FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS
MIDDLESEX FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
LONDON-MIDDLESEX TAXPAYERS' COALITION
CONTENTS
Saturday 9 November 1996
Fewer Politicians Act, 1996, Bill 81, Mr David Johnson / Loi de 1996 réduisant le nombre de députés, projet de loi 81, M. David Johnson
Middlesex Federation of Agriculture
Mr Jeff Verkley
Mr Paul Klopp
Mrs Catharine McLandress
Mr Bill Armstrong
London-Middlesex Taxpayers' Coalition
Mr Craig Stevens
Mr Jim Montag
Mr Kimble Sutherland
Ms Susan Smith
Ms Karen Haslam
Mr Robert de la Penotiere
Mr Ab Chahbar
Mr Chris Cassidy
Mr Paul Mylemans
Mr David Winninger
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président: Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
*Mr JackCarroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
*Mr HarryDanford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr BernardGrandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
*Mr ErnieHardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
*Mr BartMaves (Niagara Falls PC)
*Mrs SandraPupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
*Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
*Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)
*Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mrs MarionBoyd (London Centre / -Centre ND) for Mr Wood
Mr SteveGilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC) for Mr Flaherty
Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Marchese
Mr BruceSmith (Middlesex PC) for Mr Tascona
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Mr Avrum Fenson, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
G-2427
The committee met at 0900 in the Delta London Armouries Hotel, London.
FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS
Consideration of Bill 81, An Act to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Assembly by making the number and boundaries of provincial electoral districts identical to those of their federal counterparts and to make consequential amendments to statutes concerning electoral representation / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à réduire le nombre des députés à l'Assemblée législative en rendant identiques le nombre et les limites des circonscriptions électorales provinciales et fédérales et à apporter des modifications corrélatives à des lois concernant la représentation électorale.
The Chair (Mr Jack Carroll): Good morning. We're happy to be in London, along with the Santa Claus parade this morning, to hear some public input on Bill 81.
MIDDLESEX FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
The Chair: The first presenter this morning, representing the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture, is Jeff Verkley, the president. Good morning, Mr Verkley, and welcome to our committee. You have 20 minutes. Should you allow some time for questions, they would begin with the Liberals. The floor is yours, sir.
Mr Jeff Verkley: I'll read through the document that I have presented. I think everybody has a copy here.
The Middlesex Federation of Agriculture is pleased to have the opportunity to make a submission to the standing committee on general government. The Middlesex Federation of Agriculture is the voice of the farmers of Middlesex county and the surrounding regions, including the city of London. The MFA represents over 2,400 members across the county and its first objective, as stated in the constitution, is "to consolidate farm opinion for the promotion of any activity within the county to improve the welfare of the agricultural industry and those persons within the county depending on agriculture for a livelihood."
Agriculture and rural society: The MFA has long been an advocate of rural issues in Middlesex. Agriculture and rural society are inexorably linked together economically and socially. In order to maintain a vibrant agriculture industry in Middlesex, rural communities must remain strong and dynamic. Part of the manner in which our rural communities have remained vibrant is through the tireless work of our rural members of provincial Parliament in the Ontario Legislature.
Rural representation: The recent actions taken by the provincial government to reduce the number of ridings in Ontario may further constrain the ability of rural Ontario to have its voice heard at the provincial level. Under the Fewer Politicians Act, the number of ridings in Ontario would decrease from the current 130 to 103. As shown in table 1 below, a disproportionate number of the ridings that will be lost are in rural Ontario. As a result, the percentage of rural seats in the Ontario Legislature will decline from the current 25% down to 18%. This comes despite the fact that the percentage of Ontario's population residing in rural areas has remained virtually unchanged for the past 15 years.
Maintaining a rural voice: As stated above, the proposed changes to the electoral map of Ontario may diminish the capacity of rural MPPs to move rural and agricultural issues to the forefront in the minds of government officials. Given that to be the case, it therefore follows that even greater responsibility for raising and administering rural issues will now fall on the shoulders of officials at the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. This necessitates that OMAFRA be given sufficient resources to meet the needs of agriculture and rural communities if it is to fulfil this role. It is therefore incumbent on the provincial government to stop making cuts to OMAFRA's budget, something which the government promised to do in its policy document the Common Sense Revolution.
Impact on Middlesex county: The proposed boundary changes will make it very difficult for the MFA to represent the county's farm community effectively. Ongoing communication will have to be maintained with three MPPs instead of one, in addition to county federations in Perth, Lambton, Kent and Elgin. While increased communication would certainly be valuable, the funds, staff and volunteer time and energy required to coordinate such an effort would be insurmountable. County federations are composed of volunteers who are already giving everything they can in the name of advocacy, and constituency offices are already extremely busy trying to deal with the varying needs of constituents. This poses a real challenge in terms of keeping three MPPs informed with a consistent message from five county federations of agriculture.
This situation does not allow for recognition of regional differences and the need for a representative who is familiar with the challenges and potential within those areas. Middlesex in particular loses strong representation with the county being divided three ways and packaged off to other ridings. There will be no voice for Middlesex county under the proposed redistribution, and existing lines of communication put in place to advocate the needs of the farmers of Middlesex will become ineffective. The MFA is satisfied with the current representation: one member working on behalf of a rural riding.
The rural-urban ratio in the proposed ridings of which Middlesex county will be part are also a concern to the MFA. The Elgin-Middlesex-London riding, encompassing St Thomas, Aylmer and the city of London south of the 401, an area which is poised for development, will have a significant urban voice, making it difficult to communicate an agricultural perspective.
The Chair: Thank you. We've got about four minutes per caucus left for questions, beginning with the Liberals.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Thank you for coming out this morning and giving up part of the Santa Claus parade. I have a couple of comments. Some of the Conservative members who are in this area, in a former debate we had on this issue, said that really the people of this area wouldn't be at all concerned about the lessening of a voice for this area and that was because the Conservative members have such a strong line of communication with ministers that it really doesn't matter. Even if there are fewer MPPs, they have an easy way to influence ministers and make sure their message is heard. How do you feel about that comment?
Mr Verkley: If that's the MPPs' viewpoint, that's good for them, but it's hard for even myself, as president of the Middlesex federation, to understand the agricultural sector in its whole and entirety. Bruce Smith has done a great job for us, but if we're going to get backed on to the other counties as far as -- we used to have one voice. As it is right now, Bruce Smith speaks for Middlesex, but we're going to be split between three, so we will be only a portion of the other person's riding. If he's representing his riding the way he should, in proportion, it's only a little bit of Middlesex.
To understand Middlesex as an entity on its own takes a lot of work. I think the MPPs are working extremely hard as it is, but that's going to make it even harder. It's going to make them work. The job to understand rural agriculture in today's society and the changes we're going through takes a long time. It's hard to put down into words exactly what that means, but it's a difficult job to understand.
Mrs Pupatello: Can I read to you a quote? I'd just like to know if you agree with this: "As many of the previous speakers addressing this have mentioned, we do not want to see the rural part of Ontario further underrepresented." The quote goes on to say: "It was a situation that was addressed by a number of my colleagues, and I certainly agree with them. Rural Ontario must have more, not less, representation."
Mr Verkley: Representation is great if they understand the message. When we get into splitting up representation solely by population, you get that mix again where we start pulling into the south -- Elgin stretching up into the city of London to get that population. That really makes that MPP work extremely hard to understand the city of London issues and the rural issues. That's a double job.
0910
Mrs Pupatello: I should tell you that the quote was from Noble Villeneuve, the current Minister of Agriculture. He said that in 1985 as a member of the House.
Mr Verkley: In 1992, he also made another statement there too that I've read through. There's a lot of discussion in there that's still relevant today, and I hope Noble has those same viewpoints and he can bring them across in later discussions.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Thank you very much for coming. It's a difficult situation, I think. Middlesex is one of the ridings that gets chopped up in a very peculiar way. One of the arguments the government is using is that if it's okay for the federal government to have these ridings, then why isn't that sufficient for Ontario? Have you a comment on that?
Mr Verkley: There again you go down into your tiers of responsibility. If I look at my organization, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and my county MFA, I have four representatives on OFA and yet I have a huge body that represents the county. I need that kind of grass roots to understand the issues in the county that I can bring forward to the OFA. If we look at the structure of federal versus provincial, I still think for those issues that we deal with in the province of Ontario, we need that grass-roots opinion to be able to put that voice across.
When we're looking at the national, there are different issues that we talk to, but when we get into Ontario we have a lot of issues that we talk to. I talk to Bruce Smith on a number of issues that I don't talk to Rose-Marie Ur on, and the same down into local councils. There are different issues I talk to those people about, being closer to me, and I still think we need that step moving on up through the system to be able to get that grass-roots opinion. I'd hate to be an MP who didn't understand the people he represents. That's a really tough spot to be in.
Mrs Boyd: The issues are very different, are they? The jurisdiction is different and the issues are different. One of the things that concerns us is the difficulty of relationships with the local level of government. It's hard enough in Middlesex, with the number of township councils and so on. I think most of us have a hope that some of that will get consolidated and make that job easier, but if you're trying to also deal with local governments and local communities over the broad representation that's suggested by the bill, it will be that much more difficult.
Mr Verkley: You just talked about amalgamations and stuff, but when you get into a bigger situation and bigger issues, that's what you generally do, you average out the people you represent. When you start averaging out, you're going to lose something, and if you lose that one important issue, that's a loss. As government, we have to continually seek out those little issues that mean something to an individual and possibly it means something more to someone. When we blend and get more regionalized, the issues get blended as well and you've got to deal with the main issues and possibly not that other issue that really does need work as well.
Mrs Boyd: I certainly agree with you. I have real concerns that what this will mean is a much weaker voice for the families you represent through the federation at Queen's Park. I think that is a concern, because you've talked at some length about the difficulties in any case in a highly urbanized province of trying to clearly get through to most of us, who may not have a rural background, the issues that you're most concerned about. I would agree with that, and I want to thank you for expressing your view so well.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Welcome, Jeff, to the committee this morning. I have to say that I've certainly benefited greatly by the input and support that the federation has provided to me on a number of rural issues, and I hope that's a relationship that we can certainly continue with.
I also have to congratulate you on a successful annual meeting last night with President Tony Morris. To some extent, I was intrigued by your message, in particular your address, where you talked about the need for transparency, relevancy and accountability within your own organization. Those, in part, are some of the objectives of this process, albeit not the whole part.
Would it not be fair to assume, given the comments you made about your own organization and the increased expectations you have of your volunteers, your membership, your executive, that this is a reasonable expectation for MPPs in this province?
Mr Verkley: I don't understand.
Mr Smith: What I took from your message last night is, "Prepare yourselves, members, to become more involved, take control of the pride you have in your industry, in your communities and communicate that to people beyond agricultural and rural communities. It's going to require more time and commitment to do that. Given that scenario, do you not think the message around this proposal is similar in terms of the expectations of MPPs to do more, communicate differently and make of representation what they might? I see it as a very personal issue in terms of how you represent your constituents.
Mr Verkley: There again, I have talked to other people in the province, and sometimes you just don't get through to your MPP. I'd hate to have that message being brought up more as we continue on and we get fewer MPPs.
When I hear someone say, "My MPP just isn't getting it," I try to find out: "What do you mean, he's not getting it? What's the problem there? Is he too busy? Does he not consider your concerns as strongly as" -- you've considered our concerns very strongly, and I thought we've worked well together on certain issues; I felt that you as my MPP understood the issues. But if we get to a point where you are swamped with urban issues, you only have so many hours in a day and you have staff people who advise you on all these issues. If we downsize our MPPs, I understand that to do your job in a larger area you would have to get more staff people to understand the issues, and in an electorate system I want to be able to talk --
Mr Smith: I'm sorry. Is that an unreasonable expectation, though?
Mr Verkley: Unreasonable expectation?
Mr Smith: Of MPPs and their staff to understand the issues?
Mr Verkley: No. I expect that you understand your issues. That's why we elect you in, because you understand the issues of each individual, and that's up to the vote. It's hard to put into an actual explanation what expectations are of your MPP, but if it gets downsized to the point where you get blended out, as Marion said, I think we've got a bigger base to cover and therefore we can only talk about so many issues in one day. If we lose Middlesex's voice in, let's say, your riding as it is right now, I think that would be a loss for us, but that is not to say we don't expect that if it does change, our MPPs wouldn't have to be up on the situations.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Verkley. We appreciate your input here this morning.
PAUL KLOPP
The Chair: Mr Paul Klopp, we get a chance to move you ahead on the agenda, sir. Welcome to the committee hearings. We appreciate your being here this morning.
Mr Paul Klopp: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here today. I recognize a few faces. I used to be on that side. In fact, I think the last time I was at a committee I was on this side. A little bit about that is that I believe the system is good in what you're doing today, and I'm glad the government decided to have hearings. I think it bodes well.
I'm certainly coming from a position that this did strike a chord with me. I know it was in the book on a promise, but I'll deal with that shortly.
For me it's really about democracy. It was alluded to a few minutes ago about Noble Villeneuve, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, a colleague of mine, and I think he could call me a past colleague. You can check with him as you go back home; I think he understood very well, and me, that politics, this business, is that since you're elected you try to represent people. You don't always agree, but you look for the good things and you try to reach compromises. It's not a dirty word. You can check back with him at the end of the day. I think we worked together on some issues, disagreed strongly on many, but fundamentally, when it came to what issues affect rural Ontario and indeed the whole province, I didn't play politics with him and he did not with me.
0920
As I look back here today and see this bill, really to me it's about gerrymandering. That's a term which is nothing new; it was actually coined in Boston, Massachusetts. A governor tried to work hard to get the ridings to look good for him. That's politics. But the people fundamentally disagreed with that. Look at England in the 1830s. People get elected, and sometimes you get thinking: "I know all the answers. I was elected." Sometimes democracy becomes a bit of a hollow ring. I certainly don't want that to happen here.
When I took history lessons on that, it kind of took me back a bit. We have England, and I look at that as a fairly democratic place. The term "gerrymandering" actually came from a governor in Massachusetts in the United States. I just said, "Well, that's one thing we'll never have to worry about in Ontario, in Canada," because we're all immigrants here, basically. Most of us came because we had to leave places because of oppression, the victims, if you will, of governments that weren't really so democratic.
I see a little bit of that in this Bill 81 today. We disguise it as that it's going to save money. Well, I don't think it's going to save money. We're going to need more staff. There are times and places to save money and there are times and places that you need to have things done and need people and need that education and need the work there. Jeff alluded to that just a second ago.
The Honourable Dave Johnson was here in town a few weeks ago and he said: "There's no problem here with this bill. You're going to keep your three members in London." With respect to Mr Johnson -- I played hockey with him and worked with him on many occasions -- it almost didn't surprise me. I had my own colleagues who were city-oriented people. You had to educate them. His background is that he's from the city. The rest of the areas, I guess, are just supposed to be kind of, "Take care of it till we can pave it over into a city."
Really, he needs to be told by this committee and by you that it isn't just a matter of, "You still have three members." Somebody mentioned that there's some power. I guess maybe he has some power down there. I can maybe understand that if you get rid of 25 members of provincial Parliament, "That's 25 less people bothering me with their ideas" -- the old story, "Don't hit me with facts and interrupt me." But that isn't what democracy is about. I don't think that's why all of you took the time to run. I have great respect for democracy. I respect it so much, that's why I ran a few times, because I believe in the system.
Noble Villeneuve has got some quotes that he brought up in his opening remarks back in 1992. He said this isn't politics, about seats; this is about members. Once you get elected, you represent to the best of your ability and you work with people. He brought that up over and over again in his remarks.
I can hear the argument when you get back to your caucus: "Oh, well, it's just the NDP guys who aren't going to vote for it, or the Liberals. Anybody who comes there, they didn't vote for you anyway, so don't worry about it." Well, this isn't about that. Back then, when I easily could have not supported him, fluffed it off because of the political view, I didn't and many of my colleagues didn't.
I want to just touch on another area. When you're thinking about the issue of votes, I didn't vote for you, that's for sure. But, you know, a lot of other people did vote for you and the idea of the promise. I can appreciate promises. That's an important cornerstone, I hope, for every political party. However, I think very strongly that this wasn't the issue that got you elected. In fact, in the all-candidates meetings, when it was brought up, it really didn't go over very well. Most people thought: "Ah, you know, Mike, you're really overpushing it. You've got lots of other promises. Why do you throw that one in?" I also believe they thought they were electing Progressive Conservatives, who from time to time in the past history of government did listen and did back off things because, you know, it was an idea, everybody has some ideas, but this one just doesn't fly.
If you want to talk about major promises: agriculture. There was a major promise, "No cuts to agriculture," including, because again it was brought up: "But wait a minute, you're going to cut the deficit big-time. How can you do it without touching agriculture?"
"We've figured it out. No cuts to agriculture." It wasn't too long after that my friend Noble Villeneuve had to stand up and say, "Ah, we are cutting agriculture." The argument came: "We were also elected to get rid of the deficit. So be it." A lot more people voted on that promise than on this.
I would argue that yes, you're going to have people come here today, Ontarians for Responsible Government, if they're still around, the front for whatever, and that organization about fair taxes or something, which we're all for, and they're probably going to tell you they support this. But I'll tell you they were going to vote for you anyway no matter what you do, and there are a lot fewer of them than there are of the ones who actually will vote for you down the road.
I certainly hope you can look at this as a non-political issue and look at it for what it is. It really is about people representing areas to the best of their ability. Noble said it best. Read Hansard back in 1992. I'm sure he's looking for support. Jim Wilson, your Minister of Health, I believe was also quite strong and adamant about the whole issue that day. I'm sure he doesn't want to go back to his riding and say, "Oh, well, you know, I was really intent, but I was just kidding, for political reasons." I think he was talking from the soul that day in Hansard. I certainly think that if they see members in this committee as an opportunity in government to come forth with a recommendation, it's a nice idea, but really democracy is a whole lot bigger issue.
If I can close on this, I believe it was Sir Winston Churchill who said, and I'm going to paraphrase it a bit, "You know, democracy is a hell of a way to run a country, but it sure beats the alternatives." For us, we look at efficiencies as money. There was some talk that it's going to save $5 million. That's the number I heard a long time ago. I think Sir Winston Churchill said it best, or whoever said it. Maybe it isn't as efficient as a dictatorship or whatever, but it's the best system going. It might cost a little bit of money, and we're all looking to save money, but this isn't the place. I think you heard it from Ken Kelly from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. You're going to hear more of it today.
I think Jeff, who knows about trying to run a business -- I'm running a business, a farm. I'm taking the time away today to come here because I believe it is important. I think many of you believe it's important. I certainly hope that at the end of the day we will have recommendations that will say we don't need to do this. I think it would only bode well for everyone. I'll leave it at that if there are any questions.
Mrs Boyd: Thanks for coming, Paul. I wonder if you'd tell us a little bit about what you think it means to the people of Huron county. I know you're from Zurich.
Mr Klopp: Hay township.
Mrs Boyd: That's in the middle of the county, to a large extent. But you've got a very specific kind of issue around representation in Huron.
Mr Klopp: I can speak now with some experience. We have a very diverse area. It's agriculture, but it's also small urban. Many of the same issues that affect all counties affect our area. I found that to do your job right, and I think most of you in this room will understand that, it takes a lot of time, and at the end of the day you still don't get everything done right. There were many times I said that I should have done more on that one issue. But you can only do so many things in a day, and yes, you can only have so many staff. We cut back our staff to try to save money.
I know, more importantly now than ever, that you can't cut members. They're going to make our riding, say, Huron-Bruce. There's enough work for three members, to do things right, let alone get it down to one. We compare federally. At some point you do have to draw lines. I'm not advocating that we've got to go and have 150 members in the province. There is a reality check there. Federally, they've got the whole country to deal with and they have to draw some lines. I think in the Constitution PEI gets at least one or two members -- four members, and they don't have 100,000. But again, in democracy there are some things you have to give and take. In our county, and I think it goes right across the whole board, for members to do their job as best they can, we don't need fewer members.
Mrs Boyd: The interests are different, aren't they, federally and provincially?
Mr Klopp: Yes.
Mrs Boyd: The community of interest is different because the jurisdiction is different.
Mr Klopp: I could also say that you need caucus members to get your point of view across. That was one myth that very quickly got blown out of the water for me. Just because you were the NDP and we were all so-called members, man oh man, we all come from different ridings, and people lobby you and all of a sudden your view changes. Only a fool never changes his mind, I think, as some person once said. You need to work together to get points of view across. There were lots of times when cabinet said, "This is the way it's going to be," but by gosh, after we had groups and hearings and as caucuses met, all of a sudden the majority of that caucus felt strongly that wasn't the way to go and things changed, as it should be.
So you need to have as many caucus members as possible. It's nothing against anyone; it's just the system, which is healthy. That's another reason you just can't go and cut out these members. As Jeff referred to, it's not just something that is fictional in a member of Parliament's head; it is a reality.
Laughter.
Mrs Boyd: I was surprised that somebody was laughing. Everybody's caucus may not run in that democratic fashion.
Mr Klopp: The progressive party I used to know did, anyway. I'm sure it can.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Thank you for your presentation today. First, "gerrymandering" is a term used to describe what politicians did when they rejigged boundaries for their own benefit. In this case, we said in 1994 that we were going to accept the federal boundaries. A federal commission, totally arm's length from federal politicians or provincial politicians, went out and toured the country and decided on new boundaries, and they did that in Ontario. How could that possibly be considered gerrymandering by the provincial Conservatives when they had absolutely nothing to do with the making of the boundaries?
0930
Mr Klopp: I disagree, and I think as this thing unfolds there are going to be more people who see what it can really mean here. You're the government that is putting forth the bill that says, "We're going to follow the federal ridings." I think the arm's-length organization in Ontario didn't recommend that off the bat, because up till this bill they didn't follow the federal lines, so I think I can speak a little history on that. Clearly Noble Villeneuve's motion that day, which was passed by all parties, recognized that governments in Ontario should make sure we start to recognize that you just can't go by rep by pop, that you need to keep other ridings.
You mentioned that you promised it in your book, but again I don't believe for a second that was -- if that was the only issue you had run on in 1995, I can assure you I don't think you would have been honoured with being elected. I think most people kind of -- and I can speak from that because when the honourable member who is in my riding now kept bringing it up at the all-candidates' meetings and finally at the federation one, I said: "If you're really going to save money, what are you going to do, get elected tomorrow and then quit? Why are you running, for one thing?" That isn't what people want to elect people for. After that, it wasn't brought up any more.
Mr Maves: It's clear that in your opinion we should pick and choose which promises we should keep after we're elected, run on something and then say, "That's not convenient to me so I'm not going to go through with it."
Mrs Pupatello: That is what you're doing.
Mr Klopp: You're doing that with the Ministry of Agriculture budget.
Mr Maves: That's incorrect, actually.
Mr Klopp: You have cut it. I'm not going to mince any words about that. It's been done. But the thing is that you have hearings and the people of this province, a vast, vast majority of them, take democracy very seriously because many of them do remember. They came from places that did not have this opportunity. I think they see this for what it can be. A lot of people haven't brought it up yet, but it's out there. Here the government's knocking it down 25, and you can say, "A lot of these are ridings that some of your own members represent," but clearly anyone knows the odds-making game that if you have less players in the pond, less fish that you have to catch, you're going to catch a bigger majority of them, maybe.
So I just want to bring that out, that people are going to see that. I don't believe you wanted that to happen, but I'm just bringing out that this could be a point that will be maybe brought up as this thing evolves if you carry on with this bill. I certainly hope that you back people like Noble Villeneuve and Jim Wilson and a number of them who surely haven't changed their integrity at all and that this bill will go forth as democracy. People understand that. If you go forth and you have hearings and clearly there's a majority of the people who really don't think this is necessary, they're not going to slam you. They're not going to phone you up and say, "Jeepers, you broke this promise and I'm not going to vote for you." Trust me. That isn't going to happen.
Mr Maves: Trust you? That's what they did to you, I think. Anyway, it's good to know that your whole caucus supported the social contract and backing off the insurance promise.
One thing I want to ask you, though, as someone who's had experience in a caucus: You know that time is limited in caucus and everyone gets a chance to have a say about a certain issue. If you were a member of a caucus of 175 or a member of a caucus of 75 or less, which one would you have more opportunity to put your constituents' views forward in?
Mr Klopp: The one with the 175, because obviously I'd have a smaller riding and I could do a better job.
Mr Maves: You'd have more opportunity in caucus to say things, in a two-hour caucus --
Mr Klopp: Then you really are talking something worse than gerrymandering. Are you saying that really you should only have one person in charge? Then it would be a lot easier, if you only have a cabinet of one. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Maves: No, not at all.
Mr Klopp: It sounds like it. You're picking smaller numbers. Don't get into that argument, sir.
Mr Maves: Why? It's accurate.
Mr Klopp: Well, you're bringing it up.
Mr Maves: If you have a two-hour meeting and less people, one person can have more comments.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Mr Klopp, you certainly bring a very interesting point of view to the committee this morning. Thank you for coming.
It was said yesterday and it keeps being said today that they are following the federal lines when it comes to redistribution of the boundaries, and that's fine. We have said that we need some changes, but we'd like to see changes to suit Ontario, not to follow the lead of the federal system.
We said to our members here yesterday, especially the north, that there is big change up in the north. The people, especially at this time of the year, cannot so easily reach a particular location to come to public hearings and voice their concerns.
What some of the members said yesterday was that while the federal system gave power to a commission to go throughout Canada and assess the situation and then make their recommendations, after they had the public hearings they also allowed for a seven-month period to have input from anyone as to amendments.
What we have here today is a government that in a month wants to ram this through their way; not the federal way or the people's way, but their way. We are saying we need some changes, but let's look especially at the area that is going to be impacted the most. So when we say that we follow a promise but it's the fault of a system that's already in place, that doesn't go too well with the people of Ontario, because the people of Ontario at this particular time are not having a good opportunity to voice their concerns with respect to rural, urban or northern issues. Can I have a comment from you?
Mr Klopp: I think you've touched on some very good points. If something is as good as what some people who have brought this forward in the government think it is, why ram it through? If it's such a good-news item, I'd want to carry it on as far as possible. I wouldn't be scared of more discussion. I'm sure many of their members must think the same thing too.
My first hope would be that this bill would be backed off completely. The system isn't as good as it was, it could be better, but at least prove me wrong. I'd love to be proven wrong. Have longer debate. I think the federal one did make some changes, because they found out that, yes, people want money saved etc, but when it comes down to it, there are some things they don't mind spending some money on, and that is on representation of whoever they elect. So I echo your comments and agree with them.
Mrs Pupatello: It was interesting that the Conservative members talked with you just now about how they're not just picking certain promises to keep. I want to reread a statement from Jeff Verkley, the president of the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture. He said: "Given that to be the case, it therefore follows that even greater responsibility for raising and administering rural issues will now fall on the shoulders of officials at the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. This necessitates that OMAFRA be given sufficient resources to meet the needs of agriculture and rural communities if it is to fulfil this role. It is therefore incumbent on the provincial government to stop making cuts to OMAFRA's budget, something which the government promised to do in...the Common Sense Revolution."
As our critic for OMAFRA, Pat Hoy, from Essex-Kent, tells us, there's a total to date of $83 million in cuts to OMAFRA. The Provincial Auditor's report that was out last month indicates that if the government were to follow through on recommendations, they'll make additional changes to the colleges that affect agriculture. They'll also likely close more offices of OMAFRA. They'll be making more cuts to OMAFRA, something which Villeneuve in all his term as opposition and as government formerly always said he would not do. In fact, in the Common Sense Revolution, they promised no cuts to agriculture or rural.
The Chair: Our time has expired. Thank you very much for your statement. We appreciate your being here this morning, Mr Klopp.
Mr Klopp: I think there was a little time.
The Chair: Unfortunately, the time is up. Thank you.
Mr Klopp: I appreciate the opportunity. I certainly think everyone should listen very carefully and I look forward to a positive result for everyone's sake.
0940
CATHARINE MCLANDRESS
The Chair: Our next presenter is Catharine McLandress. Good morning. Welcome to our committee. The floor is yours.
Mrs Catharine McLandress: My name is Catharine McLandress. As a resident of Dunwich township, Elgin county, for the last 16 years, I am speaking for rural residents who have worked hard to make their communities healthy places to live.
The provincial government's plan to realign riding boundaries is one of many changes to how the province of Ontario operates that is proposed to save money but doesn't look at long-term costs to the health of all the communities in the province or the reduced quality of life for the people who live here.
I am opposed to the proposed realignment of the riding boundaries on the basis that this is a move that will further weaken the voice and representation of agriculture and rural communities. These have already been weakened through the elimination of 17 Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs offices and the similar elimination of many government services formerly available in our county, such as employment offices staffed by people, driver examination offices and community outreach programs.
In southwestern Ontario, the proposed realignment creates huge ridings where the rural areas surrounding London are suddenly attached to pieces of urban areas that really don't have anything to do with them. London is divided into pie-like pieces and each has a large rural area attached to it, sometimes taking in counties they have never shared government with before.
Specifically, in the case of Elgin county, our riding is now swallowed up by a combined London South and southwest Middlesex county riding and stands as an example of why this is a bad move for all the municipalities involved. The candidate elected to the new riding, whether from London or from the former Elgin or Middlesex riding, will have to be a very spectacular person to be able to span the dualities of this urban-rural mix. In other words, if the candidate is from London, he or she will probably have little knowledge of what is going on in Aldborough township or Clachan or Appin. If the candidate is chosen from a rural area, he or she likewise will have trouble comprehending the concerns of the London constituents, because the concerns are different.
Even if the candidate can bridge these differences, if re-election is a goal, the natural tendency is to go with the choices of the greatest part of the population, and it would be hard to imagine that those choices wouldn't go to the urban, or in this case south London, end of the constituency.
The sheer size of these new proposed ridings also begs the question of how good the representation can be when the elected MPP would have to drive for hours to get from one end of the riding to the next to get a feel for what the voters want or need.
These concerns affect not only Elgin county but every rural riding in the province, and the fear is that representation of the rural voice in the province will be all but eliminated. This is dangerous to both urban and rural residents because a healthy infrastructure of agricultural areas and the communities that support them is essential to the health and lifestyle of every Ontario resident.
What is the alternative? The first step is to rid ourselves of the idea that this province, or this country for that matter, can be governed on the basis of population density alone. Because of the wide expanses that make up this province and this country, it has been a given for many years that geography and distance are taken into consideration. Ontario is an agricultural and a largely rural-based province, and except for the corridor along the major highways, most of the ridings have been considered rural. They have had a voice in their elected MPP. By the same token, the urban areas have been represented by having several ridings within their boundaries, creating a kind of balance, albeit at times uneasy.
Under the proposed riding changes, that balance and the rural voice will be lost because many formerly rural ridings will be slashed on to urban ridings. Make no mistake: It is not in the best interest of the people in the cities to let the rural areas lose their say. If the infrastructure grinds down and the roads, the schools and remaining services are gone, the farmers and other residents won't be there either. This is a circle it only makes sense to maintain.
If the infrastructure goes, it not only affects the trucking of food and agricultural products, it affects the factory worker getting to work, it affects the transport of goods that keep the economy running, it even affects the roads that allows us to go to the cottage and enjoy those rural areas. If this is not enough to convince you of the importance of making geography and distance the consideration of importance instead of population density, consider that the main product produced in rural areas is food. This is essential to all life, urban or rural. Consider the cost of making urban concerns the loudest voice in what are now rural ridings.
In this province it is essential to remember that justice is not a head count. In the name of saving a finite amount of money, the government is running the risk of creating infinite threat to the very health and wellbeing of every resident in Ontario.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Thank you, ma'am, for your presentation. I'm getting the impression here this morning that we are trying to pit urban against rural. I have real difficulty with that, because I don't think most Ontarians are like that or will be like that.
We heard yesterday from a person who said that rural Ontario will survive because rural Ontario has probably put more MPPs in Queen's Park than any other part of this province. If I look at the area that I represent, the big population is Peterborough. I don't live in Peterborough. The biggest population in Victoria-Haliburton is Victoria; the rep is from Haliburton. Look at Owen Sound: represented by Bill Murdoch, rural representative. You go through the whole area. That is not, I don't believe, going to change.
Do you not feel that maybe if there is a good mix of rural and urban in a riding, it may be totally beneficial to everybody? This idea of pitting one against the other has gone on for many, many years, and maybe that should start to stop.
Mrs McLandress: In an ideal world, that would be great, but it's not ideal.
Mr Stewart: I know, but if we don't work at it, do you not think we're just going to make it worse? In the area you represent, have you had both urban and rural representatives over the years?
Mrs McLandress: Yes. Our current representative is from St Thomas, which is considered urban. But St Thomas is not a large city; it's got a very agricultural background. If you look at Elgin county, it's a hard enough county to manoeuvre around because it's very long, takes in about 50 miles along the Lake Erie shore, so that's never really been an issue. But we don't really have anything in common with what concerns the south London voter. If it resulted in the education of urban people about what it is to live in the country, that would be fine, but I don't think it will.
Mr Stewart: Many of the urban people were originally rural, certainly in the area I represent, and Peterborough is 68,000 people. The other half is rural. They move back and forth. I think the fears are unfounded. If you're going get into this game, for lack of a better word, or this profession, again for lack of a better word, you have to represent all the people equally. I hear words about democracy this morning. We're not taking the vote away from somebody. Democracy is not going to change. I think it's the responsibility of the constituents to pick the right person to represent all the constituents in the area.
I appreciate your concern. I just have difficulty in this country, where we pit one group against another.
Mrs McLandress: I'm not trying to pit one group against another. I really think there'll be a lack of representation for what is happening in the one small corner of our county as opposed to what's happening in --
Mr Stewart: I think it would make it very difficult if we all of a sudden decided to have only rural MPPs in this area and only urban ones over there. I think you've got a real problem because then you've got two distinct groups and I don't think it'll ever help to run Ontario very well.
0950
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. When I was reading the commission's report, it alludes to the London area. In doing so, the commission attached the largely rural areas within the southern part of the city of London to Elgin county. There were no objections from anyone living in the area. As well, they indicated that Elgin county should not be split. Briefly, I guess the intent and input that was provided previously has been maintained, as it applies to this area anyway. Do you have any specific comment on that in the context of the concerns you raised in your paper?
Mrs McLandress: Basically, it's not pitting one against the other. There's nothing wrong with London -- I like London -- but I didn't choose to live in London. I chose to live in a rural area. I do think there's a difference in the way the constituents will want their MPP to -- the issues. If it's a choice between money that's going to be spent in London and money that's going to be spent in Rodney, I don't know. Will it become what the priority is? Will it be money? Will it be voters in this area versus voters in that area? That's a large area, and the concerns are not common a lot of times.
Mrs Pupatello: Thanks so much for your presentation this morning. In some of this discussion about the amount of representation within any one riding, it's interesting that some of the people who spoke before you this morning indicated that it isn't so much how much urban you have or how much rural you have but, as a total, what percentage it makes up of the new riding. For example, if the largest portion of the riding is to a great extent rural, it certainly changes the nature of the behaviour of the member who comes from that area. It also puts a different weight on what issues and how much time you must spend and how much time your staff spends in that particular area.
I come from Windsor. A great part of my area is inner-city Windsor, and a great part is a more affluent area of Windsor, for example. It seems to be sort of split down the middle. That means that when I look at the kinds of issues that come to my office, it really is 50-50. I have a significant number of both.
If you have a huge part being urban and another portion being rural, but that rural portion isn't nearly the numbers that make up the urban portion, surely that office will be consumed with mostly urban issues, just by sheer volume. There is certainly an argument that can be made in terms of how that member is now going to react: trying to assist with all issues, but just by sheer volume, they will obviously play less a part in the rural area. That is just going to happen.
I can't imagine that this government is all of a sudden going to do what the federal ridings currently do, that is, waive all postage fees. Let's face it, federal members can speak to all their constituents easily because the mailings are free. In provincial ridings, though, we are very restricted in our budget in terms of mailings. While they may have the same riding, we have very different rules for what governs what we can do and how we can speak to our constituents.
There was an incident in my county that happened several years ago. It was over a high school closing in Harrow, a small urban town in the county. The people there were very happy to see that because they had good rural representation, they knew that the rural urban towns understood the significant role a high school plays in a community. It wasn't just a money matter, because if money were the only answer they'd have closed the school a long time ago. They said that the people needed to understand, because they come from that area, because they live there, because they listen to the people there, that a local high school, for example, is like a centrepiece of the small town; that if only money mattered, it would have been closed long ago.
I've often thought of that in this debate, about lessening the voice in rural Ontario. Things like rural high schools begin to take on -- you get a dim view, "If only money matters, let's save money where we can," and the one that seems likely to go is the one that potentially isn't filled, say, an office that's not nearly as used as the urban office, yet the significance that that office or high school plays in the community goes far beyond just the money budgeted to run it. Do you have that similar experience?
Mrs McLandress: If you even look at something as simple as a constituency office, right now, if you live in Rodney it'll take you half an hour to ride in to talk to your MPP if you needed to speak to him in person. If the constituency office is in south London, the time will be about the same, but -- if you don't live in a rural area, you don't understand the mindset. People, some elderly people especially, will not drive into London on their own. They're not used to the traffic, they're not used to the streets in London. That's going to become a barrier to them being represented, I feel.
In all rural areas, isolation is one of the key dangers to quality of life. Even to go to the grocery store most people have to drive 15, 20 minutes. If they have to go twice as far to speak to their MPP or make a long-distance call to speak to their MPP, or their MPP comes out twice a year because they haven't got time to travel that far, that's a concern and an effect on their representation.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for coming. I know Dutton and know why you want to be sure that the people in Dutton have a voice at Queen's Park. I understand your concerns. Do you think democracy itself is affected by the number of representatives who do give voice to the concerns of their constituents?
Mrs McLandress: Yes, I think democracy is really at issue here. Even this process, to me, is an example of democracy that's not working. I heard about these hearings on Wednesday. I called my MPP's office on Thursday to find out when they were. I find out the only one scheduled in southwestern Ontario is on Saturday. My MPP's office did not know about this. My warden's office did not know about this. My local paper, the St Thomas Times-Journal, did not know about this. There is a serious problem when supposedly public hearings are not made public, there's no public knowledge of them. To me, that is a first indication that there's a problem with democracy as far this goes.
Mrs Boyd: The member for Peterborough mentioned and the government keeps talking about this commission that went on and that nobody objected in Elgin county. Those hearings were about federal boundaries. No one at the time those hearings were held expected that those federal boundaries were going to become the boundaries for Ontario politicians. Using that consultation as a marker for saying that there were no objections so there shouldn't be a problem is frankly playing fast and loose with the whole notion of consultation and the whole notion of objections to a process like this.
This is the first time in Ontario that boundaries have been changed for provincial ridings without having a commission, without that commission going through this process so that people could talk about what representation is like in Ontario and what the needs of their communities are. None of us expected at the time of the federal hearings that any government would be foolish enough, even if they wanted to reduce the numbers of MPPs, to slavishly follow boundary rules that might not speak to the representation needed in Ontario.
Mrs McLandress: To that I can only say that the MPs and the MPPs deal with different kinds of issues. While they all affect us all in different ways, we are forgetting that on the very basic issues -- we have to drive to London now to get our driver examinations. We have no agricultural office now in Elgin county. As each of these services is eroded, our voice is eroded with it. As you say, as far as federal goes, that's one thing; in terms of MPPs and our representation in Toronto, where decisions are made every day that affect the life of every person in our riding, that is a different matter. I really think that if it were open to the public there would be more comments and more questions about why this is such a great idea.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your input here this morning, Mrs McLandress.
Mrs McLandress: Thank you very much for your time.
1000
Mrs Boyd: Mr Chairman, we obviously have space in this hearing schedule, which we were aware of as soon as we saw the agenda. I want to register formally again with you my disapproval of your beginning without having a member of each party here. There was no reason to do that, given that we did not have a full schedule and particularly because there was a gap immediately following the first speaker. This is not the first time that you as Chair have taken this action, and I want you to know that I don't think it's appropriate and it's not according to the democratic traditions of the Legislature.
The second thing I want to say is that it is quite clear from the schedule that this problem that the previous speaker mentioned, about no one knowing about these hearings, is a very real problem in this area. I think we will see as we go on with this process over the next few weeks that this will not serve the government well in terms of its objectives around this legislation.
The last thing I would like to say is that I would like the staff of the Legislative Assembly to check with local members when they are planning an event like this. One of the other issues we are going to face today is that people will not be able to get here. We would have known that the Santa Claus parade was on, that the roads are all closed off, that there's little ability for people to get here. In fact, outside of this hotel right now, the crowds are building up and creating a real problem for anyone even trying to walk here.
I would say very clearly that we would have told you, if it was necessary to have these hearings today, that you mustn't have them downtown because it will make it difficult for people to get here. I would urge you as Chair of the committee, and other Chairs, to have the Legislative Assembly staff know that when something is being planned in this way it's important to check with local members. I think we are going to find, first of all, that the noise is going to be a little difficult for us as the parade actually comes by, but it really restricts access and it will be interpreted as a deliberate act by some people. I don't believe it is, but it will be interpreted that way. Thank you.
The Chair: Just to comment on a couple of things, Mrs Boyd: As the Chair of the committee, my standards are that we start on time. If you don't like that, I apologize for that, but that has always been my standard, that I start on time. The second thing: The subcommittee decided the location of the meetings. Your caucus had a member on that subcommittee. I believe they had an opportunity to advise the local members.
Mrs Boyd: I have been on many subcommittees of committees and I have never had any say in the actual location of hearings. Having them in London, yes, a subcommittee would have -- but not having them here on this particular day. I would just like to say that's not correct.
Second, you are saying that your standards are different from the traditions of legislative committees and you will follow your standards rather than the tradition of legislative committees. That, frankly, is an indication of some of the problems that go on. I was stopped by a constituent out here who wanted to know about these hearings; by courtesy, I answered and so was a little late. I really find it very difficult. If you had a full agenda and it was absolutely essential that you start right on the dot, that would be one thing. But it certainly isn't this morning, and I really want you to know that it is unbecoming to take that kind of rigid position under those circumstances.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It's certainly been my experience in the six years I've been serving in the Legislature and as a backbencher with the government over five years, serving on a lot of committees, that committees, I think by standing order, do not start until there's at least one member present from each of the parties. I could be wrong in that, but that was always my interpretation. I know that's often why people make a concerted effort to be there on time. Sometimes it's just not possible, for some of the reasons that the member for London Centre has just mentioned. If it's not by standing order, out of a matter of courtesy I think a few minutes of leeway would be given, that we not become so authoritarian and strict that we can't respect, as the member has suggested, some of the tradition that has been built up over the years in this jurisdiction.
The Chair: I would just as soon this not turn into a public debate about how the Chair is conducting the meetings.
Mr Sergio: We've got to kill the time.
The Chair: We don't have to kill the time. I don't believe this is the forum to discuss how you feel about how the Chair is conducting the meetings. If you have a problem with how the Chair is conducting the meetings, you take it up with the Speaker of the House. That's how it is handled. It's not done in front of the public because that's not the proper way to do it. I would ask that it not turn into that kind of forum.
Did you have a comment, Mr Sergio, about something different?
Mr Sergio: I just want to make a comment with respect to how things went at the subcommittee, Mr Chair, because you did say that each party had a member at the committee. With all due respect, Mr Chairman, every time we seem to debate something, either at the committee or subcommittee, we are always turned down. Every idea, every suggestion we make, is always turned down. Today was not the choice of the committee to be here. I won't go into the details of why we are here today, out of my respect for the Chair. But today we were supposed to be in Ottawa. We were not supposed to be here. All right?
What we did say in subcommittee was not listened to. We were supposed to be meeting duties of constituency week. I don't know if it was your idea, Mr Chair, or one of your caucus party. We said constituency week is a no-no, but we are sitting through Friday and Saturday as well to accommodate you people.
We had a problem to convince you people with respect to timing and notifying the public. That idea was run down as well, with a maximum of 24 hours' notice. Given that, where are we going to advertise? How are we going to notify the people? "Oh, well, we're just going to post it on the wall." Now, isn't that nice? Unfortunately, Mr Chair, that's the way things are being done time and time again. I join Mrs Boyd in showing concern with respect to the way things are done.
The Chair: I'm going to stop this discussion. The one thing I will say is that the decision about when this committee would meet is a decision that's made by a group other than this committee. I take no responsibility for that. It's made by the House leaders. If you don't like the decision they made, then that's where you discuss that. You don't discuss it in front of this committee, because we didn't make those decisions. That's the end of that.
Mr Sergio: That's why we discussed it at the subcommittee. The House leaders' decision is not final. It's up to this committee, Mr Chair.
1010
BILL ARMSTRONG
The Chair: Our next presenter is Mr Bill Armstrong, city councillor, ward 4. Good morning, Mr Armstrong. Welcome to our committee.
Mr Bill Armstrong: Thank you. First of all, thank you for having me here this morning. Unfortunately, because of only finding out that these hearings were even taking place a few days ago and because of my schedule, it was almost impossible to prepare a proper presentation. I have to apologize; I don't have a presentation, as I normally like to have.
I come here today not representing the city of London, but I'm just a councillor in the city of London and these are my personal views on this proposed restructuring. I have taken the time, as much as possible, to listen to the debate on restructuring. I've read some material on restructuring. One concern I have is that this is something that should be done through a commission perhaps, that the government shouldn't be directly involved in this process. I really think this process is flawed, for that very reason.
Another concern I have to do with the restructuring -- I have to speak on a local basis because that's what I've looked at, how this affects Londoners. For an example, I look at London Centre, which is the old riding, and in my mind it looked after the needs and dealt with the people in central and east London. If you know London, it's sort of a community. Now we're looking at a representative who will be dealing with the concerns of a wide area, from central London right up to north London. Looking at the map, knowing London well, other than the fact that people are Londoners, for the people in far north London and London central there really isn't a lot in common other than the fact that they're Londoners.
It's important that when you draw up boundaries you look at many issues, including natural boundaries. I think you need to look at municipal ward boundaries. That's very important simply because provincial elected officials quite often spend some time as municipal elected officials. That's where they gain some experience and gain the trust of constituents and get to know their constituents. It's quite often evolutionary that they become provincial elected officials from municipal council. It's important that they build up that rapport and a relationship with their constituents.
For an example, if I look at the proposed London-Adelaide, as a municipal representative I believe one sixth of my constituents would be in the new London-Adelaide, whereas before in, for example, London Centre, it would be a 50-50 split; I would probably have represented 50% of the individuals. I think it's very important that you look at that particular issue, especially in Ontario, because we have in most municipalities, if not all, the ward system.
Getting back to the meetings and having such short notice to prepare for this particular meeting -- in fact, it was only because of a phone call or I would never have even known this meeting was taking place. I think it's an important process you're going through and I'm glad to see that the government is going through this process. It's important that you give the people of Ontario an opportunity to express their views about how their government is going to be formed.
Am I under the understanding that there are only six meetings, roughly, that are going on in the province of Ontario? As a personal view, I don't that's enough meetings to adequately give everybody in this large province an opportunity to access this process. I understand that in the past there have been as many as 12 meetings when government looked at this process. Why only six? It's a very large province. I would think that means that in the north there must only be one or two meetings. Again, that's a concern.
Some of the other concerns, just briefly on the north, based on what you're proposing I think you are shortchanging the north. You're asking a lot of those members who will end up representing some of those ridings up there, just for logistics, travelling time. Constituents probably would like to see their members come to their meetings. When you have to go the distances you're proposing, first of all, you're looking at additional cost, and you're unfortunately looking at a situation where, a lot of times, members won't be able to be present at constituency meetings and so on. That's something I have a concern about.
It's important that there should have been some independence when looking at this, perhaps a commission. Going from the number of seats you have now to what you're proposing, while I think government needs to be restructured and we need to downsize, the proposed downsizing you're looking at is a little radical. I know past MPPs worked very hard, put in very long hours, and to be putting on a larger workload than what's already involved, again, you'll be shortchanging the people of Ontario in the type of representation they'll be receiving.
I'll leave the rest of the time for any questions.
Mrs Pupatello: Thanks for coming this morning. I'm assuming you fought the traffic to get in the hotel.
Mr Armstrong: I walked a long way.
Mrs Pupatello: We appreciate it. It's nice and brisk outside this morning.
The last woman who spoke to committee seemed so genuinely representing the interests of rural areas in Ontario. I can say with some certainty that this government will shove this legislation down our throat. It's going to pass in the House and this will be the new riding distribution in the next election.
Given that the Conservative members will pass this after third reading and we will be left with this, do you have any idea, coming from a city council here, what the government should also be doing, if there is a way to combat some of the issues, like long-distance telephone calls? When we think of the majority of people who call your office, likely many times the same who call my office, the elderly, people who are in need, those who are on some form of assistance, what kinds of things like long-distance telephone calls can the government do to block that negative impact of this going through?
Mr Armstrong: I can't speak too much for the rural areas because I'm not a rural person; I'm an urban person, always have been. But again, looking at the north and my understanding of what the proposals are, it is going to be especially difficult in the north, because obviously constituency offices are going to be quite farther apart than they ever were before. Perhaps there will be additional costs incurred and maybe part of this restructuring might include additional constituency offices so that they're still easily accessible to people, so that they don't have to travel for four, six, eight hours by car to meet with their elected representatives. Obviously there's going to be a lot of additional costs to the constituents. Again, this is just pure speculation, but there might be long-distance rates involved. I don't know too much about the north and the telephone systems and that, so I really couldn't comment any further than I have.
1020
Mrs Pupatello: I guess the other comments that were made this morning related to the ability of the current sitting MPPs to access ministers for influence, and those who have expressed greatest concerns to me are those in the agriculture business and those from rural areas. The people who expressed concern did so, not on the basis necessarily of fewer numbers, but that this, coupled with cuts that they were told would never happen -- Noble Villeneuve, the current minister himself, guaranteed that they wouldn't cut the service to rural areas in agriculture programs. Because that is happening in tandem with this, the outcome really means that those needs simply will not be met, that their voices won't be heard, that all of the issues they face simply won't be addressed. Urban folks, quite frankly, don't understand what a significant impact that is when we talk about things like food processing, maintenance of roads for tractor runs, bringing the food to the market -- all of those things. They simply are going to have less of voice for things that do count to urban people; they just don't know it. Do you have any comments about that?
Mr Armstrong: Obviously having fewer elected officials in rural Ontario will mean less accessibility, and yes, the fact that there's less representation means that there's been a form of cut. Rural Ontario has always had unique needs. Again, these needs may not be met to the level they were before. This all gets back to whether or not six meetings in the province of Ontario are going to give rural Ontario an opportunity to express their concerns about having less representation.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you for coming today. We all feel very badly that people haven't had the time to prepare in the way they would have wanted to.
You talked about the issue of community of interest. In London, where this is a redistribution that doesn't affect the numbers of members we have but does affect the community of interest you talked about quite substantially, rivers as boundaries in our town don't make a lot of sense because communities have tended not to follow along the rivers necessarily. That certainly is true in the eastern part of what is now London Centre and what will become London-Fanshawe.
The other point you raised was the issue of how to compensate for fewer representatives. You are making an assumption that is not true when you say there will have to be more constituency offices, because at the same time that the government is lowering the representation it has fairly dramatically cut already the budgets that are available to MPPs and proposes to continue further cuts to those. They've cut a lot of the access by telephone to Queen's Park in fairly substantial ways so that people have a hard time getting in touch with their MPP at Queen's Park.
Your vision of how to compensate for this doesn't fit the picture we have. We see not only that the representatives are being cut, but that the resources that the fewer representatives will have are also substantially cut. As a councillor who I know has very few resources in terms of the way you represent your constituents, what do you expect the result of that to be?
Mr Armstrong: Just going back quickly to the additional offices, that is only a concept on how to lessen the impact. It certainly won't make up for what's proposed. As you alluded to, that's not what has been suggested or planned. I'm only suggesting that it might make up for some of the impact, but not all of the impact. Hearing that budgets are cut, obviously that's not something that's probably going to be even considered. It was not something I believe was going to happen but something I was thinking might lessen the impact but not completely alleviate what's about to happen.
In London rivers sometimes are used as boundary lines, but it's not just natural boundary lines. There are communities within a community, and that's what we have in London. What I'm suggesting to you is that looking at the proposed redrawing of the boundaries here in London, in my mind, hasn't been taken into consideration. What we're doing here is, you will end up representing a certain number of people, and that's the long and the short of it. You won't be representing, in my mind, communities that a lot of people in London feel very strongly about: "I live in south London," or "I live in the east end." These are communities, and when you look at redrawing the maps you should be looking very strongly at the communities. A riding may be made up of five or six communities. Just to draw the lines along highways and rivers, strictly looking at, "I need to represent so many people to make up this riding," isn't the way I would go about restructuring government.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Thank you, Mr Armstrong. I appreciate you coming and making a presentation before us here today. Let me just say that while I disagree with your conclusions, I certainly agree with one of the premises early on in your presentation, that government shouldn't be involved in the boundary setting, and I'm pleased to say that we aren't.
On the day that the Common Sense Revolution was released there were no such things as draft proposals at that point from the federal boundary commission. Our promise was to save the taxpayers of Ontario the cost of a duplicate commission going around talking to presumably exactly the same people who presumably would have exactly the same concerns about geography, about population, about particular geographical factors such as rivers and islands and natural divisions within communities as well. Knowing that the process had served the country well over the years and knowing that federal law guarantees a certain distribution of seats within this province, that there must be a standard set and then variances allowed for rural and for urban, but that there must be a standard, there's never been that sort of standard for provincial law, there's always been the opportunity to gerrymander in the past to influence the commission.
The fact of the matter is that we said we would trust the non-elected officials who formed that commission here in Ontario, one of the 11 formed across Canada, and those people, at arm's length from government, are the ones who fashioned together the boundaries you see before you today. But it went further than that. Subsequent to the Common Sense Revolution being released, the federal boundary commission held public hearings on its draft proposals. Based on the input they received -- 185 oral, as I recall, and 116 written submissions -- 76 of the 103 ridings had minor adjustments made to further perfect those boundaries.
I should tell you that the hearings we're having here today are the first time, the best that I've been able to ascertain, that any government has gone out while Parliament is sitting and consulted people in 10 years. So when some around this table would tell you that this process is very undemocratic, it's exactly the opposite. Instead of sloughing off that the standing orders say we can't travel except when the House doesn't sit, we suggested a pretty innovative means of getting around it, and that's to do it on the Friday and Saturday because, technically speaking, the House doesn't sit any days other than Monday to Thursday.
So government is involved not only in the process but in the means of making sure people have input even to what this bill is, which is nothing more than our keeping a promise. We said we were quite pleased to go around the province. Yes, there's short notice here in London and Ottawa, but all three parties agreed to the advertising process, to the days of meeting, to the hours of sitting, and we're very pleased to come down to London to hear your views and the views of the other people before us here today.
I liked your comments on a couple of other things because one of the members opposite used the phrase that we're going to shove through this legislation.
Mrs Pupatello: I said "ram down our throat."
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you. I was trying to put an even more polite spin to it. This bill was introduced October 1. So here we are already, 40 days later. The federal government passed its bill in 26 days. We're still nowhere close to third reading and royal assent of this bill. We anticipate it's another five or six weeks away at least. We will have taken two and a half to three times as long as the federal government did.
In the context that the federal government did a good job, how would you respond to the fact that we're taking two and a half times as long to do it, that we have honoured a promise by doing this and that quite frankly we're going out on hearings that are extraordinary in the context, aside from the January-February --
The Chair: Mr Gilchrist, if you'd like an answer to this question, I would suggest you stop.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you. Can you really tell us that this an undemocratic and non-participatory thing we're going through here today?
Mr Armstrong: As I stated earlier, it seems to me that six meetings in the province of Ontario isn't going to allow all the citizens in the province to have adequate access to this process. I can't say it any more clearly than that. That should answer all those questions. It just isn't adequate.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Armstrong. We appreciate your input here this morning.
1030
LONDON-MIDDLESEX TAXPAYERS' COALITION
The Chair: Our next presenters represent the London-Middlesex Taxpayers' Coalition: Jim Montag, the chair, and Craig Stevens, the vice-chair. Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to our committee. Should you allow time for questions in your 20 minutes, they would begin with the New Democrats. The floor is yours.
Mr Craig Stevens: The London-Middlesex Taxpayers' Coalition was formed in 1990 to address some of the tax concerns related to escalating taxes throughout municipalities in the province. We have endured for that length of time and we welcome the opportunity to speak before the commission here and present the viewpoints of our members and our executive. We have mixed feelings and emotions about the proposal, but generally we are certainly in support of the initiative to downsize the number of MPPs in Ontario. I will be providing a portion of the presentation and Mr Montag will conclude.
Certainly you're to be applauded for going from 130 down to 103, simply to mirror the number of federal ridings. The reduction in the number of MPPs, more than anything else, serves symbolically to support the sweeping reductions in the number of civil servants and to uphold a key platform plank of the election presented to Ontarians. Its appeal is widespread and it's certainly easily understood. After all, who in their right mind would want to say, "Hey, let's have more politicians"? It's that simple.
The London-Middlesex Taxpayers' Coalition has analysed and reviewed the proposed Bill 81 and we've come to the conclusion that it really and truly is anything but simple. During the course of our deliberations, we quickly discovered that our unbridled support of the bill had to be tempered somewhat when we more closely examined the words "less government" and "concentration of power."
We found it necessary to evaluate the proposed bill and to create two value categories. The value categories we chose to deal with are "symbolism" and "substance." By "symbolism" we intend to mean political opportunism whose vision does not extend beyond the range of the next election. Through use of the word "substance," we mean a fundamental, primary or general truth on which others depend and policy endures.
Symbolism is a powerful influence used to superficially convert unknowing persons to the knowing persons. It is something that today's voters can readily grasp. It has the ability to convert the complex to the simple.
When people think of big government, they think of the size of government in terms of the numbers of politicians, of bureaucrats, of programs and of taxes paid. Rarely do they think of controls on intrusions into their personal lives or property. Our definition of downsizing of government would be to have fewer laws, the repealing of laws, but unfortunately the average voter cannot grasp that concept.
For sure, the incumbent government has and is displaying honour and commitment in attempting to fulfil its campaign pledge. In doing so, it runs the risk of possible underrepresentation of many Ontarians and upsetting many of its own members and supporters with the decreases in the number of ridings.
Many Tory candidates were elected on the promise to reduce the size of government. Many Tory incumbents will be upset. Much money will be saved with the fewer number of boundaries to deal with. It's very difficult to argue with a proposal that results in fewer politicians. Perhaps we should examine whether fewer politicians is desirable.
At this point in time, I wish to turn the remainder of our presentation over to Mr Montag.
Mr Jim Montag: With regard to substance, do fewer politicians necessarily equate with less government? Why does government exist?
Let's look at the issue of fewer politicians. For sure, government would cost less. With each MPP employing a minimum of four persons, provincially we could save close to $12 million with 27 fewer of them; that is, 27 fewer employees. Indeed the savings would be substantial, but at what cost? How can we objectively know what is the optimum level of representative efficiency? Should it be 103, 99 or 50 MPPs? Should the link with the number of MP ridings be based solely on convenience and financial considerations?
We at the London-Middlesex Taxpayers' Coalition believe it should not be based upon answers to any of the above questions. We believe greater accountability of government is realized through a set formula which establishes MPP representation based on the riding population without exception.
Will 103 seats be adequate? There is always a risk that fewer seats result in a more concentrated government, with power wielded by fewer persons.
We could very convincingly argue that the concentration of power would not be abused by this government, a government that respects and understands the profound meaning of individual rights. It is indeed gratifying that finally here in Ontario we have politicians in power who are keeping their election promises and truly representing the majority of the citizens. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We have five minutes per caucus for questions, beginning with Mrs Boyd.
Mr Martin: Actually, I'm going to start this time. I'll start by saying I appreciate some of the points you make, because you're absolutely right. This is not an exercise that anybody should take lightly and is certainly a lot more sophisticated than simply bottom-line consideration and being for political reasons because it looks good, reducing the number of MPPs from 130 to 103. There's a lot more at stake here.
I suggest that this weekend, as we look forward to Remembrance Day on Monday and we remember the fact that many of our forefathers lost their lives fighting for democracy over a period of time in very difficult circumstances, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for us at this time, in such a hurried fashion, to make the very major and fundamental change that's been suggested by this piece of legislation simply because the federal government decided it was in its best interests to do it this way, as they worked through a process of having, for them, democracy evolve. For me, this exercise has to be about enhancing democracy, not taking away or diminishing.
You mentioned in your presentation the need to consider other issues besides the fact that it would cost less and the political ramifications of obviously having fewer MPPs. I suggest to you that, as a jurisdiction, the province of Ontario has over a number of years set in place a way of doing that which does take into consideration all of those issues. If this government chose to be respectful of that tradition and to follow the established pattern, instead of six meetings in a short period of time, we would have a commission out there meeting with you and with others, with the kind of time that was necessary to hear you through, to ask you questions, to probe a bit further, and for you to be able to go back and maybe get some more information and bring it forward so that at the end of day we would have something that would be well-thought-out and make sense as we try to enhance democracy.
I guess the question I would have of you is, how comfortable are you with the process, with the time lines? This government doesn't have to go back to the people for another two or three years. It could have waited for the intersession, which is the normal pattern for public hearings, to have more time to actually explore this and meet in areas where people are most seriously affected by this so that we can hear more from them and to go to a commission, then, that would take into consideration some of the things that our predecessors in government decided were important in this kind of exercise, which are the consideration of community or diversity of interests, means of communication, topographical features, population trends, the varying of rural electoral districts, existing boundaries of municipalities or wards and special geographic considerations, including the sparsity, density or relative rate of growth in population in the various regions of the province. Accessibility, size and shape would be considered.
Nobody's arguing that this kind of exercise doesn't need to be done. We need to do it. We need to revisit from time to time the question of how we represent ourselves and how people's voices are heard. I guess what I'm asking you today, in light of what you presented here, is, how comfortable are you with the process and the time lines that we're dealing with?
1040
Mr Montag: With respect to one of your comments about the tradition that has been here and the method by which this has been arrived at in the past, we have very great respect for that, but we live in a society of change. Things are changing constantly. Things are going on constantly. The federal government, I'm sure, has looked into this very seriously and made very good, modern-type decisions to arrive at their new riding boundaries.
I don't think this government is rushing into this, as you suggest. This was very clearly one of their election promises and I find it very gratifying that they're keeping their election promises. They're starting here now, after a year in power and I don't think that's at all inappropriate to start at this time on a subject like this. I don't think they're rushing it and I feel quite comfortable in what they're doing and how they're doing it.
Mr Maves: Thank you for your presentation. Mr Martin seems to indicate that he would like another commission in Ontario, a duplicate one, as a matter of fact, to a federal one that just traversed the province. I imagine you're not surprised at that.
In the Constitution that runs Canada, the British North America Act, different powers are set out for the provincial and federal governments. Over the years, provincial government has devolved its jurisdictions down to municipal councils, school boards, regional councils and so on to help it administer what's under its jurisdiction from the BNA Act.
In my area, in the Niagara region, we have 388,000 people. We have six MPPs, 112 municipal councillors and mayors, 30 regional councillors and 68 school board trustees. That's a total of 216 elected people to administer provincial issues for 388,000 people. The members opposite think that's not enough. Do you think that's enough? Too many?
Mr Montag: No, I think that's quite an appropriate number. When you're dealing with different levels of government, you must also consider different quantities or numbers of elected people. In municipal government, you naturally have to have far more than you do in provincial or federal government, but I think we can be quite adequately represented here in the province with the same number of provincial MPPs as we have of federal MPs. I don't see any difficulty there at all.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I couldn't agree with you more that one of the things that is most galling to the other side is that we are keeping our promises. I have every reason to believe it was that hope that there would be integrity and a commitment to the Common Sense Revolution that yielded the election result last year.
There is no doubt -- and you heard me mention the previous presenter -- the standard that was set by the boundary commission is a very simple formula: You take the total population divided by the number of seats, and that becomes the benchmark. Around that benchmark, though, they were allowed to vary the number of voters, the number of citizens in each riding. We've heard in the two and a bit days' worth of hearings so far about great concern in the north and in rural ridings that there be a recognition of the geographical realities that balance off against population.
My first question for you is a very simple one. Would you agree that a variance of 20% -- in other words, making the riding 20% smaller, with a 20% smaller workload, at least in terms of voters for the MPPs in the north -- would that adequately address, in your mind, the geography?
Mr Stevens: I'd like to respond to that, if I could. We deliberately stated no exceptions, and there would be no exceptions for northern Ontario. In this day and age, we're not having our representatives travel by Model T Fords and horse and buggies. We're totally overlooking in this debate the impact of technology today, the advancements in computerization, in teleconferencing and that type of thing. It would be nothing for vast geographical districts to have satellite offices whereby the constituents could access technology available to access their MPP.
We do not support any variation whatsoever at all based on geography or any other considerations. Where does it end? One could argue that we should have special boundaries for perhaps the Asian community in Toronto or any other ethnic group based on their considerations, so no, no exceptions.
Mr Gilchrist: To some extent, anyone who believes in the principle of representation by population could not find fault with your argument. I would draw your attention to the fact that still today 10.7% of the seats in the House will be occupied in the north even though it only has 7.8% of the population. So a significant extra advantage has been given. A similar reflection is made in rural ridings. Most of them are between 2% and 7% below the average set.
The only other point I'd like to get your comments to is the issue of workload. Many American states with our population, because there are no other Canadian provinces to draw a parallel -- I'll give you a couple of examples: Florida, 116,000 population; Illinois, over 100,000; California, 400,000 per representative -- not senator; per state representative; and even Texas, 122,000, and it's a part-time job. Do you think if 97,000 is the average, we won't be able to attract people capable of being MPPs and serving their constituents?
Mr Stevens: I don't think the numbers, high or low, are going to have any impact on whether or not we're going to attract capable and competent people to politics. I really don't see the numbers driving that.
Mr Gilchrist: You're confident we'll still find good MPPs.
Mr Stevens: Yes.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you so much for coming this morning and fighting the crowds. I hope you didn't battle with Santa Claus to come in this morning. I have a couple of questions for you. With the comments you made that you believe the federal offices should be similar to provincial offices -- either one of you could answer -- then do you believe that all the offices should have the same resources in which to run? For example, should the provincial offices have the same resources and benefits that would allow them to reach all their constituents as do the federal offices?
Mr Stevens: We don't know what staffing levels and resources might be available to the federal --
Mrs Pupatello: Yes, the federal offices have significantly more money to run. They have things like free postage to all constituents. They have a greater budget, allowing for greater staffing. Often you'll find federal members having those satellite offices that you spoke of in the north.
Mr Stevens: Definitely there could be a compelling argument to have an additional executive assistant or somebody in that capacity. Resources allotted would have to be fine-tuned a wee bit, I would think, to accommodate --
Mrs Pupatello: Yes. I just wanted to make sure you were both aware of the significant difference between the provincial and federal resources.
Mr Stevens: It's possible they're too high as well.
Mrs Pupatello: Yes. That's the thing. Does it come down or does the provincial office go up? Regardless, I think the point I'm making is that if you're going to have the same boundaries and you believe, given your comments, that the work the federal and provincial do is the same -- I don't agree with that, given that the issues are significantly different at a municipal, provincial and federal level. It means that, depending on the issue, it significantly changes the amount of interaction between the office and its constituent. That is borne out by fact. We have done that kind of research in my area. Do you feel that constituents should make long-distance charges by telephone to call their MPP? Do you feel that is an appropriate cost to be borne by the taxpayer?
Mr Stevens: I've noticed, interestingly, the absence of 1-800 numbers in the Toronto area. I'm not a wealthy person. I struggle, like many other middle-class people, with a family and three children to raise, but damn it all anyway. If something is important to me, I will make that long-distance call and I'll make it at my expense.
Mrs Pupatello: So you think that every constituent -- if they should have to call their MPP and it is a long-distance charge, that's okay?
Mr Stevens: If there are genuine financial stress loads placed upon persons, reversed charges or something to that effect could be put in place. You're suggesting if they can't afford to make the long-distance call? Is that what you're suggesting, the $1 or $2 or whatever it might be?
1050
Mrs Pupatello: Correct. What do you think is an appropriate distance to travel to reach the MPP? Do you think a three-hour car drive is too long or too short to reach their MPP?
Mr Stevens: I alluded to something previously, that perhaps in this day and age a physical setting in your MPP's office on a Friday afternoon could very well be a thing of the past when we look at the impact that technology could make through teleconferencing and that type of thing.
Mrs Pupatello: I noticed that and I found it interesting that, say, farmers in the north then would have to have the receiving end of the teleconference centre to access their MPP. That probably isn't likely.
Mr Stevens: No, it's not, but you could have a person having quite a diminished --
Mrs Pupatello: You remember the debate about the cell phones in the north. What was so striking about it was that northern communities really hadn't reached the level technologically to even afford a cell phone in that area. That's why it was a bit strange, because I think that may come in a couple of decades, but I don't think it's there now.
Mr Stevens: We suggested a satellite office, perhaps, where you might have a computer hookup through the Internet where that farmer or whoever it might be now would have to travel only 50 or 60 miles to sit down and have those same audio-visual links with his MPP.
Mrs Pupatello: Can I also ask you if you think there should be the same across-the-board cuts in the various branches of government as we're seeing in the governmental representation side? For example, would you be surprised to hear that the Premier's office has increased their budget by almost $1 million for this coming year?
Mr Stevens: I'm sure there's no shortage of surprises to be found anywhere in government.
Mrs Pupatello: But in this particular case, how do you feel about that?
Mr Stevens: Simply to spring something on somebody that this or that has happened I think kind of lends itself towards subjective argument.
Mrs Pupatello: If I showed you a copy of the estimates for the Premier's office --
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Pupatello. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We do appreciate your input this morning.
Mr Stevens: I'd like to say that we also appreciate you folks sitting on a Saturday.
KIMBLE SUTHERLAND
The Chair: The next presenter is Kimble Sutherland. Good morning, sir. Welcome to our committee. The floor is yours.
Mr Kimble Sutherland: Good morning. Thank you, Chair. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present to you some thoughts on Bill 81, the Fewer Politicians Act.
This piece of legislation is based on a popular view that we have too many politicians who do not solve any problems but only create and add to them. Let me state unequivocally that I reject that view and as a former politician find it insulting and objectionable. Representative democracy cannot operate without politicians. Politicians come from the people to represent the people and make decisions on their behalf. The ongoing denigration of politicians in a representative democracy is a denigration of democracy itself.
That does not mean elected officials should not be held accountable for their decisions. However, it does mean the demonizing and cheap shots taken at politicians as a whole, simply because they are elected officials making what they think are appropriate decisions, create more cynicism and contempt for the entire process. Disagree with the policies and the decisions, but do not demonstrate contempt for your profession.
Are there too many MPPs in Ontario today? As I was preparing for this presentation by doing research and reviewing the second reading debate, I was quite surprised to find that no statistical analysis was presented by the government or opposition members to support or reject the view that we have too many provincial representatives in Ontario today. Public policymaking must have some rational basis to back up the initiatives. In this case there are a couple of types of statistics that could indicate whether we have too many MPPs or have increased the number significantly over the years.
How does Ontario compare with the other provinces in terms of the number of people each MPP is currently representing? At the back of the presentation you will find exhibit 1, which is a chart comparing Ontario with the other nine provinces. You may already have received information like this in the last couple of days. The figures in this chart are not exact but are close approximations based on 1991 census data information. You may wish, if you haven't already received it, to have legislative research provide you with more up-to-date and exact figures.
From this chart you will see the range in the other provinces, from a low of 4,000 in Prince Edward Island to a high of 55,000 in Quebec. You will note that Ontario's current average representation is about 77,000. The reality is that Ontario has the highest average number of people represented by an MPP of any province in Canada by over 35%. If we used the government's criteria for how it determined the welfare rate in Ontario, which was at 10% above the national average, Ontario should have 235 seats. If Ontario decided to go 10% above the closest province, which is Quebec, we should have 163 members. The fact is that compared to the other nine provinces and even compared to the next-highest province, Ontario would appear to be underrepresented, not overrepresented.
The chart also includes comparisons with some of our neighbouring states, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York. You will note that both Michigan's and Pennsylvania's average figures are lower than Ontario's. Only the highly populated state of New York is higher than Ontario, with each representative responsible, on average, for 83,000 citizens. Since the government also looks upon the state of New Jersey with great favour, it is interesting to note their average is one member for 64,000 people.
Has the number of MPPs grown too rapidly over the last while in comparison to general population increases? Since 1971 Ontario's population has increased by over 40%, but the number of MPPs has only increased by 11%. The reality is that the number of MPPs compared to the population has declined significantly over the last 25 years and the number of people MPPs represent on average has increased dramatically.
It is the responsibility of the proponents of this bill to provide the people of Ontario some detailed information to support the bill's premise. I would also encourage members of this committee to put the statistical information in this presentation to other presenters in support of the bill. Ask them whether they are aware of this information, and once they are, ask them whether they still think we have too many MPPs. This information also might have changed a lot of opinions if presented in the meetings that led up to this proposal being included in the Common Sense Revolution.
During the second reading debate there was discussion about the roles of the MP and MPP in Ontario. Supporters of the bill suggested the two jobs are very similar and that it is therefore not a problem to have the same ridings. I agree that there is some similarity in case work, whether it is employment insurance and social assistance or pensions and WCB. However, there are also substantial differences in the two roles, particularly when it comes to representing organizations in your riding. The province provides the vast majority of direct-transfer dollars to service providers such as hospitals, home care, school boards, municipalities, colleges, universities and child care. Federal MPs do not have to keep track of all these agencies. Provincial MPPs have to be aware of how both funding and legislative decisions will impact these service providers. Expanding the size of the ridings adds a lot more of these agencies for MPPs to monitor.
As the former member for Oxford, it was easier for me because all the riding was within the county boundaries, as the current member can verify. There were only three hospitals, one county government, one public board, one separate board, one Federation of Agriculture. I was also aware that many fellow members representing rural ridings were not as fortunate because they crossed over several counties or regions, resulting in their having more transfer agencies to monitor. Changing provincial ridings to federal boundaries will only exacerbate this problem. As the member for Elgin noted in the second reading debate, more responsibilities and programs are likely to be transferred to the provinces in the future. The increased number of transfer agencies that MPPs will have to be in touch with now, as compared to an MP, is a strong argument for having smaller provincial ridings.
Like many other people, I also want to refer to the Camp commission, which dealt with the issue of how to determine appropriate levels of representation. The Camp commission referred to the first 1962 Ontario redistribution commission, which identified three types of ridings in Ontario. Those three types of ridings were rural, urban-rural and urban.
The 1962 commission put forward ranges for the three types of ridings. That first commission clearly recognized, and accounted for, representation by population and geography. The Camp commission reconfirmed that basis for determining ridings. To quote the commission:
"Our scan through the past record of debate over the size of membership of the Legislature underlines that there has always been a dominant concern over local and regional representation. That is, the population growth in the province as a whole, and the demographic transfers to the cities, required the redistribution to retain a semblance of the principle of representation by population. But this was always tempered by a broad determination to retain representation for those areas which the application of strict mathematics would have deprived."
It is a well-established principle that geography, demographics and regionalism must be taken into account, along with representation by population, in determining boundary ridings. This process may not be neat, efficient, timely or the cheapest way to establish the boundaries, but democracy, particularly for a large geographic area, is not neat, efficient, timely or cheap. There is a price for having democracy. While technology can assist the process, it cannot replace it through a l-800 number, as one of the supporters of the bill suggested during the second reading debate. The government has cut out some toll-free numbers and is now charging to use others, as a student here at Western recently found out when they tried to get information on their student loan. Is this how we define more accessible, accountable and open government?
1100
The main points I wanted to make were that we do not have too many MPPs when compared to other provinces and many states, that the number of MPPs has grown at a much smaller rate than the overall population, and that an MPP's job is different from an MP's, particularly when transfer payment agencies are brought into the picture. There are several factors, such as geography, that must be considered when determining riding boundaries.
Bill 81 fails to recognize these points and suggests dollar savings should be the only basis for determining boundary ridings. The government does not have a case to support its actions in Bill 81. They have failed to provide any real evidence that Ontario has too many MPPs. I encourage this committee to vote against Bill 81 and to recommend a more appropriate process for redistribution of provincial ridings.
Finally, there was much discussion in second reading about electoral reform. While I believe there is no evidence to support reducing the number of MPPs, there is strong evidence to support electoral reform. It is well past the time that Ontario implement a form of proportional representation.
Exhibit 2 at the back of this presentation shows the percentage of popular vote and percentage of seats received by the governing party during the last five majority governments in Ontario. Our first-past-the-post system distorts the voting intentions of the public. In a province as large and diverse as Ontario, we will always need the majority of our representatives to be elected on a constituency basis. However, if all of us are truly interested in modernizing our democracy, then rather than eliminating the 27 seats, allocate them based on the percentage of popular vote received by each party. Such a move would be demonstrating real courage and would make our legislative process more responsive to the wishes of Ontarians.
The Chair: We've got three minutes per caucus for questions, beginning with the government.
Mr Gilchrist: Very quickly, to address some of your points, the denigration of politicians -- the furthest thing from it. Some of the members opposite and you yourself today read into this that it somehow is demeaning to politicians to suggest that we can work harder, we can work smarter, we can deliver more for the money we are paid. I see this as a sign of respect for politicians, a sign that there are people who are willing to serve this province who are prepared to make that investment, not for dollars but because they believe in the things they stand for. This is every inch that.
The up-to-date data -- you mentioned you had done some analysis yourself. MPP pay analysis was something we did before passing the bill to reduce all of our pay. It said we were underpaid relative to some of the other provinces. Should we have used the standard you're putting forward here today and, because other provinces paid more, raised the pay of MPPs?
Mr Sutherland: Let me say that the premise of this bill is implying that past MPPs haven't been increasing their workload. The statistical information which shows the population has increased 40% since 1971 and the number of MPPs has only increased 11% implies that with the current process, we've been increasing the workload of MPPs. Each time we've added more members, that has not been keeping up with the population, which means they have had to represent more people.
Mr Gilchrist: We accept that. What we're saying in this bill, though, is we believe we can work another 20% harder.
Let me just ask you one other question, because we're very limited in time here. I didn't hear you say that we should use the same standard to increase MPP pay. In the US numbers, you factored in the reality that they have a Senate. So to arrive at numbers that get lower than Ontario's, you have to use two Houses. Are you calling for an Ontario Senate?
Mr Sutherland: No, I'm not. The point here is, it's the number of people each elected official has to represent, on average, and we're taking average figures.
Mr Gilchrist: You don't believe you represented --
Mr Sutherland: No, excuse me, Mr Gilchrist. Are you going to exclude the upper elected members? They're elected in both Houses in the US, so I don't think you can exclude those numbers.
Mr Gilchrist: Each group represents their whole constituency.
Mrs Boyd: He wants to make a speech, not listen to the presenter.
Mr Sergio: He cannot interfere. Please let him answer the question, Chair.
The Chair: Mr Sergio.
Mr Sutherland: Let me say here --
Mr Gilchrist: We only have three minutes. I'm trying to get a straight answer, that's all.
Mr Sutherland: Go ahead.
Mr Gilchrist: So you don't believe we need a Senate.
Mr Sutherland: The issue before us is not MPPs' pay; it's about electoral boundaries.
Mr Gilchrist: It's about setting a new benchmark. It's about setting a higher standard. It's about working harder and smarter. That's what this is about.
Mr Sutherland: Mr Gilchrist, all I'm saying is we have the highest standard already in the country --
Mr Gilchrist: And we think we can make it better.
Mr Sutherland: -- and I'm saying the basis of comparison should be with other provinces, not with the federal government, because the job of an MPP in each province is different from that of an MP. That is why you should compare with other provinces, not with what the federal government has used as a standard.
Mr Gilchrist: I agree. Unfortunately, to go to a PEI model of only representing 5,000 people I'm afraid is not an option.
Mr Sutherland: I didn't say that.
Mrs Pupatello: I'd just like to calm things down a little bit. I wanted to continue with some information that I'd like to put forward for your commentary. This is being passed off and is being named as the Fewer Politicians Act and it has been seen as a bonanza in terms of public support. It is implied that fewer politicians is a good thing. Quite frankly, I'm with you; I do find the title offensive. If it was about a higher standard, they should have called it that, if that is the case.
The numbers I'd like to give you are numbers that were required to be submitted to the committee on estimates by the government, and the Premier's office was required to submit the following information. The 1996-97 estimates for the Office of the Premier are $2.7 million -- actually, it's more than that -- and the estimates for 1995-96 were $1.8 million, a significant increase in the Office of the Premier. That is fact; that was required of the Premier to put forward at the committee on estimates. This is not something we just dreamed up; this was actually authentic documentation.
My concern is that while the government is busy cutting the representation that the electorate has, it continues to grow. The last group that came before us talked about the concentration of power. It's very clear that we have proof that this is happening, that while the elected voice is smaller, the powerful, unelected voice grows stronger. You can call it undemocratic; you can call it whatever you want. What it is is unfair in that if you're going to make the cuts, ensure they're across the board. It is as inappropriate as Bart Maves suggesting that we think we need more politicians. I don't think that. My caucus doesn't think that. The Liberals have never advocated for more. What we have said is "fair." If you're going to cut one, you must also cut the executive branch so that the balance remains the same. This is the most significant problem with the bill. I'd like your comment.
Mr Sutherland: Rather than commenting on the specifics, when on the surface it does seem inappropriate to be increasing by that amount, I think the overall concern is that if you reduce by 27, does that mean you're going to increase executive governing, and what does that do for the accountability process? What does that do for the number of committees to hold public hearings when you only have 103 members versus 130? Will you have all the same committees? Will you have fewer committees? Will you have fewer members on the committees?
I think the public should be concerned with reducing the number of elected, accountable officials to each part of the province. Will that allow for an increase in executive government, and is that a good thing? Democracies rely on a balance between executive, legislative, and of course the judicial. That's the checks and balances in appropriate democracy, and you don't want to get them out of whack.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for your presentation. The figures that you give, of course, haven't received any publicity from the government, so I'm glad you brought them forward.
One of the myths this government is putting forward is that this is strictly representation by population. Of course, anybody who knows what the Constitution says about representation federally and provincially knows that's not the case. The formula for representation by population already has to take out the constitutional requirement for PEI to have four members, for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to have a certain number of members, for the 75 members, I think it is, in Quebec. Then, with the seats that are left over, you get representation by population. So in reality, on the federal basis, Ontario is also shortchanged if we really want to talk about rep by pop. Yet when we hear our friends over here talk, it's as though, "Oh, this is a magic formula." That's one of the reasons it makes no sense to do provincial boundaries the same as federal boundaries, because it isn't in fact representation by population in that way.
1110
Mr Sutherland: My view is that comparing it to the federal system is wrong in the first place. They're different jobs, they're different responsibilities, and the comparison should be with the other provinces and, if so be it, other states. I know Mr Gilchrist had talked in the previous presentation about some states -- Florida, Texas and California -- indicating that they're higher. But the key point in that is population density. You could put the geographic areas of Florida, Texas and California and still not cover all of Ontario. You have to take that into account. It has to be considered. You can't ignore the reality that we're a large geographic mass with a small population in terms of density. Compare it to the other provinces in determining what the appropriate level is, not to the federal government. By all statistics, we're way ahead of every other province and therefore I don't see a basis for the proposal in the legislation.
Mrs Boyd: I certainly couldn't agree with you more, because I think when you really look at what we mean by representation, that's where we get at the issue of democracy. If we really believe that our job as representatives is to keep in close touch with our communities in the way you describe, it's very difficult to do that and, as you say, to hold various agencies accountable. It becomes harder and harder the larger the numbers might be, and it becomes particularly hard if you have a riding like the new Rainy River-Kenora riding, which is larger than all of Europe.
Mr Sutherland: On a geographic basis, I'm not as knowledgeable about northern Ontario, but here in southern Ontario, when I've seen the federal boundaries, they're cutting them across three or four counties now, which means you're going to be held responsible for the boards of education, the county governments, hospitals etc. You're adding a lot more transfer agencies that you're going to have to keep on top of. So the workload is different from that of a federal MP, and that is why the comparison, in my view, should be with other provinces, not with what the federal government has proposed.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sutherland. We do appreciate your input here this morning.
Mr Stewart: On a point of privilege, Mr Chairman: I think all of us around this table should relook at what these hearings are. These hearings are public hearings. I would suggest that what it says is that we are to listen to the public. I would suggest -- I'm talking to all members of this committee -- that we relook at our mandate and we conduct ourselves a little better than we do in the Legislature and let these people have the opportunity to put forth their thoughts and ideas.
Mrs Boyd: Tell Mr Gilchrist that.
Mr Stewart: I'm telling all members that.
SUSAN SMITH
The Chair: Our next presenter is Susan Smith. Good morning and welcome to our committee. The floor is yours.
Ms Susan Smith: All the world may be a stage and most of us are desperately underrehearsed, including myself, so I thank you for your indulgence this morning.
If no one has done it already, because we're within about two months of January 8, 1997, I suppose I could welcome you to London-Adelaide. With a federal Liberal election call in the next few weeks or not, this riding, this area physically, as per the structure of the federal electoral boundaries commission, will be London-Adelaide for the purposes of a federal election called any second after January 8, 1997.
It's very brief notice, oral submissions. You don't appear to be holding any hearings in any rural areas. Toronto one day, Ottawa the next and London the last is not, in all seriousness, really looking for public input perhaps from the people with the most vested interest. So I'll start by saying that up front.
This again is part of a set piece. This is Bill 81, if we're going to start with the chronological numbering of the bills that have been brought forward as introduced by this government. They are definitely part of a set piece.
I'd actually call a majority government's first nine months similar to probably a full-term pregnancy. What you're really serious about doing and what's really important is done in the first nine months, and then the birthing begins. So the way I've looked at this government's introduction of bills and set pieces began with decisions by the cabinet on June 26, 1995, and proceeded from there.
Bill 7 was a very early bill: employment equity gone, proxy pay equity gone, the clear attack on women, desegregating full- and part-time workers of the same collective bargaining unit. We've just passed the first anniversary of that bill. Frankly, for the government members of this committee, I hope it comes home to roost. I don't care if you call an election after your miserable first 18 months, or 18 months after that when you think you've gotten all warm and fuzzy and heard a lot more from the public. People don't have a reason to forget what you've accomplished in your first nine months and your very clear political agenda behind that.
What's actually fun for some of us to do is give it a comparative analysis with the federal Liberal government's actions. In the federal Liberal government's actions, you've worked hand in glove. It's been a set piece.
With respect to electoral representation, Jean-Pierre Kingsley has brought forward legislation. In fact, right after Brian Mulroney won his second term, by December 1988, cabinet had commissioned a Gallup poll to look at the issue of voter registration and permanent voters' lists. The submission of Warren Bailie, the successor to Roderick Lewis -- we certainly all remember exactly who he was -- to this same committee on general government raised some very sticky points and he was very clear that he could not guarantee the integrity of the franchise of one person, one vote.
For you to be going to the Fewer Politicians Act -- and I would additionally comment on the naming of your bills, that what the government chooses to name the bills is inveigling; obfuscation in some cases. No one is going to dispute that 130 to 103 is a diminution of a number, but this is Bill 81. Again, in terms of set pieces, the actual cost -- and we'll look at the calendar year 1994, we'll look at the calendar year 1995, we'll look at the calendar year 1996, as well as the fiscal years, and we'll be looking at the calendar year 1997. Even if the government chooses to call an election halfway through 1997, it will still be able to prove that the cost of having elected people at Queen's Park is today higher than it has ever been before. The government's choice to present Bill 48, raising the pay of backbenchers -- and you have a whole bunch in the government. I appreciate where the political pressure is coming from in the Tory caucus. If you carry through, if the government pushes through its agenda for Bill 81, it will be very clear to a taxpayer in Ontario to see that you're spending more money even if you have fewer politicians. I don't think there's a really good reason for people to blink or wink at that and give up on it. I repeat, it doesn't make any difference what you name the bill, the agenda of the government is very clear.
Rob Sampson actually ended up with an "honourable" in front of his name as the minister for privatization because of his ushering through that bill with its attendant amendments back in April. For Ernie Eves, Minister of Finance, Mr Control Costs, we're not impressed, the electorate's not impressed. It takes a bit of research to ferret this out, but the electorate won't be impressed. It doesn't matter how soon the government goes to the voters for this.
Bill 26, local government restructuring: This is more to do not so much with restructuring within the province; again, I repeat, this is working hand in glove with the federal Liberals carrying through with Brian Mulroney's clear agenda. I would call the boundaries, to an extent, a red-herring issue. I mean, that process took place in 1994. The public was invited to speak to it publicly at the end of 1993, all through 1994. People know what the boundaries look like federally. People are federal voters.
1120
To obscure the issue of a permanent voters' list, to obscure where you're working hand in glove with the federal Liberal Party, harmonizing the goods and services tax, do you think the average voter will actually feel that fits under the rubric of: "We're the tax controllers. We're the people who can manage the economy"? I don't see that coming from this Conservative government.
For Warren Bailie to not be able to guarantee the integrity of the franchise for one person, one vote, when you go to rolling voters' lists, continuing rolls, is not very honest. If you attempt to put a referendum set or even one referendum question about taxation on municipal ballots, the way I'm looking at this government currently, it wouldn't surprise me at all for it to attempt to do that.
The actual diminution is not necessarily in politicians but clearly of the democratic process, the actual whittling away; it's niggling, it's bit by bit. We know that 19% of the people who attended the Republican convention in the States were millionaires. When people look at who involves themselves in the partisanship of the politics of a party in government, I don't think it will be lost on people where this government has been coming from: the Mulroney agenda.
Working all that closely with the federal Liberal government at a time when the issues around the legislation federally about family support -- this government is choosing to have some level of incompetence that wasn't there previously in the provincial government bureaucracy so that support payments aren't made. Albeit, some are to non-voters; these are support payments to children. They aren't currently voters. They likely will not vote in the election that the Conservative government will call to attempt re-election. But those are the citizens of this province you are affecting with that kind of decision and decisions about rent control, for heaven's sake, and lack of support of third-sector housing. All for an agenda of a promised tax cut to a very specific sector of the population.
Al Leach is personally beginning to get a little bit of experience -- at least his body language seems to show it in TV clips -- of how he's going to appreciate the viscera of citizens in Ontario. It's going to dictate how they interact with him, how they react to him, how people feel about the subtext of this government's agenda. There is no reason for it to be lost on people, whether it's the money that goes to the Ontario Jockey Club while somehow we still keep the minimum wage frozen or the hand in glove with the federal government. In the next election federally there will be 98 Liberals in the province who will go for re-election claiming that they've raised the federal minimum wage in Ontario by 59%, which is because they matched your frozen rate of $6.85 an hour. The previous federal minimum wage applicable in Ontario was $4 an hour.
That is not going to cut it with the Canadian and Ontario public, to appreciate the pay raise the government introduced for members and clearly had the number of backbenchers to ram through, with no members of the opposition, incumbent Liberals, incumbent New Democrats. For you to be paying them more than they made under David Peterson and under Bob Rae when the pay was frozen -- and to reflect the economy Gordon Thiessen is still saying that economic growth in the country is going to be very slow. The average Ontarian feels in their bones that this is a given.
I guess it's cynicism too. Calling it the Fewer Politicians Act is reflecting the ultimate attempt at spin but the ultimate cynicism informing that political intent at spin.
Not enforcing public administration of health care sits squarely with this provincial government, again how it works hand in glove with the federal government; and the issue of tobacco products being available and accessible to young people; and government's equivocation on whether there's a bit of acceptability to certain corporate interests at the margins having a vested influence on electoral processes.
I don't think it's lost on most thinking Ontarians and I don't think it's time for citizens to sit silent, because we don't see the policies working for individuals, working for the backbone of our communities, the average person who just does their job, whether they're a shift-working health care worker or the people who do unremunerated work in our communities.
I'm looking forward to the government standing up and talking about fair taxation, its ability to actually fairly tax -- leadership, not helping out its friends, some of the corporate interests. We all know business comes to government like this. We know that. Everybody knows that. You could think about a bit of leadership.
This piece of legislation gets you obviously well past the first nine months, but the federal Liberal government, of course, helped out CN, helped out Stentor, helped out Bell Canada, did deals for its friends. Like I said, you could go full-term for the five years or you could call an election quite soon, and I don't think it would be lost on the average Ontarian where you've made a very clear decision to take this province. If you want a very low common denominator in terms of cynicism about the Fewer Politicians Act, you ought to count on it being the researchers who want to point to personal vested interests coming ahead of everything else informing this government's actions.
You don't have to go full-term. The documentation is there. We see it. Doing as you say, not as you do, is not a lesson that adult voting Ontarians need to hear from this Conservative government.
Welcome to London-Adelaide. I'd be happy to answer some questions.
Mrs Pupatello: Thanks so much for coming this morning. You managed to slam most political parties except the NDP.
Ms Smith: Correct.
Mrs Pupatello: I assume there's a reason for that. I would say too that probably the most offensive thing you could have said to the Tories is to tell them that they're working hand in hand with the federal Liberals.
Ms Smith: Which they are.
Mrs Pupatello: I imagine that you meant to do that as well. I would remind you also that having come through that party in power, through an NDP term, all of us, even if the NDP were elected back, would have had to make radical shifts in expenditures just because of the fact that we had an NDP government.
I'd also like to ask you specifically about this bill. As you say, it's going to come home to roost. You probably realize it hasn't yet. The Conservative government is currently riding high in the polls, higher than the day it was elected, so it hasn't yet affected that average person on the street, whether they work in factories or wherever, that typical average person. They don't see it yet. I think it's going to take some time before they do see the full impact of this government's policies. I, like you, hope they see it before the next election rolls around, whether that's a full five-year mandate or four.
1130
In terms of the balance of power, I have a great concern about what this bill is going to do in that it allows the elected portion of the House to have that much less a voice while the executive branch of government continues to grow. There are already numerous examples in this government where the spin doctors, the staffers, have a significant amount of power far greater than elected representatives.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Pupatello. Mr Martin.
Ms Smith: Oh, do I not get to respond?
The Chair: Unfortunately, the question was way too long. She didn't give you any time to respond.
Mr Martin: Thanks for being here today and taking time to participate in the limited opportunity there is to discuss this very important piece of work that's being done. This is a fundamental shift, change, of great import to the way we do democracy in Ontario. The process this government has chosen to follow is one of convenience; you know, "We're going to take the federal boundaries and apply them." It does not respect the way we've always done redistribution: the commission established and the time allotted for full public cancellation. What's your feeling about that?
Ms Smith: I'm equally concerned with both the process and the results. The process actually is more problematic, again hand in glove with the federal Liberals, because it's all part of a set piece. It's not only the geographic boundaries; it's the function of not having a foot canvass enumeration. The last time I checked, since the country was having elections, we're a more urbanized population, not a less urbanized population, so the changes that the Conservative government would make to go with the federal Liberal government changes of a permanent voters list are not respectful of people in rural areas, not respectful of people in urban areas. They are certainly looking for less representation. It's really problematic when people in Ontario feel in our bones what the challenges in the economy continue and remain to be.
To its credit, the NDP government implemented a system in all the line ministries of examining programs. There was a real financial responsibility that they undertook in terms of planning. There was never any malevolent intent to do things like whittle down the deficit by using numbers out of the Attorney General's office from the family support plan payments. There was never anything that was so malevolent in their intent. There was a very straightforward dialogue with all partners, those in the municipality --
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: Thank you, Susan, for your presentation.
Ms Smith: Hi, Bruce.
Mr Smith: How are you doing? From my perspective -- I know you're involved locally and have made several presentations to standing committees in the past -- from a regional perspective we currently hold about 20.8% of the seats in the Legislature. This bill will effectively reduce that to 20.4% of the representation in the Legislature. As an informed person, do you honestly believe that will effectively or negatively impact the level of representation, the degree of representation, we have in the Legislature?
Ms Smith: If you are referring to the very specific boundaries, none of which have been circulated and all of which we are familiar with, how the incumbent Liberal government has circulated and made them available, all their appointments as returning officers federally have until January 7 or 8 to have their poll maps ready. Representation by population is something that is obviously very important. When you talk about the difference between going to 20.4% from 20.8%, the 0.4% difference isn't dramatic. People who want to exercise our franchise will do it no matter what kind of obstacles this current government and the current federal government put in the way in terms of making it less convenient, making it perhaps less visible, less obvious. Obviously an early federal election call in the new boundaries might confuse some people. The biggest aspect of that would be removing the foot canvass part of the enumeration to actually create the voters list with some integrity.
I personally would not like to see the boundaries changed, but more problematic would be the process. If you engage in a process of eliminating a foot canvass when your own chief bureaucrat who administers it has stated very clearly that the biggest cost of the administration of his department, on current figures that Erik Peters validates, is not the foot-canvass part of it, you should not consider removing door-to-door enumeration.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your input here this morning.
KAREN HASLAM
The Chair: The next presenter is Karen Haslam. Good morning. Welcome to our committee. You have 20 minutes. The floor is yours.
Ms Karen Haslam: Thank you. I'm here to talk about Bill 81, which is called the Fewer Politicians Act. When I got the page that said it was called the Fewer Politicians Act I thought, "What a misnomer." It's not about fewer politicians; it's about fewer representatives, and there is a difference. Where? In rural areas.
As I understand it, the cut in the number of provincial ridings will take 27 representative seats away, 23 of them from rural ridings. That's 23 fewer rural voices at the Legislature. By increasing the size of the ridings you also increase the physical requirements of trying to cover such a large area and decrease the access of constituents to their representatives.
There are many meetings you have to go to in a riding, many community events, and constituents want and deserve to meet their MPPs face to face. If you're going to enlarge your constituents' area, you're going to end up missing a lot of things; you're going to end up not being able to cover all that you should. That's just looking at the organized meetings.
Let's take a look at Perth county. There are three hospitals, two school boards, there's a Christian school, one city, one village, three towns, there are 11 townships, each with their own council and representatives to meet with. There are 66,226 people who now are not going to have one voice at the Legislature. By amalgamation they'll have half a voice. Of that, the farm population is 10,620, but it's interesting to see that in a rural non-farm population it is 14,810 people. So it's not just farm communities; it's also people living in rural communities not totally involved with agricultural work.
There are 485,212 acres and a total of 2,927 farms in Perth. We deal with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, pork producers, dairy farmers, egg producers, the coloured bean association, the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, women for the support of agriculture and the Ontario Farm Women's Network.
In Ontario, Perth is first in cash receipts for dairy cattle, first in hogs marketed, second in white bean acreage, second in mixed grain acreage, second in total milk shipped. When you take a look at the acreage for the total area as a percentage of Ontario, we are 3.5% in total area. When you look at dry white beans, we are 23% acreage. That's in our county for that crop. When you look at wheat and rye and grains we are 6%, we are 12% of the hog producing acreage, 6% of the dairy cattle acreage and 6% of the livestock and poultry acreage. But we seem to be last on your list and not worth a representative to speak for those issues in the Legislature.
1140
Bigger is not better. Joining two separate areas together by amalgamation doesn't make them cohesive, it doesn't make them work together and it doesn't make them more efficient. You might end up creating a rift and dividing our communities and the feelings they have.
Rural areas have long felt that decisions and government policies were Toronto-driven. I believe that changed in the 1990s. Attention was being paid to rural problems, and not just the agricultural part of rural problems. Solutions were suggested from the community and they were acted upon. Why? Because the rural ridings had strong advocates, both in caucuses -- I say "caucuses" -- and in the government.
The process here has been very rushed. Let me tell you how I found out about this meeting. I was talking on a personal phone call with a friend in Toronto, and she happened to mention that this decision was made on the Monday. I believe I was talking to her on Tuesday. I was really upset. I called the clerk's office and found out that the decision for meetings was made on Monday; the advertisement was on Tuesday, if I'm right; on Wednesday they started to fill the slots; on Thursday you had your first meeting in Toronto; on Saturday you're here in London, once more in Ottawa and you're gone. You haven't hit the rural areas. You haven't allowed enough time for people to put together their research. I envy Kimble Sutherland. He's obviously at the end of a contract, has time to watch the channel, has time to get the Hansard. I don't; I'm working, so as a result I had very little research at my disposal to come before you.
What I did receive from the Legislature was a copy of the debate when Noble Villeneuve brought forward his resolution earlier. I'm not going to quote Noble Villeneuve, who must be terribly embarrassed about this entire thing. I'm going to talk about the comments from Mr Al McLean, who said: "When we talk about redistribution...there is a difference. In urban Ontario you could represent 200,000 people as easily as you could represent 75,000 in rural Ontario. The criterion being used as population is wrong." That was from Mr Al McLean.
I found that the process was too quick. I mean, it even outdid the omnibus bill which you tried to slither through. I think you are forgetting the constituent in this process, which is not unusual for this government, it seems. We should be looking at how we service constituents, not how many we service.
In urban areas it is easier to get around and it's actually easier to represent a larger number of people in larger cities. In rural areas that's not so. We have a larger physical area, our roads are not as well developed, we have less public transportation available, less development and fewer services. There's no health care clinic every two blocks, there's no school every four blocks, there are no Association for Community Living facilities in small villages, there are no facilities for battered women in outlying areas and there's no bus service to get them to the one that's in my city. Now you are proposing to lessen the service they receive even from their MPPs.
You talked recently about mirroring the federal riding boundaries, but we do not mirror the federal programs. Provincial programs are much more complex and detailed to operate. We deal with education at a provincial level; the federals deal with defence. We deal with health care; they deal with international trade. We deal with the environment; they deal with passports. I know that my federal MP does not have as busy a schedule as the provincial MPP.
I think this is more about politics than about representation. This bill will change the political landscape of Ontario. I'm going to be very blunt. I think this is gerrymandering, pure and simple.
I mentioned that I didn't have access to a lot of facts and figures. I got up at 5 am to write my speech because I was working on Thursday and Friday. I sat at an office in London, because I was in London in meetings yesterday, at 4:30 waiting for faxes to come in about some of these issues, so I took my time and looked up "gerrymander" in the dictionary: "(1) Manipulate the boundaries of (a constituency etc) so as to give undue influence to some party or class. (2) Manipulate (a situation etc) to gain advantage." It's interesting that this practice comes from Governor Gerry of Massachusetts, and the last part of the word comes from salamander, because that was the shape of the district or political map that was drawn when he was in office: "gerrymander."
When I lived in British Columbia the Social Credit Party gerrymandered a riding there to allow one of their members to be elected. It was called Gracie's Finger, because the riding looked like that. They had a bump in it that took in an area they knew was going to give her votes, and she got elected. I don't think we have a Gracie's Finger here; I think we have a Mike's Fist.
I truly believe that's what this is about, so I'm going to say to the opposition, and you're not going to like my comments: Wake up. Call it what it is. Stop pussyfooting around. They are subverting democracy; they are subverting a process here; they are subverting access in many ways. They have no hearts; they have no conscience; they have no moral or Christian ethics towards those less fortunate in our communities.
When I was waiting for that fax yesterday there was a sign in the office. I've updated it: "Due to the actions of this current government, the light at the end of the tunnel will be turned off until further notice." May I say something to add to that? "Possibly at least until the next election."
I want you to get your flashlights out. You need to turn the spotlight on these despicable actions, the lack of process. We will not recognize Ontario in 18 months. Our Ontario, our caring society, will be subverted by mean-spirited politicians. Maybe then you should introduce an act that is truly titled the Fewer Politicians Act.
The Chair: Two minutes per caucus for questions, beginning with the NDP.
Ms Haslam: With all due respect, I've been to your committee meetings before and what I've seen this morning only shows me that it's going to be another Ms Ecker who spends the entire time producing pap. I don't feel that's a genuine value of my time or yours.
The Chair: Okay, we are now recessed until 1 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1151 to 1301.
ROBERT DE LA PENOTIERE
The Chair: Welcome back to hearings on Bill 81. Our presenter scheduled for this time has not arrived yet, but Mr Bob de la Penotiere is in attendance and has agreed to come forward and make his presentation now. Welcome to our committee, sir. The floor is yours.
Mr Robert de la Penotiere: Before I begin my presentation, I guess I should point out that I am currently employed as the executive assistant to Peter North, the MPP in Elgin. In that capacity it is my job, of course, to schedule him and all the other good things, schedule the staff and run the staff. That is how I am appearing here today. I'm not appearing here today as Peter's employee or spouting Peter's views. These are views coming from my job as a scheduler.
I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today to Bill 81, the Fewer Politicians Act. First, I believe this act is poorly named and is named simply to appeal to the general public. Ask anyone if they would like fewer politicians and of course they will say yes, myself probably included. However, if you explain the implications of this act, especially the fact that this bill will mean less contact with their member and/or his staff, they will then have a totally different view. I believe this act should be more properly named The How to Get Less Representation and Probably Pay More Act, or The Final Kiss-Off to Rural and Northern Ontario Act.
During second reading debate on Bill 81, it was pointed out by government members, some rather high-ranking members, that a member of the provincial Parliament should be able to represent the same number of constituents as a federal member of Parliament. How ridiculous. This is like saying that if a hamburger flipper at a fast-food outlet is able to serve 2,000 people per day, it should hold true that a full-fledged chef should be able to serve the same number.
Much is made of the phrase "rep by pop," and I believe that by and large this is likely the way we should look at setting riding boundaries. However, having said this, first we have to determine what a member has to do before we decide how many constituents one should be expected to represent. Let me explain.
The duties of members in the Legislative Assembly and Parliament are primarily the same and consume by and large the same amount of time. However, when we look at constituency work, we find a tremendous difference in the workload. An MP deals with a variety of issues which mainly centre on Canada and old age pensions, UI problems -- or I guess EI problems now -- immigration and some municipal issues. In the case of an MPP, most of the issues of concern to the constituents are provincial in nature. They include, but are not limited to, education issues, including school boards; welfare; the Family Benefits Act; the Workers' Compensation Board; retail sales tax; the Ontario Drug Benefit Act; OHIP in general; most community agencies, such as the Association for Community Living; family and children's services; continuing care etc; most seniors' problems are provincially based, as well as the many problems and needs of the disabled; municipalities and councils; and, yes, let's not forget the family support plan. The list goes on and on, but I am sure all members of this panel are aware of this.
If we look at municipalities and councils, I am sure all will agree that most of the issues which arise in this area are of a provincial nature and consume a large amount of a member's time trying to sort things out with various ministries and agencies. Members must spend a lot of time working with municipal councils in their ridings on these issues.
In our case, we have 17 municipalities and councils in the riding, which are basically rural in nature. However, under the expanded boundaries, this number would be increased by seven, one of which is a very large urban municipality and would consume considerable time of a member. Most MPs, however, require little time for these types of issues, as most municipal issues deal with the provincial government.
Workers' compensation, in a riding of 60,000, consumes the time of one staff member on a full-time basis in a rural riding such as ours. To add an additional 23,000 constituents to that riding, 85% of whom are urban dwellers, would probably double the workload in this area alone. I could go on and on, but I am sure every member of this committee is well aware of what I say when I compare the workloads of MPs and MPPs.
We constantly hear of the downloading of responsibilities from the federal government to the province, and I believe this to be true. If this situation continues -- and I'm sure it will -- the workload gap will only widen and make the members' abilities to represent even more eroded.
So what do we do? I would suggest that this committee suggest in the strongest terms that we should study very carefully this whole idea of aligning riding boundaries with federal boundaries and, rather, look at the workload and geographical makeup of ridings and then come back with a reasonable plan to make some changes where possible.
I believe we should also realize that when the federal government did its realignment of ridings, in fact the number of ridings in Ontario increased from 99 to 103, which only tells me that they looked closely at the workloads, population and geographical matters when coming up with their final decision.
I do not believe this government has looked at all at the implications this will have on representation and a member's ability to properly carry out his or her duties, but have simply decided this was a campaign promise and, regardless, they will plow ahead and jam it down the throats of Ontarians. The government should have formulated a plan rather than just aimed at a campaign target.
I urge this committee to use common sense and to recommend to the government sensible solutions that will be just for all Ontario. Further, if it is a question of saving money, which I do not believe this scheme will do, I suggest you seriously consider the suggestions made by the independent member for Elgin during the second reading debate. This is a certain way to achieve those savings now, not four years from now.
I ask this panel to give serious thought to the effects that Bill 81 will have on rural and northern Ontario. It will be devastating. Just to add to that, I would like to point out that the government in the last election campaign made two promises that are very significant in this area. One was that they would cut the number of ridings. The second point they made was that they will not erode the representation in rural Ontario, will not erode rural Ontario. Those were two very clear promises made in the Common Sense Revolution. One way or another, the government is going to break one of those promises. I suggest, and I would think that this committee should suggest, that if you're going to break one, the one to break is Bill 81, because the people in rural Ontario need the representation. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We've got about three minutes or so per caucus for questions, beginning with the NDP.
1310
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for coming today, Bob. I know you were wanting to speak from the position of constituency representation. I guess the biggest issue for Elgin county is its length and the sparsity of many of your population pockets and the real difficulty of doing that kind of work, without adding that huge piece of Middlesex that's going to get added under this situation. Do you want to comment a little bit on what it will mean to the people of Elgin county?
Mr de la Penotiere: The member's time is what basically concerns me, the member's time and his staff's time. When we have, as I said in the presentation, 17 municipalities, and we add seven more to that, that is devastating. That is a tremendous workload. I don't care what anybody says; you have to spend a lot of time with your municipal councils. That in itself is going to be a major, major problem.
I believe also that adding 23,000 additional, basically urban, people into the riding will take away the rural representation eventually. I don't think it will in the next election, but I think eventually it will. That is of major concern in rural Ontario, and rightfully so; it should be. I don't expect anyone who lives in an urban setting, who lives in a city, to be able to go out and pick up farm issues. They're very complex and they're very, very important.
Mr Martin: It's good, as Mrs Boyd has said, that somebody like yourself comes forward to talk about the issue of the workload of MPPs. When we do it, it comes across as quite self-serving and is difficult to do. We differ in opinion with some of the members across the way -- I'm not sure how others feel -- who are actually doing the job of MPP and finding how difficult that is at times.
I'm interested, though, in the process. You obviously table some very compelling arguments about why we shouldn't go ahead with Bill 81. There are others who come forward and make arguments about why we should. There's nobody, I don't think, saying we shouldn't visit this issue of how we represent people at the Parliament in Queen's Park. The process, the time lines, the fact that we're not going to a commission this time around, for the first time: What is your comment re that whole piece of this?
Mr de la Penotiere: I think I'd be kicking myself in the face if I said we should have a commission. I'm not a big believer of commissions. But I do believe that 130 MPPs in Ontario, in this province, are necessary. I do believe there have to be some adjustments -- I don't think there's any doubt about that -- especially when we have a look in Metro where we have some ridings with 140,000 people. In an urban riding I believe an MPP can serve more people because of the compactness of the riding; they don't have all the municipal councils etc to deal with.
When I come at this, I come at it as the guy who has to find a 25th hour, every single day, for my member, and that's a pretty hard hour to find. I know that if we add this much more municipal and this much more work to that individual in a rural riding, it just isn't going to work. It just won't work. People will not be served.
Mr Maves: Thank you for coming forward today. I noticed you have been with us most of the day. I appreciate that. There is one point you made at the start, though, when you were presenting a difference between MPs and MPPs. It's a common theme that I've heard from many presenters, that the MPP does things which are more day-to-day or somehow more significant in the daily lives of people than the federal MPs. I've always taken exception to that. The reason is that I used to work for a federal member; I've had some experience working as a legislative assistant to a federal member.
You said a few things, like unemployment insurance and Canada pension plan, which obviously affect the daily lives, and these are federal issues. Here are some others, though: Young Offenders Act; victims' rights; firearms; federal courts and sentencing; passports; visas; citizenship applications; immigration applications; literacy programs; disability from Health and Welfare; old age security; guaranteed income supplements; spouses' allowance; widows' allowance; orphans' allowance; Canadian work permits; social insurance numbers; a plethora of training programs; RCMP; federal penitentiaries; parole; drug strategies; Revenue Canada -- a lot of issues there: appeals, GST, payroll problems; child tax credit; veterans' benefits, pensions and recognitions.
Really, to be fair -- I'm not trying to challenge you in any way, but having working in both areas I think there's a significant amount of things that happen in an MP's office on a day-to-day basis. I don't think there are any less than there are at the provincial level. I would also point out that at the provincial level, while we deal with schools, we also have, in my area, 68 school board trustees to help deal with schools on a day-to-day basis. We also have hospital boards and so on and so forth. To be fair, the federal members have just as many significant things on a day-to-day basis as we do.
Mr de la Penotiere: Just to comment on that briefly: I work very closely with a federal MP's office as well. I'm not saying that MPs are underworked. Don't get me wrong. They represent 90,000 people; they average 97,000.
What I am saying is that the people who call with the urgent "I've got to do it now" problems are basically provincially geared. When I take a look at the various applications we're talking about -- and again, I'm not jumping on an MP -- we handle more birth certificate applications in a week than they handle, of those kinds of applications that you were talking about, in a year. We handle more birth certificate applications. We don't just send them to Thunder Bay; we take them to Toronto. We handle all birth certificate applications that come through the riding; they come through our office. In that sense and providing that service, I can tell you right now, because I've studied this stuff very closely, we handle more of those than they would handle in a year of the other types of applications you were talking about.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for your presentation, Bob. I'm interested in your comments regarding the Office of the Premier. As you probably know, estimates were required to be submitted to the standing committee on estimates that indicate that the Office of the Premier went from, in the year 1995-96, an expenditure of $1.8 million to, in 1996-97, $2.7 million.
Do you find it interesting that on the one hand cutting the number of MPPs is some attempt at cost-saving, but in the Office of the Premier, where the power is being centralized, he's actually increased his office by close to $1 million? In effect, we see this enhancement of the executive branch of government, where the other branch of government, being the elected body, has less of a role to play. But the executive branch -- unelected, behind the scenes, unavailable to the people -- in fact has more power and they are spending more money in the face of such a large deficit in Ontario, in the face of all the other excuses they've given for what they're doing to elected representatives, and they are increasing the Office of the Premier by nearly $1 million.
Mr de la Penotiere: Yes, I've read that. I saw that in the estimates and so on and so forth. I guess we have some concerns there, but we have a lot of other concerns about government as well, and I'm sure you're aware of those. You debated this with Peter on Inquiry.
The fact of the matter is that we believe that if we want to maintain representation we can do away with a lot of things in government to get rid of a lot of cost in government, number one, parliamentary assistants. Peter has been very clear about it: They're not necessary, they do nothing for the people of the province of Ontario. We believe caucus services can be cut down. We believe the amount of money given to each party for their caucus services and caucus budget can be cut dramatically because that is only planning the next election campaign. We believe there are a lot of ways to cut money out of government, and Peter has put those -- I'm sure you all are aware of it, you sit in the House with him -- ideas forward.
We have also a very major problem with the $4 million that is spent on election rebates. That is ridiculous. When somebody loses an election, they get $9,000 or $10,000. Somebody who wins the election gets nothing from the government, from the taxpayers' money -- ridiculous, totally ridiculous.
If you want to cut money, I say to the government members, and you want to have some ideas, come and see us. We've got a bunch of them. Probably your party isn't going to like it too well, but we've got them.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We do appreciate your input here today.
1320
AB CHAHBAR
The Chair: Our next presenter is Ab Chahbar. Good afternoon, sir. Welcome to our committee.
Mr Ab Chahbar: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here before you this afternoon. I see on the agenda that I'm shown as a London public board trustee. I'm here making a presentation as a citizen and not as a board trustee. Also, I think my presentation and comments are going to be very simplistic. They're not political. They're not meant to be political. They're meant to be common sense.
Should the number of MPPs be reduced? Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you this afternoon regarding Bill 81 that's before you now. It's only through this consultation process and public hearing forums that governments can make informed decisions and enact legislation that has the support of the public.
The number of electoral districts in Ontario should be reduced to correspond with the federal riding boundaries, so we should go from 130 to 103, as I believe the numbers are now. The test should be fair and equitable representation. I have always questioned the fact that Ontario has always had some 30% more members in the provincial Legislature than in the federal Parliament. This might imply that more is better, that we are better served at the provincial level than we are at the federal level, or more at the local level than at the provincial level. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't think so. If anything, in Ontario we are overrepresented.
Let us take this great city that you're in today, London, Ontario, as a simple illustration. I see three members here from London, and some of our neighbouring members also. In London we have three federal MPs, four provincial MPPs, 18 city officers, 18 public education trustees and some 14 separate education trustees. Ladies and gentlemen, that represents some 40 elected officers -- and I appreciate that everybody does different duties -- to represent a population of 320,000 people. That would be about one representative for 8,000 citizens. That is too much representation.
Elected people today are tripping over each other, and in this economic environment each is fighting for their own turf. We hear that from the public on a daily basis. Many have lost their sense of duty and responsibility and are seen by the public as only trying to protect their jobs at any cost. I'll give you an example. The London Board of Education reduced its public trustees from 16 to 14 prior to the 1994 municipal election. My ward was one of the wards that lost one trustee. I can assure you that my ward has not suffered at all. If anything, it has received better representation than in past years. One other thing I can assure you is that we have not received one complaint in the last three years because the numbers were cut from 16 to 14, and we represent 60,000 citizens in the ward. What Ontarians need is better-quality representation and not more representation.
Another test should be that no region of our province should be underrepresented. Representation should be based on population in urban ridings, and in rural ridings we must keep in mind the geographical distances. If we're looking at 40,000 or 50,000 or 80,000 in an urban riding, the numbers would be smaller in the rural ridings. Again, what we're looking for is equitable representation and not more representation. It only makes common sense, which in politics is not so common, as per the public view these days.
We should move to the federal riding boundaries because, in addition to reducing the number of MPPs, we can pursue with the federal government the pooling and non-duplication of resources such as electoral lists and so on and so forth. This could help both levels of government and save the much-strapped taxpayer some additional money.
I don't know what the exact saving of going from 130 members to 103 members would be, but an educated guess would be that if we take a local MPP and look at their local office, their Toronto office, staff in both centres, accommodation and so on and so forth, it would be in the $350,000 to $400,000 range. If you reduce by 27, basing it on about $400,000, that's pretty close to $11 million. Now, in the Ontario budget scheme of things that may not seem like a hell of a lot, but it's a step in the right direction: $11 million to some cash-strapped communities in the province would be a very welcome relief.
It's more than a symbolic gesture to controlling costs. The 1990s are years of doing more with less, corporate and job force reorganizations, restructurings: These are the catchwords and phrases of the 1990s. Governments are telling us to practise the foregoing. It's great to see them practising what they preach, because when they are asking us to tighten our belts they can point to how they are doing.
It's not the old adage, "Do as I say, not as I do." Ladies and gentlemen, I don't see this as political opportunism by the government of the day but as a long-overdue correction that has taken some hundred years to happen. It is time that we Ontarians put aside our political differences and welcomed these proposed changes. Those members in the Legislature -- I'm not talking about the government of the day -- who support this change should be commended.
We must get away from self-serving and go back to being public servants. We must restore the honour and dignity of elected office. It is extremely important that we serve the citizenry and not ourselves. The public says, "You don't care anyway." I hear this on a regular basis. I say back to the public, "It's your duty to hold politicians accountable." Politicians can bring back the dignity of the office. It's only through their actions that we can continue to attract the good-quality candidates to represent us at all levels of government. Only the actions and deeds of politicians can get us away from that.
I think I'll leave you with a quote made by BC's former premier, Mike Harcourt. He's talking about politicians and he simply said, "Your status as a politician will mean you are placed, in the public estimation, in the ranks of crooks, liars and, as polls show, used-car salesmen."
Ladies and gentlemen, again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you.
1330
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Chahbar. We have about three minutes per caucus for questions, beginning with the government.
Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Chahbar, for your comments. Maybe that's why Mike Harcourt is no longer in politics.
We've heard this morning and in the last couple of days that big is not better, and many of those folks who are opposed to this are constantly telling us that big is not better, yet Ontario has 130 MPPs against 99 MPs. Is that not a reason to have a look at it?
Mr Chahbar: Absolutely, sir, and I think that's how I started my comments this afternoon. Certainly if anyone is saying that the 99 members in the federal Parliament are not serving their constituents as well as the 130 provincial members, I think our system has a problem, and again I think we should divorce ourselves from the politics of parties.
With all due respect to you as provincial members, I don't think we're any less served by the 99 members in the federal Parliament in Ontario, and I do welcome the change of going from the 130 we have right now to I think the 103 who are proposed in Bill 81 and not the 99 that we have today. So I agree with you.
Mr Stewart: Good. Two other fast questions. Do you believe what Bill 81 is trying to do infringes on or interferes in any way with democracy? That's number one. Number two is, and you've been in the political arena as a board trustee, do you believe, and I appreciate that you only represent an urban riding, that you could also represent well both urban and rural?
Mr Chahbar: I think your first question, talking about the democracy of it, this is the democratic process at work, so I don't have a problem with that. The bill, I would assume, is not being rammed through the Legislature. That's the purpose of these meetings.
Your second part, urban-rural, yes, I think we have to look at the makeup of our rural ridings. We have to look at the geography and distances of it. Would it be fair to have the same people representation in an urban riding as you do in a rural riding? I don't think so. But the answer would be, yes, I think we can and you can give the fair and equitable representation in the urban and the rural setting.
Mrs Pupatello: An impartial researcher provided a report that was available to all members of all sides of the House. What was interesting about it was that in the reduction of the seats in the federal House, the average MP, which is taken as an average across Canada, will represent 98,000 constituents. In Ontario, when it's reduced to 103, each member will represent, on average, 107,000. As a result, Ontario MPPs will have the largest constituencies, on average, of any Legislature in the country. Those are facts that are not partisan; those are just simply facts.
You mentioned a couple of things in your presentation. You said that in this economic environment, this is really a good thing to do. In this same economic environment in which you believe that cost-cutting is essential, how do you feel about the Premier's office increasing their expenditures by close to $1 million?
Mr Chahbar: That's a question as to the Premier's office, or can I make comments to --
Mrs Pupatello: My question is, how do you feel about, in this economic environment, which you agree is significant -- we really have to watch our expenditures -- that in the course of one year it is going from $1.8 million in expenditures to $2.7 million? This is one office where the balance of power lies, certainly, and in this same economic environment you agree to cost-cutting measures. How do you juxtapose that with this massive increase in the Premier's office?
Mr Chahbar: It simply goes back, if you were listening to what I was saying, that this is not politics and we should not be playing politics with this.
Mrs Pupatello: So you agree with the increase then?
Mr Chahbar: You've asked a question. I'll offer you an answer. If that happened and if that is factual, I don't agree with it, okay? I'll make it clear. I'm not here to represent one party or another. You have indicated earlier also in your comments about the restructuring that Ontario MPPs then would be representing 107,000 people. So be it. Are you saying that you are less capable than the federal member? We have 99 federal members that represent this province. Are you saying that the provincial members are less capable than the federal members and that you need 130 members to represent --
Mrs Pupatello: Actually, my point is that you need to work from the facts, and the facts are, regardless --
Mr Chahbar: Madam, the facts --
Mrs Pupatello: Excuse me. Regardless of your opinion, the fact is, whether anyone agrees or not, that Ontario MPPs will have the largest constituencies in the country. Be that as it may, agree or disagree, that's simply a fact, and I want you to work from that.
You did say something else that was interesting. You said this money that's going to be saved by the cut -- you estimated it at about $10 million or $11 million -- is going to mean so much to the "cash-strapped communities." Are you under the impression that they're getting the money?
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Pupatello. Mrs Boyd.
Mr Chahbar: I'd be happy to talk to you later about it.
Mrs Boyd: There's a real fallacy. In your first statements you were talking about how distressing it is that there are four members -- three federal members and four provincial members. If you've read the bill and if you look at the boundaries, in fact what we're looking at in London-Middlesex is an increase because of the way Middlesex county is hacked up into four different ridings. So every time one of us wants to contact the other members who deal with this jurisdiction, we have to contact now seven.
So there's a real fallacy here, if you look at our particular circumstances, in terms of what this redistribution means provincially. It's a real difficulty for a county like Middlesex, which now will have to constantly be dealing with all of these people, and it is exactly counterproductive to what you purport to think is a good idea. For our local situation, this is nuts. It is going to make it more difficult for all of us, as citizens in London-Middlesex, to deal with our federal and provincial people. That's a problem, number one.
The other fallacy that I would say is present in what you're saying is you do not seem to accept what my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich says about the numbers. Ontario already has the highest numbers of people who need to be represented by every MPP, by far the highest in the country, and this will be substantially higher again. It's not quite double, but it's certainly a great deal more.
I think it's important when we talk about this to be really clear factually about what this bill is going to accomplish in terms of representation.
Mr Chahbar: Thank you, Mrs Boyd. I do agree with the facts, no question about it, and I did indicate to your colleague from Windsor that I'd be happy to talk to her about that later.
The facts are simple. The facts are 99 federal members and 130 provincial members. You can use all the other numbers you want to throw at me. Those are the facts. Those are the only facts I will accept as a citizen: 99 federal members and 130 provincial members. You can throw 107 at me, you can throw 104 at me, throw whatever number you want; the facts are 99 and 130. They are not polling facts; they're real. That's the membership.
My understanding of Bill 81 is that the boundaries will correspond -- that's the wording I use -- with the federal boundaries. Again, the question becomes, are you saying or is this group saying it takes more Ontario MPPs to represent them than federal MPs, that the federal membership is better equipped on the basis of 99 and 130? Those are the facts. I don't want to know polling; I just want to know the facts.
Mrs Boyd: We're not saying that. What we are saying is that every other province has a much greater representation at the provincial level because of the issues. That's what I'm saying.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Chahbar. We do appreciate your input here this afternoon.
1340
CHRIS CASSIDY
The Chair: Next is Chris Cassidy. Good afternoon, Mr Cassidy, and welcome to our committee. The floor is yours, sir.
Mr Chris Cassidy: I'm here really as an individual, but I think in fairness I should say that I'm somewhat partisan. I'm the president of the London North provincial riding association for the Liberal Party, in London obviously.
The last commentator suggested he wanted just the facts, and I think I'll ad lib for a moment. In Dickens's works there was a character named Mr Grandgrind, and his line was always "Just the facts." What the facts allowed Mr Grandgrind to do, if you've read Great Expectations, is to ignore the misery that his vision of the facts imposed on most of that society. I am concerned here that perhaps this committee and indeed this government are doing that, sometimes wilfully, sometimes not.
We are told that this is a Fewer Politicians Act, and I congratulate the government on the brilliance of its naming of its act. I think it is an eminently clever strategy. You've been doing it consistently, and more power to you for that. However, I think that beyond the facts, we have to ask something on a second level or second order of level, if you wish, about process.
The democratic process, as I understand it and as I think many people have understood it, is one in which it is necessary for governments to use the opposition, to use the public hearing process as a means to indeed improve their legislation. Perhaps the members to my left don't believe this or perhaps the Premier does not, but generally legislation does not come out perfected despite the good attempts to do so, and on occasion oppositions or public hearings or experts and others are able to improve that.
As well, I think a healthy democracy requires a process of open and fair public consultation. That requires fair warning. I got a call late Wednesday, and I managed to get hold of the person Thursday, telling me about these hearings. Indeed, it seems the opposition was not informed about these hearings until Monday, and then they scrambled to inform people. I'm not certain, and perhaps someone on the committee can inform me, whether there was proper notice in the newspapers. I didn't see any, but there may have been. I've been quite busy and wasn't able to check in the last couple of days.
For the members of the government, I think whether they're in cabinet or out, governments are not elected to govern as though they were touched by the hand of God. Despite your majority, you have not been. Indeed, I think you risk, in the manner in which you are governing in this bill and on this issue, with the short notice and inadequate notice given to the public, and with Bill 26 and all that flows from it, you risk, in effect, shattering the democratic process in an effort to put together and pass a series of initiatives which you've proposed to the electorate and seem to believe should be passed without any input at all by the public. There's a Stalinistic arrogance to your Premier in the way he deals with these things, and it leads to problems in process.
I think, for the members of the government who are here, you have a responsibility not just to the Conservative Party, not just to the government you have formed, but indeed to all members of Ontario to make certain that in handling the responsibilities of government, that power is used, if you wish, with a velvet glove. It has not been. The velvet glove has been taken off and the process is being perverted.
The fact of the matter is that you could pass this bill and have reasonable public hearings with reasonable notice across the province. The decision has been made not to act that way, and it is unfortunate. It seems to me that it endangers goodwill in terms of the democratic process across this province. It is the reason why one of the earlier speakers refused your questions, and it is unfortunate because it ill serves us all. I suggest that when you go back to your back benches or to cabinet, you suggest to the three or four people who seem to be running this province that they run it with a little more democratic process, for a start.
Napoleon said, "Make haste slowly." Duncan Sinclair, the chair of the Health Services Restructuring Commission, has stated, and this is a quote, that they will be "reluctant to make any further recommendations on the cuts unless the government reinvests." Brett James, the assistant to the Minister of Health, responded to this, because Mr Wilson was not available, by suggesting -- and this is not a quote but this is how it was written in the London Free Press -- that "these delays are due to the slow machinations of a new process."
What I'm trying to illustrate by this is the fact that you've ignored Napoleon. By rushing through this once again and by using and abusing process, you find yourselves in a position where your very own political appointees are saying: "Hold it, slow down. We're going too fast. We can't handle it. You're not able to reinvest," and your political hacks are saying: "Hey, sorry. It's a new process. It takes time."
No kidding. We could have told you that. But you're not taking the time; hence you're having problems; hence we all will pay a price. I suggest you change the process and respect it. That, it seems to me, is a fundamental problem at this level, in these hearings and consistently with this government.
Beyond that, I think the reduction ignores the fact that provincial politics have a greater impact on people's lives. There are many more solutions and problems you have to deal with as MPPs that are local in nature, and the bigger the boundaries, the less local you are going to be, the less effective you are going to be -- and you know what? -- the more your constituents are going to feel shut out of this process.
The Premier said, "People have told us repeatedly that government is too big, too cumbersome, too unresponsive to the needs of the people who pay for it: the taxpayers." Well, I'm a taxpayer, and what I'm going to suggest to you is that you will not be more responsive with fewer of you there; you will be less responsive.
The perception of government is not how many people are sitting in Queen's Park, in the sense that it's irrelevant; the perception for all parties is, how well can you serve your constituents? Fewer of you will make it more difficult. It will further bring into disrepute that which you do as politicians, which I don't cast aspersions on. I think many of you make great sacrifices on all sides to do this job. It's a necessary job. But the fact of the matter is, by cutting down, you are hurting yourselves, you are hurting the process, and it will be harder to be an effective MPP. Your constituents will be more unhappy, and the Premier will wonder why. Well, it's because he's made a mistake with this bill.
Politicians are not equal. Maybe we should have just 103 mayors in Ontario. We'll cut that up along federal lines. It seems just as reasonable as this, just as arbitrary. There is no argument that has been made except for a -- well, the CSR said a $1-million saving; now it's $11 million. Whatever the number is, there is no argument being made in terms of the democratic process that this is a necessary thing to do. It's great politics but it's bad for democracy. You may win some votes -- "Oh, yeah, they fired a few politicians; maybe we'll vote for them next time" -- but the bottom line is you are going to hurt the ability of the government and of Queen's Park as a whole to represent the people of Ontario.
You can do it with arrogance and indifference, and I don't really have to worry about that because you are going to do it anyway. But I think it's a mistake and you should think about it. You should think clearly about how you're going to tell the people of Ontario, when they lack representation and when they have more trouble getting hold of you and when you can less serve them that, "We're sorry, part of the reason is we decided to save you $1 million, which we then put in the Premier's office." It seems to me that you have been entrusted, all of you, to protect the health of our democracy, and it seems to me that you are failing to do this on all these counts.
1350
Finally, I would just like to say one other danger is inherent in this type of bill -- and it seems to be maybe inherent in the way this government is choosing to govern -- which is the danger of centralization. One of the ironies here is that Mr Harris and your government seemed to be elected on a populist wave, but you're not acting like populists. You're acting like people who have a fair bit of indifference to the population. You are creating a system in which it is going to be harder for the people who elected you to get your help when they need your help. It's just sort of an irony, perhaps a predictable one, but it is an irony none the less.
With that, I would like just to suggest to the members of the government that they go back and they say to their fellow members and they say to Mr Harris, "Jeez, maybe we should be a little slower at what we do; maybe we should even go so far as to say we should foster discussion," because in discussion there may occasionally be a glimmer of wisdom or an idea you haven't thought of. I know the government may think it's thought of all ideas, but in fact out there, there are other ideas.
Finally, there are a couple of presenters I know who are trying to make it, but when we tried to get to people, we only had, by the time the call was made and we were able to get that information out, less than a day. I think that offends the process. It offends the process as well that people within the political parties have to go and make phone calls for a public hearing because it's not properly advertised. We're desperately calling municipal politicians in the area and others, not necessarily who are Liberal; just, "Try and come out if you're interested." More time should have been given. It was not. On that you have no cause for celebration and should perhaps think in future to schedule these things with more warning and do it properly; otherwise, better not do it at all. It is in this case I think a bit of a mockery. I certainly would not be here if there had been enough warning. I don't think it is necessary for me to have been here if there had been enough warning, but the fact is you don't even have a full slate. I don't think there is any defence on that issue.
The Chair: I've got about three minutes per caucus for questions, beginning with the Liberals.
Mr Sergio: Mr Cassidy, thank you very much for your presentation. I have many questions similar to the ones we've been asking yesterday and today and Thursday in Toronto, but let me ask a new one here. You're familiar with the possibility that the government is thinking of amalgamating the six municipalities in Metro Toronto?
Mr Cassidy: Yes.
Mr Sergio: It's also a well-known fact that the province has been saying, "You've got to do more with less."
Mr Cassidy: Yes.
Mr Sergio: He has been telling us; he has been telling the people of Ontario. Minister Leach is thinking of amalgamating the six municipalities and creating a supercity, with a supercouncil of about 44 supercity or Metro councillors or regional councillors, whatever they may want to call them at the end.
Given then the intention of the government that we should be doing more with less and with fewer resources as well, do you also believe that if that is the way the government is going to go, it should be thinking of this supercity, with the same number of elected officials as the number of MPPs in Metro Toronto?
Mr Cassidy: I said at one point the 103-mayor solution -- you can just divide up the province into 103 ridings, make them all cities and say we're going to have 103 mayors. It was meant tongue in cheek, but the arbitrariness of this decision, which is just, "Oh, the feds are doing it," seems to be just as good a reason to do what they're doing as any other. I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision to do that.
Mr Sergio: Sorry, I don't want to cut you off. I just want to try and get another question. If 22 MPPs can do the business in Metro Toronto, couldn't 22 city councillors do the same good job representing the people?
Mr Cassidy: Just quickly, my sense would be this: The principle of representation by population changes at each level. The closer you are to the people, the more representation you need. At least, that's been the assumption. That's why you have more city councillors in a city than you do MPPs or MPs. So my sense would be no, I don't think they'll be as well served and I think it's a rather short-sighted policy. That is why we have more MPPs. It has nothing to do with the "efficiency" of the system; it's because it is generally held to be true that you need more to do the job because you have more to do and you need to be closer to the constituents.
Mr Sergio: Should we have the same resources as the local MP, since we'll be representing the same constituency, the same geographic area?
Mr Cassidy: Since on a municipal level they get very few resources, I suspect the government might find that a really neat idea of saving money. But I would say no, you probably need more resources than, say, a city councillor does, I would presume, to do their job, and that's legitimate. Again, the cost factor seems to me to be secondary here.
Mr Martin: I think your presentation here today is both timely and right on. Certainly the process begs some attention on this weekend as we prepare to celebrate Remembrance Day on Monday and the memory of our forefathers who fought for democracy and how important that was to them and how important it should continue to be to us, that we would be rushing through a bill of this nature, which is so fundamentally going to change the way we do representative democracy in this province.
Not only has there been traditionally an arm's-length commission set up, on occasion, when the Legislature decided that it was time to review this kind of issue and a back-and-forth between the Legislature and that commission as parameters were developed and other things were brought into consideration, but bills in the Legislature traditionally, over time, were debated at first and second reading in the House. Then in the intersession they go out, when you have lots of time to do public consultation all over the province and the luxury to do research and have proper observation made.
This isn't the case. This government has at least two or three more years before it has to go back to the polls and determine what the boundaries will be. Why we're doing this in two months is beyond me. I think you make some excellent points there.
I'm not sure, by way of question, what I should ask you here, because you've put it so well. Is there anything else that you would like to add to that?
Mr Cassidy: Just briefly, what I would say is I don't notice anyone on this list -- and I may be wrong; maybe someone came -- I don't notice that there were an awful lot of people from the University of Western Ontario, an institution that probably has the occasional political scientist hanging around, maybe a philosopher or two. You would think they might be people you would want to hear from. You know what? I don't think they know. I think that is both a travesty and a bit of a tragedy. My academic background is intellectual history and such, but there are political theorists up there who could maybe inform us a bit. They're not here, I don't think, and if they're not here it's because no effort was made to allow them to be here. I don't think there's really any reason for that to have happened.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Cassidy, for coming forward. I thank you for putting your affiliation on the table. I think it's appropriate, and I say that quite sincerely. In that context, I'd like to quote you something from the Liberal red book. Much has been said about denigrating our assortment of promises called the Common Sense Revolution. Very little has been said about what your party ran on: "Public cynicism is not without foundation. When many promises are made and few are kept, the public becomes sceptical. In this climate of mistrust, the onus is on government to show that honesty, integrity, accountability and openness can be part of the political process."
On the next page it says that: "The Liberal government will tackle this challenge head-on. We will show leadership in reducing government spending by cutting political staff and cutting services to MPPs." I wonder if you can reconcile that phrase with your premise that somehow if we make the ridings larger, the increased workload similarly divides the amount of time perhaps an MPP might have per constituent, but we haven't said anything about cutting back on the resources of staff and other things available to the existing MPPs --
Mr Sergio: You surely have.
Mr Gilchrist: -- to the existing or retained MPPs, whereas your party said it would cut all political staff and all services to all MPPs. How do you reconcile those two things?
Mr Cassidy: First of all, let's understand something. One of the reasons I am involved in the party is that I think the red book was a failure, so I'm just going to put that on the table. I don't think I have to reconcile it from this perspective. There can be an argument made that, for instance, we could not increase the budget of the Premier's office by $900,000 so he can put a few more $100,000-plus consultants in, and that would be the equivalent of saying that maybe the MPPs could do with $20,000 or $30,000 less and make do. I don't think that's an illegitimate way to go. That is fundamentally different from saying, "We're going to cut dramatically the number of MPPs, based on an arbitrary figure" -- and it is arbitrary. You didn't go through a process where you decided to find out what was useful for Ontario.
Mr Gilchrist: Forgive me; we did.
Mr Cassidy: You may think you did, but you basically picked the federal number.
Mr Gilchrist: I was part of the process; I know we did.
Mr Cassidy: Okay, you did, and you ended up picking the federal number. The bottom line here is that there is a fundamental difference between those two processes. If somebody said to you, "I'm going to take 5% or 10% off your budget and make do," you would probably say, "Okay, my printing won't have to be glossy paper; it'll have to be plain stock." You would find ways to economize. It's fundamentally different from saying to somebody: "We're going to take away a third of your staff, period. Good luck." There's a huge difference. Understand something: That claim was about budgets and money; this is about representation -- I guess you don't listen to what I say -- in a democracy and whether or not cutting back on that representation serves the democracy and serves the constituents. An arbitrary change doesn't necessarily do that. You have given no argument to me and I have heard no argument and I've seen nothing in the press that suggests, other than an arbitrary decision at the end of the day, that this number of MPPs is better for people in Ontario. It is in fact not better.
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Cassidy, we believed it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cassidy. We appreciate your input here today.
Our next presenter, Larry Crossan, is not here yet. He's not due till 2:20, so we'll recess until 2:20.
The committee recessed from 1403 to 1512.
PAUL MYLEMANS
The Chair: I understand that Mr Mylemans has arrived. We appreciate you being early, sir. We have been waiting for someone to come. The floor is yours.
Mr Paul Mylemans: Dear Chairman and members, I am Paul Mylemans. With my family I live at 139 Simcoe Crescent in Komoka, which is in Lobo township, Middlesex county.
I wish to make my views and observations in regard to Bill 81. As I understand this bill, in part it is the intent that the new provincial electoral district boundaries be the same as the federal boundaries. Notwithstanding that the federal boundaries are already in place and force for the next federal election, I believe the new provincial boundaries should be established to be fair and reasonable to all the resident constituents. With the short notice of the upcoming hearings, and not sufficiently familiar with the pros and cons of the reduction in members of the Legislative Assembly, I will not address that issue at this time. I will, however, address the proposed boundaries, especially as they affect my municipality, my community and my family.
As I understand it, the proposed new electoral district boundaries for Lobo township will be part of Perth-Middlesex. This stretches for about 120 kilometres from the Thames River at the southwesterly boundary of the city of London towards the north and east into Perth county. By far, most of this area has no association with us in south Lobo and one would have to drive through the city of London to visit there. Political association and representation in my community have very little in common with those in north Perth.
I live in Lobo township, in the village of Komoka. Our municipality abuts the city of London at its west-southwest side. Our shopping, our socializing, our sports activities, our workplace, our schooling, our interests, our community and neighbourhood are in Lobo, Caradoc, Delaware townships and the city of London and St Thomas area. We're just minutes from these.
The proposal for Perth-Middlesex ignores existing entities. It is proposed that the county of Middlesex be split into three separate districts, which is in addition to the three separate districts in the city of London. We in the rural part of Middlesex have more in common with our city neighbours than we do with the area of Perth that is much closer to Kitchener-Waterloo. Parts of the proposed electoral district are closer to the city of Toronto than to us.
At the encouragement of the provincial government, the restructuring of municipalities will conclude by combining several existing municipalities. One of the most sensible restructuring proposals is combining Lobo, in whole or in part, with Caradoc and Delaware townships. This was recommended in the county of Middlesex and tritownship studies and has been actively and publicly discussed and presented. The new boundaries being proposed would then split this new municipality into three separate electoral districts. One would go south to the Elgin-St Thomas area, the second would go west to the Lambton-Sarnia area and the third north into Perth, Stratford, Listowel, Palmerston. For a combined population of about 14,000 in this new municipality, this is not sensible. These restructuring studies recognize a common interest among the residents of this area. The electoral boundaries would do well to also recognize this.
If there is a need to have four, or any other number of, electoral districts in the greater London area, a simple redrawing of boundaries could be by selecting the centre point of this area, for example, the corner of Dundas and Wellington streets in London, right here where we are now, and then draw a straight line north and south, and another east and west, thus creating four equally populated electoral districts,and each consisting of urban, rural and rural-urban residents.
Surely, as representatives of provincial affairs for all Ontario citizens, the members of the Legislature do not require to have separate representatives for city urban areas and others for rural or rural-urban areas. Provincial affairs and issues in Ontario affect all its citizens and should have regard for all of them. On the other hand, local government serves the local communities and their needs; therefore, separate representatives are needed at that level of government. Everyone should have accessible and fair political representation.
As activists in political activity, you and your members are certainly aware of the work, time, effort and volunteering that make our democracy work. The distances involved to associate with others and travel throughout the electoral district should not be left as remnants after other areas have been defined. The cost of political activity will be considerably more for those of us isolated from our other neighbours, be it for a candidate, a volunteer in our riding association, running an election campaign and just contacting other constituents about a common cause.
The proposal for Perth-Middlesex would certainly impose additional cost to those of us in south Lobo, such as long-distance charges, travelling and additional time. For those of us in south Lobo, where we can see the city of London about 100 yards across the river, the proposed electoral boundaries need to be amended. A quick look at a road map will confirm this. Let's use common sense.
Mr Martin: I found your presentation to be quite good in that you paint for us a picture of the very complicated issue this really is. It's not as simple as saying, "Okay, the federal commission came out and decided that this is what it's going to do, so we should follow suit and, bang, impose the template," because it doesn't work, from your perspective. It doesn't work in some very practical ways. I guess it speaks to the issue that I've been raising for the last couple of days as I've sat on this committee, which is the process through which we go to establish the right way to allow people access to the decision-making body of this province, how we do that.
1520
I suggest to you that what the government has laid out at this point, by way of its intention which we're told here quite often is in the Common Sense Revolution, is what they're going to do. What we're trying to do with the help of folks like yourself is challenge them to step back a bit and be respectful of the process we've followed for quite a while now in the province which is that after each census is taken and the publication of figures, the province establishes a commission to report to the Legislature. The relationship develops there and eventually we get to a point where, if changes need to be made, they're made in consultation with folks like yourself so that we don't end up with situations such as you described.
That happened in Ontario on a number of different occasions -- 1962, 1973 and as early as 1983 -- where terms of reference charged the commission to submit a proposal for consideration by public hearings. These were held across the province, and some things that came out of that consistent with other commissions were, for example, that the north would continue to be guaranteed 15 seats and that we would continue to look at things like diversity of interests, means of communication, topographical features, existing boundaries in municipalities and some of the things you've mentioned.
We're having a hard time challenging the government to revert back to this process. Do you have anything to say -- you described the problem re the process -- and any recommendations to us in that respect?
Mr Mylemans: I don't have any solutions. I know that the federal boundaries are there for us to use for a number of years. Personally I'm disappointed that they're there, that the opportunity wasn't there to have those changed, but we now have the opportunity for the provincial boundaries that, as they're proposed, for the issues I've presented, certainly need to be amended. Whatever process that involves, however that is to be done, I don't have those answers at this time.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Thanks very much for your presentation. Did you make a donation to the commission that came looking at the federal boundaries in 1994?
Mr Mylemans: Unfortunately I missed that. As I remember to some extent, hearings were started a number of years ago and then, perhaps through public pressure, they were stalled or delayed. I guess in not noticing it, whatever the consequence, as we just about didn't notice this particular notice of hearing, it to some extent slipped by us. At least that's my impression. That's why I said we have to live with that. If we had the opportunity I'd certainly make a presentation, as I had intended to do at that time, but not in a formal sense.
Mrs Ross: The reason I asked is because I'm reading some information here that says Perth-Middlesex replaces the commission's proposed Perth-Oxford-Middlesex. So they heard delegations come forward who said they didn't like those three communities being involved in that one electoral district. Because of the presentations made they took Oxford out of the equation, from what I'm reading here, so that "Perth-Middlesex," it says, "remains very large, but it does cross only one county boundary and it would seem to satisfy the strong representations from Perth county that it be kept together." Can you comment on that and help me understand?
Mr Mylemans: I can't from the perspective of Perth county. As I understand, having looked at the map, Perth county remains intact and it's Middlesex that we can identify to ourselves that appears to be remnants of everything else having to be resolved, where we have an area where we live, immediately to the west of London, apparently in a riding that's going to stretch to the east and north. It just doesn't make sense for people residing in those areas to have things in common, whether it be through the representative -- granted, all people who would let their name stand are worthy and would try to do the best job for their constituents. There are a number of areas where you have common concerns with your neighbours in your own local areas that may be completely different from an area that, as I said, is closer to the city of Toronto than it is to us here, where the interest of those communities would be more apt to be Kitchener-Waterloo as their urban centre or perhaps even Metropolitan Toronto.
Mrs Ross: Would you say it's fair to say that an MPP can represent residents from varying circumstances, for example farm communities and city communities? They have different interests, but a representative can familiarize himself with both their interests. Wouldn't you agree?
Mr Mylemans: In the example I expressed in here, and that may be simplistic, that's sort of a suggestion I've had. I believe they can, by and large. The provincial issues are much more the same for urban and residential, or they should be, where the local government zeroes in more on local needs, and therefore separate urban centres and separate rural government are probably more important. But provincially as well, as perhaps more so, federally the same services should be provided for everyone regardless of where they live or what they do.
Mr Sergio: Thank you very much for coming down and making a presentation to us on a Saturday afternoon. By the way, how did you get to know about the hearings?
Mr Mylemans: The ad in the London Free Press on Tuesday.
Mr Sergio: You managed to get that, eh? Good. So, being a Saturday afternoon, the Santa Claus parade didn't deter you.
Mr Mylemans: I didn't think I would be here today, that there would be enough time, so I submitted the letter quickly, an overnight affair. I just had a chance to improve upon that a little bit in my verbal presentation. But it was just a chance notice. As was mentioned earlier, that chance was missed a year or two ago.
Mr Sergio: So if perchance you had gone shopping and you missed reading the paper, you would have missed the chance today.
Mr Mylemans: That's correct.
Mr Sergio: Sir, part of the reason for this bill is that it is based on some savings the government thinks we are going to acquire by making some changes. The other one is that we will get better representation with fewer representatives. Based on that, do you feel we should have the same resources as federal members so that we can serve equally and effectively the same constituents?
Mr Mylemans: As far as resources, again I'm not familiar enough to respond to that. In the area of representation there certainly would be a benefit to having those same areas, I can concur with that, not with the boundaries being proposed, at least the one that affects my family. I assume that other areas would be affected the same way, in my view not affected fairly. By and large, constituents may well be properly served by having the same boundaries. I'm not familiar enough to address that issue thoroughly.
1530
Mr Sergio: Sometimes when I go to church or drop in at one of the coffee bars in my area to say hello to some of the people, whatever, they say, "I got another letter from Mr Marchi," who happens to be the MP for my area, about whatever topic could be under discussion, "I got another one and I got this and I got that," and I get them because I'm in the same constituency, once a month, perhaps twice a month, on different issues. They wonder why they couldn't get the same thing from me with respect to important issues without being political, regardless of who is in power. They say: "This is an important issue. How can I get information? Why didn't you advise me on VLTs? Why didn't you let me know about this and about that?" But we don't have the resources. We don't have the same amount of money those members have, let alone benefits. We don't have the same resources. We don't have the same staffing. Do you think we should have another two people, another person? How do you feel with respect to that?
Mr Mylemans: I'm not endorsing the Who Does What committee and its conclusions --
Mr Sergio: That's another story, yes.
Mr Mylemans: -- but there certainly is some benefit and some sense to distributing responsibilities and making that clear to the public. If that carries forward to political representation, if that's proven to be good, that's fine. I see no problems with that. As far as having sufficient resources, I suppose that is within the budget allocations of the federal and provincial governments. A smaller number of politicians in the provincial arena, as is being proposed, may well be good -- it certainly fits in with a lot of other cutbacks -- but again, whether that properly serves the needs I can't answer.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mylemans. We do appreciate your input here this afternoon. Our next presenter is Dave Winninger.
Mrs Pupatello: Just as we're waiting for the next presenter, we have had a letter submitted to us by a couple of individuals who couldn't make it today. It's very brief, if I could read it into the record. This is being addressed to:
"The Honourable D. Johnson
"Chairman of Management Board
"Re: Boundary hearings on Bill 81 in London
"We understand that we are scheduled to appear today to speak on the issue of the new electoral boundaries some time after 2 today. While we appreciate the opportunity to speak at the hearing in London, our schedules do not allow us to make a presentation. We would encourage you to give more preparation time to those people who wish to make presentations to you on this matter. It is an issue important to the public, and due consideration should be given to hearing from more people across the province.
"The hearing process appears flawed in not allowing enough time for broad public consultation. One cannot always think and respond in sound bites. Time for more careful study would allow a more reflective and representative response from the public.
"Yours truly,
"Tom Donnelly and Larry Crossan."
The Chair: Just to add to that, those gentlemen asked if Megan Walker could make a presentation on their behalf. As the Chair of the committee I agreed to that, and she wasn't able to show up.
DAVID WINNINGER
The Chair: Mr Winninger, you have 20 minutes. The floor is yours.
Mr David Winninger: Good afternoon. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity of presenting today. I commend the members for sitting on a Saturday to afford people who might not ordinarily be able to attend these committee hearings to make an appearance today. I'm pleased to see at least one of our local members from the NDP here as well.
As a former MPP for London South, my attention was certainly caught by the proposed changes to the riding boundaries in the London area. I immediately realized that shifting the axis from north-south to east-west would fail to recognize many of the communities of interest that I've grown to perceive are shared in south London but are not shared with north London. I further question the value of combining rural with urban areas which certainly have a divergence of interest.
I'm also aware that London is growing quickly. The population of London following annexation was approximately 316,000 people. When I drove into London this week the sign said the population was now 326,000 people. Thus, London has experienced growth roughly the population of St Thomas over the last couple of years. With fewer politicians representing the constituents, I have serious doubts that their needs will be addressed.
Residents of south London have interests in common that are not necessarily shared by residents of north London. One outstanding example that I encountered as an MPP was the crying need for an aquatic facility in south London. While London North has the expensive indoor state-of-the-art London Aquatic Centre, London South has no indoor swimming facility, let alone an outdoor one.
White Oaks, a sprawling suburb in south London, comprises the largest single geographical area in the riding of London South. The residents rolled up their sleeves and went to work to raise funds to build an indoor swimming facility. At the same time, the elementary school in White Oaks was woefully overcrowded, and grade 7 and 8 students had to be bused out of their neighbourhoods to other schools in the city.
The creative idea of a multi-use facility combining a new elementary school and indoor swimming pool was hatched and circulated and gained approval. Funding for the new school was finally approved by the Ministry of Education and Training and the federal-provincial infrastructure program offered a unique opportunity for funding of an aquatic centre to serve all the people of south London. Private fund-raising began. To raise money, I was submerged in a dunk tank more times than I care to remember, along with the local school principal, both of us extremely popular targets for the baseballs people paid to throw to raise money for the new facility. I also ran a hot dog stand on Canada Day to raise money for the new facility. The manager of a local Zehrs Market offered to contribute a percentage of food sale receipts for this important project, and a private initiative to raise $400,000 was launched.
That new school and that new swimming facility would have been a reality today -- the sod had been turned -- had it not been for the Conservative government freezing the funding for the new school, bringing the entire project to an immediate halt. What opportunity will there be in the future, with the riding boundaries reconfigured along north-south boundaries or east-west boundaries, for the residents of south London to come together again to see this project to fruition? I seriously doubt the residents of north London, who already enjoy a fine aquatic facility, would lobby for funding a similar facility in south London.
What about the accessibility of local members to their constituents? London South used to be one of the most populous ridings in the province until boundary changes in 1987 which transferred residents of the area of Old South to the riding of London Centre. Following this change, London South still had more voters than any other riding in southwestern Ontario. Fortunately, it takes only 15 minutes to drive from one end of the riding to the other. I do not envy those members in northern ridings who have to drive all day to events in their ridings. I know from personal experience travelling in the north that some members can access some of their communities only by plane, sometimes landing on pontoons or skiis. Larger ridings will make the task of adequately representing constituents even more geographically challenging than it is today.
However, urban ridings like London South present their own difficulties. Federal members spend much of their constituency time dealing with issues related to Canada pension, employment insurance and immigration. These are the matters they are likely contacted on because frequently, as provincial members, we receive inquiries and we pass them on. Provincial members, however, deal with far more issues than their federal counterparts, including family support, social assistance, day care, housing, OSAP for students at colleges and universities, birth certificates and other registrations, workers' compensation, environmental concerns, jobs and economic development, cultural facilities, drivers' licences, roads and sewers. The list seems endless.
For the sake of saving the taxpayers a few dollars so that money can be placed in the pockets of wealthy people who will benefit from tax cuts, why would the public want their politicians to be less accessible than they are now?
Just the first issue of delivering family support to recipients seems to challenge this government beyond measure. I'm a lawyer in private practice now, and I receive many calls. Admittedly, some of these calls come from people who may not realize there was an election 17 months ago and they have a new member. Many of these calls come from single mothers struggling to feed, clothe and house their children with child and spousal support the government is supposed to collect and pay in a timely fashion to these people. Suddenly, after closing eight regional offices, including the London office, these people are not receiving family support. What do you say to someone, as we count down the days to Christmas, who hasn't had money for two or three months to pay rent, buy clothes for their children returning to school or properly feed those children? For those of you who read the local paper, you'll also know that many people have had their hydro and sometimes heat cut off for failure to have their family support remitted to them.
Perhaps you can blame working mothers for the fact that children are going to school hungry, as Mike Harris seems to have done, or you can bring criminal proceedings against honest, hardworking members of the NDP opposition who are seeking to find out the real reasons for the holdup in family support payments.
These days there are countless complaints about the Mike Harris government. The government has failed to create the 700,000 new jobs it promised. Instead, people are laid off in droves. Government has cut employment by the thousands. Teachers and nurses in the wider public sector are laid off to finance the Harris tax cut. In the private sector, downsizing continues apace, while banks and other corporations make tremendous profits.
The Harris government has tried to strip workers of their bargaining rights and allowed scab labour to replace them when they go on strike. Employment equity is gone and pay equity rolled back. With cuts to health care, there will be longer waiting lists for surgery unless you can afford to go to the US, and seniors and poor people will have to pay prescription charges for their drugs.
1540
As a direct result of education cuts, classroom sizes are up, schools have fewer amenities, and teachers, like many other workers, are under stress. Those without jobs are struggling with lower social assistance and less access to day care when they want to go out and find jobs. No new social housing is funded by this government, so more and more people will be poorly housed.
With fewer politicians, who will those people be able to complain to, or does this government really care if the people have a voice in between elections?
My conclusion is the following. The government ought to reconsider its position in the matter of riding boundaries. You shouldn't simply rubber-stamp proposed federal riding boundaries as suitable and appropriate for provincial boundaries. This will inevitably ignore communities of interest which have developed over the years. Further, local members will be representing more constituents, both rural and urban, with the same staff and resources. The consequences are obvious. There will be less effective representation. Those requiring access to their provincial politicians will soon be aware of what they have lost.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We've got about three minutes per caucus for questions, beginning with the government.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you very much for your presentation. First of all, the previous presenter mentioned that the type of people or the type of constituency one represents is not as important as the fact that they are one community of interest. Whether they're rural or urban is not as important as the fact that you are part of one community. Your presentation seems to suggest that that's not the case, that it even matters which end of the city one represents. Are those two contradictory positions that were put forward?
Mr Winninger: I think I might differ from the previous speaker in that regard. I was told that under the existing boundaries there's perhaps one farm in the riding of London South. I've yet to find it. But that's how little I know about the farming community around London. I know they probably have horses and cows, and that's about it. I spent a day on a farm with the parliamentary exchange program and I learned a lot more about dairy farming at a farm near Hensall, Ontario. If I were the local member, as a practising urban lawyer I wouldn't feel well qualified to speak to the needs of rural residents.
Mr Hardeman: I want to commend you for the hard work in raising money for a community centre. I think that's somewhat indicative of what happens in a lot of rural Ontario, where people do go out and raise money for community projects like that. I want to commend you for that. But I am curious as to the position you take that had that been a riding in the other way, the member would not have been as generous with his time and efforts because they were representing a riding that was north-south as opposed to east-west. There would still be that same need in the community. Why would you assume that because they were not in your community in the same way, you would not have done that?
Mr Winninger: I think there would be a few difficulties inherent in that. First of all, under the infrastructure program, which would have funded part of the cost, you have to show a pressing need and a fairly widespread need, as you'd know, for a particular community facility. If you hive off the ridings as you appear to be doing with the boundary changes, instead of having a whole area which comprises London South at present and about 100,000 people who don't have a swimming facility, indoor or outdoor, really, to speak of -- you bring together that collectivity and that's where you get the impetus. But with the reconfigured boundaries, you'd have London North already having its own superb aquatic facility and part of London South having none at all.
Mrs Pupatello: Thanks so much for your presentation this afternoon.
Having been a member in the House at Queen's Park yourself, maybe I could ask for your comments on the information that we do know in terms of the estimates of the Premier's expenditures for his office increasing by almost an additional $1 million next year, up from $1.8 million to over $2.7 million, and how that indicates that change in the balance of power where you have a decrease in the actual elected members and the cost savings there, and if you compare the numbers in this year alone, 10% of that savings is being spent additionally in the Premier's office. So where you have significant savings on one side by cutting the number of MPPs, you see the Premier's office going up by almost $1 million, from $1.8 million to $2.7 million. You can see where the balance of power is going, which indicates to me that the executive branch of government is really where the concentration of power has gone, is going and will continue to go.
Maybe you can speak to that, having been in the House as a member, and how you see the effect on the impact that a representative who is duly elected can have on governmental process and where this will lead us.
Mr Winninger: If your figures are correct, I'm not surprised, and I find it entirely unconscionable not only that the access to local politicians would be reduced while expenditures are increasing in the Premier's office, but at the same time we're finding tremendous cuts in social services for the people who can afford it the least. I would find it entirely unconscionable if the Premier's budget were increased, with cuts at the lower end. But it wouldn't surprise me, because right now I think there's an agenda, and that agenda doesn't seem to change. It doesn't matter whether the local voters call their government MPPs, because the government MPPs are sort of throwing up their hands and saying: "Well, you know, I can't do a lot about it. I'm not happy with it either." It's like some kind of juggernaut that's going to go on inexorably and despite the best efforts of the people out there to influence government decision-making. So if an increase in the Premier's budget allows them to pursue that course better, it wouldn't surprise me that they'd be devoting more funds to pushing that right-wing agenda.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you for coming, David, and for being willing to give your vision on this. This issue of a shift in power from elected members to the non-elected branch has concerned a few people. You'll be interested to know that the London-Middlesex Taxpayers' Coalition was not all that hot on this proposal because they were worried about that; they were very worried about the concentration of power in one area. So I don't think it's just a figment of people's imagination.
Does it really matter how many politicians there are if the democratic process is there? As a former member, as somebody who has experienced this and as someone who has been active in the community, why does it matter around the numbers of politicians and the configuration of boundaries? What makes the difference?
Mr Winninger: I think that's an important question. I sort of separate the legislative duties of a member at Queen's Park, and surely it would be frustrating if there's no democracy that can be exercised there, but I'm thinking of all those needy people out there in the community right now whose needs have never been greater for housing and social assistance and all of the necessities of life that the people around this table probably enjoy. I'm thinking to myself, what kind of voice do they have in this process and how are they going to be able to access their local member? Are they going to join a waiting list if the population of each riding in the London area increases by a third? I imagine it would if you eliminate one out of four ridings, and I don't see that as a positive step for this government to be taking not only in the London area but anywhere in the province at the present time.
The Chair: You have 30 seconds, Mr Martin.
Mr Martin: The process: We have had various views on all kinds of subjects here re this whole question. The process, the short time line, what's your response to that?
Mr Winninger: I apologize for not having a better prepared presentation, but like other people, I found out about it probably a week before. I consider myself fortunate to have standing here today, and I thank the clerk of the committee for the opportunity to appear.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Winninger. We do appreciate your input this afternoon.
Just a couple of housekeeping things before we adjourn. There will be cabs at the front door for anybody going to the airport at 4:45.
I do want to take this opportunity to thank all the presenters who took some time to be with us today. We appreciate your input. I especially want to thank all of those from this morning who, despite the location of the Santa Claus parade all arrived on time or early. Thank you very much.
We are adjourned until Thursday, November 21, in Dryden.
The committee adjourned at 1551.