization of government at the municipal level. Urban ridings usually deal with far fewer municipal councils than do rural ones. This can be observed by comparing my riding of Essex - Windsor to a city riding, which will have one municipal council with which to deal, whereas my riding of Essex - Windsor, an urban-rural riding, has 12 distinct municipal councils and one county council to respond to on all issues. That means there are 12 municipal councils, 12 chambers of commerce or business improvement agencies, 12 community festivals, etc. It is easy to see the demands this can place on an individual member, and I know many members have more than I do.

These factors complicate the ability of MPs to serve their constituents as well as affecting constituents' access to their MPs. The commission has failed to recognize this in determining electoral districts in Ontario. Yet, in spite of the above facts and the provisions to allow a variance of up to 25% between the size of electoral districts to account for such differences, and despite numerous past objections, the Ontario commission decided to ignore this reality and create larger and fewer rural ridings.

In conclusion I would note that the commission erred in using electoral quota as the sole factor in determining the electoral districts in Ontario and in failing to apply paragraph 15(2)(b) to the rural areas of southwestern Ontario.

Thank you.

The Chairman: What's the population of your riding as it stands now, Sue?

Ms Whelan: My riding has over 110,000 right now, but I have part of the city of Windsor in my riding.

The Chairman: What would it be after this new proposal came into being?

Ms Whelan: The exact population? I believe it would be 97,912.

The Chairman: So you'd have considerably fewer.

Ms Whelan: I'd have fewer people.

Mr. Hanrahan: But less than 8% deviation.

Ms Whelan: My concern is not with my riding. My concern, as my presentation clearly outlined, is with southwestern Ontario as well as with northern Ontario. The same thing is happening there - the reduction of rural seats in Ontario. I believe rural voters in Ontario are entitled to the same representation as rural voters in other parts of Canada.

I'm not particularly concerned just with the boundaries of my riding. I'm more concerned with what's going to happen in the province of Ontario, particularly southwestern Ontario.

The Chairman: I think it's important that be noted.

Have you finished?

Ms Whelan: Yes.

The Chairman: Are there questions?

Mr. Hanrahan: I don't have a question, but simply an observation and probably an agreement with you. We heard this argument yesterday as well. The distinction between a rural riding and an urban riding is one that this committee will make in its submissions.

Ms Whelan: I appreciate that, because I think it's important.

I made a very similar presentation to the commission when it was in my riding, and I made another presentation based on the community of interest, because of two smaller municipalities that were being removed from my riding originally. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at the map, but the map has changed slightly from the original proposal by adding Tilbury West and Tilbury North back to the riding of what's to be called Essex because there's a community of interest there. One of the original French settlements outside of Quebec is in my riding. That was an area that was linked together with Rochester Township, and they had divided that in half. They recognized that.

.1810

I made the argument there that we were losing seats in rural Ontario and southwestern Ontario as well as in northern Ontario, and they didn't pay attention to it. That's why I'm trying to stress it again, because I think it's very important that the rural voters in Ontario have equal representation.

The Chairman: Jane.

Mrs. Stewart: It's my understanding that the representation we had from Jerry Pickard, which was similar, focused not so much on the detail of the boundaries but on the philosophy of rural versus urban. That's consistent with what you are saying, Susan.

Ms Whelan: Definitely. I don't think either Jerry Pickard or I would have any difficulty in changing municipalities, because it's a privilege to represent any municipality in any part of Ontario, especially in Essex County, which is the part Jerry and I represent.

But under the proposal, I would go from having my original 11 municipalities to having 18 municipalities, and that's not counting the fact that I would lose part of the city of Windsor. There are a number of issues that are involved in that, but that's not my concern. My bigger concern is what's happening in southwestern Ontario and the disappearance of a rural seat, which will add to many other members' responsibilities.

The Chairman: Mr. Richardson.

Mr. Richardson: I understand what Sue is talking about, the interaction with the 16 or 17 different local governments.

Sue, the hardest thing for us would be how we could get a better community of interest. I don't think we'll be able to squeeze another riding back into southwestern Ontario, not when you take all the ridings we've looked at today. None of them are on a very strong deviation one way or the other from the norm. It would be difficult for us to do that.

Ms Whelan: In my presentation, I made direct reference to the fact that Saskatchewan is going to have a 22% deviation from the national average. It's going to have 70,000 versus 90,000, and in my riding there's only going to be an 8% deviation. What I'm suggesting is that in southwestern ridings as well as in northern Ontario, maybe the deviation should be closer to 25% in the rural parts, because the geographical territory is so large. There are other problems there that I won't even get into.

All I'm trying to say is that I think it's important to note the differences, and I think it's important to say that although there is a national average, there's a reason the deviation of 25% was there. I talked about Judge McLachlin's ruling.

There are things that have happened in the past that tried to spell out the special attention that needs to be paid to rural areas. I think that was missed and I think it's something this committee needs to take a second look at. If not, you're going to have a riding like mine that may be small in population, large in geographic area, and have many different communities of interest, versus an urban riding that is 5 miles by 5 miles and has 110,000 people.

To be perfectly honest, I can't imagine having that small a riding to represent, and I don't know what I would do with my time in some ways.

Anyhow, this isn't what I would call an issue for your committee, but if you look at how rural ridings are represented and what rural members are given as budgets, they don't reflect the differences at all. If we're talking about making our area bigger, as a rural member, then there has to be some kind of correlation with how a member can adequately serve that, and there isn't right now. We base everything strictly on population numbers, and it just isn't justified.

The Chairman: I think that will become part of the committee's report; they don't recognize the difference between an urban and a rural riding in many aspects. Geography is just one way.

.1815

Mr. Richardson: Three members on this committee have that kind of....

Sorry, Mr. Chairman; I shouldn't have butted in.

We're very sympathetic to the concerns you have, because my riding, from tip to toe, is almost double the size of yours. Jane has a rural component, as does the chairman.

I don't know if you do, Hugh.

The Chairman: Mine's almost all rural.

Mr. Hanrahan: Mine is in the city. We deal with the immigration part and a number of areas that the rural area doesn't.

Susan, I want to ask a broader question, perhaps even for my own interest. When the other chap was here yesterday, he spoke of the rural Ontario ridings versus downtown Toronto. You made your comparison with Saskatchewan. He was saying that in terms of Toronto they have x number of senators, y number of cabinet ministers, and so forth, of which the rural area doesn't seem to get its fair share.

Is there any body or organization that you belong to or that is formed that can address these things from a rural point of view?

Ms Whelan: I'm not sure. I don't think that my voters think they don't have adequate representation in their riding.

They are obviously used to even greater representation. Windsor and Essex County is not an area that is underprivileged, by any means. At one time they had three cabinet ministers for three ridings in a row. They've obviously been well represented in the past, and they believe that they still have good representation today.

The bigger concern is the ability and access to things. Downtown Toronto has numerous government services offices. We don't have that in my riding. Not only do we not have government services offices in my riding, but also we don't have bus service. Part of my riding doesn't have cable. There is no access or no ability for me to reach out to every single one of my voters.

The Chairman: Has that anything to do with -

Ms Whelan: I had to replace public accounts. They didn't show up. But the committee meetings are over now, so I guess that's a good sign.

The Chairman: That's why they make it part of the record.

Ms Whelan: What I'm trying to say is that it's difficult for me. As a city member you probably get.... I don't know what they have, whether it's the same or not. For example, in Ontario Rogers Cable offers all the wonderful TV talk shows and wonderful things you can do to reach your constituents. You can't do that in my riding.

My riding is very close to the city of Windsor and the United States. I can see the United States from my house. It's right across the river. You would think that we have all these wonderful technological things. We don't, because it's a rural riding in many ways and there's no cable.

We still have the old cross bar, which limits the type of phone system you can have, which limits the type of access you have to the Internet.

We forget a number of things about rural ridings, which is why more demands are placed on members of Parliament, both federally and provincially, and particularly on the municipal councillors.

They're expected to serve their constituents in many ways, across the board: school board trustees, etc. They don't have access to as many things as you would have in an urban centre.

The Chairman: Okay. I think we've got the point.

Does anybody have a further question? Is everybody content?

Thanks, Susan.

Ms Whelan: Thanks very much.

The Chairman: Is it the wish of the group to suspend until 7 p.m.?

Mr. Hanrahan: What time is it now?

The Chairman: It's almost 6:20 p.m.

Hugh, if the others were here, I'd keep going. But they won't be here until 7 p.m. anyway.

Should we suspend until then?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

.1620

PAUSE

.1908

The Chairman: We are now assembled, and we welcome Maurizio Bevilacqua, York North.

Maurizio, the routine here is to give you twenty minutes. You can use it all to make your presentation, or you can leave us time for questions. We'll leave that up to you. Anything you've already submitted will become part of the report, and anything that's said here becomes part of the report too, I guess.

An hon. member: One has a $20 bill in it.

The Chairman: You're on.

Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua, MP (York North): First of all, just for the record, this is an important presentation for me, since I do represent anywhere between 250,000 and 260,000 people. So redistribution is something I certainly welcome, and it is indeed very clear.

In 1987, when the present boundaries were drawn, York North had a population of 99,734. In 1991 the population was 233,302. As I said earlier, conservative estimates put the current population at approximately 250,000 to 260,000. However, the reason I appear before you today is to ensure that the redistribution is done responsibly.

.1910

Exhibit 1, which you have there, shows the current and proposed boundaries. York North's current boundaries are outlined in yellow. The 1994 Electoral Boundaries Commission proposed ridings are outlined in blue.

As indicated, it is proposed that York North be divided in three. I object to the boundaries as drawn for three reasons, as outlined in the motion I filed with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

First, the commission has failed to respect the community of interest of the city of Vaughan and the township of King. Both of these municipalities have been split by the proposed riding boundaries. The division of the riding in this manner would confuse voters and would require community groups and municipal governments to seek assistance from two federal members, as opposed to one.

The community of Thornhill has been axed out of the city of Vaughan. This makes absolutely no sense. It is part of the city of Vaughan and is served by Vaughan councillors. It would make sense for it to stay together.

The township of King has been separated from its traditional grouping since the boundaries were drawn in 1987. This has caused confusion for the community residents, in that while the bulk of King Township is situated in the federal riding of York North, some of the smaller towns, such as Snowball and Kettleby are segregated.

The challenges of encouraging an active community are strong enough as it is in a rural area. Dividing the community only compounds the problem.

Second, the commission has failed to give consideration to the historical pattern of the electoral district. When one looks at previous boundaries it is apparent that the township of King, the town of Aurora, and the town of Newmarket have been included together in a riding through a clear majority of boundary redistributions. The township of King, the town of Aurora, and the town of Newmarket have rested in the same riding on numerous occasions. Most recently, before the 1988 general election, King, Aurora, and Newmarket were all part of York - Peel. Since Confederation they have been included together in a riding through a clear majority of boundary redistributions. It is apparent that these three communities have strong historical ties.

The proposed riding of Vaughan - Aurora combines a densely populated urban municipality, the city of Vaughan, with the larger rural communities of King and Aurora. As a result, the proposed riding does not best serve the interests of the constituents in these areas. The issues and priorities of urban and rural areas are not always the same. That is true across the country and certainly holds true in the case of the city of Vaughan and the township of King and town of Aurora. Both communities would be better served if they had separate representatives.

Of course, I want to take this opportunity to offer what I consider to be the solutions to the challenges we face in the riding of York North.

.1913

As I stated earlier, I am in favour of dividing York North into three federal ridings. After consulting with the municipalities involved, I have come up with the following solution.

Exhibit 2 demonstrates a more effective and responsible redistribution of boundaries. I propose that the city of Vaughan become its own riding. On January 1, 1991, Vaughan in fact became a city. It would be appropriate for this redistribution of federal electoral boundaries to acknowledge this fact and maintain the municipal boundaries. The City of Vaughan is a recognizable administrative unit, and creating a federal riding in Vaughan would, again, serve the residents well.

I'd like to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that I've taken the time to approach the municipalities involved in this redistribution. I can tell you they've all agreed with the map as I have outlined it.

.1915

In exhibit number 3, we see the City of Vaughan has adopted a resolution that would support the above argument. The city has stressed the importance of making the northern limit of the city of Vaughan the boundary for the federal electoral riding of Vaughan. This will provide more effective representation for the residents of Vaughan.

Number two, I propose that a second riding be created, following the boundaries of the existing town of Richmond Hill. The riding should not include any portion of the towns of Markham or Whitchurch-Stouffville.

In exhibit number 4, we see this proposal is supported by a resolution adopted by the Town of Richmond Hill, which calls for an amendment to the federal electoral boundaries as proposed by the commission. Richmond Hill is one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada. It is a strong community unto itself, with a population that warrants a separate riding.

Number three, the third riding should include the township of King, the town of Aurora and the town of Newmarket. The town of Aurora has adopted a resolution that states the electoral boundaries should be drawn in adherence to historical patterns and communities of interest in a manner that will promote effective representation. The resolution calls for the uniting of the municipalities of King, Newmarket and Aurora.

In exhibit 6, we see the town of Newmarket has adopted the resolution of the town of Aurora. It is obvious these communities feel strongly that their needs will be best served by a riding that represents three complete municipal units that have similar interests and historical cohesiveness.

In conclusion, members of the committee, there's a definite need to divide the existing federal riding of York North. The population of this riding has grown by more than 60% since 1988 and further growth is predicted.

The federal electoral boundaries proposed by the commission do not adequately address the concerns of community interests. The residents of York North will be better served by new ridings that follow existing municipal boundaries. People with common interests will be represented by a single member of Parliament. This will lead to more effective representation. The people of York North deserve fair representation.

When you look at the numbers, I think the reason the riding should be divided is self-evident. The proposals that have been presented in this submission outline riding boundaries that will ensure that the desires and needs of the residents of the current riding of York North are met.

That concludes my presentation, but I once again would like to stress to the committee that in fact the people who reside in the area and the people who represent the residents of the area agree with the make-up of the plan I have presented to you. Quite frankly, I think they agree because they also have an understanding of what the communities are like.

They all fall within the population as prescribed by the commission.

Mr. Richardson: Welcome, Maurizio, to the hearings.

I enjoyed your presentation, but could you add a couple of things for me? If you don't have an exact number, could you give an approximation of the populations for the three ridings in your exhibit 2?

Mr. Bevilacqua: The city of Vaughan would be approximately anywhere between 111,359 to 125,795.

Mrs. Stewart: That includes Thornhill?

Mr. Bevilacqua: Yes, it does.

Thornhill is basically represented both on the Markham side and on the Vaughan side. The Thornhill I'm talking about is Thornhill - Vaughan. The people who live and reside in the city of Vaughan, of course, would like Thornhill - Vaughan to be included in this, and it is.

.1920

The town of Richmond Hill is 93,427, and King - Aurora - Newmarket, 105,174. They're still fairly large ridings. Nevertheless, they're better than what we have today.

Mr. Richardson: The second request after the list was the renaming of the riding of the north to be York North. This is the second request we've had for that name, if I'm not mistaken. I think we had that from another one. So there may be a conflict in that request. In other words, it may have to be refereed. It was a stand-alone request. It wasn't change of anything, but just change of name of the riding. I just want to make you aware of that, more than anything else.

I've been up in your riding and I know the size of it. The balance, except for the city of Vaughan, which is within the margin of deviation, is within there. You've substantiated that you have community support for it. I like it.

Mr. Bevilacqua: Well, thank you.

Mrs. Stewart: So the commission decided that rather than hack out Richmond Hill, they would hack out Thornhill.

Mr. Bevilacqua: That's right.

Mrs. Stewart: Richmond Hill is 93,400 and change and Thornhill is 95,200 and change, with the little addition into Markham.

Mr. Bevilacqua: That's right.

Mrs. Stewart: Thornhill is part of the city of Vaughan. I guess one of the concerns, Maurizio, is if we haul Newmarket out of Newmarket - Georgina. Do you have any ideas? It's the biggest centre and the largest population base for Newmarket - Georgina. What would that do to that riding?

Mr. Bevilacqua: Newmarket would be the large part. It would be King - Aurora - Newmarket, between 103,000 and 105,000.

Mrs. Stewart: I'm just thinking about what it then does to the proposed Newmarket - Georgina if Newmarket is taken out. It's 99,000 people. I expect a lot of those would be in the city of Newmarket.

Mr. Bevilacqua: That's right.

Mrs. Stewart: So the impact on that upper riding would be significant. We'd have to look at how we'd adjust that at the top.

Mr. Bevilacqua: That's true; there's no question. But the way the map is drawn now, when you look at the riding of Oak Ridges, it goes all over the place. People who know the area will tell you there is no sound reason why we should be having a riding like Oak Ridges, which is hooking almost two or three ridings from the previous ones. It doesn't make sense.

Mrs. Stewart: So the addition of that construction doesn't make sense and I guess could be reformulated with something to the north.

Mr. Bevilacqua: Exactly.

The fact is, I have a riding now with the population base...and I had to come up with what I thought would be the most precise and the neatest way to really divide, knowing what the communities are like. I think the fact that all the councillors and the mayors of the area would support this view speaks to the fact that it is a fairly good proposal to follow. But of course you need to make those adjustments outside of the three areas.

I guess that's the challenge the commission faces.

The Chairman: How strong are you on the name if, as John has suggested - and if we look and he's right - someone else has proposed a name change to what you're proposing? Is that a big issue?

.1925

Mr. Bevilacqua: We could just use seniority in this case to see who'll get the riding.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Stewart: Seniority of whom?

Mr. Bevilacqua: There are, for example, people who have been elected a couple of times at least and there are those who have just come in. Maybe we should...?

I'm just kidding.

The Chairman: That isn't a big issue with you, is it?

Mr. Bevilacqua: It's not a big issue.

I'm aware of the proposal made by the member for York - Simcoe.

The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Bevilacqua: Yes. That would be fine.

The Chairman: If that was the only problem, then you wouldn't have difficulty.

Mr. Bevilacqua: No, absolutely not.

Mr. Hanrahan: Let me compliment you, Maurizio. This is probably one of the most comprehensive presentations we've had. Excellent work.

In the city of Vaughan, with which I am not at all familiar, you suggest there are 111,000 to 125,000 now. What's the potential for expansion there? Is there any at all? Are we going to be looking at doing this again five years down the road?

Mr. Bevilacqua: The York region, which includes Richmond Hill, Vaughan, and Aurora, is one of the fastest-growing areas in Canada. But, given the options that were presented to me by the commission, if I have to choose between splitting a city in half and having, for example, the municipal councillor have two members of Parliament....

We, as members of Parliament, of course understand the relationship between local government and the federal government and the community.

A better way to govern is when you're relating directly with one single municipal unit, and this will be achieved by this proposal.

The other proposal takes away important parts, such as Thornhill, for example. It just brings in the town of Aurora, which has a greater community of interest with Newmarket and King. It's not me who is saying this, but the people who live there.

So it would make more sense to maintain the proposal as I said.

Mr. Hanrahan: I could ask the same question of exhibit 1, as they drew it: the potential for change down the road.

I'm impressed by the support you got from your various groups. Were there any opponents?

Mr. Bevilacqua: Not that I heard of.

Mr. Hanrahan: No? Nobody is unhappy with this? Not the surrounding areas?

Mr. Bevilacqua: No. Of course, because we have a large riding, being divided into three, it's quite different from shifting one riding into the next area or something like that. This is division. It's not shifting or anything like that. So in that sense it's a little bit easier.

Mr. Richardson: I know a little bit about the area. I have to agree with Maurizio that it's growing fast, and upper-scale homes seemed to be going up in the area I was moving around in.

The Chairman: It has an upper-scale MP, too. Wouldn't you say so?

Mr. Bevilacqua: On that positive note....

Mrs. Stewart: I have one point of interest. It doesn't really reflect on yours. Does the new riding of Markham include the old town of Markham?

Mr. Bevilacqua: Yes.

Mrs. Stewart: It does. So the old town is there but the whole city isn't in it? The regional unit?

Mr. Bevilacqua: Just one second here.

Mrs. Stewart: But the old town of Markham is in the riding of Markham.

Mr. Bevilacqua: As a matter of fact, it is not. It would be in the riding of Oak Ridges, because Main Street, right up there, Stouffville Road.... Well, Main Street is basically Main Street, old town of Markham.

Mrs. Stewart: Old-town Markham, yes. So it's up there. Gee whiz!

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Maurizio. Everything you've given us is becoming part of the report, and everything you've said is on the record.

Mr. Bevilacqua: Thank you.

.1930

The Chairman: Committee, we're right on time. The next witness is here, Marlene Catterall, from Ottawa West. We got a little bit off our schedule with the vote, but not badly.

Mr. Richardson: She's always on time.

The Chairman: Marlene, it's twenty minutes. You can use it all to talk, if you like, or you can leave some for us to ask questions.

Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West): I would prefer not to. I do have something I want to put in your hands, though, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately I haven't been able to reproduce the full map for each member of the committee, but perhaps you can pass it around. I also have these to be distributed to each member of the committee, so as I refer to some figures you'll have them in front of you.

I made a presentation to the Electoral Boundaries Commission last year when they were hearing submissions. Their proposals at the time and the ultimate results, certainly for my riding and the surrounding riding, demonstrated to me that it's extremely important for the commissions to consult before they start drawing lines on a map. I felt then and I feel now the final report they prepared for this area reflected a lack of understanding of community, which you really can only get by hearing from people directly. So many of my comments and my suggestions to you tonight go very much to the concept of community of interest and the historical nature of the riding I represent now, the proposed changes, but also the surrounding ridings, and particularly the riding of Nepean.

You heard from Beryl Gaffney this afternoon her concerns that the community of interest of the current riding of Nepean and the community of Nepean have not been respected in the proposal that's before you. To some extent the suggestions I'll make to you tonight also address that and may be a partial solution you could apply to the situation of Nepean.

I know Beryl's very strong feelings that the solution lies in a major reconsideration of the ridings within Ottawa-Carleton and the distribution of ridings between the urban and rural areas. I think that kind of major rethinking by the commission at this point is highly unlikely unless in fact Bill C-69 passes, and then we are into a rethinking and that's something we can revisit. So let me deal with the boundaries as they have been proposed.

I want to deal with two aspects. I presume you all have the map of the Ottawa-Carleton region in front of you. It is map 12.

Let me deal first with the eastern boundary. The coloured map I've distributed shows the existing boundaries of Ottawa West, which are virtually the same as the existing provincial boundaries, coming down Island Park Drive. I think I've marked them in pink on the coloured map. They come down Island Park Drive to Baseline Road, which is currently the southern boundary between Ottawa West and Nepean, which is where certainly Beryl Gaffney would like to keep it, and where I would be happy to see it kept.

What the commission has recommended takes a block of a riding that has consistently been virtually a cohesive rectangle since its inception in the early 1950s, I believe, and it creates a jagged eastern boundary that in my view really does disrupt communities that have developed a commonality of interest over the years by nature of the geography of the community, the community services that exist, and the common interests people have developed.

.1935

Let me just give you an example. You'll see from my map that the old riding boundary comes down Island Park Drive and then directly down Fisher Avenue. What the commission has done is shoved the top half of that into the middle of what is now the riding of Ottawa West and left the eastern boundary in the bottom half virtually the same. It has moved the boundary south of Carling Avenue, which is the halfway mark of the riding, over to Merivale Road.

What it has done by doing that is put the boundary down the middle of a community called Carlington. Carlington is an old community. Its core started with the veterans' homes that were built immediately after the war. It added some newer homes in the 1950s and 1960s. It has a newer development of public housing.

On both sides of Merivale Road, that community is served by the same schools - one French school, one English school, and one Roman Catholic English school - by the same community and health services centre, and by the same kind of recreation programming. There's a lot of interchange between the communities on both sides of that road. It is very much a community. It's a community I enjoy representing, and if there has to be a shift in that boundary, I believe it's important for that community to stay together. I'm going to suggest to you a change that would accomplish that without disrupting the population figures the commission has tried to achieve.

What I'm going to suggest to you is that from Baseline north the eastern boundary of the riding should move from Fisher over to Clyde Avenue. That would keep the community of Carlington intact. Rather than putting half the community into Ottawa Centre, it would put all of the community into Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Hanrahan: I'm sorry to interrupt. You would move it from where?

Mrs. Catterall: I would move it from Merivale Road, which the commission has recommended. It's currently at Fisher Avenue, which is the next road to your east. I would remove it from Merivale to the next line, which is Maitland Avenue. In fact, there's a straight part coming up from Baseline Road and a street that extends straight north there called Clyde Avenue. To the east of that right now there's largely open space, except for the community that fronts on Merivale Road. So by putting the boundary up along the extension of Clyde Avenue as far as Carling, you would keep all of Carlington intact and in one riding.

Then you move easterly on Carling Avenue with a slight jog to a street called Kirkwood, and then straight north to Scott Street, slightly west on Scott Street to the hydro corridor, and then north to the river.

The Chairman: What would that do to the population?

Mrs. Catterall: What it does to the population is to add some of the population back into what's now Ottawa West. It adds a little more into Ottawa Centre, and it's virtually balanced from the census tract figures I have.

If you look at page 1 of this handwritten document I gave you, it would add to Ottawa West, or to the new riding of Ottawa Nepean, census tracts 032.02, 032.01, and approximately half of 033.02, for a total population of 11,182. It would add to Ottawa Centre, in the new area between Merivale and the Clyde Avenue extension, about 80% of census tract 022.00, 80% of census tract 023.00, and half of census tract 033.02, for a total of 11,220.

.1940

Now, obviously I don't have the capacity to look at the sub-sub-sub-census tracts. But from my knowledge of the community that's quite accurate, I believe.

That's the eastern boundary. That still doesn't deal with the problem south of there, Baseline Road, which Beryl Gaffney was concerned about, in that it would put that first-developed area of Nepean into the new riding, and I know Beryl is anxious to avoid that. If you look at the second page of figures I have provided you with, I think there is an option there.

I haven't looked at that area from Baseline down to the railway, the area Beryl is extremely concerned about, because that is the traditional part of Nepean. Let me just give you some history, though.

When Ottawa West was first created, it was by the annexation of a large chunk of Nepean to the City of Ottawa, as well as the old police village of Westboro. When that happened, the City of Ottawa took over Nepean city hall. Nepean city hall sits in the middle of the current riding of Ottawa West. If the commission's recommendations are accepted and the boundary of Nepean moves south to the railway line from Baseline Road, an Ottawa West riding will again be taking over Nepean's brand-new city hall, which they built less than five years ago. That's how crucial that area is to Nepean's identity as a community.

I shouldn't be speaking for Beryl, but she and I have discussed this and I know how she feels about it.

What I have looked at, then, is the new areas that are being added to the west of the current Ottawa West. What the commission is recommending be added is basically the communities along the river, which do have a fair bit in common with the community of Ottawa West. There are transportation routes we have in common, there's frontage on the Ottawa River we have in common, the community of Bayshore...you can't tell, as you travel from Ottawa West to Bayshore in Nepean, that you've left one city and gone into another. It's contiguous and continuous development.

So those ridings north of Baseline but to the west that the commission is recommending add, as far as I can see, census tracts 137.02, 137.03, 138.00, and 139.00. The total population of those four census tracts is 16,000. That would move the population of Ottawa West, then, from 80,000 up to 96,000, which is barely 1% less than the Ontario riding average of 97,000 and some. That's well within...it's almost bang-on the average.

However, the commission's recommendation is over the average by close to 9%. There may be some logic to that, because what's currently Nepean is certainly growing in population more than the current riding of Ottawa West.

.1945

So if you felt you needed to recommend something closer to the population, as the commission has recommended, there is a community called Lynwood Village, which consists of two census tracts. That's the first possible further addition I've given you. That would add a population of 6,573 and bring the population of Ottawa West to 102,706, which would be 7.3% over the provincial average of 97,000.

That's still below the population the commission recommended, and if it really felt it was necessary to go closer to 10% over, then there is one additional census tract that could be added that is contiguous, but it would be biting into the area I know Beryl Gaffney feels is a traditional part of Nepean. I think you would want to get her views on this. It is possible in the west part of the riding to dip south of Baseline Road for one census tract and add another 5,877, which would then bring the total population of the new riding to 108,000, which is 10% over the average.

There may be some disparity between the figures I'm giving you and the figures the commission used. I believe it was using 1981 census figures and these are 1991 census figures, which Stats Canada provided to me. Nonetheless, they clearly represent the reality of today. It's a reality that will be up to seven years old by the time these boundaries are actually applied in an election.

I would just like to recap a bit and say that I think the eastern boundary could best accommodate the community of interest by going up Clyde Avenue to Baseline Road and over to Kirkwood Avenue. Another possibility that might be an easier and neater draw for the map makers would be to go up the Tweedsmuir Avenue hydro corridor - there would be almost no difference at all - and then north to Scott Street. That wouldn't change the population of the new proposed riding significantly and it wouldn't change the proposed population of Ottawa Centre significantly.

The other changes I have suggested to you are to accommodate the main concerns of our colleague in Nepean.

The Chairman: We have a very short time for questions. We're over the twenty minutes.

Mrs. Catterall: I'm sorry. I just didn't know how to give you the detail you needed and be brief.

Mrs. Stewart: I would like to reiterate and make sure we take note of the point Marlene made about the importance of Baseline Road, the significance it has, and in particular the significance the new drawing would have in scooping up the new town centre. I know Beryl made that point, not specifically, but certainly that our concern is made known. I think that's an issue we should draw to the attention of the commission.

Mr. Richardson: I know you've been talking to Beryl, but have you talked to Mac Harb at all?

Mrs. Catterall: I haven't talked to Mac and that's certainly something I would want to do. Right now we have a north-south dividing line between our two ridings. What I'm proposing would just move it a bit to the west, instead of creating a jagged line. But it is something I would want to make Mac aware of. We should let him provide you with his opinions as well.

Mr. Hanrahan: The only thing I'd like to have restated is the area of the community of interest of Island Park Road to Fisher Avenue, which, if I read this map correctly, now is being lost entirely to the next....

.1950

Mrs. Catterall: Perhaps it would be easier if I put this in front of you.

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes. Am I looking at this right? Is this what it is? You are suggesting the green line?

Mrs. Catterall: Yes, I'm suggesting the green line. The blue line divides the community of Carlington. It's now all in Ottawa West. Under the commission's proposal, half of it would be in Ottawa Centre and the other half in the new riding of Ottawa - Nepean. I think it's extremely important for this community to be kept together.

Mr. Hanrahan: Will you leave this with us for our submission?

Mrs. Catterall: I will.

Mr. Chair, I will put in writing to you the points I've made to you this evening. If I could make one final submission, Ottawa West has a long tradition as a name in this region. There are very strong feelings from the community organizations I have consulted with for this to be retained. The new riding could become Ottawa West - Nepean.

The Chairman: All right, we'll take note of that.

Mr. Richardson: I have a question, Marlene. We heard some talk about Nepean and the suburbs versus the name ``Ottawa'' being attached to ridings that have a large section of Nepean attached to them. Is this riding going to have a majority of its votes in the city of Ottawa?

Mrs. Catterall: I didn't have the time to do all those calculations. I'm not entirely sure. I think it would be probably fairly balanced between Ottawa votes and Nepean votes, but I haven't done the mathematics. If you decide to make a recommendation to the commission, of course, to leave the southern boundary at Baseline Road, then it would be a majority of Ottawa votes.

The Chairman: Thanks again, Marlene.

The next witness, Derek Lee of Scarborough - Rouge River, is here.

Mr. Derek Lee, MP (Scarborough - Rouge River): Colleagues, I was very disappointed in the results of the redistribution process, but there are reasons why I was vulnerable in this regard.

The main reason, of course, is that I didn't make any submissions initially. At the time, I was serving on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I believed that the former procedure would be replaced by the new procedure. Consequently, the commissioners did not have the benefit of my perspective.

However, having just acknowledged that, I was still horrified that they put together what they did.

My submission includes sketches of the riding, which is in schedule II. This will help as I discuss this. There is schedule I and schedule II.

The goal was to redistribute the five ridings within Scarborough. There are five ridings, minus one. Mine was the only riding that materially exceeded the quota. I had about 150,000 persons. We had to get that down to about 108,000. It wasn't too difficult a task to repackage the ridings, but in the end they changed the riding name when they didn't have to.

They have changed no other riding names in Scarborough except Scarborough - Rouge River.

.1955

They had to change the boundary, but they changed it in a way that was totally excessive.

They changed the populations. The population adjustments they've made were appropriate and accurate.

As I want to show you, they didn't have to change the name and the boundaries. The boundary change was excessive. The only way I can articulate that is to have you refer to the maps, the sketch of schedule II in my submission. In schedule II you will see at the top of the page a sketch of the riding as it is now. You will see in the second sketch the way the riding has been reconfigured.

The riding name has been changed to Scarborough North, and Scarborough East has moved up north to Steeles Avenue and enveloped that whole eastern area.

If you turn to schedule I, you will see an enlarged sketch that purports to represent what's there. The largest hatch marks slanting to the right represent a vast undeveloped area of land. It's not totally undeveloped, but the important thing is that according to Statistics Canada only four people live there.

In fact, I know there are about 100 people living there in scattered farmhouses. For reasons that escape me, they have decided to cut away almost half of the riding to accommodate a population shift of four when it wasn't necessary.

In those large hatch marks, there are institutions representing a community of interest. There is the Tapscott industrial district at the top left of the hatch marks along Markham Road. They've been constituents for quite awhile. Nobody lives there, but a lot of people work there.

There are the Rouge Valley lands to the right of that, as well as the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo. You may wonder how rabbits and squirrels and deer can be constituents, but believe me, they have been. They don't show up on the Statistics Canada stuff.

There is an additional small community down near the bottom. One must accept that there must be a boundary change down there. Appropriately, the commission has removed the section south of Highway 401 and given part of that chunk to Scarborough Centre, now represented by Mr. Cannis.

The other area is in the small hatch marks you see there. That represents a populated area that has been appropriately added to Scarborough East, which is represented by the Hon. Doug Peters. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with the huge territorial obliteration and the name change without reasons. In my submission, in the annex, I point out two principles articulated in the EBC report, two principles that they subscribe to and to which the new statute subscribes.

The first is that where population allows, the commission has preferred to retain the general configuration of existing districts. They obviously weren't following that principle when they redrew the boundary.

The second one is that the commission has attempted to contain the ripple effect as far as possible within its area of origin. It could have contained the ripple effect simply by going up to Sheppard Avenue, as shown in schedule I.

.2000

I have spoken to both Doug Peters and John Cannis about this. John Cannis has provided me with a letter stating no objection and full support. On the weekend Doug Peters left on a significant government initiative involving three weeks outside of the country and I was not able to communicate. I have spoken to him about it in the past, but if there was time I would want to provide something in this regard from him as well.

In summary - and it's set out in the motion I drafted, which perhaps is a bit technical at this stage - I want, and my constituents very much want, to retain the riding name. There being no particular need to change it, why should we? So the name should remain Scarborough - Rouge River, and all of the lands in excess of the lands where there is the population as set out should remain part of the Rouge River riding, and the three principal constituents there are the Metro Zoo, the Rouge Valley lands and Pearce House, and the Tapscott industrial district.

Just as a bit of an irony, with the way the road patterns are, that area being undeveloped as it is, in order to get to the Tapscott industrial district the member from Scarborough East would have to drive through Scarborough - Rouge River and out the other side. That sometimes happens in rural areas, where you have large tracts of land, etc. But there's no need for that in an urban area such as this, notwithstanding that the shoulder area is simply not developed. It has been reserved for the Rouge Valley.

Those are my submissions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Derek.

We'll have a few minutes for questions. Hugh.

Mr. Hanrahan: I don't know the area, but, with a hundred people and four rabbits being in it, why do the people want to keep it? Just for parkland?

Mr. Lee: When you ask why the people want to keep it -

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes. If I'm reading this map right.

Mr. Lee: Yes. Which people are you thinking of?

Mr. Hanrahan: We're speaking of this area, are we not?

Mr. Lee: Yes.

Mr. Hanrahan: But there's nobody really living there, other than some people who work there, and there's a small community down in this corner.

Mr. Lee: No. There's a scattered community of about 100 living in farmhouses throughout the area.

Mr. Hanrahan: I guess what I'm leading to is whether there is a potential to develop over into this area.

Mr. Lee: No.

Mr. Hanrahan: So it will remain essentially that.

Mr. Lee: It has been set aside as part of the Rouge Valley land. They will continue to live there and to work the farms. There aren't very many. I'm calling it 100. It might be 67 or something else. It's more than 4 and less than 100.

Mr. Hanrahan: How many people are you losing altogether?

Mr. Lee: It's going from 150,000 down to 108,000 - forty-some thousand.

Mr. Hanrahan: And they're going to Scarborough Centre and Scarborough East.

Mr. Lee: Yes, and no one is objecting to that. That will be accomplished in either way.

Your question was why people would want to keep it.

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes.

Mr. Lee: Keep in mind that there are people who work there and people who have spent a lot of time there.

The Metro Zoo, for example - who was their member of Parliament? Who is it now? It's me. What riding are they a part of? It is Scarborough - Rouge River.

It is the same with the Tapscott industrial district. It's a business district. What is their riding? Who is their member of Parliament?

I don't mind these changes where they're necessary, but in this case, the goal being to redistribute the voting population, they've gone far beyond what they had to do in order to do that.

Mr. Hanrahan: And did I hear you say that there's no objection from Scarborough East to your keeping that in your area?

Mr. Lee: When you say ``Scarborough East'', are you talking about constituents? Are you talking about riding associations for the various parties?

Mr. Hanrahan: For the member.

Mr. Lee: Or are you talking about the member? The last time I spoke with the member, which was when this was submitted, he agreed with me. It was not possible for me to get something in writing from him. He signed the submission on page X.

.2005

But I must say, if I had participated in the first set of hearings I'd have perhaps had a sense of why this went the way it did.

Mr. Hanrahan: Do you have any sense? It doesn't make an awful lot of logical sense.

Mr. Lee: One thing occurred to me. At some point they may have thought, well, let's keep the whole Rouge River in one package as it goes down to the lake. Right now the Rouge River is the eastern boundary for Scarborough East. It doesn't run through the riding; it's a boundary between Ontario riding and....

If I'm not mistaken - and I think I'm correct - originally the commission recommended that the riding be called Scarborough - Rouge River. But Scarborough historical people came and said no, you can't call it that, because we must keep Scarborough East. So they changed the name back to Scarborough East. They kept the name, but they didn't go back and change the name Scarborough - Rouge River.

That is a possible piece of logic. But my not being there.... They were filling a vacuum.

Mrs. Stewart: It's interesting that in the document here, Derek, they say the name Scarborough South was changed to Scarborough West and Scarborough - Rouge River to Scarborough East. So they've essentially -

Mr. Lee: Gone back.

Mrs. Stewart: Yes, because they went back to -

Mr. Lee: The original names.

Mrs. Stewart: That's right. But the people said they wanted Scarborough East to remain.

Mr. Lee: Yes.

Mrs. Stewart: I can only say the member makes a very good submission. I would suspect that had he been there and made a representation, he probably would have got the change he wanted.

Mr. Lee: It's quite possible.

Mr. Hanrahan: I concur with Jane on that matter.

Mr. Richardson: That brings the question, Derek, why didn't you make the presentation at first blush when you saw that map? Did it not occur to you...?

Mr. Lee: I must say it was inconceivable to me at the time, as I participated in the drafting of the new statute in the procedure and House affairs committee.... Albeit it was the first time a statute was ever drafted at a parliamentary committee, it was inconceivable to me, with the support there appeared to be around the table, that the new procedure wouldn't be in existence before the next election and that the process that was going on at that time was not redundant. To my mind I was saving everybody some money by not taking up their time. Yet in the end, because of the intransigence of the Senate, to be dealt with at another time, the implementation of the new statute has....

I wasn't thumbing my nose at the old statute. I was simply working very hard on the new statute, which I thought would govern.

I knew we'd have to deal with this under the new statute. All of us in Scarborough knew it would have to be dealt with.

That is why, Mr. Richardson.

Mr. Richardson: The second point, then. On a population basis the number is insignificant. It's not going to be a bother to Mr. Peters or yourself one way or the other, if only around 100 people are involved here. You're already conceding those parts with the small hatched lines to Scarborough East.

Mr. Lee: Yes, and Centre.

Mr. Richardson: I don't see the Scarborough Centre part here, but maybe there is -

Mr. Lee: On the Scarborough Centre transition there is no...it's obvious.

Mr. Richardson: We'll make observations on that. If it's a matter of straightening the square out and putting the industrial park back in and the area of the zoo and the lands that have been designated by...is it Metro Toronto that's designated those lands?

Mr. Lee: The Province of Ontario, with partners including the federal government.

Mr. Richardson: I see.

Mr. Lee: In the sketch I've drawn the line is clearly Sheppard Avenue, with Twin Rivers at the end. Sheppard Avenue actually becomes Twin Rivers at the end. It's never been fully developed. But there's only one house on the north side on Sheppard. It's an old farm house.

.2010

Mrs. Stewart: Just one last point of clarification. Should the boundary not change, Derek, and the Rouge River essentially, only but for a little wee bit, comes into Scarborough North, would you still want Scarborough - Rouge River as the name of the riding?

Mr. Lee: Yes, I think my constituents would want that, notwithstanding that...no, not withstanding anything. Of course they would want to keep it. Why would they want to change the riding name? All the people in that area happen to have a very strong affinity for the Rouge Valley because of the politics of the last ten years. To lose the name on a whim or on a map-maker's sketch is not appropriate.

If in fact the other proposed riding, as it then was, were to have the name Scarborough - Rouge River, then it's a question of which riding would have it. But that's not the case.

Mrs. Stewart: It sounds as though they don't want it. They want Scarborough East. I just wanted to know if, even though it didn't change and the majority of the river continued through Scarborough East, you would still want Scarborough North to be changed back to Scarborough - Rouge River.

Mr. Lee: Oh, yes. All of those people are plugged into what is now the centre of the existing Scarborough - Rouge River riding - the transportation, the roads, the schools, the community centres and all of that. It's very much part of the Rouge River community, if you will.

The Chairman: Is there anything else? Everybody is content with that?

Thank you very much, Derek, for appearing.

Mr. Lee: Thank you.

The Chairman: We're just about on time, folks. Our last witness for the evening is Colleen Beaumier from Brampton. We're just about ten minutes from when you thought you were going to start, Colleen, but we can account for that. You have twenty minutes to make your presentation. If you want to leave time for questions at the end, that will be part of the twenty minutes.

Ms Colleen Beaumier, MP (Brampton): I originally wasn't going to present to the committee. I wasn't going to object to the changes. But city council in Brampton made a pretty good argument for changes, and upon giving it some thought, not only were they good suggestions but there also were a lot of reasons for this not being changed.

First of all, the new electoral boundaries don't take into account the history and the identity of Brampton. Brampton and Bramalea were two separate communities, and they joined together in a municipality. Already it's been divided by the other riding of Bramalea - Gore - Malton. These new changes are proposing to take the west part of Brampton and put it in with Streetsville, which is part of Mississauga.

Highway 401 was originally a natural boundary, and I believe the commission has violated its own rules by going over the 401. Brampton itself will have 300,000 by 1997. To divide the ridings this way, by 1996 some of the numbers will be obsolete. I think the City of Brampton brief, table 1, gives a pretty good idea of the numbers.

.2015

One of the big problems we have in combining a Brampton with the Mississauga riding is that the tax base is somewhat different in Mississauga. We'd have constituents in our ridings with different privileges under the different municipalities. The mayor of Brampton claims the fact that Pearson Airport is located entirely within Mississauga is why Mississauga residents and seniors have privileges that Brampton residents and seniors don't have.

This presents a problem for a member of Parliament in dealing with his constituents. Why does one half of his riding get dealt with differently from the other half of his riding?

If you look over the draft by the city council, their proposal would affect Bramalea - Gore - Malton. I'm not making any submissions on their behalf, but I think to divide Brampton into three ridings would be more satisfactory than breaking it up and putting in the different communities.

Mr. Richardson: You're saying some of the Brampton territory will be having some Mississauga residents in their riding. Is that the Brampton West section that's dipping down...?

Ms Beaumier: Yes.

Mr. Richardson: Okay. I saw a line, but I wasn't sure what that meant.

Ms Beaumier: There are conflicts there as well. The take-off path for the airport divides the ridings; the 401 divides the ridings. It creates a lot of difficulties in deciding which of your constituents you should be representing.

The Chairman: So you get part of Ms Parrish's riding?

Ms Beaumier: Yes.

The Chairman: And you give up part of your riding too?

Ms Beaumier: It's split, right.

The Chairman: So you keep roughly half?

Ms Beaumier: I keep half my riding and take a little bit of Mississauga.

The Chairman: That makes your new riding of Brampton West?

Ms Beaumier: Yes. There will be a brand-new riding created there. Brampton East and Brampton West - Mississauga will be -

The Chairman: What would the population be under the new configuration?

Ms Beaumier: Under the new configuration Brampton West would have 101,000 and Brampton - Heart Lake would have 102,000.

The Chairman: What do you have now in Brampton?

Ms Beaumier: I'm not sure.

The Chairman: We may have it.

Ms Beaumier: I think it's around 135,000, but I don't have the number here.

The Chairman: You had 101,000 as of 1991, but of course that could be 135,000 now.

Ms Beaumier: I'm sorry, I don't have the exact number.

The Chairman: That's okay.

Do you have time for questions, Colleen?

Ms Beaumier: Yes.

The Chairman: Jane, you look puzzled.

Mrs. Stewart: Yes, I am.

.2020

Colleen, what would be the solution to the issues that are raised by the City of Brampton submission?

Ms Beaumier: It would be to make three ridings out of Brampton.

Mrs. Stewart: Okay, I see. So we'll have Bramalea - Gore - Malton, but they'd rather have Brampton East, Brampton West, and....

Ms Beaumier: If you look at the numbers for Bramalea - Gore - Malton as projected for 2001, it's going to have to be split again, as will Brampton West.

Mrs. Stewart: So it will shift everything somewhat to the east and essentially pull you in out of Mississauga. To shift the boundaries essentially to the east, to suck up some of Bramalea - Gore - Malton and pull you out of Mississauga, is essentially the suggestion.

Ms Beaumier: Actually, yes.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

John, do you have a question?

Mr. Richardson: No, I don't. I get the sense that Brampton is a proud part of Peel County.

Ms Beaumier: It's very difficult in Brampton. When you live next door to Hazel, you feel like a bit of a mouse. I think most of the residents of Brampton feel that we don't have equal representation in the region, and I think that federally it's only going to add more to their feeling of alienation.

The Chairman: Hugh, do you have a question?

Mr. Hanrahan: Not really.

I think there's one thing we should consider here, although perhaps it's a little bit beyond us. If you look at table 1, the population figures change by almost 40,000 between 1991 and 1996. Then if you go to 2001, we're up to another 75,000 to 81,000. I think the proposal presented takes that into account. What they've done is really just going to mean that they're going to have to do it over again in 2001. Would you concur with that?

Ms Beaumier: Absolutely.

The Chairman: Do you have anything further to add, Colleen?

Ms Beaumier: I appreciate your effort and your time.

The Chairman: Do any of the committee members wish to add anything?

We have received this and this will become part of the report. We appreciate you coming out tonight.

Ms Beaumier: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We're just going to go in camera for a couple of minutes, folks. This part of the meeting is adjourned.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

;