FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS
ALGOMA FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2251
SAULT STE MARIE AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
ALGOMA DISTRICT MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL ALGOMA WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
CONTENTS
Friday 22 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
Algoma Federation of Agriculture
Mr Ron Bonnett
Ms Gayle Broad
Mr Dan MacLellan
Mr Frank Klein
Mr Edward Sadowski
Mr Chester Wallace
United Steelworkers of America, Local 2251
Mr Ronald Bouliane
Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council
Mr Eric Greaves
Mr Andy Martens
Mr Lou Turco
Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Sault Ste Marie;
Sault Ste Marie Women Teachers' Association
Ms Gayle Manley
Mr Michael Patriquin
Algoma District Municipal Association
Mrs Lucy Konkin
Mr Terry Ross
Mr Vyrn Peterson
Central Algoma Women Teachers' Association
Mrs Teresa Miller
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation
Mr Geoff Shaw
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:
Mr MichaelBrown (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mrs Pupatello
Mr SteveGilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC) for Mr Flaherty
Mr JohnHastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC) for Mr Carroll
Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Marchese
Mr BudWildman (Algoma ND) for Mr Mr Wood
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Mr Stephen Capaldo, Legislative Interpretation and Translation Service
G-2519
The committee met at 0906 in the Holiday Inn, Sault Ste Marie.
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 Acting Chair (Mr John Hastings): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We'll start our second day of hearings on Bill 81. We have a full set of hearings. It'll probably take us right up to 5 o'clock. If there are any two presentations in a row en français, we'll take a five-minute break to help the translator, if that's agreeable.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Absolutely.
The Acting Chair: The subcommittee had recommended that, so can you tell us, Mr Wildman, whether there may be --
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I've looked at the list and I don't think that there are going to be any in French. There was supposed to be one from Dubreuilville, but they have sent a letter which I'll submit to the committee, and they have actually sent it in English. They couldn't come because it's too far.
I just want to make one point, if I could. First, I'd like to welcome the committee to Sault Ste Marie. I appreciate the fact that the hearings are being held in this community and I would like to ask, since I haven't been with the committee until today, if, for the information of members of all three caucuses on the committee -- we have maps of the present ridings and the proposed new boundaries. Of particular interest in this area of course is Sault Ste Marie, which is not really affected by the redrawing of the boundaries, but in particular the ridings of Algoma and Algoma-Manitoulin, and to a lesser extent Lake Nipigon and Nickel Belt. I'm sure the research done for the committee has provided you with maps and this information; otherwise we would be working from a lack of information, and I know no committee members would want to do that.
The Acting Chair: No, the committee has not provided maps. Have you got some?
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): We have the new map, and I guess the old map is up here. I can't speak for the other members, but --
Mr Wildman: The problem I suspect for many members, particularly those from southern Ontario, is that you may not have ever been here. For those of you who have, most of you unfortunately have come by air, and I suspect the committee has come by air. Perhaps it would have been better if we'd required the committee to travel by van, to get some understanding of the distances.
I have the federal proposals and I've looked through them, and unfortunately the way they've divided up the province, they don't have any map of Algoma or Algoma-Manitoulin riding. I'm just wondering how on earth the committee can operate without knowing what the boundaries are now and what they will be.
Mr Gilchrist: I think we can abbreviate this, Chair. If you would like to phone back to Queen's Park and get a copy of the old map faxed up here, fine, but I think we should proceed with the groups before us here right now.
ALGOMA FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
The Acting Chair: All right. Mr Bonner, from the Algoma Federation of Agriculture, is our first presenter. You have 20 minutes, sir. Use your time as you wish. If it's shorter, you can probably expect some questions from all three caucuses, divided by time.
Mr Ron Bonnett: I have put together a written presentation, but I'm just going to use that as a sort of guide to follow through. For the record, my name is Ron Bonnett, I'm with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, a regional director on that. I'm also a municipal politician, a reeve of a small township about 40 miles east of here. A fellow presenter, Ryan Connolly, is unable to attend because of personal reasons.
I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to address some of the issues and concerns with regard to redistribution. I think there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed and they're not just necessarily northern issues; they're also rural issues. I know there was considerable discussion at our federation of agriculture convention this week about the whole aspect of riding redistribution and the impact that will have on rural communities.
The Fewer Politicians Act raises concerns in several areas. Sometimes people fail to realize the realities of the geography in northern Ontario. There is going to be a definite impact on the type of representation that we receive from our members. Municipalities have particular concerns: How will they communicate with the member? The rural voice: With the redistribution there is a lot less representation for rural communities. Must we mirror federal ridings? I think sometimes we have a tendency not to stand on our own but just to copy what other people have done. And then there is the whole economics of the changes.
One of the things that I sat down and tried to do was visualize what it would be like to drive across the new riding and serve the new riding. I live pretty near the central area of the new riding, and if you were to leave my place and drive to the far eastern end, drive back, visiting an hour in each community to talk to the constituents, go to Manitoulin Island, drive to the far end of the island and back, then come up this way -- we've got another island, St Joe Island; we have to go over and visit the communities there -- drive up to the Sault and then drive north to Hornepayne, Manitouwadge, Chapleau, the communities, it's just unbelievable.
As you see in the written report, I worked it out. It would take about 60 hours, but that's not stopping to eat, that's not stopping to sleep. How do you serve a riding like that?
One of the problems I see with representation, especially in northern Ontario, is the fact that the member also has to spend time with their family. They are likely going to move the family to Toronto, because when they're through at the House, they're going to have a lot more time to spend with their family there than they will when they come to their riding. Once they hit the riding, they're going to have to have running shoes on to keep up, because one of the obligations of a member is to get out and talk to the people, listen to their concerns, understand what is going on. There are people who have said that staff can do this job, but I sometimes feel when you use staff as a communications link between the member and the residents, you lose that connection. I think that connection is extremely important.
It was mentioned earlier about flying into northern Ontario. That's fine when you're going into major communities, but most small communities in northern Ontario haven't even got a gas station, let alone an airport. Driving is a way of life. We've got substandard roads, we've got terrible weather usually in the wintertime, and it is extremely difficult to get around.
As I stated earlier, I'm also a municipal politician. I've been involved with municipal politics for a number of years. I think one of the key components of effective representation at the local level is the relationship that develops between a member of the provincial Parliament and those people who are representing the local communities. You do not necessarily have to agree on politics, but you have to agree on providing the best service for the community.
I think at a time when municipalities are being forced to reshape and restructure and deliver services in a different way, that communications link between municipal politicians and elected officials is more important than ever.
Rural Ontario does not fare that well in this redistribution. The figures we have at the federation of agriculture are that the rural voice goes from 26% of the total ridings down to 18%, while in the north we have lost 30% of our members. But if you look at this loss in northern Ontario from a rural perspective, we've lost half of our rural representation. Our members are being asked to service an area that is almost impossible to represent.
There's been some talk about mirroring federal ridings, but federal ridings and federal members deal with different issues than the provincial representatives do. Provincial representatives are involved with sewer and water. They're involved with human issues, agricultural issues, forestry issues to a much greater extent than the federal members are, so there's more of a need for them to get out and see what is going on in the community.
Just because the feds have realized that they should switch their ridings around does not necessarily mean that the province has to do the same. I think it's got to be put in perspective: Federal representation in Ontario has gone up, not down. We must develop a rationale for riding redistribution which takes into account the geographical distances that must be covered in some rural ridings.
One of the main reasons being given for the change is the saving of money. The total amount saved is $11 million. When you put this in perspective, though, is it that much? With a $55-billion budget, when you start crossing off the zeros, it's the same thing as someone making $55,000 a year saving $11. That's not really a tremendous cost for effective representation.
In closing, there are several comments I would like to make.
I think you should examine closely what savings are going to be made. If a member has to use air travel, if a member has to use more staff, you may not save the money that you really think you would. If a member cannot keep contact with the local issues, sometimes things can get out of hand at the local level and it may cost more to fix problems later on than it would to identify those problems early and have them solved.
You must develop a formula for riding redistribution which factors in the distances travelled by rural members. Some ridings you can walk across in four hours; ours you can barely fly across. Voters must have access to their elected officials. If they do not have that access, we lose that connection that is so important.
The last comment may be a little bit controversial. I had a conversation at the federation of agriculture meeting with one of the sitting members, the member for Norfolk. He indicated that I could come to this hearing and make a presentation if I wanted to, but he said the government had made its mind up on what the riding redistribution was. I was offended. If this hearing is set up mainly as window dressing to justify a decision that has already been made, this is a waste of taxpayers' dollars; it's a waste of people's time. Representatives have an obligation to listen to the concerns in areas, not have their policies driven strictly by philosophy.
I asked the member if he had ever been in northern Ontario. He said no and he didn't have any concept of the distances at all. I think one of the worst things that can happen is that we have elected officials trying to make decisions when they have never been on the ground and do not understand how far it is from point A to point B.
I trust that this committee will have recommendations that will change the shape of the ridings. I'm not necessarily opposed to riding change, but I think you must have some thought for how a member is going to service that riding.
I'm open for questions.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. We have some questions. We have about 11 minutes, so we'll divide that equally, starting with the Liberals.
0920
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Thank you, Mr Bonnett, for coming. I think it's important, and we want to commend you for coming to represent the federation of agriculture. You've touched on a couple of points that I think are particularly important, the first being that of course northern Ontario loses a third of its representation where the rest of the province loses, on average, about 20%, so obviously our influence in the Legislature in terms of numbers of members is going to be less.
Also critically important is the diminished representation from rural Ontario as a whole and the fact that in northern Ontario the five seats we'd lose are essentially the rural northern seats. I find that to be particularly undemocratic, because I think the voice for people in those areas is going to be very, very difficult to get through.
Having represented one of the ridings that's about to be redistributed, one of the things my friends from the south don't quite understand is the layers of bureaucracy, the number of politicians we have that people can go to, are not the same as what they have in southern Ontario. There are no county governments. A lot of their structures just don't exist here, so it's the MPP they talk to because that's the politician they can have some influence with.
Do you want to comment a little bit more particularly on what's going to happen to rural northern Ontario?
Mr Bonnett: I think you've touched on a good point, Mike. Rural northern Ontario actually benefits the rest of the province: We have forestry industries, we have agricultural industry, we have mining industries. A lot of the natural resources that come out of the north are the fuel that drives the whole economy of the rest of the province. Very seldom do we have people come up here to find out what the specific concerns are of these industries, and if these industries' concerns are not addressed the rest of the province will suffer.
You mentioned the fact that there is a direct link between people, businesses, municipalities and their elected official. It's true, we do not have regional government, we do not have county government systems. It is local officials and the provincial rep. All these issues are dealt with in that manner, and that linkage is so important. If you lose that, there's not an understanding of the issues.
I sit on an advisory committee for forestry issues. We have a direct link to our MPP. The municipal associations have a direct link to the MPPs. The MPPs actually attend those meetings. That's where they get the information of what's going on in the area, and if you spread the area out even wider, they're going to lose the ability to do that. One of the things of interest is that right now there are two municipal associations in the area. There's one in Manitoulin and there's also one that goes from about Spanish up to Wawa. To spread that out any wider, you're not going to be able to bring the municipal politicians together on a common issue to meet with their member, and that is the way we do things here. We meet with the member directly and discuss the issues on a one-to-one basis with them. We don't have that level of bureaucracy.
Mr Michael Brown: So obviously there are going to be fewer opportunities to meet the member, no matter how hard the member works. At the same time, the member has to work harder at Queen's Park because there are fewer colleagues who may be hearing the same thing in their own constituency. So the people who need representation are going to lose on both ends. They're going to lose in terms of numbers in the House and they're going to lose in terms of access to the person they deal with.
Mr Bonnett: I agree completely. The other thing that has to be addressed when you're covering a geography that goes from Quebec City to Windsor is that you have a lot of diversity: You have communities that are based solely on mining, you have communities that are based solely on agriculture, you have communities that are manufacturing-based, you have tourism industries. So, you're dealing with more complexity than you would in a small riding in southern Ontario where it is more homogeneous.
Mr Wildman: Thanks, Ron, for coming, and I'm sorry to hear that Ryan couldn't make it. I'd like to concentrate on the logistics here. I see in your written presentation, and you mentioned it in your verbal presentation, some of the distances involved. As Mr Brown has dealt with the loss of representation I won't deal with that. I'd just like to deal with some of the logistics.
As we don't have the maps here, I've tried to work out the distances. If it you start in Manitouwadge, which is currently in Lake Nipigon riding --
Mr Michael Brown: In the district of Thunder Bay.
Mr Wildman: Yes, that's right. It's much closer to Thunder Bay than it is to where we are here. And Thunder Bay, by the way, is the same distance from Sault Ste Marie as is Toronto.
If you start in Manitouwadge and just drive, my calculations -- and they may not be exact but I think they're close -- are that if you drive to Nairn Centre and Espanola, which is near Sudbury, you've driven approximately 600 kilometres. That doesn't count Killarney, which is another 100 kilometres, and it doesn't count St Joseph Island and it doesn't count Chapleau, which is about another 150 kilometres northwest of Sudbury. So not counting any of those, just going along Highway 17, just driving, straight time, it would take you somewhere between eight and nine hours.
Mr Michael Brown: But you have to get to the west of Manitoulin.
Mr Wildman: That's true. I was going to get to Manitoulin in a moment. How long is Manitoulin from one end to the other?
Mr Michael Brown: About 110 miles, 160 kilometres.
Mr Wildman: One hundred and sixty kilometres.
Interjection.
Mr Wildman: If you would like to tell me that you don't think that I'm being accurate, then give me the accurate figures.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I can't see it from here.
Mr Wildman: That's your fault, not mine.
Mr Chair, I didn't think I was going to have this kind of attitude expressed in a committee that is supposed to be looking at how we properly represent a very large geographic area, but I suspect that's probably the attitude this committee is going to be presented with. It's unfortunate.
Mr Michael Brown: You should have been here yesterday.
Mr Wildman: Well, maybe there's no point in asking this question.
The Acting Chair: You've got a minute.
Mr Wildman: The point I was making is that it would take a full day's drive just to drive it, without stopping to see anybody, without stopping. It would take approximately the same length of time as it would to drive from Sault Ste Marie to Toronto -- a little more, actually; not much more.
Do you think that it's reasonable to have that kind of geographic area, keeping in mind that we are, after all, in a democracy that believes in representation by population? The argument will be made -- there are two arguments that I want you to answer, if you could.
The first one is that the geographic area shouldn't be really considered because what we're really trying to do is make sure all the constituencies have similar populations so that everybody's vote is worth the same -- representation by population -- so if you have to have enormous ridings like this in northern Ontario to do that, fine. That's the first issue.
The other issue is that the feds have done this, so the federal member -- the current federal member for this riding is Brent St Denis, and I suspect he will run in the new riding -- will have to represent that, and if he can represent it, what's the problem? So should the provincial member. How do you deal with those two arguments?
Mr Bonnett: On the first one, on the geography and the representation -- actually, I'm here representing the federation of agriculture. It costs them thousands of dollars to have me sit as a director of their organization because I have to fly to meetings, I have to drive tremendous distances. That's a cost of having good representation, because the issues in the north -- just because the distances are great doesn't mean the concerns are any less. That's a cost of democracy. Representation costs. You can't have one thing fit everything.
You mentioned some of the distances. You didn't mention that it was an hour to drive from Highway 17 into Hornepayne. You didn't mention that it would be about three hours to drive from Highway 17 up to Chapleau. That's one way. You didn't mention that it's half an hour to drive into the community of Dubreuilville. You see, these are all offshoots. You get over to Manitoulin Island, it's the same way. You get into St Joe Island, it's the same way.
I think there's a complete lack of understanding about the distances involved. When people look at the northern Ontario map, they don't realize that maps are drawn on a different scale. If northern Ontario was drawn to the same scale as southern Ontario, you'd need that wall to put the map on. They shrink northern Ontario's scale.
Geography must be one of the determining factors in representation, because it isn't just the number of people, it's the access, and you deny access when you spread the geography too great.
0930
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Thank you very much for your presentation. You have a comparison here of a person who makes $55,000 a year and would cut their spending by $11, but I really think a more accurate comparison is a person who has a take-home pay of $55,000 a year but spends $63,000 and has done that continually year after year after year. What that person would have to do is, first of all, stop the increase in spending and then look at every area they spend in and reduce it.
Politics is about choices, as you well know. I would like to ask your view: If you had another $2 million or $3 million -- the savings is $11 million -- in the north to spend, wouldn't you rather spend it on schools that are needed, or on kidney dialysis service in the communities, or magnetic resonance imaging, or home care for people who really need it?
Mr Wildman: Or on agriculture.
Mr Bonnett: Yes, agriculture would be a better one.
Mr Young: Well, there's a lot more than agriculture in this.
Mr Bonnett: There are almost two parts to your question. The first part was the analogy about the $55,000 and spending $63,000. That is correct. I ran a business for years; I had a dairy farm. I did not cut the feed I was feeding to the cattle because that would cut my milk production and eventually it would cut my profits. You have to be careful where you cut. You can end up cutting where it's going to cost you more in the long run.
The other part of your question was about spending on hospitals, spending on schools, spending --
Mr Young: Not hospitals -- we're trying to close empty hospital beds -- but in front-line health care: kidney dialysis, magnetic resonance imaging. That's front-line health care. Get the money right to people who need it, or to children in the schools.
Mr Bonnett: It's a noble objective, but the thing is that to be able to do that, you have to understand what the concerns and the issues are in each individual area. How are you going to do that if you're relying on a bureaucracy in Toronto to make decisions based in the rural communities? You have to have a member out there who is talking to the people who are getting that service, who's talking to the people who are living in the area, finding out if they have some local solutions for the problems rather than trying to put this one size fits all on everything.
I think it's not an either/or. It's that if you have good representation, you're going to get the solutions to those other problems you're talking about.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Ron, how big an area do you represent as regional director?
Mr Bonnett: As regional director, I represent the agricultural community from Blind River through to the Sault, so it would be about 80 miles.
Mr Stewart: Every time you want information on behalf of various things in the government, are you always meeting with the MPP or do you get a bit involved with the staff and so on and so forth?
Mr Bonnett: I'm involved with the staff a certain amount, but quite often we are involved with the MPP.
Mr Stewart: Mind you, that's partly because you are, what, 40 miles away from the main centre sort of thing?
Mr Bonnett: That's right. Bud is our MPP, and I should put in perspective that we are not on the same side of the political fence. I should make that perfectly clear to start with.
Mr Stewart: There's lots of us aren't.
Mr Bonnett: The key thing is that the member comes to our community. Every time he comes to the community, he's questioned, he's giving advice, he's asking for advice. It's that connection and communication that's important.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Bonnett. My apologies. I used an "r" at the end of your name and called you Bonner, because I'm misreading it.
Mr Bonnett: That's okay. I've been called a lot worse.
The Acting Chair: A CBC Radio announcer of many years had that name, and he was in agriculture. Thank you for coming today and making your views known.
GAYLE BROAD
The Acting Chair: Ms Gayle Broad is next. Ms Broad, you have 20 minutes to make your views known and use the time however you wish. If it's shorter, we'll have some questions for you, with the time divided between all three caucuses. Proceed.
Ms Gayle Broad: I was asked to speak today on behalf of a number of organizations and I requested instead that I be allowed to speak on my own behalf because I wanted to feel free to make comments from a number of different perspectives, so I hope you will bear with me, as I speak from a number of different roles I have played in my life. One of those roles was as a federal candidate in the last federal election, and I would like to make note of the fact that Mr Bonnett and I also come from different political spectrums. I think that's important to note because I want this committee to be aware that people who are here are speaking from different political perspectives, and although we may be speaking with the same perspective on this issue we do come from different political parties, and I think that's an important issue for the committee to be aware of.
I also speak as a small business person. I own a small tourist resort located about 50 miles northeast of Sault Ste Marie. I also speak as a person who, in my other worklife, has been responsible for providing services to people in the district of Algoma. I want to speak to that, because the district of Algoma itself would only form part of the new proposed boundaries, and yet we as an organization have continuously struggled from the day we opened in 1984 to try to adequately serve the district of Algoma and we still feel we are unable to do so, certainly in large part because of the distances that involves.
I have lived all of my life in northern Ontario and grew up northeast of Sault Ste Marie, approximately 45 to 50 miles away, which over the years has gradually decreased in distance from the Sault because you measure it in time travelled. As I was growing up, it usually took us an hour and a half to get to the Sault. Now we're down to about an hour. We travel the road much more quickly, but unfortunately the road itself has not improved greatly, and there are a number of services that I think are normally available throughout the rest of the province that are not available in rural and northern Ontario, which makes it much more difficult to provide service.
I would like to appeal to all of you in your lives as MPPs to think about what your life currently consists of, for a moment or two. As a person who has been involved in politics for a number of years and who chose to run as a candidate, I know the kinds of lives you have. They're not easy lives. You spend your life travelling between Toronto and your own constituency. When you are home on Fridays you usually have very busy constituency office days. You spend most of your evenings and weekends attending events in your communities. The purpose of doing that is not only that you become re-elected next time round but it's also to hear and talk to the people whom you represent. In order to give them adequate representation, you take a great deal of time from your own personal life to invest in your community and in your constituency.
Bud Wildman has been an example of that. Very few of us can keep up the 20-hour days that Bud Wildman does as he travels around the riding representing his constituents. Yet despite that, and despite the kind of hours that I am sure each of you puts in, there will still be many people in your own constituency who feel they have not received adequate representation, that you weren't able to attend the event they planned. I know that in scheduling yourselves, in planning your schedules for your weekends and for your Fridays, you often have to make very difficult decisions about which event are you going to attend. Which meeting are you going to go to? Where is it most important for you to be? Is it most important for you to be at that hospital board meeting or is it more important for you to attend a meeting with a number of business leaders? Where do you take the time? How do you allocate it? It's a very difficult piece of each MPP's job. In a riding that stretches throughout a district the size of Algoma, and then adds on to it a piece of Thunder Bay district and a piece of Sudbury district, it is almost impossible to make those kinds of decisions and to schedule that kind of time.
0940
In the six weeks of the campaign I was in, I spent over $4,000 on travel. That was only by car. I did not travel in luxury; I travelled in a car that got good gas mileage. We travelled very economically, yet it cost us $4,000 to criss-cross the riding a few times, a very few times, during the course of the campaign. Again, that is at least a third less than the riding boundaries being proposed here.
There are three reasons that I have heard given for the change in riding boundaries. The first is to save money. Mr Bonnett raised a number of issues about saving money. I also want to make the point that in northern and rural communities, people often still do not have access to telephones. They certainly do not have access to fax machines. If you want to question that fact about telephones, I can probably identify for you, if you give me a little time, the number of days last year that my telephone service was out at my business, and those are many days, because we do not have good telephone service. Many communities have service only by radio telephone. I've been to two communities in the last month which do only have service by radio phone, just to let you know that this is not an extremely unusual situation. People certainly don't have access to good computer lines, good service sufficient to run modems and so on. We don't have access to that. Our representation has to come from face-to-face attendance in the community and it has to come from someone who understands the issues that the people are dealing with in those communities.
Although I've lived here all my life, there were communities within the district of Algoma that I did not visit until I decided to run as a federal candidate. That is pretty common, and I'm a person who has worked for an organization that has tried to provide service throughout the district of Algoma. But there are many communities that are so isolated, that are so far off of Highway 17, that you just don't get there unless you really need to go. You cannot possibly understand the issues in those communities if you don't at least visit them.
Mr Wildman outlined the distances that are involved. I can assure you that those distances are not exaggerated in any way. Those are the distances. A member in this proposed new riding -- I would challenge anybody to be able to physically go to every community even once in a year. If you look at weather conditions throughout the winter months, you're just not going to get to every community in a year. I think it's appalling that we should have communities of 200 or 300 or 400 people who do not have one visit from their member during the course of a year.
The second reason given was to more fairly represent on the basis of population. I have worked in campaigns both within the boundary limits of Sault Ste Marie and within the district of Algoma. I can assure you, and I think Mr Martin would agree with me, that it is much easier to provide service -- although I'm not denigrating the challenge it is for members to provide good service to their constituencies within a city confined by a city limit and a boundary. It is a challenge, and I don't doubt that.
Certainly within the multicultural communities of southern Ontario, I recognize that it is a real challenge to provide good representation to those diverse elements. However, when you know you can go to the Croatian hall on Wellington Street and you can go to Marconi Hall on Cathcart Street and you can visit those different elements within your community within a 15- or 20-minute drive, that is entirely different from trying to represent a community like Dubreuilville, which is four and a half, five hours north of Sault Ste Marie. It's just a completely different kind of time commitment and investment of energy to talk about going to see the Finnish club or the Croatian community or whatever within the confines of a city.
The third reason that I've heard is that the federal government has done this, so why can't the province? First of all, I don't know why anyone would choose to follow a bad example, but an example has been set here. I would agree with Mr Bonnett: There are very different issues between the federal government and the provincial government. People, and I certainly am familiar with this through my experience as a candidate, do not make the connections to federal government actions the way they make the connections to health, education, the social services, the kinds of issues that affect them every day of their lives. I don't believe the federal government's decision was a good one and I certainly don't think this decision would be a good one.
The final comment I want to make is that you asked us about choices: Do I think it's more important to have MRI or home care services than to have representation? There are two things I think we need to think about in that. First of all, I completely reject your proposition that we have to make those kinds of choices. Other choices that this government is making right now have to do with giving a tremendous amount of money in tax breaks to people. That's a choice your government has made. I disagree with that choice and I think it would be much more important to keep this small piece of the budget to provide good representation. If we're going to make a choice, that's the choice I would make: no tax break and keep the representation.
Mr Young: Does that mean you --
Ms Broad: I'm not answering questions yet.
Finally, I think that people who propose to be politicians, who propose to represent people, have an obligation to represent everybody in the province. I really resent the fact that there appears to be very little concern about what it is like to live in northern Ontario, what the issues are here, and the feeling that we don't deserve the kind of representation that, if we chose to relocate in southern Ontario, we would be able to obtain. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms Broad. We have four minutes, divided at one minute and a bit per party, starting with Mr Wildman and Mr Martin.
Mr Wildman: I'll just ask one question, then my colleague. Thank you for your presentation. The question that was raised that you've alluded to and that Ron Bonnett answered was whether or not you could perhaps get MRI or home care services for a community if you didn't have proper representation from that community.
I wonder how you deal with the argument about rep by pop, which is a very important argument in a democracy. You said you've been involved in campaigns both in the Sault and in Algoma district, where in fact right now there is an inequity. There are about twice as many voters in Sault Ste Marie as there are in Algoma district currently, so one vote in Algoma riding is worth two in Sault Ste Marie. How do you deal with that argument?
0950
Ms Broad: I think you will find that most of the people living within the district of Algoma feel that Sault Ste Marie gets everything and that people in Sault Ste Marie would feel --
Mr Wildman: Yes, Tony is a very good rep.
Ms Broad: A case in point right now is the hospital situation in St Joe Island and Thessalon, where those hospitals are closing. There's been a tremendous outcry in the community that their services are being shut down, and yet the hospital is being maintained in Sault Ste Marie. I think that people are feeling very much that Sault Ste Marie's voice is being heard well and above their voice.
It is much harder to organize in communities that are spread far apart, where you have 100 people here, 200 there, 150, or, like where I grew up, where you have a community of 25 people here, 15 over there, 30 there and half an hour's drive between those two communities.
Mr Tascona: Thank you for your presentation. I come from the riding of Simcoe Centre, which is made up of Barrie down to Bradford. It's not as large as the changes that are being looked at in the north here in terms of geography, obviously, but certainly it's a very large population. It's the fifth-largest in the province. I can share with you, being a member, being on council and moving to this, that certainly the volume has been the biggest change in terms of dealing with the population. It really isn't that easy to say, in dealing with population and land mass, that you can equate the two because the volume becomes so great. You can't go to a hall and meet all your constituents because each constituent has an individual problem. That's why they contact you and you have to deal with that. Land mass doesn't become the issue. For myself it becomes basically trying to keep up with the volume.
One thing I have heard in terms of the difference between a federal and provincial member is that certainly the issues differ. But one thing in terms of input that the provincial members have is a mechanism already in place where people can get input on provincial issues, such as school boards, hospital boards, municipalities and district health councils, which is something the federal members don't have.
I'd just like to say to you, on that basis, do you not think that if there are fewer politicians in the provincial sphere, because we still will have the infrastructure there, there is a chance for better representation in terms of getting things on government issues for their members, rather than the current structure in terms of the greater number of members there is right now?
Ms Broad: Does that mean you're making a commitment on behalf of the government to maintain school boards and district health councils?
Mr Tascona: That wasn't the question. The basic statement I said to you was, do you not think that fewer politicians can give greater representation in getting the basic issues solved for their members when they have fewer other politicians to compete with? That's my question.
Ms Broad: No, I don't. I served on the district health council for a number of years and found that our information went directly to the ministry. Although the minister was supposed to be looking at the information we provided, and I am sure the minister was looking at it, we did not meet on a regular basis with the Minister of Health. We sent that information in, but there were tremendous gaps in communication. I think those kinds of mechanisms provide more opportunity for the communities to get the information in.
I would like to point out to you the difficulty in servicing as a member of the district health council. We had tremendous difficulty in really providing proper representation for the entire district. It was a real struggle, and we again wound up being overloaded on the Sault Ste Marie's side, as opposed to the district side, because it was such a difficult thing to do.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you for coming, Gayle. I first am struck by someone who has been a candidate for a major political party in the federal riding who I know is well respected by the people of Algoma for putting your name forward and performing a good job for the NDP in that election.
I am puzzled by what I hear. The theory being advanced by the government is that politicians are a problem, that politicians don't listen to the folks, and if we just have a bigger bureaucracy and fewer people to watch that bureaucracy everything will be a lot better.
That is exactly the opposite of my feeling, that if they wanted to cut MPPs they would be far better to cut our staffs in half and double the number of members. Politicians, in my view, should be closer to the people, not insulated from them. That's what I hear being suggested across this room.
The thing that really bothers me is that we're talking about an area of the province that has a higher-than-average GDP than the rest of the province. This is a wealthy area with lots of resources but our people are spread out. We would be the fifth- or sixth-largest province by gross domestic product if we were a province. If we were in Manitoba with a similar population we would have 50 people representing the same area. If we were in any other province, including Quebec -- they have at least 50% more provincial members than we have here in Ontario.
What I am finding absolutely puzzling is the government's notion that somehow Ontario is smarter than everybody else and that our concerns aren't the same as everybody else's. I wonder, because of your having some political experience in chasing around a huge riding, what your views might be on those comments.
Ms Broad: I think it's really popular to bash politicians. I for one still view, and I think many people in northern Ontario view, politicians as leaders within their community. That is part of the reason there is such demand for people to meet with the politician, the person they have voted for and elected, because they view that person as the leader in the community. They expect that person to take their issues forward, to be a voice for them.
People across the north -- I think you will find this everywhere you go as you listen to this, although you are only going to meet here and in Timmins, that people will look to you to speak to their issues, to raise their concerns. There is a tremendously strong anti-Toronto sentiment across northern Ontario because we do not feel well represented. As it is, we don't think we get enough of our voices heard in Queen's Park.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms Broad, for coming in today and presenting your views to the committee.
Is Mr Robert Weir here? No.
1000
DAN MACLELLAN
The Acting Chair: We'll go to the next person on the list, Mr Dan MacLellan. Please proceed.
Mr Dan MacLellan: Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dan MacLellan. I'm from the fine district of Algoma. I'm here representing no one but myself. My wife and I operate a small business in a community east of here called Bruce Mines. We employ people in the numbers of maybe six to 10 most of the year. It's my first experience doing something like this. Bear with me if I'm nervous.
It is a pleasure for me to appear here this morning because recently I've been reading with much interest about how the Liberals and the NDP were so concerned about the impacts of Bill 81 that they worked diligently to force the government to hold province-wide committee hearings. To the opposition members present I say you deserve credit for once again wasting our time and our tax dollars. Prior to the last election Mike Harris promised he would reduce the number of politicians at Queen's Park. He didn't just mention his intention during the campaign speech; he spelled it out in the Common Sense Revolution, a document I'm sure you're all very familiar with.
The simple truth is that we as a society are overgoverned. There are too many politicians. Mike Harris understood that, and although he knew it would be a tough decision, he promised to reduce the number of politicians at Queen's Park.
Over the last 10 years people became weary of politicians who made promises. Promises had become empty rhetoric and made the crowds cheer at each campaign stop, but those promises were left behind in the halls and auditoriums like the trampled signs and buttons that littered the floors. Now, at Queen's Park, a promise made is a promise kept. The Liberals and the NDP have so much difficulty grasping this simple concept that they asked the government to send out a committee of MPPs across the province to seek public input. I find it astonishing that the opposition members are declaring victory for spending a great deal of time and my tax money to travel across the province to ask me if I think Mike Harris should keep a promise he was elected on.
It saddens me to think that we live in a society where politicians who keep their promises are put under such scrutiny. Am I to believe that the members of the provincial Parliament sitting at this table have nothing better to do with their time? If that is the case, I don't think Bill 81 goes far enough.
Over the years the number of politicians, administrators, civil servants and officials grew and grew without a noticeable improvement in service. The answer to yesterday's problems was to launch new programs and build more buildings and hire more staff and spend more money. Building up a big bureaucracy and spending lots of money are not solutions to the problems. In fact, they're at the root of them. What taxpayers got for their money was a debt of almost $100 billion and a bureaucracy that was big and far from user-friendly.
Since last June the Mike Harris government has taken the steps he promised he would take to restore fiscal responsibility and reduce the size of the bureaucracy. Each step began almost the instant the government took office. At that time each step was like taking a step up the down escalator. But that escalator is starting to move in the right direction, with rising employment and rising consumer confidence.
Part of that process is to reduce the number of elected members at Queen's Park from 130 to 103, using the exact same riding boundaries the federal government will use in the next national election. This move will save money by eliminating 27 politicians, their expenses and their staff. Electoral lists out there could be shared with the federal government and provincial government, saving more money. The confusion surrounding the overlap of provincial and federal riding boundaries will be eliminated.
Opposition members in northern Ontario say there's no way they could effectively represent the new ridings, because they are too big. If a salesman were offered a bigger territory, he or she would jump at the opportunity to meet more people, travel greater distances and increase sales. If that same salesperson were offered a bigger territory and explained to his boss that he lacked the ability to do the job and suggested that more staff should be hired, how long do you think the salesperson would last in that territory?
Do opposition members believe that the federal MPs possess supernatural powers that allow them to represent their ridings? Opposition members will argue that they are closer to the people than their federal counterparts; therefore the public would be better served by not reducing the number of MPPs. It is remarkable that the Liberal and NDP members argue that they are closer to the people, when both have been voted into and voted out of Queen's Park in the last 10 years. This seems like a good indication that the people they were supposed to be close to were not impressed by the way their interests were being represented.
Opposition members say the Harris government is hijacking democracy. We've heard it said that the people of northern Ontario will be underrepresented at Queen's Park. This argument is shortsighted, self-serving and offensive to those of us who believe that democracy means more than placing an X on a ballot. What the opposition members are saying is that once a constituent has cast their ballot, they should sit back and not interfere, for their interests can only be served by the elected member.
John F. Kennedy once said that in a democracy every citizen, regardless of his or her interest in politics, holds office. Every one of us is in a position of responsibility, and in the final analysis the kind of government we get depends on how we fulfil these responsibilities. We, the people, are the bosses, and we get the kind of political leadership, be it good or bad, that we demand and deserve. We, the taxpayers, are the bosses, and it is our responsibility to ensure that our ideas, our concerns and our interests are represented in the political forum. It's not enough to simply cast a ballot and hope for the best. Sitting back and complaining is easy, and sometimes makes us feel better, but it doesn't solve the problem.
Opposition members are quick to criticize any new initiative from the government, yet offer no feasible alternatives. In the Harris government, I see a government that is not afraid to lead by example and make decisions for the public good that affect its own members. Gold-plated pensions, tax-free allowances and smaller cabinets are just a few examples of how this government is not afraid to make the decisions that are tough but necessary.
In some of the ways the opposition members are acting, you would think the provincial government drafted these new boundaries in a back room at Queen's Park. This is not the case. The province did not set the new boundaries. The federal Liberals struck a non-partisan commission and held 17 public hearings in 10 cities and received more than 300 presentations. The Liberal government in Ottawa set the boundaries. I'm sure Mr Chrétien didn't set the boundaries with the political fortunes of Mike Harris in mind.
I would like to dispel a few other rumours about the representation in northern Ontario:
(1) The north will be underrepresented. This is not true. Representation is based on population, but the unique characteristics of northern Ontario are taken into consideration, leaving northern ridings with smaller population bases.
(2) Some of the ridings in northern Ontario will be so large that MPPs will not be able to serve them. False. Both the NDP and the Liberals have proven track records of favouring more government and more bureaucracy, higher taxes, more debt and deficit. The federal MPs, most of whom are Liberals, didn't ask for smaller ridings because they couldn't handle the workload. If opposition members can't do the job, then I say step aside and let someone else take over.
It's also interesting to note that in Newfoundland the Liberal Party made a commitment in its last budget to reduce the number of MLAs.
Changing the riding boundaries is nothing new. We're not watching the invention of the wheel, we're watching its improvement. Technological advancements allowed difficult things to be done differently. More effective and efficient government will be the result.
Opposition members seem to believe that change of any kind is bad. The Ontario I grew up in was on a slippery slope. The services that I depended on were in danger of elimination. The government has not been afraid to take steps that are necessary to bring Ontario the beautiful back from the brink. Effective, efficient government is a part of a plan that was put forth during the last election. Sending more politicians to Queen's Park is not going to solve any problems; it'll only make them worse. If I were to ask them how to solve the problems facing our legal system, I suppose they would tell me to hire more lawyers.
In closing, I'd like to point out that what we're doing here today is analysing a promise that was made by Mike Harris during the last election, and that promise is being kept. Sheila Copps found out what happens when you break a promise. Not only am I still paying the GST, but my tax dollars paid for her by-election. Last June, Mike Harris took a shovel to the trail of broken promises that led to Queen's Park. Mike Harris believes that a promise made is a promise kept. It is unfortunate that we're wasting time and money debating whether he should keep the promises that he was elected on. I've always believed that a job worth doing is a job worth doing well. Members and future politicians who aren't up to the task should step aside, because I guarantee you there are plenty of good people out there who are willing to do the job and willing to do it well.
I thank you for your time.
1010
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr MacLellan. We have eight minutes, so we'll start with the government side this time.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr MacLellan. I appreciate your appearing before us here today. Needless to say, I agree with all of your submissions. I guess I'd ask you a question as someone who lives very close to the Sault and not all that far from Sudbury. You mentioned earlier that the federal non-partisan boundaries commission held hearings. I'm looking at a copy of their report here. Interestingly enough, and we had the same experience up in the northwest yesterday, when you go through their report, you see that almost every single request that was made to them to change their original draft boundaries was acceded to. Certainly that was the case in the riding of Algoma. In fact -- I'll abbreviate it here -- based on community of interest and historical patterns, strong objections to their original suggestion removed Manitoulin Island, Espanola and George Island. The town of Massey was moved in, an area near Sudbury was moved out, and on and on through the list.
I guess my question to you is, do you think it realistic that someone would appear -- we heard yesterday from the other side that they would like to take even more tax dollars and set up a provincial boundaries commission. Do you think it logical that someone would come forward and say a different thing at the federal commission than they would at the provincial one, or would their submissions be exactly the same? If you live near Sudbury and you believe that's where your focus of representation should be, you'd say that to both the federal and provincial boundaries commissions, wouldn't you?
Mr MacLellan: I would say so. If I grasped your question correctly -- are you asking me if there should be two different-sized ridings, one provincially and one federally, under the same umbrella group?
Mr Gilchrist: No. The suggestion they raised is that the reason that nobody came to talk to the federal commission, or no additional people over the 300 you mentioned, was that somehow magically the MP can be reached in a way that you can't reach your MPP. So if it's long distance in the certain shape of the federal riding, all of a sudden that makes a difference when it comes to phoning your MPP, or some other magic. They couldn't come up with a single specific, but somehow the issue that MPs will be able to do the tasks in the ridings shaped as they are -- don't forget, they only had 11 to start out with and they're just moving to 10 -- but somehow MPPs won't be able to do that. I just don't understand that premise and I'm wondering if you think it would be a useful expenditure to set up a provincial boundaries commission at taxpayers' expense to go around and talk to the same people and ask them if they have exactly the same concerns that they have about their MP.
Mr MacLellan: I think it's absolutely a total waste of money, as is apparent here today. This is not being set up by us as a province; this is being set up by the federal government. They have looked at that. I think clearly that the people who represent this riding federally do just as good a job, although they're not members of the Progressive Conservative Party. They are members of the Liberal Party and the NDP, but they do a fair job at what they do, and they do it very well. I can't see that changing at all.
Mr Sergio: Mr MacLellan, thanks for coming down to make a presentation to our committee. I'll try and get a couple of quick questions. The first one: If you believe, as I believe, that this is a fait accompli, I believe that the government has already decided to go ahead and cut the number of representatives, do you believe then that us being here is a waste of time, a waste of taxpayers' money?
Mr MacLellan: I believe that. I believe it's a waste of taxpayers' money, yes.
Mr Sergio: If you know that the government is going to do that, why are we here? To serve the democratic process or to waste taxpayers' money?
Mr MacLellan: Because of the fact that you argued to get out here, I'm sure you feel in your heart that you are representing the process. But I also believe that it is a total waste of taxpayers' money. This has not been designed by the province of Ontario. This was designed by the federal government. The Liberals in Ottawa are doing this.
Mr Sergio: Sir, they didn't. But my second question is not on that. They did not do that. There was a commission and they gave seven months for appeals, for objections, for amendments. We are trying to do this in a month.
My second question is this: Do you agree that the budget of Mr Mike Harris's office tripled in one year?
Mr MacLellan: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first part of your question.
Mr Sergio: The Premier's office budget tripled in the last -- quadrupled.
Mr MacLellan: I'm not sure I know that --
Mr Gilchrist: You went from a triple to a quadruple.
Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, we're getting the same interference from the same member and I object to that.
My question to Mr MacLellan is this: Do you agree with a Premier who triples his budget within a year when he cuts everything else?
Mr MacLellan: I don't know that to be true. I'm assuming -- you're telling me that at this meeting this morning -- that it's true.
Mr Sergio: I'm telling you that. Do you believe that's correct?
Mr MacLellan: I have no reason to disbelieve you but I have no knowledge of the fact that it has tripled.
Mr Sergio: If that is the case, do you agree with that?
Mr MacLellan: I don't have the documentation in front of me to agree or disagree. But if I were to have that documentation and what you say is true, then I'd have to agree with you. If what you say is untrue, then I'd have to look at it from another perspective.
Mr Wildman: I want to thank you for your evenhanded and non-partisan presentation.
Mr MacLellan: Very much like your own, Bud.
Mr Wildman: I must say, though, a couple of things. First, you start out by saying that democracy is not just counting a ballot and then sitting back by the citizens. I agree completely. But then you also seem angry or nonplussed about the fact that we came out to listen to you, to give you an opportunity not to sit back and to make your presentation to the Legislature. Surely if you believe that democracy involves this kind of action, you should appreciate the opportunity you've been given, rather than saying it's a waste of time and money.
Mr MacLellan: I also have a pen and a pencil and a typewriter. I could write my MPP and let him know how I feel. I didn't do that because this opportunity came up. But if there was a problem, I could phone somebody in my MPP's office or in my MP's office and make the same submission as an individual that I've done here this morning. It obviously is costing a lot of money to have this done today.
Mr Wildman: Sometimes people actually think democracy costs money. You mentioned that Newfoundland is cutting the number of seats. That's true. Newfoundland has approximately half the population of northern Ontario. Is it your knowledge that they will have half the number of constituencies in Newfoundland that we will have after this redistribution?
Mr MacLellan: I don't think he said that in his statement. I don't know what the numbers were. They have looked at reducing the numbers. I think possibly Mr Brown might know because they're his cousins out there.
Mr Wildman: If you work it on the same basis as Mr Harris, that you should have the same number of ridings provincially as federally, in the federal House of Commons there are seven people from Newfoundland, so that would mean the Legislature in Newfoundland would have seven members. Do you think that really makes sense?
Mr MacLellan: I'm not sure what their legislation is, what the laws of the land are out there in Newfoundland.
Mr Wildman: You're the one who raised it, not me.
Mr MacLellan: The point's made that they are reducing the number of MPs -- MLAs I think they're called out there. MLAs are in Newfoundland.
Mr Wildman: MHAs, actually, in Newfoundland; members of the House of Assembly.
Mr MacLellan: Yes, MHAs out there in Newfoundland and they are reducing. I'm sure the Liberal people here will be able to tell you why they're doing that.
Mr Wildman: It's just that I was comparing it with Mr Harris. He says you should have the same number and that would mean, since there are seven MPs in Newfoundland, there should only be seven in their Legislature.
The other point you make is a very valid one, about the number of bureaucrats. Do you think it is easier to influence bureaucracy in Toronto -- deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and so on, all of the civil servants -- or is it easier to influence elected members to get your views across and to persuade Queen's Park to be receptive to the needs of an area or a population? Do you think it's better to have elected members carrying out your wishes or is it better to leave it to a bureaucracy that is not elected?
Mr MacLellan: Are you asking me for my personal opinion on this?
Mr Wildman: Yes. As a representative of the Conservative Party, you can give it that way; either way.
Mr MacLellan: My experience has been recently, in the last eight years, that any time I had any dealings with people at Queen's Park on any particular issue, I found it was easier for me to deal through people at Queen's Park that I knew rather than go through my MPP. As a matter of fact, I don't think you've ever heard from me.
Mr Wildman: Then how can you say it was easier to deal with them than with me if you've never contacted me?
Mr MacLellan: Because I think we have a different philosophy and a different political view.
Mr Wildman: I think any member here would agree with me that between elections, each one of us, Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat, tries diligently to represent the wishes and needs of all of our constituents, whatever their political stripe.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr MacLellan, for coming in today and submitting your views to us.
1020
FRANK KLEIN
The Acting Chair: We're going to change the lineup a little bit. Mr Callegari, the president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Sault Ste Marie unit, sent in a submission but he is unable to speak. He lost his voice. So we're going to ask Mr Frank Klein, who was scheduled for 1:40 pm, to step into the batter's box. Mr Klein, would you like to come up and present your views to us at this time. Please proceed.
Mr Frank Klein: Thank you very much. Better not go by the script because the script says "Good afternoon." I was supposed to be on at 1:40. Good morning. My name is Frank Klein. I am a retired Sault Ste Marie city police staff sergeant. I have been retired for almost five years. I live with my wife in Bruce Mines, which is situated on Highway 17, 40 miles east of Sault Ste Marie. For the past five years, I have been a trustee with Central Algoma Board of Education and I am at present the board's vice-chairman.
Before preparing the statement that I am about to make, I interviewed many citizens in the area in which I reside. Among them were a doctor, several nurses, two school principals, four school teachers, farmers, housewives and fellow retirees. I even spoke to people who voted for Mr Wildman in the last election.
Mr Wildman: There were a few of them.
Mr Klein: What is being proposed is that we eliminate 27 MPPs, that our provincial electoral area be identical to the federal electoral areas. Is this asking too much? The answer to that question is no. One of the authors of these electoral areas is none other than Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, a man who is not known for his Tory thoughts. In his own words, "The better the sooner." He would no doubt encourage our politicians to enact this bill.
Premier Harris and his Common Sense Revolution inherited a real mess. In order to get Ontario back on track, his government has had to make many cuts -- cuts in medical care, education, which I know firsthand all about, justice and the civil service, cuts that have hurt but were necessary to get us back on track. By cutting 27 MPPs our government is leading by example. Can you think of any better example of leadership?
The proposed reduction of 27 MPPs has resulted in much howling and weeping from the opposition. Our NDP friends in particular are offended by this proposed change. I suggest to them that if the new boundaries offer too much of a challenge, then move over and let a man in.
Mr Sergio: How about a woman?
Mr Klein: They remind me of the time when my wife and I were travelling through the Smoky Mountains of Tennessee and we stopped at a country general store. Standing on a porch sucking a straw was the storekeeper. Sound asleep on the porch was the storekeeper's hound dog, who had no legs. To be sociable, I said to the store keeper, "Nice dog you got there." "Yup," he replied. "What do you call him," I asked. "He ain't got a name," replied the storekeeper. "He can't come if you call him anyhow." That's the NDP. They ain't got a name.
I sincerely thank you for allowing me to make this submission to you today.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Klein. We have about 16 minutes for questions to figure out what kind of dog that was and other related questions on this issue. We'll start this round with the Liberal Party.
Mr Michael Brown: I appreciate one of the more entertaining of our presentations so far. I just want to follow on some of your comments. One of the things that has interested me is if in fact Ontario, unlike any other province in Confederation, believes that we should have the identical number of MPs to MPPs -- and that's certainly a view -- if that's the case and you believe that, would it not make sense then to use exactly the same election apparatus as Elections Canada?
Should not our rules be identical so that the returning officers can be identical, so that the entire system be identical, so that there would be, obvious to me, cost savings and the province just subletting the operation of the elections to Elections Canada? Would you not believe that to be a viable idea to at least investigate from a cost savings view?
Mr Klein: That is beyond my humble opinion, Mr Brown. I wish I could give you an opinion. However, I do not wish to have a federal system. Then we'd have the Liberals leading us.
Mr Michael Brown: Well, no. All I'm suggesting is maybe Elections Canada could contract to Elections Ontario. I'm not particularly interested. It just seems we have two election bureaucracies at the present time, a federal one and a provincial one. I'm suggesting, don't you think we should at least investigate melding them into one? It costs the taxpayers money to have two. There's only one taxpayer, and whether they're paid from federal coffers or provincial coffers, it all comes out of your wallet and my wallet.
Mr Klein: I have no opinion on that.
Mr Michael Brown: Okay.
Mr Wildman: The dog won't come.
Mr Michael Brown: I wonder if one of the reasons, and the Common Sense Revolution alludes to it, is that to do this we'd save money on electoral lists, we'd save money on a number of things, not just the salaries or whatever of the MPPs but the actual operation of the election. Would it not be even more sensible, then, to run provincial and federal elections simultaneously, so that you would only have one election? The only cost would be a little longer ballot. No view on that?
Mr Klein: That's a little much, two elections going at the same time.
Mr Wildman: They do it in the US.
Mr Michael Brown: Yes, they even elect dog catchers at the same time.
Mr Klein: The Americans have that, do they? Well, if it works for them, why wouldn't it work for us?
Mr Michael Brown: If you went that far, we could have the municipal election at the same time too. There's a lot of savings here. If we want to save money, then there's a lot of savings. Don't you think we should be at least investigating that as a Legislature?
Mr Klein: Mr Wildman brought up that it is in the United States. If that is correct, it's worth looking into, yes.
Mr Michael Brown: Actually the Premier indicated that to me in the House the other day when I asked the question. I think if we have a look at this, there are a lot of ways to save money. On the other hand, there may be some downsides to each of those scenarios. I'm not competent at this point to know what they might be. But I think your thoughtfulness in not just giving me a direct answer and saying yes or no indicates that you might also have some concerns that there might be some downsides to it.
What I'm suggesting is, at the end of the day, if we're not sure we want to adopt all the federal election rules, including election rules on financing election campaigns, rebates to political parties, the whole ball of wax, if we're not doing that at the same time we're just carte blanche deciding that we want to change the boundaries, don't you have some concerns about changing one set of rules without changing the others to match those?
As somebody who is trying to wrap my head around how this would really work and what would really be in the interests of both the taxpayers and democracy, I have a lot more questions than I have answers. We could have school board elections at the same time.
Mr Klein: We won't have a school board to elect, by the sounds of it. We are going by the wayside, it looks like.
1030
Mr Michael Brown: Is that a good idea? For example, that's what we're talking about: less governance, whether it's municipal politicians, whether it's school board politicians, whether it's provincial politicians. The only people who have increased are actually the federal politicians, because there are now 103 rather than 99 MPs in Ontario after the redistribution. Do you think it's in the public's interest to get rid of school boards?
Mr Klein: No, definitely not. If you have about two hours, I'll tell you why. We don't know what they're going to do with us. All I know, to give you an example, if they think they're saving money by eliminating a trustee like me, who receives a $3,380-a-year honorarium, in comparison to trustees in Toronto who receive $48,000 a year, I think I know where the saving is: not off in poor old central Algoma.
Mr Wildman: I agree with that comment, Frank. You and I have known each other for a number of years, and I know your work on the Central Algoma Board of Education. I'd like to pursue Mr Brown's question a little bit. It seems to me that you and I would agree that the Central Algoma Board of Education, as an example, has served the rural area very well. There are obvious improvements that could be made, but it has served the rural area very well, and I think we might agree that it would not be a good idea necessarily to apply southern Ontario solutions, such as eliminating trustees to save money, to northern Ontario. Wouldn't we? You're nodding yes.
If that's the case, then, why do you have a different view with regard to provincial representation? Why would you say it doesn't make sense to eliminate a rural board that serves its community fairly well but it does make sense to eliminate rural constituencies and northern Ontario constituencies in order to have closer to representation by population designed on the basis of growing populations in southern Ontario?
Mr Klein: What I am saying is, it would be nice to have our MPP in his current boundaries, but with money the way it is, he's got to go beyond those boundaries. It's just like me and the school board. I don't think it's a good idea eliminating me, but if they have to eliminate me in order to progress, so be it.
Mr Wildman: I'll finish off with an observation. I understand your position, but I'm afraid that the students and the parents of central Algoma probably would not be served as well if they were part of a much larger board that had a large urban component in it.
Mr Klein: True.
Mr Wildman: I think the same goes provincially.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Mr Klein, I will, as strongly as I can, defend your right to come before us here today and make your presentation. That is my commitment to democracy. Actually, I'm impressed with the fact that you did a bit of homework in terms of touching base with some of your neighbours and fellow citizens out in your area and brought forward some of their views to us today, and the question I want to ask you is in that vein.
Why, in an exercise that will so fundamentally change the way areas across this province are represented at Queen's Park -- I mean, a diminishing of 27 members at a time the population of the province is growing, no matter what measure you use, is a diminishing of people's ability to have their voice heard.
We had -- with Remembrance Day not so long ago -- people who left this country to fight for democracy, lost their lives for democracy. Why, in making this fundamental change, would it seem appropriate to do it in less than two months without the usual, traditional, arm's-length commission that goes out and talks to people and hears from people and comes back with a recommendation to the Legislature? After all, there is somewhat of a vested interest here. What's your view of that? Are you comfortable with the fact that we're doing this so quickly as opposed to taking the time that I feel, respectfully, is necessary if we're going to make the kind of change that's reflected in this piece of --
Mr Klein: Mr Martin, I think I answered that question earlier in my statement when I quoted our Prime Minister, "The better the sooner."
Mr Wildman: But he's increasing the number of MPs in Ontario.
Mr Klein: Who? Canada? Are there more MPs now than we had before?
Mr Wildman: Yes. We had 99 and it's going to 103.
Mr Klein: That doesn't affect our riding, because Mr St Denis has the same riding as you would, and Mr Brown.
Mr Wildman: There's going to be one fewer in northern Ontario, but there are going to be a total of four more across the province.
Mr Stewart: Mr Klein, in my strange mind, I was sitting here thinking about what you could call that dog. You could suggest that that fellow call it either "Stay" or "Sit."
You've been, I assume, a police officer for many years, During that time, was there ever any time that you made any changes? When you started back 30 or 40 years ago, I assume there were some changes as you went along. Is that reasonable?
1040
Mr Klein: I was trained by the old-school cops, the Depression and Second World War veterans a completely different breed than what is now training them.
Mr Stewart: My point, though, is that you did change and you changed with the times.
What we're hearing here today and over the last few days is that it's a distance factor. I want to put on the record that I travel this country, and any time people feel they're only sending people up here from Toronto -- I represent a rural riding and I travelled this country for about 10 years. I travelled to Wawa and White River and all of them, so I know the area fairly well, but it was a time that the roads were not a hell of a lot -- so I know a bit about this country and I appreciate the concerns up here.
One of the things that seems to be coming out is the distance factor. I believe you have to do things a little differently. You don't drive from here to the end of the boundary today to see somebody and then turn around and go home and then go back up the next day and the day after that. What we have to do is find better and more efficient ways of doing business. If Bill 81 does go through in some form, that's the kind of thing the MPPs up here will have to look at, much the same as I have to do. We've got to find different ways of doing business than we have in the past. Would you agree with that?
Mr Klein: I agree with that. Particularly in this day and age, it shouldn't be as hard as, say, 10 years ago, with the great improvement in communications. With the fax machines, computers, it should be a lot easier.
Mr Stewart: Also, we've heard many comments about the fact that we are infringing on democracy. Of course, one of our democratic rights is to vote, and we heard yesterday from an electoral returning officer that it is the responsibility of that officer to make sure the people of the riding have the right to vote.
Do you believe, as an ex-police officer who was in a very democratic profession, that we are infringing on the democratic rights of the people, whether it be in the north or the south or the east or the west?
Mr Klein: No.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you for the presentation. We've heard considerable discussion yesterday and today about the distances and the number of community organizations that a northern member must meet with, the number of municipalities, the number of school boards and the number of health councils and so forth, because of the large geographic area. If that is one of the problems, if, as the riding size increases, we also decrease the number of those organizations the members are meeting with, will that help them get around to get the views of more people? Instead of Mr Wildman having to attend two different school boards in the area, if it was one board, would one meeting do twice as much as it presently does?
Mr Klein: The one board they are proposing would take in from Echo Bay, 15 miles east of here, all the way to Manitoulin Island, including Manitoulin Island. A trustee in Echo Bay, if he had to go to, say, Gore Bay for a meeting, would have to travel about 200 miles. So Mr Wildman would be affected by this travelling distance too.
Mr Hardeman: I would agree with you that that's not necessarily the appropriate way to do it with the education, but from the member's point of view, if he had fewer and more concentrated groups to meet with, would that not help his ability to talk to the majority of the public?
Mr Klein: I suppose so.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Klein, for coming in and giving us your witty and insightful remarks on this subject.
Mr Klein: Thank you for having me.
EDWARD SADOWSKI
The Acting Chair: Mr Edward Sadowski is next. You have 20 minutes in which to make your views known. Please proceed.
Mr Edward Sadowski: I have a written statement here and a letter to Mr Jack Carroll that I'll pass on to the committee after I'm done.
I want to thank you for inviting me to meet with you today. As you know, one of the commitments this government made was to consult with the people of Ontario with regard to government policy surrounding change and implementing change in this province. That is why I have chosen to speak to you here today on what is, I believe, one of the most significant challenges that the citizens of this province face in light of the speed at which this government is implementing change.
I would like to outline two major concerns I have surrounding this government's policy of expediting change and what it means in concrete terms.
My primary concern is with the process. From what I can ascertain from media reports, I'm not alone in feeling left out of the process. I feel I have not been given enough time to prepare a proper presentation to this standing committee.
In preparing for my presentation here, I have tried to follow the procedures as outlined in the government ad which appeared in the Sault Star of 13 November 1996. This ad stated that this committee would be holding hearings the week of 18 November here in Sault Ste Marie. The ad also advised me that in order to get a copy of Bill 81, I would need to place an order with Publications Ontario. When I placed the order on Thursday 14 November, Publications Ontario told me that it would take seven to 10 days before my order would be processed. On Friday 15 November, I inquired at both official government depository libraries here in town -- the city public library and the Wishart Library at Algoma University College -- to see if they had a copy of Bill 81. They did not.
On Monday 18 November, I contacted the constituency office of my MPP. They advised me that they did not have a copy of Bill 81 but they would try and get me a copy through their research department. On Wednesday 20 November, the constituency office notified me that they received a copy of the bill and that they would forward it to me through the mail.
Now, as I sit here in front of this committee, I cannot make a proper presentation on Bill 81 because I have not yet seen a copy of Bill 81. I find this to be a ridiculous situation. I, a citizen of this province who wants to participate in the political process, cannot offer an informed opinion to a provincial committee on an important matter such as this. I strongly believe that this government's policy of putting an emphasis on speed and efficiency has in effect restricted my fundamental freedom of opinion and expression as guaranteed under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This government's attempt at utilizing a policy of trickle-down economics has failed to close the divide between the haves and have-nots in this province, and in effect that gap has grown wider.
This government's attempt at adapting this policy to what I call trickle-down politics has clearly proven to be dangerous to the Canadian democracy. The control of information by putting time restraints on the process has only increased the divide between the knows and the know-nots, a clear violation of our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.
My second concern surrounds the underrepresentation of women, disabled people and the poor in our provincial political institutions. From what I can understand from media reports and from the official government ad, the provincial electoral districts in northern Ontario will be enlarged to match those of the federal government. If this is true, I find this to be a direct attack against women, disabled people and the poor. I feel this would be a highly discriminatory practice to prevent these politically disadvantaged groups from participating in politics.
Our present democracy provides that all citizens have the equal right to participate in the political process. This is guaranteed by section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In practice, many social interests are not represented. Only a few seek elected office and try to provide input in the policymaking process by making presentations to a committee such as this. Subtle structural, social and political practices hinder full political participation by all citizens.
1050
Larger electoral districts will create extra expenses for women, disabled people and the poor. Granted, extra expenses will also be borne by able-bodied working men as well. However, women, disabled people and the poor, on average, have less or no access to financial resources that able-bodied working men have. They have fewer personal resources and financial security and weak or no established networks to allow them to compete effectively. Able-bodied working men have better access to corporate donors and business contacts. Women have greater child care costs and, along with the constraints of motherhood, larger electoral districts will mean longer times away from the home and family. Combined with the fact that they have less of a chance of getting a bank loan because they have no jobs or low-paying jobs, these additional restrictions will severely limit their chances of competing on an equal playing field with able-bodied working men. These increased expenses will threaten any political gains women, disabled people and the poor may achieve in participating in the political process.
In conclusion, freedom of opinion and expression includes freedom of access to all information pertinent to the ideas and beliefs sought to be expressed. This government's policy of trying to rush through this legislation by restricting my opinion and expression, by restricting its content, ie, by not allowing me reasonable time to view the information and conduct research for me to form an opinion, is clearly unconstitutional.
Discriminatory practices against women, disabled and poor people are unconscionable. Measures should be taken to enhance political representation of these groups within the existing system of electoral districts in northern Ontario.
The main point is that the purpose of the right to participate in the electoral process enshrined in the charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to effective representation. Thank you.
Mr Martin: I think you make some very interesting points that are important to be made. It's just unfortunate that, given the difficulty you've described in preparing for today, at the end of the day you still only have 20 minutes in which to make your view known.
This is fundamental change we're going through here in a democratic system of government. To lower the number of representatives by 27 at a time when the population of a jurisdiction is increasing is certainly not in keeping with what normally happens in other jurisdictions.
The question I want to put to you is around the issue you've raised: how this is done. Traditionally in Ontario and in Canada, and the federal government did this, every so often, particularly after a census is taken, an exercise is entered into by government to see if there's change that needs to be made to the way we represent ourselves. I think that's necessary and healthy in a democracy. We need to do that. Nobody is suggesting for a second that we don't need to make change in that way. As a matter of fact, when we make change it hopefully reflects some of the sophistication we have around us today, by way of information and knowledge and communications, to enhance as opposed to take away from.
We're rushing a bill through the Legislature, and it's consistent with everything else we've done for the last year and a half, that's going to change fundamentally the way we do democracy, in about two months. Traditionally we set up a commission that goes out to the province, takes all kinds of time and hears from all kinds of people, considers all kinds of scenarios. We have rep by pop, a very simple first-past-the-post system. There's also proportional representation that we could take a look at, but we're not going to do that at this time.
We're breaking from tradition in another way. Normally in governments up until this one we would bring in legislation in a session of the Legislature, bring it to second reading and in the intersession take it out for public consultation when there's lots of time and people have time to get their hands on the bill, do research and then come forward and really be helpful to us as we make these decisions.
In hearing that and probably already knowing that, and knowing that the federal government did their commission and considered all kinds of things in coming up with the numbers they did, including promises and agreements that were made over the years to places like PEI to make sure they still have representation, what's your response?
Mr Sadowski: I cannot comment on the federal process because I've not had enough time to look at that. My complaint is the process that is presently in place here. I don't even have a copy of the bill. I've not seen it. Your government advertised this in the paper last week. I went through the process of trying to get that information, trying to participate in the political process here, yet I have not been able to get a copy of this bill. How can the government on one hand advertise that a committee is coming to town, "If you want a copy of the bill, please go through Publications Ontario," and here I am today, in front of you -- I'm not apologizing for it because I was ready to see what was in the contents of that bill and maybe do a little bit of research to see, if you're going to be using federal boundaries, for example, how the federal government did ascertain how those boundaries were set.
You have to realize that I live in the Algoma district. It takes me almost an hour to drive here to discuss this matter with you. Mail is slow. Everything takes time up here, and if you're going to make these radical changes it's going to require time on our part to do some research to get informed on what is actually going on with the changes this government is proposing.
I only get these bits and scraps of information in the paper. Yesterday's paper said this government wants this legislation passed by Christmas. Even if I wanted to submit a written report after I got a copy of the bill, I still would not have enough time to do that. We're looking at less than four weeks before Christmas comes around.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you very much, Mr Sadowski. I think you've made our case in large measure. I'm somewhat intrigued that you wouldn't have thought of the first thing to do: phone your MPP's office. We've heard on all the hearing dates that they are just swamped and they're indispensable and that the first line of contact is their office. Let me just tell you that bills are normally printed within one day of their being introduced in the House. The date is October 1. Every member of the Legislature got one on the same day. If their office doesn't have one, it is absolutely distressing and unconscionable that they wouldn't have it in their office as a resource to you.
Let's start from that premise right there. A press release went out to every newspaper, and you strike me as someone who is both interested and somewhat knowledgeable about politics. No doubt if you get any of the newspapers, and I could go through the list -- I've got the clippings of every one in the north -- the Sault newspaper had it in detail, then came out with an editorial, and since then the sitting members throughout the north have written their own op ed pieces.
There's been no doubt that the community knew about the bill. There was also no doubt that we were going to bring the bill forward. May 1994 is when we made the commitment to do what we're doing. June 8 was when we were elected. Quite frankly, this bill could have been the first piece of legislation brought forward last September.
I'm somewhat intrigued why you wouldn't have gone to your MPP's office and why you wouldn't see that the biggest failing of all the problems you've cited here today is that your local member did not provide the service he's being paid to do.
Mr Sadowski: My MPP provided that service. I contacted him.
Mr Gilchrist: You said you don't have a copy of the bill.
Mr Sadowski: When I contacted his office on Monday they told me they did not have a copy of the bill and that they would be able to fax me a copy once they got the research department working on it. I do not have a fax. The only way people can access me is through the mail. Their office is out in Haydon, I believe. I live out in Deborah area. That's almost an hour-and-a-half drive between my place and there, and I'm not going to drive that far to get a copy of the bill, nor am I going to spend money on trying to get a fax sent out. I don't have access to a fax where I am. They provided me that service and within three -- they would have sent me out something right away. However, I cannot afford that technology, having a fax machine.
With regard to this committee my complaint was, if you heard what I had to say, with the process. You advertised that this committee would sit here in Sault Ste Marie today. This ad was in the paper a week ago Wednesday. I followed the procedure as your government outlined in that ad. That process broke down. I did not get a copy of the bill from Publications Ontario. Your ad did not stipulate that I had to contact my MPP. I did that on my own. I also went to the government depository libraries in town. They do not have a copy of this bill.
Mr Young: Mr Sadowski, I want to tell you something. Half the world would give anything to live in this province, anything. For you to come here and say that you don't have freedom of expression is absolutely ridiculous. There are unlimited numbers of ways that you can participate in the political system and make your views known: telephone, letters, face-to-face contacts, committees, political action committees, political parties. It's absolutely unlimited. For you to come here and compare us to a country where there are not freedoms is absolutely ridiculous.
Mr Sadowski: You tell that to women, disabled people and the poor. They do not have political representation.
Mr Young: You don't know how good you've got it, and a lot of people in this province realize how good we have it.
Mr Sadowski: Coming from a white man's perspective, yes, I agree, but not from their perspective. The majority of people in this province does not have proper political representation in the Legislature. This committee should be looking at other avenues to increase that political participation by looking at aspects of proportional representation rather than enlarging the electoral districts of this province, especially in northern Ontario.
1100
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you for taking the time to appear. I think you've struck on a point that is critical to what we're doing here today: The government wants this bill before the end of the fall session. Normally a committee such as this would not sit while the Legislature was actually in session at Queen's Park. This is highly unusual because a time line is being arbitrarily set by the government to get this through.
Normally these hearings, if there were to be hearings, would be held by committee in the winter intersession, which would give people time lines they should be able to meet. We have to wonder how serious the government is in having these hearings and having them on the kind of time line that is before us today. If this is just window dressing by the government to say, "Oh yes, we had some hearings," I don't know why I'm here and I wonder why you're here, because to me that is offensive to everyone. They would have been better to say, "No hearings," if they did not intend to make any substantial amendments to this bill.
I think a lot of people are saying: "Well, the government made this promise in their election document. They're keeping some of their promises and they're not keeping some of their promises." Maybe this is one they should think about a little bit before they keep it. What's annoying here is that you notice in the federal redistribution the difference to northern Ontario is that we've gone from 11 seats to 10. The difference provincially is from 15 to 10, a third.
If you look at where the constituencies are that are being eliminated or amalgamated, they are the rural constituencies. Mr Martin's constituency of Sault Ste Marie isn't affected at all. Mr Bartolucci's constituency of Sudbury isn't. The people losing representation are in the rural north. The people who might be first nations people, who might be in small mining camps, who might be prospectors, who might be any of the communities down the North Shore, any of the communities in the Manitouwadge area are the people losing representation.
What's offensive to me is the very point you're making: that we're here; some of our presenters have not had the opportunity. Many more people may have wanted to present if there had been adequate lead time. I have a feeling nothing is changing and I'm wasting the public's dollars by being here, you're taking time out of your busy schedule to come, and what are we gaining? If I hear a message from you, that's what the message is.
Mr Sadowski: I agree with everything you've said. I am actually taken aback by Mr Young's comment that this government does not put restrictions on my freedom of opinion and expression. If this government withholds information which prevents me from forming a proper and educated opinion on what this government is doing, they are violating my section 2(b) constitutional rights.
Interjection.
Mr Sadowski: Yes, Mr Young, what did you have to say? "No"?
Mr Young: It was in the bill. Your MPP didn't get you a copy of the bill.
Mr Sadowski: No, this government did not provide me with that bill, sir.
The Acting Chair: Mr Sadowski, we're dealing with Mr Brown's question.
Mr Sadowski: I answered, and I agree with his comments.
The Acting Chair: Mr Brown, another question?
Mr Michael Brown: No more questions.
The Acting Chair: Do you have a letter that you want to leave with the clerk for us?
Mr Sadowski: Yes, I have a letter and a copy of my statement to you, if you can direct me to whom I should leave it with.
The Acting Chair: All right. Pat, can you pick it up?
Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, on a point of privilege: I just want to make it clear that in response to Mr Sadowski's request for a copy of the bill I offered to fax it to him. Unfortunately he didn't have access to a fax, so we had to mail it to him. That's a fact of the distances we have in northern Ontario.
The Acting Chair: So noted.
Mr Martin: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I was wondering -- this is my second day on the committee -- if the process is one that sees people take advantage of the very small window of opportunity to actually come and be part of this process and then be badgered by members of the committee in the way that this member has been this morning. Is that going to be the norm, or are we going to have some semblance of --
The Acting Chair: Mr Martin, I don't consider that there was badgering. In point of fact --
Mr Martin: You might want to ask --
The Acting Chair: Mr Martin.
Mr Martin: I have the floor right now.
The Acting Chair: Are you challenging the Chair?
Mr Martin: I'm making a point of order.
The Acting Chair: Okay, make your point of order.
Mr Martin: If you're trying to make a judgement of that kind, you might want to check with the witness to ascertain whether it was badgering or not. It is a tradition, in the six years I've been in this job, that we are respectful of people who take the time and make the effort to come and present, that we ask them questions of clarification and we try to find out just exactly what it is they're trying to say. To badger witnesses and to be abusive of witnesses is not usually the tradition, but then, we're not following much tradition these days anyway, I suppose, so I shouldn't be surprised.
Mr Gilchrist: So it's only appropriate to badger government supporters.
Mr Martin: We're not badgering anybody.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your point of order. Thank you, Mr Sadowski, for submitting your views.
Mr Wallace, are you prepared to come forward and make your submission now? We're ready for you.
Mr Ted Glenn: If I could just have the committee's attention for a second, I have distributed to each caucus a copy of selected pages from a recent current issues paper which describes the effects of the changes to the boundaries in northern Ontario. If you have any further questions about that document, get in touch with your caucus representative or talk to me. One copy was distributed to each caucus.
CHESTER WALLACE
The Acting Chair: Mr Wallace, you have 20 minutes to utilize as you see fit.
Mr Chester Wallace: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.
The Acting Chair: You can take it all up yourself or if you have a limited submission, then people from the committee will have questions for you.
Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, allow me one second, please. It is fine and dandy to provide one copy to one member of each caucus, but with all due respect, if we want to do our job and do it properly and give an opportunity to the people to be listened to properly and make their submissions properly, this information should be provided to each and every one.
Mr Gilchrist: It came to your office.
The Acting Chair: Mr Gilchrist, please. Continue.
Mr Sergio: Deputants have been asking for this information here so they could know the government's position, what they are proposing. I appreciate this is the first time we have seen this. This is the information that deputants have been asking for at every meeting: What is the government's position? Do we have any information? One of our members here sitting at the table this morning said, "Do they give us any information? What is the government proposing?" With all due respect, Mr Chairman, I find this useful but late, and in future sittings I hope that information is provided in time to everyone.
1110
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Chairman, on that point: This is an information piece that has been made available and notice was sent to every member's office when it was published back in October. If the member didn't bother ordering it from legislative research --
Mr Sergio: Those people out there didn't get it.
Mr Gilchrist: This is not something --
Mr Sergio: You are always the only one at this table who argues every point.
Mr Gilchrist: Who is the one interrupting now?
Mr Sergio: The deputants don't have this information because you people don't want the people to have this information.
The Acting Chair: Mr Sergio, please.
Mr Wallace: Ladies and gentlemen, as a former teacher, I don't need this. I can tell you right now, you be quiet while I'm talking. You too. Do you hear me? If not, I will ask you to leave, and if you don't leave, I'll pick you up and throw you right out that door. You've taken up two minutes of my time, you characters. Oh yes, silence. Brown, don't you open your mouth, you're talking to an old haw eater.
The Acting Chair: Mr Wallace, proceed.
Mr Wallace: Thank you. Mr Chairman, excuse me if I act as a teacher at times but I was one for a good many years and my classrooms were very well conducted, unlike your present --
The Acting Chair: Do you want to sit down, please?
Mr Wallace: Pardon?
The Acting Chair: Would you prefer to stand or sit down?
Mr Wallace: Oh, same difference. I can stand or sit.
The Acting Chair: It's easier for the communications.
Mr Wallace: Oh, sorry. Can everyone hear me now?
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Mr Wallace: Good. Very good, ladies and gentlemen. By the way, it's nice to see some ladies here today. I find that it's easier to talk to them, they're more sensible than most men, and besides, they're a damn sight better looking.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Chairman, it's a pleasure to be here. I am a former high school teacher. I came into this country just after the Second World War, to Manitoulin, with the Ontario Paper Co. I worked out of Thorold, a very fine company too. I'd still be with them if they were still in this area. I lived on Manitoulin Island, Coburn Island. I now reside on St Joseph Island. I married a Manitoulin lady who left me a couple of years ago. I'm now a widower. But I know more of Mike Brown's constituents than he does, and the same is true of Bud Wildman. I've lived up and down these lines for so many years. I've lived here most of my life and I'm going to die here, I'm happy to say.
I'm a senior citizen. I'm 70 years of age. I help run a maple syrup operation on St Joe Island right now. I'm retired from the high school teaching system. I'm still a member of the OSSTF, which is one of the toughest, strongest unions in this country, and I helped make it that way because when I first started teaching they were not very powerful. Now, as you know, the teachers' federations are together and they're tougher than any Steelworkers or United Auto people or anything else I know of. If you want to prove it, just drop around if they call me forward again. I'll darn soon let you know who's got some clout.
My background is both management and labour and finally teaching and, as such, I've run into a great many wonderful people up and down this line, including Bud Wildman and Mike Brown. Brown has buried several of my in-laws over on Manitoulin, but you're going to have to wait for a while for me.
In any case, ladies and gentlemen, I came here today hoping to improve things in Ontario. I love Ontario. I'm a Canadian. I survived the Second World War by not having to go overseas, I was too young. This is a wonderful country we have. Mind you, it has been mismanaged to some extent, I must say that. I am an honest person, I say it like I see it, but my own thoughts today should be secondary, as far as I'm concerned, and they will be.
First of all, I have been up and down this line -- I say this line and when I speak of that I talk all the way from the Lakehead right through to Sudbury. That's where we sell our syrup, back and forth and across the country, and I know a great many people, as I say, and they are thoughtful people, knowledgeable people, a good cross-section. I'm going to give you their thoughts, not mine. I'm just one person and I'm getting on. I might be dead tomorrow. Who knows? After all, when you get to be 70 you've reached your three score years and ten and you should be happy with that. Maybe, maybe not, I don't know.
One point that has come forth across the country where I've been in contact with people, without exception, people agree that government spending must be cut and that a reduction in the number of MPPs is a step in the right direction. Now, those are things that people are saying, and a lot of these things I've got right from Mr Wildman's and Mr Brown's constituents. They likely have heard this already. If I'm boring you fellows, excuse me because I know you fellows cover your constituency pretty well, but the rest of you should hear this too. Here again, that is what I get; that is, people tell me this.
The next thing, though new boundaries will create larger ridings, the federal system operates effectively and it seems insulting to suggest, this is what people tell me, that our MPPs would not be able to function as effectively as their federal counterparts. The widespread opinion is that, for instance, Mr Wildman, as an example, is more than capable of meeting the challenge. A good many of these people told me this, so I pass it on to you.
Now, Mr Brown, I don't know, I'm not quite sure in your case because, frankly, some of the comments of the haw eaters about Mr Brown are -- well, I won't repeat them in front of you dear, sweet young things, he said. Haw eaters are a tough race of people, remember. They're islanders, eh, and it takes an old tough guy like me to deal with them. Half that island are my in-laws, so I've got to be very careful when I'm over there.
The next thing is that people expect government in Ontario to be streamlined. Most people say, "You know, the Common Sense Revolution that this Mike Harris is talking about, we want to see it happen." Common sense. Here again, I'm not just talking about business people. I deal with a lot of them too, but when I go to these home shows and I go to country fairs with our syrup from St Joe Island, all across the country, the Massey fair, for instance, in your riding, Mr Brown, and so on, up to the fair at the Lakehead, I cover a lot of territory even though I'm old, he said. Thank God, he said, for a good van that will get me around in a hurry.
But people are saying this. They want this province streamlined. They've put up with enough falderal, foolish, oddball, no-account and this, here again, I'm quoting, oddball rules and regulations that have stifled everything under the sun. That's what they say. Now, if you don't like it, folks, see me later. See me out back. Roll up your sleeves. I'm not as good as I used to be but I can manage, I think.
Here again, they want the Common Sense Revolution that was promised and they figure it's the government's responsibility to lead by example, but 90% of the people say: "We all have to tighten our belts if we're to have a healthy province in the future, without exception." That includes -- you know, this may sound crazy. I'm a former teacher, retired teacher, but a lot of teachers that I run across say this same thing, "We've all got to tighten our belts."
That may surprise you because a lot of teachers at the head of things are screaming and yodelling and squawking like a bunch of chickens, you know, but a lot of good commonsense teachers are still in this province and they realize we all have to tighten our belts. Every one of us and you folks in power, in opposition, remember this. It won't hurt you; it won't hurt you at all.
1120
Another thing that I was told by these various people: Duplication of federal and provincial electoral districts, the average person feels, will save a lot of money. An example that has been mentioned a great many times to me is election lists. If you have the same election boundaries, you have the same election lists, you have a big saving right there, not two groups of people running around getting names, yippety-yippety-yip. People consider that this is a step in the right direction: federal and provincial people getting together for the good of the average taxpayer. This is what they're saying. They say, in other words, that it is encouraging to see the Conservatives adopt the federal electoral boundaries and that here again hopefully this is the first step towards proper cooperation between two levels of government, federal and provincial.
I heard -- and this is my own opinion, not the opinion of people. I didn't ask them about this; I wasn't talking about this. But someone was mentioning a little question about why not have just one level of government and so on and so forth? Why have provincial; why have federal? Ladies and gentlemen, we've got a huge country here. From shore to shore, it's over 3,000 miles across. You have a tremendously diverse group of people and you couldn't possibly go with one election for everything. Your time zones, for instance: If you went by that even, you'd still have too big and unwieldy a situation. You have to have one central government in this land of ours, and mind you, you have to have your provinces.
Here again another thing, though. I listened to a very, very interesting man speak on Canada AM this morning. I don't know how many of you listen to Canada AM, but I do every morning. I spend an hour in front of my TV. It's the one time of the day that I listen to the darn fool TV. The rest of the time it's a bunch of junk usually anyway.
But here again -- just my opinion; no offence anybody -- this chap came on who had been on the federal commission to review the aboriginal situation, and they just finished off with a $50-odd-million report. This gentleman made sense. He said that very same thing. He said we're a diverse society. What's wrong with having the aboriginal peoples as another province even though they're split up here and there and all over the place? Here again you've got to do something with them. Half of that Indian population, or aboriginal or native population, whatever you want to say, are under 15. There's thousands of them. If you don't do something now, as he said, 30 years from now, as Mercredi said last night, there'll be chaos, crisis and then some. You've got to do something about it now.
For that, we need a strong central government, not just provincially. Provincially, no, no. We need a good, strong central government federally to do something about that, with the provinces helping, though, not just sitting back and yipping and yapping and groaning and moaning and saying, "Oh, we can't do this because of this, that and the other thing." Ridiculous. For goodness' sake.
If I was like that with my kids and my family or my clan, holy Moses, you'd have chaos. You sit down and you do the right thing, and you listen to people who are smarter than you are, like that chap on Canada AM this morning. There's a man who knows something. He's studied the situation and he's knowledgeable, and that's who you go to when you need help.
The new boundaries -- excuse me. I'll get back to the situation. I hope I don't run over, Mr Chairman. Just cut me off any time. I'm used to that anyway. The bell at recess: chong, chong. You have to shut up and tell the kids, "See you tomorrow."
The Acting Chair: You have six minutes left, Mr Wallace.
Mr Wallace: Thank you. I'll get on with it.
The other big thing that people have told me is that government is too large, too expensive, and not efficient enough, and it's got to become more efficient, less expensive, smaller in size and more cost-effective. Simple as that. It's got to be done if Ontario especially is going to go ahead and become the leader of industry and jobs and every other thing that it has been in the past. I'm calling on history here, too and my own experience: Leslie Frost's time, Second World War. End of the Second World War, why did Ontario jump ahead? Because they were smart enough to say, around Toronto especially: "Okay, boys, come on in. We've got free land, or darn near free. We've got hydro that isn't going to cost you anything. We've got lots of water. We've got a workforce here. We're going to keep these boys that came back from overseas." They're going to be here and, by God, you've got the best workforce in the world at a decent rate of pay.
No big unions at that time. Didn't need them, really. They had a few locomotive engineers and so on but, here again, everything went ahead for Ontario. Montreal did the exact opposite. They sat back and they whined: "You've got to pay for this and you've got to pay for that, and if you want this road paved, you'll have to pay so much damn graft to get it done." I kid you not. I was born, by the way, in Montreal. I'm an anglo from Huntingdon county, southern side of Quebec province. That's where I got my start, and if you think that you've got a bunch of tough characters up here, up north, or that Manitoulin is tough, you go down there to that clan that I'm part of. They'll show you what tough is. They'll be in part of Canada 100 years from now, too, by the way. You don't need to worry about that area splitting off or anything like that. But, by gosh, ladies and gentlemen, this is what people are saying. Excuse me, I get to digress here.
This next point, and here, fellows, some of you are going to maybe -- I hope there are no tomatoes around. You're going to throw something at me yet. The MPPs, and this is what the people are saying, with their gold-plated pensions, tax exemptions, perks, more than one person of every walk of life has said they're the sacred cows of society, and we don't need any sacred cows here. We're not in India. That's it.
Most people consider, too, at least 80% of the people, that a smaller number of cabinets and smaller cabinets are a step in the right direction. A reduction in red tape by so doing, that will be wonderful. Red tape is the curse of our society. That's what they say.
The money that will be saved by eliminating the 27 MPPs, what has been given to the public, is $400,000 by 27, almost $11 million. Now, the public remembers that $11-million figure, by gosh.
The Acting Chair: You have one minute left.
Mr Wallace: Oh, sorry. Thank you. The boundaries being established by a non-partisan group, everybody favoured that. Wonderful. Okay? Now, when I asked them, "What do you think of MPPs that voted against the bill?" they said, "Any member concerned with cutting costs and reassessing and improving the electoral system voted for the bill regardless of their ilk, creed, colour, whatever." That's what they expected, and a lot of your people, Mr Brown and Mr Wildman, said the same thing, people that voted for both of you.
The Acting Chair: Thirty seconds, Mr Wallace.
Mr Wallace: Thank you. Finally, as a practical way to cut costs -- I did it myself today. I submit one copy of what I have just given you rather than the proposed 30 just to cut costs. And remember, I'm a pensioner. I can't afford all these odds and ends of making up all these copies, you know? I'm on a pension, a miserable, measly teacher's pension. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Wallace, for your enlightening and entertaining views.
Our next presenter is Mr Bouliane.
Mr Wallace: We'd have had room for questions if those characters hadn't taken up two or three of my minutes.
The Acting Chair: Mr Wallace, you got your full time.
1130
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2251
The Acting Chair: Mr Bouliane is representing Local 2251 of the United Steelworkers of America. You have 20 minutes, Mr Bouliane, to present your views. You can take up all the time, or whatever time is left we'll divide equally by the three caucuses.
Mr Ronald Bouliane: I'm here today to represent the interests of United Steelworkers of America, Local 2251, which is the largest union local in the district of Algoma, either public or private sector. My name is Ron Bouliane and it has fallen to me to express the extreme concern and the dismay with which the members of my union view the proposal to eliminate up to five northern ridings and in some cases to vastly increase the size of the remaining ridings to the point where some of them exceed the size of certain provinces, states, and even national jurisdictions. How can this be construed as better serving the constituents of the areas affected?
When the electoral boundaries commission decided in 1983 that northern Ontario should have no fewer than 15 ridings, it did so for a reason. That reason was to ensure that the citizens who resided within what is geographically and politically considered northern Ontario were adequately and fairly represented in the Ontario Legislature and that their concerns would be dealt with in an expeditious manner. In other words, the people here in the north would be made to feel that they were part of the democratic process and that their concerns would be taken seriously. This was done by the Conservative government of Bill Davis in a move to more fairly represent the people who reside in the north and was designed to be inclusive.
In the past, the terms of reference usually used by the commission when considering redistribution are as follows:
(1) community or diversity of interests;
(2) means of communication;
(3) topographical features;
(4) population trends;
(5) the varying of the rural electoral districts;
(6) existing boundaries of municipalities or wards;
(7) special geographical considerations such as the sparsity, density or growth rate of populations within provincial regions. Accessibility, size and shape were also to be considerations.
The terms of reference also allowed for some latitude in determining the number of ridings, up to a maximum, to be allowed.
In 1983, with respect to the terms of reference, the north was guaranteed no fewer than 15 seats within the Legislature. As further indication that it was important that the number and size of the ridings be reflective of the reality of northern Ontario, even members of the provincial Progressive Conservative Party have in the past expressed concerns about effective representation. In 1992, Noble Villeneuve, who is now Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, agreed that it was necessary to limit the size of ridings to accommodate special circumstances and requirements of rural and isolated districts.
The Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier, Ernie Eves, in 1985 stated that: "Beyond population sizes, equally valid considerations should be taken into account. That is geography. We shouldn't just focus entirely on population." The Premier, Mike Harris himself, argued in 1992 that besides population, the community of interest in west Nipissing should be examined and that it was not acceptable to move the francophone community out of the riding in west Nipissing simply on the basis of population, that community of interests should be of some consideration. Odd that since the Progressive Conservative Party is now the government in this province, the very same arguments which they used when they were sitting in opposition are no longer valid or are of no consideration any more.
Two northern Ontario members of Parliament, Réginald Bélair and Peter Thalheimer, both raised concerns about the size of their ridings with redistribution and combining with another riding. Mr Bélair stated, and I quote from Hansard: "The commission failed to consider the special geographic considerations in Cochrane-Superior and particularly the problems of size, the distance between communities...and the limited access constituents have to their member of Parliament. The commission failed to give adequate consideration to the demographics of the riding of Cochrane-Superior and erred in using an electoral quota as the sole factor for determining electoral districts."
Peter Thalheimer, the member for Timmins-Chapleau, concurred and said: "The commission failed to respect the criterion that a proposed electoral district be of manageable size for sparsely populated northern regions of the province of Ontario. The commission failed to consider factors other than population figures when proposing rural and northern ridings, including historical, cultural, economic, transportation and communication patterns."
Tony Martin and Bud Wildman, MPPs for Sault Ste Marie and Algoma respectively, have both gone on record as being opposed to the redistribution of northern electoral boundaries because of the difficulties which will arise when trying to effectively service the constituents of the much larger ridings. They have also expressed a great deal of concern about the erosion of democratic principles when power is taken away from people through the elimination of their elected representatives and placed in the hands of those at the executive level, who in effect become unelected representatives and, as such, may or may not be held accountable for their actions.
Many other MPPs from northern Ontario, both NDP and Liberal, have also voiced their objections to boundary redistribution for similar reasons. The only MPP to not voice concern about the unfairness of the present plan, and who hasn't stood up for the constituents of northern Ontario in the present situation, is the Premier, Mike Harris himself. But that is hardly surprising, as this is his idea in the first place.
With so many objections to electoral boundary redistribution being raised, one has to question why the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario would want to proceed with it. Three reasons come to mind:
(1) The members of the present government are truly ignorant about geographical and logistical difficulties in servicing present ridings, let alone the much larger ridings which are proposed.
(2) The members of the present government really don't care about what difficulties boundary redistribution will cause for the constituents of those areas affected because it is occurring in places where there is a certain amount of invisibility due to the remoteness of the area.
(3) The members of the present government view this as a chance to eliminate some opposition through an opportunity provided by the federal government and to follow through on the populist ideal that less government is better, even if the public interest is subservient to that ideal.
I believe the reason for proceeding with electoral boundary redistribution is a little of all three of the above.
Mr O'Toole, MPP for Durham East, suggests that any problems that are created with redistribution could be addressed by throwing more human and financial resources into the affected ridings. We could use some of those resources now, under the existing rules. So if you are offering these remedies, you must also be aware of the present problems that exist in servicing the constituents of these areas and, by extrapolation, you must also be aware that you would be causing even greater problems.
In conclusion, I would like to say that merely following the federal riding plan would be a grave injustice to the people of northern Ontario. Surely they deserve better than to be sacrificed for ideological purposes. If the population trends of the greater Toronto area and the Golden Horseshoe indicate that more elected representatives are there, then by all means determine what needs to be done, and in a fair and equitable fashion do it, but not at the expense of those in other areas who will undoubtedly suffer because of the loss of accessibility to their elected representatives.
1140
Just as a personal observation, I don't know how many of those on the government side of the House have travelled extensively in northern Ontario but I can tell you, from personal experience in travelling the Algoma riding with various people, that if you start at one end and go to the extreme other end, just across this riding, under the best of circumstances in Algoma it takes eight to 10 hours. Under adverse weather conditions it can take up to two or three days, depending upon road closures.
I also noted that one of the previous presenters mentioned something about communications. I happen to live in a rural area, and he's damned right about communications. I can honestly tell you that getting a letter from Sault Ste Marie to my place, which is 35 miles out of the Sault, can take anywhere from one to two weeks. The mail first has to leave here, then it gets sent to Sudbury, then down to Toronto or Ottawa and then all the way back.
A lot of us don't have access to faxes. Unfortunately certain sections of this part of the province are underserviced with communications devices. I have a party line. I can't have a fax and I can't have a touch-tone phone, so I have a pretty severe limit on what I can and can't do. Fortunately enough for me I come into town every day and I can use or find facilities elsewhere, but as some other people have mentioned, it becomes a difficult circumstance.
If you're going to increase the size of these ridings, I think the proposed Algoma riding, if you follow the federal plan, would extend from I think almost Nairn Centre as far west as Marathon, and you're going to take an area that already would take you eight to 10 hours to cross and add at least another four to five hours on that, which becomes in winter, having done it myself, interminable and in some cases downright dangerous.
That's all I've got to say. I'm open to questions.
Le Président suppléant : Merci, Monsieur Bouliane, pour votre présentation. Il y a plusieurs questions pour vous.
Mr Sergio: Est-ce que vous dites, Monsieur le Président, que je dois faire ma question en français ?
Mr Bouliane: I'd rather have it in English. My father was Franco-Ontarian but my mother is anglophone.
Mr Sergio: I was only kidding.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you very much for the presentation. They're trying to characterize the opposition in this as being opposed to a redistribution of constituencies, which is not the case. The opposition has suggested that we do what Leslie Frost decided to do in the 1950s and Mr Robarts decided to do in the 1960s and what every government of Ontario has done in recent memory: to redistribute on the basis of criteria in Ontario. We believe that to be a logical and intelligent way to go about it. If you look at what Mr Harris had said prior to the last redistribution, which happened for the 1987 election -- before that, but for the 1987 election -- he made all the points you just made and so did most Conservative members, if not all, who were sitting in Parliament at that time.
We're having some difficulty in understanding why it's necessary to go with a made-in-Ottawa solution which is based on the Canadian context. It's based on the context of Canada, on representing rural areas across the entire nation, not just in Ontario. When you do that and look at Prince Edward Island having four seats and the Northwest Territories with about 18,000 people or something having one, the realities in the federal context are obviously different from the realities in a provincial context. We have made a positive suggestion: Do what we've always done in Ontario. Have an election commission appointed, non-partisan, and redraw the boundaries on the basis of what Ontarians believe to be the most appropriate democracy.
One of the conditions would likely be that the north would have some kind of guarantee of the number of seats. Obviously the federal government has reduced the number of northern seats from 11 to 10. What we're looking at in this provincial redistribution is from 15 to 10, and those are the rural seats we've lost. The five seats that are lost are rural Ontario seats. Do you agree with that approach?
Mr Bouliane: I would certainly like to see a commission struck. I think the previous formats that were used, even if they appeared at times to be somewhat lengthy in their deliberations and perhaps questionable at times, in the end, once everyone has had their say and their input, there can't really be very much argument about redrawing the boundaries under those circumstances. If you reach a general consensus among the people who present before a commission or have had deliberations with the commission, even though at times it seems somewhat lengthy, I think you arrive at a much more fair decision. We would like to see a commission struck.
Mr Martin: Thank you very much. You certainly make some interesting observations. I think the package you have put together is quite detailed and speaks to me very clearly of the need for fuller consultation. You put on the table stuff we all have in our background information, but the public out there doesn't necessarily know or understand some of the considerations that, historically, have been taken into account when redistribution happened.
It's like Mr Brown has said: None of us are opposed to looking at this and from time to time rejigging, reworking the way we have representative democracy in this province. But to do it based on what the federal government is doing, who have far wider and different considerations than we would have in Ontario, seems to me to be a whole lot of things, but more than anything something we're doing in haste that we may regret in the not-too- distant future.
You make a point in your presentation that the northern federal members weren't happy with the way the whole thing shook out in the end re the federal distribution. As a matter of fact, when Ms Broad presented this morning she made the point: "Why take the lead from a bad example? Why follow a bad example?"
However, the federal government had the integrity, at least, to set up a commission. That commission, though, had different things to take into account than we would have in Ontario. It's Mr Thalheimer who mentions electoral quotas which speak to making sure that places like PEI and the territories all have adequate and proper representation in the federal House. That's why Ontario is dealt with in a certain way. For us to then be tied into that when we're looking at a completely different jurisdiction and trying to find a way to have proper representation for Ontario doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
What if Sault Ste Marie decided it was going to follow provincial boundaries and only have one, say, mayor? Would that be any more logical or consistent than what's happening here?
Mr Bouliane: I'm looking at percentages. I was looking at the federal reductions in northern Ontario as well as the provincial reductions and I noticed that even though northern Ontario lost a seat federally, it was only a 10% reduction in representation, I believe. It might be a little bit less. With this proposal in front of us it becomes somewhat more; it becomes a 30% or 33% reduction in representation.
Having seen what the federal members for those areas, Chapleau-Timmins and Cochrane-Superior, have had to say about it, they were not very pleased with the outcome. I believe Mr St Denis, the federal member for Algoma, expressed some reservations as well when he had the opportunity to tour the new federal riding. I think he was a little bit taken aback with the sheer size of the area. I would like to see something.
1150
Mr Tascona: Thank you for the presentation today. I'd like to make two comments. With respect to this idea in terms of reducing and streamlining the MPPs' role, certainly Mr Harris, our Premier -- this was taken under consideration in the Common Sense Revolution document with over four years of public consultation. It wasn't his idea. It came from the public.
The second thing I'd like to say in terms of a point is that when your organization was streamlining -- that's what we're doing as a government, we're streamlining -- it certainly decreased the number of business agents throughout this province to adapt to the needs of its constituents. They certainly didn't consider geography when they decided to put out their business agents, because there's far less representation than they ever had, as your organization. So it's interesting, in terms of streamlining, that you'd come here today and offer your comments when basically all we're doing is streamlining and trying to keep the representation in terms of geography and the members we have in terms of population. That's all I'd like to say.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you for your presentation. It seems to me the entire premise of your submission was based on the fact that you believe the process is flawed because it didn't consider those historical considerations that provincial boundaries commissions looked to in the past. I'd just like to read very briefly the mandate of the federal commission that we knew, at the time we made the commitment, was going around the province.
"The commission may depart from the quota where necessary or desirable to respect the community of interest or community of identity or the historical pattern, maintain a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated rural or northern regions of the province...."
They go further than the provincial government ever did. They put some tangible barriers on the upper and lower quotient to prevent gerrymandering, to prevent the situation that exists today where Rainy River only has 19,000 voters, even though it's not very big -- there are seven northern ridings today that are bigger. Al Palladini has 129,000 voters, six and a quarter times the workload. No one that can convince me that Howard Hampton, because he has to drive one and a half hours in each direction from his office, should have one sixth the population of Al Palladini who, by the way, is in a largely rural -- it's a combination rural and urban riding and it's not all that small.
I just want you to know that had we done what Mr Brown is suggesting, we would have been duplicating exactly the terms of reference of the federal government. Some 300 people made submissions, including many people from the north, and if you read through the report, they listened and they responded.
Unless your suggestion is that it doesn't matter if you're close by phone or by car to the MP, that it doesn't matter for CPP issues or employment insurance or gun control or young offenders, that you don't have a reason to contact your MP but magically the MPP is somebody you need to be right next to, then I think it is very appropriate, in the context of exactly the sort of streamlining Mr Tascona talked about, which your organization has gone through, that we look at the incredible cost it would have been to duplicate what the federal government had already done and reflect the fact that they did a good job. They kept within their own guidelines which happen to be, as I say, even more defining than ours and they have come out with something and we're keeping our promise. That's basically the premise of everything behind this bill.
Mr Bouliane: I would like to respond to that, Mr Gilchrist. It's hardly surprising, your response, but I found it somewhat enlightening that Mr Bélair and Mr Thalheimer would take issue with what you've just said. They said it was not done fairly, so you have that coming from the northern members themselves. Unfortunately I realize that the presently sitting government only has one opinion, one sitting member from the north, whereas the Liberals and the NDP certainly have more than that, and they have had the experience of having to deal with things.
From a personal consideration I doubt very much whether people like Bud Wildman would have had the time or opportunity to help us in the restructuring of ASI which, thank God, they had that time and they had that opportunity, and we're saying it's paramount to have this accessibility. When you're talking about the federal ridings you're talking about a totally different area of responsibility. I think the provincial responsibilities are closer to home. They're more bread-and-butter issues. They're not as national in concept as the representatives in the federal Parliament. Their scope is much broader than what the MPPs in Ontario have. You people focus closer to home.
We're saying that in northern Ontario we come to depend on these people for many of our bread-and-butter-type issues.
Mr Gilchrist: Just for the record, neither of the MPs you mentioned voted against the redistribution bill.
Mr Bouliane: They didn't vote against it; I realize that. However, they expressed their grave reservations concerning it.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Bouliane, for coming and making your views known in your presentation today.
We will now recess until 1 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1157 to 1304.
SAULT STE MARIE AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Acting Chair: We're dealing with Bill 81, and our first presenter this afternoon is Mr Eric Greaves of the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council.
Mr Eric Greaves: It is indeed a privilege to participate in the democratic process. I'm very lucky to be here on short notice, because I was quite busy until this morning. I'd like to thank Lynn Mellor for finding me, tracking me down by phone. I really appreciate the lengths to which she went to make sure I was able to be here today. I'd like to thank my local MPP, Tony Martin, and also his constituency office staff, and Bud Wildman also, because his constituency office provided me with a little background information when I asked for it.
I'd also like to express appreciation to the media. Channel 15 in particular is, as you know, the media channel which allows us far-flung citizens of the north to have a look at what's going on in government provincially. We do look at that, we do tune in to see what's going on when we can.
As you noticed from my introduction, I'm a member of labour council, and I've recently been privileged to speak with some people in the OFL who are involved at the moment on a fair tax campaign locally. They provided a kind of sounding board when I was trying to focus myself for this presentation.
Anyway, here we are in Sault Ste Marie looking at the upcoming legislation, the Fewer Politicians Act, 1996. As I understand it, we're talking in terms of eliminating duplication and saving money for the taxpayers of Ontario. This is the kind of issue that certainly appeals to the public in the present mood that has been engendered.
I would like to make a point about the title of the legislation, the Fewer Politicians Act. I know that showed up in the Common Sense Revolution document, and I think most of us can agree that the stereotype is of politicians as perhaps not the most constructive people sometimes, and sometimes members of the public are involved in long and laborious processes the meaning of which is not necessarily easily understood. Probably anyone reading the Common Sense Revolution and coming across the phrase "fewer politicians" would buy right into it, thinking this would be fewer of something that wasn't really that useful, in the public perception. But what seems to be emerging is a pattern whereby there will be fewer NDP politicians as the result of the redistribution of boundaries. That seems to be the target.
I looked at a map put out by the OSSTF and it basically showed with colour coding which ridings are held by which party, and here in the north we do seem to have quite strong representation from the NDP in terms of people we've elected for government.
1310
To cut to the chase -- I guess I'd better do that -- for an MPP representing a riding the size of Algoma, which, as you know, is in size very much like the distance between Windsor and Quebec City, to drive that distance from end to end would take eight or nine hours, that kind of thing, driving rather briskly. For the size of that riding to be enlarged is really something I'd like to take issue with.
Certainly an MPP from an area like Algoma doesn't have time to duplicate efforts. Consensus locally would seem to be that for many years, I think it's 21 years, the public can't get better value for its money. The energy expended in providing representation to an area like Algoma is awesome. The expenditure of energy creates an example of public service which people locally cannot help but admire. People of whatever political affiliation, in normal day-to-day dialogue, do drop their banners once in a while and admit that there's a tremendous job of servicing going on by our local MPPs.
Tony Martin, the local MPP, is very fortunate to have a smaller riding, but again, he's a going concern. His recent re-election in the face of a mood which wouldn't suggest that this was likely, that the NDP had a strong base to refer to, speaks well for the quality of his representation.
Anyway, as a number of people have probably reminded you, the United Nations last year made a point of saying that Canada was the admirable place to live; they talked in terms of quality of life. There was a strong impression put to us through the media that Canada was seen internationally as a wonderful place to be, a wonderful place in terms of productivity, the economy, quality of life, that kind of thing. That's what I understood from the message I was getting from the media.
A lot of things have been changing in the last year, the underpinnings, the strength of our institutions. When we talk in terms of health care, in terms of education, in terms of social programs needed by particular parts of our community, these all do seem to me and to labour council, from my interaction with labour council locally, to be a destructive series of assaults on the quality of our life, on the productivity of our workforce, and really on the hope and the morale which had been a feature of living in Canada, living in Ontario. This is not meant to be adversarial. I'm just expressing my perplexity that we can go, in one year, through this kind of legislation, which in my opinion is designed to save money, but the cost seems to be unacceptable to the public and certainly to people where I work and where I gather to try to understand the events of the day; that's labour council, or my union specifically.
I'd like to comment on six issues. I'm sure other people have touched on the same issues, but I'm not commenting on these because anybody has asked me to do so. I want to make some remarks because I feel it needs to be said.
For example, this particular hearing that we're in, as I understand, would not be taking place except for the strong representations of the very small group of NDP MPPs who are presently in provincial government. It seems to me a fundamental right of citizens to proper representation that when a major change in law, a major change in the way we do business politically, takes place, there should be some kind of hearings. I do not understand for a moment why these hearings do not take place across the province, except I guess that the voices from northern Ontario were louder this time, were more clear, or perhaps they were able to communicate that we feel a need here to be heard.
A second issue: In general, the proposal for fewer politicians, in so far as it changes boundaries and affects access, when you're talking about larger ridings of the population at large to a representative, the effect is to decrease community representation and participation.
I find this odd, because in every large workplace in Ontario that I've come across there's an increasing demand or request or a need is seen for there to be participation, for the full energy of the workforce. The initiative of each individual participant in a workplace is being asked of people in the average workplace. When you get to the bigger picture, it suddenly emerges that somehow or other there's supposed to be a logic to the idea that we can do with fewer representatives. Particularly with this influx of new ideas and new energy from workplaces where the workers, the participants in the workplace, are being asked to put their minds to the issues and to say their piece and to get involved, I really have trouble understanding why less representation would make sense.
You've heard the argument before, I know, but if you look at the Yukon, for example, there's one federal MP from there. If you were to say, "Let's just go for one federal riding per one provincial riding, and we'll just match it up like that," there would then be a Legislative Assembly in the Yukon which would consist of one person. That is stretching it, I know, around here; we're not talking that kind of extreme measure until you look at the political arrangement. Then of course the NDP does seem to be suffering a personal attack here and the people of northern Ontario do seem to be under assault for their political convictions, for their free and democratic choice in elections. That's pretty well all I had to say about that.
My prime point is that I consider that this piece of legislation is a fundamental blow at what I understand to be democracy. I have this feeling, a sense, a belief, that this is a step towards wiping out democracy. Certainly it will diminish democracy as I understand it. I would define democracy as a system of government for the whole population through elected representation. I feel this system that we have evolved over many times -- the last redistribution of boundaries I understand was proudly presented to the public through public hearings by a then Conservative government, Mr Bill Davis. This process, as I understand it, is quite different.
1320
In terms of local and regional issues that are more specific to this area, representation specifically to the north will be cut. We will lose members, and the thought did occur to me that this might be an attempt to reduce the visibility of the north, to make the north be quiet, to hush up the north. But I'm sure there must be other, more complicated issues that you might explain to me in the response part of this session.
The Acting Chair: You have three minutes left.
Mr Greaves: In the whole 20-minute session? I didn't do that deliberately. My timepiece seems to be keeping political time.
Local issues: Basically in the north my impression is that the Tories are cutting northern Ontario's representation to reduce their visibility in the media and to reduce their influence on improvements of quality in the government. The provincial programs, as you well know, which include health care -- hospitals and clinics and district health centres -- education, school boards, transportation, highways, road maintenance, social services, these kinds of programs put a workload on provincial MPPs which isn't there for federal MPs. This is why there has to be the higher level of contact between provincial MPPs and the public.
Basically, as a sort of final thrust here, the service that government offers across the board, federally and provincially, is being cut. The government is being downsized. Service to a community like ours is less. The onus then falls on the constituency office of the MPP. That's what's there, and there is an increased demand for those services. I can't see that reducing members is going to be an effective way of meeting this increased need.
Thank you. I apologize for taking that much time.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Greaves, for coming in today and making your views known, and we're right at the end of the 20 minutes.
ANDY MARTENS
The Acting Chair: Our next presenter is Mr Martens.
Mr Sergio: Any relation to Tony Martin?
Mr Andy Martens: No, no.
The Acting Chair: Mr Martens, you have 20 minutes to utilize as you see fit.
Mr Martens: Thank you for allowing me this afternoon to address the committee on Bill 81, the Fewer Politicians Act. I'd like to thank Lou Turco, the president of the Progressive Conservative riding association of Sault Ste Marie, for providing me with this opportunity. I think it's great experience to be able to do this kind of thing. This afternoon I will be speaking in favour of this bill. I believe that it's a stepping stone, that Mike Harris is really showing that leadership begins at the top.
This is a move I welcome, as this brings Ontario in line with the new federal riding boundaries, a move which will save the people of Ontario $11 million by coordinating election efforts with Elections Canada.
This bill has been criticized by residents of northern Ontario who say it will leave the north underrepresented. I disagree. In fact, the Fewer Politicians Act will actually give northern Ontario two more ridings than it would normally have under a pure representation by population system.
This indeed is a bold move, but it will not only affect the Liberals and NDP but the government members as well. The opposition must have thought Mike Harris was bluffing when this promise was documented in the Common Sense Revolution and mentioned again in the 1995 election campaign. How can Mike Harris and members of the government expect to do more with less if leadership by example isn't shown at the top, namely, Queen's Park? I believe that, as Mike Harris says, the province should demand the same value for its money from its politicians that it asks of civil servants, doctors and others.
Some arguments against this bill are that it may be harder for people to get through to their MPPs. I don't buy that. Fax machines, cellular phones and the technology is here, as well as the information highway with computers, and it is here for us to use to receive and to obtain information.
Mike Harris promised the voters in the 1995 election that when he was elected Premier he would cut the size and cost of the Legislature. This bill I feel is another example that this Premier has brought honesty back into politics by doing exactly what he said he would do.
All I seem to hear these days is northern Ontario members constantly complaining how large their ridings will be after this bill is passed. I have no other conclusions to draw, but I figure the federal MPs must be superhuman politicians. In my opinion, nobody in the 1990s job market is irreplaceable. I believe that under this bill, the reduction of seats is fair. Northern Ontario will lose five seats; Metro Toronto will lose eight; eastern Ontario, six; western Ontario, six; and from Niagara to the suburbs of Toronto, two seats.
As I mentioned earlier, Bill 81 will do a number of key things. It will save the government $11 million, it will show leadership and honesty in politics, and it cuts government costs, which other parties in power over the last 10 years have failed to do.
I agree with Mike Harris when he spoke to the Legislature on October 1: "Everyone must and will share in our common struggle as a province and a people to balance our books once and for all. This step...means that restraint will be shouldered from the highest levels of Queen's Park on down. This is only right and it's only fair. It is leadership by example."
Bill 81, in my opinion, will improve the quality of candidates that the people of Ontario will have to choose from in the next election.
I agree with the Premier and other Ontarians that government at every level has become too big, too cumbersome, too costly and too unresponsive to the needs and aspirations of taxpayers. We have accumulated extra politicians, administrators and civil servants over a long period of time. This, as the Premier addressed the House, was an era in which the answer to each of society's problems seemed to be to add more programs, spend more money, build more buildings and put people behind desks. Creating more bureaucracy and spending money have not, in my opinion, solved the problems of Ontario.
1330
Now I'd like to bring out some facts to back up what I just finished mentioning, what other people are saying about the Fewer Politicians Act.
"Occasionally, one of our many governments does the right thing. In early October, Harris followed through on his election pledge to reduce the number of MPPs sitting in the Ontario Legislature." That is from the Ontario Taxpayers Federation, Let's Talk Taxes, October 18, 1996.
"Since assuming office, Harris has done more than any Ontario Premier before him in providing `leadership by example,' first by scrapping the MPPs' gold-plated pension plan and tax-free allowances and now by reducing the number of MPPs." That's again the Ontario Taxpayers Federation, Let's Talk Taxes, October 18, 1996.
"We all must hang tough in favour of this useful change because what we need in Canada is fewer politicians, not more, and what we have just got is only a good start.
"What we need is many more trucks driving off into the sunset with the unneeded chairs of mayors, councillors, trustees and a bloat of bureaucrats. We are suffocating under politicians." That was from a Toronto Sun editorial of October 4, 1996.
"The Conservative government is right to reduce the number of seats in the provincial Legislature (from 130 to 103) and to make the boundaries coterminous" -- similar, identical -- "with federal ridings.... This is one Tory move that needs to be applauded, not attacked." This was from a Liberal newspaper, I might add, a Toronto Star editorial of October 7, 1996.
"There is a move afoot by the opposition and some media to portray this as a heinous Tory plot to do away with the other two parties by rigging the riding boundaries.
"In fact, what the Tories are doing is restoring proportional representation to the province....
"The new boundaries were set by a federal commission and are based, quite simply, not on who's going to gain seats but on one of the fundamental principles of democracy -- that each person's vote counts for more or less the same as another person's in the same jurisdiction." That was from Christina Blizzard, a columnist of the Toronto Sun, October 2, 1996.
Next I'd like to get into some other facts to illustrate just what this government has done compared to what's happened in the last 10 years in the issues and area of jobs and growth.
The Liberal and NDP failures: The NDP policies discouraged business investment, to cost Ontario countless thousands of jobs and stifled growth and opportunity. The impact on you was a discouraging future for our children, no opportunity and no choice.
Meanwhile Mike Harris: initiatives to create a positive job climate, including a cut in personal income tax rates, restoring the balance in labour laws and freezing hydro rates. The benefit of that was a future of opportunity you can look forward to, and already there have been 100,000 new jobs created.
Under the NDP and the Liberals, the unemployment rate went from 6.3% in 1990 to 9.6% in 1994. There were 66,000 fewer people working. The impact on the voter was simple: difficult to find and keep a secure job and plan for the future.
Since June 1995, 100,000 new net jobs have been created in the province of Ontario. Despite a setback last September, Ontario gained 45,000 new jobs in the third quarter, July to September. This is the strongest quarterly growth in over two years, and it's a simple benefit: jobs, hope, growth and opportunity.
Next I'd like to deal with the biggest pet peeve I have as an individual of Sault Ste Marie, and that's the deficit. Under the NDP and Liberal governments in the last 10 years, the budgetary deficit in 1994-95 was $10.3 billion.
As a personal aside, how can that kind of figure offer any future? I have two young children, six and four. This has to be one of the most important factors of why I'm involved in this whole process, to make a difference.
The deficit was $10.3 billion for 1994-95, up from $3 billion in 1990-91. The NDP never met a deficit target set in any of their budgets during their five-year mandate, and the Liberals claimed falsely that they had a balanced budget in 1990-91.
The impact on me and on everybody in this room was a government that stifled the economy instead of stimulating it; programs became unaffordable.
As of June 30, the deficit for 1996-97 was projected to be $8.178 billion, down $2 million from the budgetary plan released in May.
Now you have the Mike Harris government: The Provincial Auditor has confirmed that the deficit for 1995-96 was $8.72 billion, $372 million less than was estimated in May.
The benefit is simple: Government is doing better for less, setting priorities and creating a climate for investment confidence.
The Acting Chair: Two minutes, Mr Martens.
Mr Martens: Just to wrap up quickly, it's simple, the jobs speak for themselves: April 1996, Magna International, 1,000 new jobs; September 12, 1996, the Bank of Montreal, 200 new jobs, and the list goes on and on and on; September 17, 1996, London Life Insurance, another 100 new jobs; September 20, 1996, 1,000 new jobs at American Express.
In conclusion, I would like to say on a personal note that I've lived up here in the north for six years, and I think I'm qualified to speak on the north. Yes, I have spent three quarters of my life living in southern Ontario, but the issues -- there are many, but as I mentioned before, the main reason I'm here and I want to make a difference in this process is because I have children who are six years old and four years old. Thank God for a person like Mike Harris, who brings honesty back into politics and is doing what he said.
On another personal note, just to wrap up, I moved up here in 1990 with the Ontario Lottery Corp. Media reports as of this morning indicate that privatization could lose some jobs for the lottery corporation, but I'm not going to jump off the bandwagon for Mike Harris. I have a lot at stake because both my wife and I work for the lottery corporation, and I still think Mike Harris is doing the right thing for the future of this province.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Martens, for appearing before the committee today.
1340
LOU TURCO
The Acting Chair: Our next deputant will be Lou Turco. Since Frank Klein came in this morning, we'll just move one person up. Mr Turco, you have 20 minutes in which to make your views known.
Mr Lou Turco: I appreciate the opportunity to be present here today to speak on the Fewer Politicians Act. My name is Louis Domenic Turco, although most people in our community know me as Lou Turco. I am proud to say that I'm from the north and even prouder to say that I am from the city of Sault Ste Marie.
I have been a resident of Sault Ste Marie since 1956. As a child, I remember arriving in North America from Italy -- and I'm sure Mr Sergio can relate to this story, as can Mr Martens. I came from Italy with my mother, brother and sister, landing in New York City by boat, of all things.
To say it was a culture shock would be an understatement. Arriving in a strange land not being to able to speak or understand a new language was indeed a frightening experience. I can vividly recall being herded as a group into what I now know was Grand Central Station and having to wait until it was time to board a train to our promised land. It wasn't until many long hours later and train changes that I recall looking out my window and glancing at the massive landscape and miles and miles of trees and little sign of life.
I also recall stopping in what I learned later in life to be the town of Sudbury and people leaving the train car we were in. It was yet another frightening experience, not being able to ask questions and not being able to understand. The only words we could utter to the conductor were "Salt Ste Marie," at which time he nodded and reaffirmed that we were on the right train, much to our relief.
It was several hours later that we arrived in "Salt Ste Marie," where my father who had been in Canada for two years was anxiously awaiting for our arrival. His 1949 Pontiac looked like a Cadillac to us. It was just like yesterday.
Looking back now with fond memories, I remember our longing for our homeland and waiting to go back to Italy before we even stepped off the train. We were wondering what we were doing in this big country with its forests, huge lakes and sparsely populated areas.
Well, here it is, November 1996, and it is an honour to be living in northern Ontario. The family has grown a bit from a handful of names in the phone book in 1956 to 40 Turcos listed to date. My family and relatives have lived, worked and played in northern Ontario since arriving from the old country, and all of them have and are giving back to this great land.
Both my mother and father worked at the lumber mill in Sault Ste Marie on Peoples Road, known as Rodiss Veneer for many, many years.
And do you recall that brother and sister who came with me from Italy? Well, my brother Mario is currently a superintendent with the board of education and my sister is a French teacher with the board. Her husband is a high school principal for the Central Algoma Board of Education and my brother's wife is also a teacher in the adult education program. I also have a younger brother born in Canada in 1958 -- he was our Christmas present -- and he is a college professor. You wonder what happened to me.
What's my point? I just wanted you to know that all my family members and relations and myself are very appreciative and honoured to make this country and, in particular, northern Ontario our home.
I come from a broadcasting career, and the industry has been very good to me from my early years to my adult years, although the word "restructuring" has not escaped the broadcasting industry either, which made me part of the process, as well as causing my wife and I personal hardships and sacrifice in the last few years. But as Dr Schuller says in one of the most popular books of all time, "Tough times never last, but tough people do," and "Everything happens for a reason."
When I thought, what else could happen in my life, along came the election of 1995. I have always been interested in politics, although other than putting my name up for school patrol captain and a mock election in grade 8, which I lost, and the French club presidency in high school, I have never really considered other political opportunities even though I was honoured to have been asked to have my name stand for a position with the separate school board of trustees and have even been approached to run for mayor, of all things. It was a quick "Thank you, but no thanks." I loved what I was doing very much, and I still do.
One of my favourite books is The Celestine Prophecy. In late 1994 I began to read with interest this James Redfield classic. It's a great book about experiencing life and one which I could not put down. I highly recommend it. What really got me interested in this book were the comments on the inside cover, which state, in the form of a question: "Are three decades of interest in modern physics, ecology, mystical religion and interpersonal psychology finally synthesizing into a new spiritual common sense? Can it become the dominant paradigm of the next century and the new millennium?" I'm not here to promote the book -- it did well without my help -- but it had a profound effect on some of the decisions I have made in the last few years.
In January 1995 I was asked if I would be interested in having my name stand at the upcoming nomination meeting to run as a candidate in the soon-to-be-called provincial election. If that question had been asked a few years earlier, I would have said, "No, but thank you for asking anyway." But after several discussions with my wife, I made a decision to accept this honour that was bestowed upon me and took up the challenge, as many of us in this room have.
Before the nomination meeting, we made a decision to learn everything there was to know about the publicized document the Common Sense Revolution. I wanted to know everything about the plans and objectives and election promises that were outlined in the CSR. We called Mr Harris's office in North Bay and set up a meeting with him to learn more about the CSR. It was on my way to North Bay with my wife that I can recall her reading to me from cover to cover the Common Sense Revolution. The same thing happened on our return trip to Sault Ste Marie, another five hours. Some of my family members find it hard to believe to this day that I never said a word for 10 hours. I let my wife do the talking; I still do.
It was just after this trip that both of us made the decision to go with it and pursue the opportunity to represent our city and province. I was convinced that the Common Sense Revolution in effect would work. Over the past few years, people all over Ontario and, yes, northern Ontario have sent strong messages to their politicians, going back even into the mid-1980s, that government as we know it today isn't working any more. This was certainly confirmed in the election of 1990, as we all know, in the dramatic defeat of the government in power; it was sent in the referendum campaign in 1992 and once again in the past federal election.
I have had the opportunity, as did current government members, to talk to people in malls, coffee shops, social gatherings, living rooms, hockey arenas. People gave us the same message: Government has to change the way it runs the province.
All of us in this room, including yours truly as well as many Saultites, business people and industry, to name but a few, have had to make many personal changes not only in the workplace but also in the home. It's time government makes the same changes we have all experienced in our personal lives. We're not talking about tinkering, about incremental changes or about short-term solutions.
Mr Sergio, we have an old Italian saying that goes, "Il pesce puzza del capo": The fish smells from the head, or, loosely translated, everything starts at the top. Government has to lead by example by starting at the top. Voters are saying there are too many politicians. Less government was one of the promises I campaigned on. This Bill 81 is not something that was just thought up recently. I and all of my fellow candidates around the province were fully aware that a Mike Harris government would keep this well-documented promise.
1350
If I may refer to page 8 of the Common Sense Revolution, "Finding the Savings" -- by the way, I happen to have a few extra copies here today of the Common Sense Revolution if anybody needs a copy. You have yours? I quote from the "Finding the Savings" category:
"Consensus among Ontarians is that there is plenty of fat to be cut, and many ways that government can reduce its spending without affecting priority services.
"Here are the savings we've found so far....
"Fewer Politicians
"You have told us we have too many politicians. Under this plan, we will reduce the number of MPPs, from 130 to 99, simply by using the same boundaries we use to elect federal MPs. We will enter into discussions with the federal government to ensure the new boundaries are fair.
"Not only does each politician draw a salary and an expense allowance, but we must also pay for their office staff at Queen's Park and in their riding. Cutting the number of MPPs by 24% will set an example of cost cutting to be followed by all levels of government and all departments and ministries.
"As well, we will end the sweet deals politicians have created for themselves. Under this plan, MPPs' pensions will be abolished and replaced with an RRSP contribution program similar to those used by other professionals in Ontario. The tax-free benefits paid to politicians will also be abolished. They will be paid a straight salary, just like ordinary Ontarians.
"These measures will save Ontario taxpayers another $1.1 million." Actually, the total savings will be, as you heard today, $11 million.
This government is now moving forward on another key promise in the Common Sense Revolution by cutting the number of politicians. The new 103 ridings, a cut of more than 20%, will be the same ones, as promised, as the ones used to elect federal MPs, and the change will be in place for the next provincial election.
The Fewer Politicians Act proves once again that this government is not afraid to make tough decisions, including ones which will impact directly on the current members of the Legislature. Ontarians believe there are too many politicians. Two years ago our party promised in the Common Sense Revolution to cut the number of MPPs to match the number of MPs we send to Ottawa. I campaigned on this issue. All our candidates campaigned on this issue. This government is following through on its promise.
This government is leading by example. I referred to the fact that the government has already abolished MPPs' pensions and ended tax-free allowances. Reducing the number of MPPs by 20% will set an example of cost cutting for other levels of government, as well as agencies and ministries, to follow. This reduction will serve as an example for our municipal politicians.
Just recently, the city of Sault Ste Marie sent out a survey seeking the residents' opinions on how we can find savings in Sault Ste Marie. Of the surveys received, some Sault Ste Marie voters even suggested and wrote in that we have too many politicians municipally and that there should be a reduction.
The Fewer Politicians Act will save money. After the next election there will be 27 fewer MPPs. That means taxpayers like you and I will not have to pay for their salaries, expenses and staff.
Cooperation with Elections Canada could also result in substantial savings in areas of election staffing, enumeration, mapping and administration. Finally, adopting the boundaries which were recently set out by the federal commission means that Ontario will save the cost of holding its own redistribution commission.
This government recognizes the uniqueness of northern Ontario, and thus the Fewer Politicians Act appreciates and recognizes that northern Ontario is very unique. While a vote should be worth as much in one riding as it is in another, there is still a need for special provision for the north to compensate for our immense size and dispersed population. As I alluded to earlier, northern Ontario ridings will have a smaller population. Under this plan, northern Ontario has been allotted two more ridings than it would have under a pure representation-by-population system.
Although Liberal leader Lyn McLeod has said she believes Ontario needs more politicians at Queen's Park than it has in Ottawa, I personally agree with Mr Harris that the province can be served quite effectively with 103 women and men in the Legislature.
I have been asked a few questions about the redistribution plan around the city, and I would like to share some of these questions and responses. One of the questions is, "Why is your party doing this to the north when it's underrepresented?" My response is that I can only say that no region in Ontario will go underrepresented. Representation is based on population, but even so, the north will continue to have ridings with smaller populations even after the changes are made.
Another: "The opposition parties say some of the new boundaries create ridings in the north that are so large they cannot be adequately serviced and that provincial politicians already have more work than their federal counterparts. Algoma is one of those examples." I'm sorry, but I personally cannot buy the argument, with all due respect, from the Liberals or the NDP. They both support more government, more spending, higher taxes, more debt, more deficit. How is it that the federal MPs, all of whom are Liberals, can handle their ridings? If the provincial Liberals and the NDP are unable to handle their ridings under the new plan, I can give you a list of provincial Tories lining up to do the job, and include me in that list.
I've heard that some of your own members are angry that they will be losing their ridings under the new redistribution plan. Every sitting member on the government side was and is aware that once the Mike Harris government was in place at Queen's Park, the Fewer Politicians Act would be introduced. These members campaigned on less government in the Common Sense Revolution and won on that campaign.
Here's one of the favourite questions that I hear fairly often: "Isn't this just politics, reducing the number of MPPs in northern areas where the Tories are not at their strongest at this time?" Well, Premier Harris didn't set the boundaries, federal Liberal leader Jean Chrétien did, and I doubt very much that Mr Chrétien wants to help Ontario's Tory government in any way.
I would like to make the point that I made earlier, especially growing up in my Italian household, Mr Sergio: We have learned to do better with less, and now it's the turn of all the politicians to live by the same standards that we are expecting all Ontarians to live by. It only makes common sense. Other provinces appear to be following suit. I refer to the last Newfoundland budget where the Liberal government made a commitment to reduce the number of members in the Legislative Assembly.
I have been following this subject closely on the provincial legislative channel, in newspapers and magazines, and on the radio and TV news. It is good to see that even the Toronto Star -- yes, the Toronto Star -- has this to say in the October 7 editorial: "The Conservative government is right to reduce the number of seats in the provincial Legislature (from 130 to 103) and to make the boundaries coterminous with the federal ridings.... This is one Tory move that needs to be applauded, not attacked."
The Acting Chair: You have three minutes left, Mr Turco.
Mr Turco: The Toronto Sun's Christina Blizzard said in an October 2 column: "There is a move afoot by the opposition and some media to portray this as a heinous Tory plot to do away with the other two parties by rigging the riding boundaries.
"In fact what the Tories are doing is restoring proportional representation to the province."
I'm not going to read the whole article but it also says: "The new boundaries were set by a federal commission and are based, quite simply, not on who's going to gain seats, but on one of the fundamental principles of democracy -- that each person's vote counts for more or less the same as another person's in the same jurisdiction."
I must admit that I searched through the newspaper archives for some quotes applauding the Fewer Politicians Act from our local MPPs but, sad to say, I wasn't very successful. But I would like to quote the October 4 Toronto Sun editorial which sums up my personal feelings on this bill:
"But we all must hang tough in favour of this useful change because what we need in Canada is fewer politicians, not more, and what we have just got is only a good start.
"What we need is many more trucks driving off into the sunset with the unneeded chairs of mayors, councillors, trustees and a bloat of bureaucrats."
To summarize, although I was not personally successful on June 8, 1995, it was gratifying to see that common sense is alive and well in this province. For me, the experience of being able to serve my city and province was a very positive one which I will not soon forget. After being called a broadcaster for over 30 years, it was quite an overnight transformation to that of a politician. And yes, all politicians are not bad, as we have some fine outstanding women and men on both sides of the House, many of whom I have had the pleasure of meeting.
During the stint as a campaigner, I heard repeatedly that we are the most governed people in the world. Adding more politicians, creating more bureaucracy and spending more money has not solved our problems as a province. Rather, these costs have added to our debt load, and if they are allowed to continue to mount, the debt will be passed on to our children and grandchildren.
I am very pleased and support fully that the government has taken another step to reduce the size and cost of government and to do better for less. Believe me when I say that I know from experience what it's like to do a lot more for a lot less. I hope I have given you a different slant on the subject as a past candidate and a northerner, and I'm confident that whatever the outcome in the next provincial election, we will all be fairly and properly represented at Queen's Park.
I want to leave you with a short story that some of you may have heard before. It relates to a father and his young son. The boy was restless and the father wanted to watch the Saturday afternoon football game with some degree of peace and quiet. In order to occupy the youngster, he took a map of the world and tore it up into several pieces, thinking this would keep the boy busy for some time. Much to his surprise, the young lad returned in a relatively short period with the task accomplished. The dad asked how he had been able to do it so quickly. The boy replied: "Well, it was easy, Dad. You see, on the back of the map there was a photograph of a person. I got the person right and that made the world right."
I would paraphrase this story just a bit: If all of us, you and I and many others, concern ourselves with and work towards good government and service to our fellow man, then we stand a much better chance of getting the world right.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Turco, for presenting your views to the committee today.
Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, could I ask our researcher to give us some information? I have a question I need answered. It arises out of a couple of presentations that have been made today. I'll use Mr Turco's as an example. He said the provincial government would enter into discussions with the federal government on the new boundaries to make certain they are fair.
I would like to get some clarification of what discussions took place between the provincial and federal governments on that score, particularly since a number of presenters, including Mr Turco, said at the same time that Premier Harris didn't set the boundaries, that federal Liberal leader Jean Chrétien did. Those two statements seem a little bit contradictory. I would like to get some clarification.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. So noted and so instructed to our researcher.
Mr Michael Brown: Mr Chair, further information: I was wondering if the researcher could give us the number of federal seats in Newfoundland and information regarding the number of seats that Legislature will now be.
Mr Glenn: After redistribution.
Mr Michael Brown: Yes, after redistribution.
Mr Wildman: Are they mirrored in the federal boundaries so that there are only seven members in the Newfoundland Legislature?
Mr Glenn: I believe it's a reduction by five, but I'll get the information.
The Acting Chair: So noted.
1400
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, SAULT STE
MARIE
SAULT STE MARIE WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
The Acting Chair: Our next presenter is Ms Gayle Manley of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation and the Sault Ste Marie Women Teachers' Association. Ms Manley, would you like to proceed, and please introduce your cohort.
Ms Gayle Manley: Thank you very much for allowing us to present at this hearing. I'd like to introduce Michael Patriquin, who is the president of the local Sault Ste Marie Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation. I'm the president of the Sault Ste Marie Women Teachers' Federation.
We appreciate the opportunity to speak at this hearing and present our views on the redistribution plan as outlined in Bill 81, briefly coined as the Fewer Politicians Act. As teachers we know the importance of consultation and meeting the needs of all those concerned in any issue.
In the title of Bill 81 there's an underlying premise that less is better, in particular politicians. This feeds into, in my mind, a Reform Party tenet that less government is better. However, less does not mean better. Fewer means less access, less accountability and a loss of democracy for many citizens in Ontario. In northern Ontario we do not feel that fewer politicians are better. Our representatives have served us well. Northern Ontario needs to maintain all present representatives in order to maintain our voice in the government of Ontario.
At this point I'd like to address some of the history, as I understand it, around redistribution. Tradition has been that after each census the province has looked at the redistribution of riding boundaries. An independent commission was usually set up to look at this. It's interesting that originally the present government was prepared to bypass tradition and public consultation by not holding hearings on this particular piece of legislation.
To allow public input into the running of government is an important part of democracy and should not happen only every four or five years at election time. We appreciate, therefore, that today's hearing has been allowed to take place. We are, however, concerned that this government is determined to go through with changes no matter what feedback is given to the contrary. This has been our experience to date on a number of educational issues.
In 1983 the terms of reference set by the Legislature in the process to examine redistribution guaranteed the north 15 seats. In 1992 a private member's bill, introduced by a Conservative member concerned about rural representation, was passed proposing to limit the geographic area of constituencies in Ontario to reflect the "varying conditions, circumstances and requirements regarding representation as between rural and electoral districts." This 1992 resolution was introduced by Mr Noble Villeneuve, the present Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The concern to maintain a rural and northern voice in the Ontario Legislature was important in the past and is just as vital today. Is this issue no longer important to the Honourable Mr Villeneuve?
Why are federal ridings even being considered as a model for provincial ridings? The job description of a federal MP is quite different, as all of you who are present know, from that of a provincial MPP. The concerns of a provincial MPP are oriented to service constituents within a local concept. The Sault Ste Marie representative must look after a variety of areas, including health care, education, social services, transportation, consumer relations, all issues that impact on daily life in the Sault. While the federal MP deals with some of the same issues as a provincial MPP, the scope is more general in nature.
If one makes comparisons with other provinces, one can easily see that provinces like Saskatchewan, with a similar population to that of northern Ontario, or Newfoundland, with half the population of northern Ontario, have more seats than northern Ontario even though the area covered is considerably smaller.
Geography must be a factor in looking at the redistribution of ridings. In the proposed riding of Algoma-Manitoulin the distance from Manitoulin Island to Manitouwadge in the north end is approximately 480 kilometres. From Timmins to Peawanuck in the riding of Timmins-James Bay is 760 kilometres. For our electoral representatives to service areas of this size, it would demand more time than is allotted for work in the riding weekly. A southern Ontario MPP has the advantage of being able to live close to home, meet the daily requirements of work at the Legislature, attend meetings in his or her riding at relatively little cost during the week and have a life at home. This is not the reality for MPPs in the north. To increase the size of ridings would increase their workload and make it harder for northern constituents to contact the member they have elected on issues that affect their communities and families.
Transportation in the north offers a number of challenges to its citizens. It's quite different from southern Ontario. Access to all parts of northern Ontario may require a variety of modes of transportation, including flying into remote areas. Cutbacks in highway snow cleanup make travel in the winter more risky for our MPPs. Cutbacks in the airline business often mean lack of access in and out of certain northern cities on weekends. In northern Ontario we enjoy the uniqueness of our geography. However, this very uniqueness will put our MPPs at a disadvantage when they must address the needs of constituents over the vast distances proposed by these new boundaries.
As educators we are aware of the importance of being accountable for our programming to our parents, boards of education, the ministry, the public, and of course to our students. This was certainly the intention of setting up the College of Teachers, although one elementary representative for all northern Ontario on the governing council of the College of Teachers parallels the loss of northern representation in Bill 81. Accountability is of great concern to the present government, as it should be, as they claim they are fulfilling the promises of the Common Sense Revolution. However, it is clear that increasing the size of ridings and decreasing the number of elected representatives will lessen the ability of government to be accountable to the people of Ontario. It is more likely to increase problems rather than make government more efficient.
We teach our students that democracy comes from the Greek words meaning "government by the people." Every student knows the importance of having the right to vote and a say in the governance of Ontario. "Democracy may be simply defined as the people in action," said Henry Wise Wood, a leader in the farm movement of the 1920s and 1930s. By decreasing the number of electoral ridings in Ontario, the voices of the people are denied. The citizens of northern Ontario, with its diversity and vast area, will not be adequately represented. Democracy will be denied. Oligarchy, rule by a few, will be the norm.
1410
This is an equity issue not easily understood by a government which repeals laws in place to enact employment equity and affirmative action. In this Ontario everyone must have a voice, not just the industrialized, highly populated areas. In the organization of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario we have addressed the need to represent the concerns of all areas equitably through regional representation. Northern Ontario, in our federation, is split into two regions, and of the six regions in Ontario there are the same number of directors from each region on the executive of this organization of 41,000 teachers. Equitable representation must also be a part of the provincial Legislature.
Where is the evidence that would suggest it is a wise decision to cut the number of MPPs at this time? Most indications suggest that the quality of representation experienced by the electorate will be greatly reduced as the role of the MPPs continually increases with federal downloading. Is there any evidence to suggest that geography, demographics and regionalism not be taken into account along with representation by population, as has been done in the past, when determining boundaries?
To summarize, the present government needs to reconsider the reduction of the number of electoral ridings as proposed in Bill 81 for these reasons, and I reiterate:
(1) The use of federal ridings is inappropriate for the duties of provincial MPPS.
(2) Geography must be taken into account.
(3) Constituents will find it more difficult to access their elected representative.
(4) Past practice should be honoured.
(5) Accountability will be lost.
(6) Equity and fairness should be considered for rural and northern Ontario.
(7) Democracy will be denied if the proposed legislation is passed.
Mr Martin: Thank you very much. That was indeed a fulsome presentation with lots of really interesting issues raised. It points to my major concern in this whole exercise, which is the process we're going through to get where we want to go. I don't think anybody would disagree that redistribution from time to time, considering all the things you have laid out here, is an essential and healthy part of evaluating and making assessment on whether we're being properly represented.
They do this in a two-month period of time, rushing it through so that people don't have the time, as some folks have said today and in other places, to prepare a good presentation and enter into real dialogue about it and not have a hands-off commission look at this as well in the context of Ontario, as opposed to picking this federally designated conglomeration to serve us.
You raised one issue that was raised this morning that hadn't been raised in the two days I've been here that I think is an important one, and some may not see it. It's the question of how we use our politicians, the fact of politicians having a life, and my feeling that if a politician doesn't have a life, he or she is not a healthy politician.
Right now just in this jurisdiction I don't have the distance to go and I sometimes wonder if I have a life. My wife wonders if I care about her and my kids because I'm not home very often. I can only imagine the stress on people like Mike and Bud who have the distances to travel that they do. We're putting a strain on politicians. You can say, "Well, if you don't want to do it, then give it to somebody else who does." That's just an easy answer to a very complex situation. I think we're better served if we have politicians who have balance in their life and can serve in that way. I would just like your comment on that.
Ms Manley: I know in my own way I'm a bit of a politician too in the job I do, more so in the last two years perhaps than I ever thought this job would entail. It's critical that the balance is there. I certainly don't cover the distances you and Bud do, but it's vital that you have that balance in your life with a variety of things, so you need your family. There's nothing better than to go home and have your daughter say, "I'm really glad you're home." That makes you go on for the next day. I am sure all the members who are sitting in here probably have the same sense when they go home on the weekends of how nice it is to do so.
Mr Martin: I also think you make better decisions as a politician when you're healthy and rested and have the time to do the kind of research you need in dealing with some of these very complicated issues that come at us. Under Bill 81, in my mind, we will be stretched to the point where that won't be the case any more, even though as it is now sometimes it isn't.
Ms Manley: I noticed just from listening to former presentations -- I haven't been here that long, but there seems to be this perception by some presenters that the protest is wanting more politicians. That really isn't the case. Maintaining what we have now certainly in northern Ontario is what we would like. I don't know whether my cohort here wants to address your point, Mr Martin, on that.
Mr Michael Patriquin: No, but I'd just like to take this opportunity, if you don't mind, to ask Mr Hastings -- and it's not with any lack of respect for you, sir -- I'm just wondering about the process here. After this hearing is heard or your series of hearings is gone through, what's the next step for this group of MPPs?
The Acting Chair: The committee will be going to Timmins tomorrow. When the material is accumulated, it'll be analysed by the various caucuses, I suppose, and amendments will be introduced.
Mr Patriquin: There is a certain feeling out there, and I am sure you must be aware of it, that these hearings are a sham, that the government's mind is already made up, that this thing is going through, that this is probably a waste of time on everybody's behalf. I don't mean to hurt anybody's feelings by saying what I'm saying.
It's sad to see government making the decisions they're making, and it's not just in this area. It's in reference to the Paroian report as well, where time after time at hearings people, good citizens of Ontario, take their time to make it here, to make presentations and, weeks after the presentations are made or a month after the presentations are made, the reports are written, decisions are made and there doesn't seem to be a lot of input that has been realized as a result of these many, many presentations that have been made in northern Ontario as well as southern Ontario. Can you comment on that?
The Acting Chair: We are into questions from members of the committee and rather than my responding to your concern, I thought I was being more than generous in allowing you to continue on this vein. We'll get you a response, and I am sure that members of the caucuses can respond to your outline of what you presented to us. What I would like to do is to continue with the questions, because Ms Manley did not indicate that she wanted you to speak, except in terms of Mr Martin's queries, and Mr Martin has now had his three minutes.
Mr Patriquin: My name is on the front of the presentation, sir.
The Acting Chair: I know it is.
Mr Wildman: The proof is in the pudding. If there are any amendments to the bill, you'll see that the input had some effect. If there aren't, then you'll see, you'll know.
Mr Young: Whose time is it, Mr Chairman?
The Acting Chair: Well, let me tell you. The NDP have had their four minutes. Mr Hardeman.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you for your presentation. Just a couple of questions: We've heard quite a number of presentations yesterday and today concerning the distances in the north and the impact of an MPP having to travel a lot more. Part of your presentation deals with the quality of life for the MPP in the north in comparison to an MPP in southern Ontario.
Many presenters have told me as a member from southern Ontario, "I don't understand the north," and that's why we have this problem. Yet I find it interesting when you suggest that if you are a member in southern Ontario, in fact you can do your work at Queen's Park and you can attend events in the evening in your riding and you can spend your time at home with your family. I want to tell you that may be true for people in the GTA, but the problem of distances and being away from one's home, again I have to assume that some people in northern Ontario don't understand all of southern Ontario. We in rural Ontario have those same problems as it relates to travel.
1420
Mr Wildman: Ernie, that's why we're trying to defend the rural ridings that are being eliminated.
Mr Hardeman: I just wanted to point that out. Recognizing that our electoral system is based on some form or as closely as we can to representation by population and recognizing that the proposal in Bill 81 makes some consideration for the fact that northern Ontario is sparsely populated -- they allow it to vary on a percentage basis -- would you have any idea or could you give us your comments on what you think would be a fair distribution?
Accepting that I think all three parties have said that the status quo isn't necessarily right, we do need to look at change in representation and stick to some form of representation by population, the people in the densely populated areas feel they're not being fairly represented because of their population. Do you have any idea what percentage of variance should be allowed for northern Ontario?
Ms Manley: I wouldn't say that I personally had studied very much of that. I know what happens in my own organization where we have a board of directors that has an equitable representation. Then when it comes to annual meetings, we use the rep by pop there to move our motions or our business.
I think you have to take into consideration some of the problems. Obviously, if you're from a rural riding, you must have a sense too that even though you have small numbers, your distance -- it's almost like you have to have a waiting factor in some form, and to be honest, I am not quite sure how you would go about it. As I said, with the short notice that we've had to put this together, I haven't been able to pursue that.
Mr Hardeman: The other comment you made was related to northern Ontario as a block or as a district or as an area of the province requires to be fairly represented. When the members come from the north and go to Queen's Park and they sit there to deal with the issues of the north, does it require more people to represent per capita? The question really is, once you're at Queen's Park, does the geographic part of your riding have an impact on the policy decisions you would be making as an MPP?
Ms Manley: My perception of what an MPP does is that they have to make sure they represent their riding, so that in fact they have to know what the people in their riding believe. There's where the geography will come in, whether Tony or Bud or Mr Brown has to work his way around his riding to discuss with his constituents their opinions on that.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you for coming. I appreciate this very much. I think it was a thoughtful discussion of the issue. H.L. Mencken once said that for every complex issue, there's a simple but wrong solution. I think that's what we're seeing here. Ontario has grown in between censuses 20%, 25%, maybe even 30%. I don't have the exact number, but it's a huge population increase in this province from one census to the next. Obviously, that was going to necessitate a pretty vast redistribution of the ridings.
Our problem was we thought it should be a made-in-Ontario solution because the federal government, in the context of Canada, makes these decisions. If you followed that debate, you would know it went through two different governments, having the bill blocked in the Senate for a while by the Conservative majority in the Senate, and it wasn't pretty. The idea that this thing is perfect would not be shared by anyone.
The government seems to suppose that that solution is perfect, and so I've been arguing -- if that's what you believe, why wouldn't you believe then that Elections Canada would run the election better than Elections Ontario? That would probably save you some money because you would have an experienced group of people, you could subcontract to them, it would be a way to do it. Then why wouldn't you have the elections on the same day? That would save you money, that would make sense. Why wouldn't you elect your judges and your dogcatchers and your municipal council and your school board people, if any of those are left, on the same day?
They have taken part of the federal boundaries and said: "Okay, that's it. We're not going to deal with the rest of this." If it's about efficiencies, there's a whole long way to go if you go down this path. Seeing as we're the only province in Confederation that seems to believe you need the same number of MPPs or MLAs or MHAs, whatever, we are the only ones who believe that, why would it work in Ontario? If this wasn't so serious for the constituents, because none of us here -- we're only temporary occupants of those chairs down there. They belong to the people we represent.
I really don't have a question other than to say, what's your view? Do you agree?
Ms Manley: Obviously, from the tone of the presentation you would know that, in fact, I would agree. I'll let my partner here have a chance.
Mr Patriquin: I think you can simplify things up to a certain point, and after that there's a breaking point. Like you say, you can do this on the same day, you can have the whole scenario that you were talking about, but I think there reaches a point at which things get to be very ineffective. I'm just wondering, in cutting the MPPs in the north, whether that is what's happening. You can only stretch it so far.
It seems to me, if you look at the map of southern Ontario and then you turn it over and look at the map of northern Ontario, people have the mistaken idea that they're both the same size when a lot of northern Ontario is on that front page. It's a vast area, and I'm just wondering if, in fact, that whole thing is taken into consideration. How can we have those people represent an area that just cannot be represented fairly? With all due respect to the gentlemen who are in those ridings, it wouldn't matter who was in those ridings. The job most likely couldn't be done very well.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms Manley and Mr Patriquin, for appearing before us today and presenting your views on this subject.
ALGOMA DISTRICT MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION
The Acting Chair: Our next deputant is a representative of the Algoma District Municipal Association, Mrs Lucy Konkin.
Mrs Lucy Konkin: Thank you for the opportunity to express our comments and concerns on 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.
The vast area of Algoma is comprised of 25 municipalities, and the distance from one end to the other can be compared to the distance from Windsor to Quebec City. Reducing the number of ridings from 15 to 10 will make it difficult for northerners to keep in touch with their MPPs on such issues as health care, education, jobs and transportation. It now takes the MPP eight hours to travel the riding from one end to the other, and travel time would be doubled with the proposed boundary realignment.
The city of Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay, Timmins, North Bay and Sudbury would have the same representation, but 90% of the land in Ontario would be represented by five MPPs. Is this democracy? The redistribution of boundaries would produce a situation where northern constituents are not effectively represented. It would be impossible for MPPs to have contact with all communities in their constituencies and therefore would not be able to adequately represent them.
1430
This government has made a commitment to have provincial electoral boundaries coincide with federal boundaries; however, the federal government is increasing the number of seats in Ontario because they accept the fact that some areas of the province are growing and need representation. In Saskatchewan, the federal government, in redistributing the ridings, agreed that the two enormous northern ridings would not be subjected to the same rule -- one person one vote -- as the rest of the province. Can the provincial government also acknowledge that there are certain situations where we cannot apply the population factor?
It is so important that constituents have accessibility to their provincial representative since many matters under provincial jurisdiction deal directly within their community. It is even more important that northern constituents have a good representation in the provincial Legislature.
I strongly urge you to consider factors other than population figures when proposing rural and northern ridings, including historical, cultural, economic, transportation and communication patterns. Please consider the specific geographic conditions in Algoma, the problems of size, the climate, the distance between communities and the limited access constituents have to their member of Parliament.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mrs Konkin. We have 15 minutes for questions, five to each. We start with the government.
Mr Stewart: Thank you for your presentation. I just want to clarify one thing before I ask a question. We've been hearing today and yesterday and two weeks ago that the government wasn't listening. In my former life as a municipal councillor, and indeed three years as being warden of a county, I did a lot of presentations to previous governments, and I can tell you that Bill 163 and Bill 40 and a few other ones were not changed because of my input or because of anybody else's input. They were taken out and they were put into effect.
I would like to say that this summer when people were on holidays or not working, whatever might be, I was in Thunder Bay three times, Sault Ste Marie twice, Dryden as of now once, North Bay twice, Timmins and Kenora once, Toronto, Sudbury, Windsor, Chatham, Peterborough, Kingston, London, Milton, Kitchener, Niagara Falls, Sarnia and Hamilton on hearings, and that was representing five different bills. Do you not feel that's taking things on to the road to get input from people?
Mrs Konkin: That's true.
Mr Stewart: I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just want it to be on record that I believe we are taking it out and listening to the people. Of course, I just had a call a little while ago from my constituency office and it kind of reminded me of the gentleman talking about the review on Bill 100. The reporter says, "Well, what's it going to be?" I said, "If I was to answer that, first of all, it would be extremely presumptuous because at the moment it happens to be under review, with consultation." I guess that's one of the concerns I have.
The other one on your presentation, which I appreciated, I said earlier this morning that I used to travel in the north country so I kind of know the distances. What I said to the particular person is, we've got great distances up here, but are we going to travel to the farthest point today and then are we going to go back tomorrow to that same farthest point, and then the next day go over here? I think what we're saying is, if this were to happen, MPPs, whether it be in the north, the south, the east or west, are going to have to find ways of doing business better, much the same as we've had to do in small business in many other areas.
Do you think, first of all, if people want to talk to their MPPs, they should only talk to MPPs?
Mrs Konkin: Yes.
Mr Stewart: I believe they should talk to staff. I've got a great bunch and they do a heck of a job for me.
Also, in your mind, if this were to happen, do you not think it could be worked well to still give the people, for those who wish, the opportunity to be involved?
Mrs Konkin: I've worked in a municipality for 21 years and I've seen where members of Parliament have met with the constituents over the years. I think people are accustomed to the fact of speaking to their member of Parliament. They don't want any substitutes. If you had staff coming to try to do business, carry the message forward to an MPP, I don't think people would really appreciate it. That's my opinion.
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): Thank you for your presentation. There have been a number of concerns addressed today, or at least brought to our attention, about the geographic area, and that's one of the major concerns. You've listed a number of them here that you think have to be addressed, rather than just representation by population.
We've had the question asked a number of times, and there is an allowance to set the boundaries not just by population but allowing for some other factors to be part of that determination. Do you have a figure in mind that would allow for those things that you've mentioned in your presentation, and how we could address them and, as well, incorporate them? Do you have a differential, sort of a figure that you feel would adequately address that? This is a public opportunity and we're looking for direction. I know the question's been asked before, but we haven't really had, as I've seen today, clear direction come back from the public. I wonder if you could help us.
Mrs Konkin: I think that's a question that probably needs some study and input from the members who are really working in the north, the members of Parliament. They know what population they can handle. It's not something I can answer. The existing ridings and the number of members of Parliament seem to have been working. What we need to change it, I'm really not sure I can answer that.
Mr Michael Brown: Welcome to the committee. I think maybe to be helpful, not so much to myself or to Mr Wildman but perhaps to the government side, you might describe the communities that are represented in the Algoma District Municipal Association. There's a reasonable variance in size and obviously a great distance between many of them, ranging from Wawa back this way.
Mrs Konkin: Municipalities are represented from Hornepayne, White River in the north; Michipicoten; Dubreuilville; Sault Ste Marie; Bruce Mines; Echo Bay, which is a township of MacDonald; Iron Bridge; the township of the North Shore; Blind River -- just off the top of my head. There are 25 municipalities anyway. That is a sampling.
Mr Michael Brown: In my present constituency, the present constituency of Algoma-Manitoulin, there are places like the township of Shedden and the township of the North Shore and Elliot Lake, but we are a relatively minor portion of the Algoma district. We're just kind of on the edge. There's also another municipal association, the LaCloche Foothills Municipal Association, that represents a number of municipalities around the Espanola area, and then of course there's the Manitoulin. So essentially there are three different municipal associations in the area, quite a distance from each other.
1440
The thing I think should be noted that the government members seem to be missing here is that by and large these are relatively small municipalities with a lot of distance between them that have things in common but also have things that are quite unique about their situations.
I think about Elliot Lake, for example. When I was first elected, I worked very hard in Elliot Lake to understand the place because I came from a rural area, and this is a mining town and mining towns have cultures all their own. Working at it, I came to understand what a mining town was about. Espanola is a forestry town. Wawa is a bit of both. But most of the municipalities are either kind of bedroom communities of others or they have an agricultural or rural base, tourist-type. It is a remarkably diverse set of municipalities and of people.
I guess my real question is, I would have thought there would have been, as had always been since the days of Leslie Frost, an election commission that would come up with a made-in-Ontario solution based on the rules that Ontario has for conducting elections. Would that be the position of the district association, that there should be a commission to redraw the boundaries? You're not saying we shouldn't do anything about it at all?
Mrs Konkin: That's right. I believe that any boundaries sometimes require adjustment over a period of time as the population increases. However, I don't believe that northern Ontario should have such a drastic reduction in MPs, and therefore the boundaries should be adjusted or realigned with the number of MPs not reduced. You know? That is a lot, five MPPs.
Mr Michael Brown: If one was to look at northern Ontario as a province, we would have four to five times as many MPPs as we have MPs, if you follow the formula used in every other province.
Mrs Konkin: That's right.
Mr Michael Brown: No one's suggesting that we should have 40 or 50 people, but it seemed to me the number of 15 was pretty reasonable in terms of what goes on, because the five ridings we are losing are the rural ridings. It is the Algoma and Algoma-Manitoulin district that is being put all together. It is Rainy River-Kenora, but it isn't the Sault. The difference here for that the people in the Sault will be negligible.
Mr Wildman: Lucy, I want to thank you very much for coming to the committee on behalf of the Algoma District Municipal Association, particularly since I understand you've been suffering from the flu, so I appreciate your taking the time.
As I understand it, at the last meeting of the municipal association they passed a resolution requesting that this be reviewed and expressing concern about the reduction of MPPs. Isn't it fair to say that the members of the municipal association, as Mr Brown has said, represent very diverse communities, some francophone, some anglophone, and mining, forestry, tourism, farming, many different types of communities, and also they come from many different political stripes? I think, frankly, we all know each other pretty well in the north and we know who's an independent, who supports various political parties, and yet the majority on the municipal association, representing all different political persuasions, voted for this resolution and suggested that you should come to make the presentation.
I'm quite encouraged by the questions from Mr Stewart and Mr Danford, really, particularly Mr Stewart's comment that this is not cut and dried and that a decision has not been final, that we may see some amendments to this legislation and we may in fact see some changes in the boundaries set forth. Up to now, the Conservatives have generally said: "Well, this is up to the federal government. The federal government has decided the boundaries and nothing's going to change." I'm really happy to hear that we may be able as a committee to recommend to the Legislature, on the basis of the input we've got, that there will be changes. I'm really pleased that the Conservatives have said that.
In answer to Mr Danford's comment about what should be proposed, I think to be frank it's a little bit difficult for you, as a member of the public and representing the municipality, to answer that question. I would just say to Mr Danford and to the committee that this question has already been answered in 1975 by the Camp commission appointed by Premier Davis's government. The Camp commission studied this very intricately and extensively and came forward with proposals about how you deal with population, how you deal with community of interests and how you deal with geography, and they came up with a formula that has been followed since 1975 on the two or three redistributions that have taken place since then.
It's a very extensive study that was based on hearings across the province and criteria that were set. It was a commission that had Mr Camp representing the Conservative Party and two other representatives, one from the federal NDP and one from the Liberal Party. It was a tripartite commission that indeed answered the very question you asked Ms Konkin.
If perhaps our researcher could provide the final report of the Camp commission to the committee, then we could begin to do the kind of thing Mr Stewart has suggested is possible: We can actually start to design the boundaries in a way that takes into account representation by population on a formula that also takes into account geography. I'm really encouraged; I'm glad you came to the committee and we got that from the Conservative members, that we're actually going to begin to do some real work here and design boundaries that will properly represent the areas in southern Ontario that are growing in population, taking into account the needs that you've put forward of northern Ontario in terms of our wide geography.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms Konkin, for coming in today.
Mr Danford: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I appreciate Mr Wildman giving an explanation of how things have been done in the past, but I think it was important that we heard from the public whom we were listening for today. That was my point, Mr Wildman. Like I said, I appreciate your comments, but I think the most important point is that we hear from the public here today. That's what's important.
Mr Wildman: I agree.
Mr Glenn: I'd just like to bring the committee's attention to my response to Mr Wildman's request for information on the scope and nature of discussions between the federal government and the province of Ontario on the redistribution documents. One copy has been distributed to each caucus. If you have any questions, you can get in touch with me.
Mr Wildman: The upshot of this is that there in fact were no real discussions between the provincial government and the federal government about this, other than a request for the map.
Mr Glenn: That's correct.
1450
TERRY ROSS
The Acting Chair: Our next presenter is Terry Ross. Mr Ross, you have 20 minutes to make your views known on this subject.
Mr Terry Ross: I'd like to thank you and the committee members for this opportunity to address the proposed changes to the Representation Act.
I will be brief. I would welcome an exchange of views with the members of the committee on the ideas that I'm putting forward. I don't have a written paper, but I think you'll be able to follow what I have to say. It's fairly simple and fairly straightforward.
The short title of this proposed legislation is the Fewer Politicians Act, 1996. This is interesting and I believe it's fairly revealing. It would seem that we've reached a point in time where the public holds politicians in such disrepute that any scheme to reduce their number would be received with enthusiasm: thunderous applause from the grass roots of Ontario to this proposal.
I must acknowledge, as a long observer of politics and as a teacher of political science for the last quarter of a century, that I have noticed a pervasive air of cynicism about politics and politicians. Something quite fundamental has happened, I believe, in western democracies over the last years, indeed decades. The political has become debased.
I want you to consider this fact and stand it against the democratic theory we all espouse, or at least say we do. Democracy carries an implicit endorsement of the political sphere. We invite or even require citizens to participate in the exercise of authority and power: the requirement, for example, in Australia, where voting is obligatory, not voluntary. We proclaim this participation to be an important activity.
I would ask you to consider, for example, the attention and resources we devote to elections, the effort to interest people in the campaign and to get them out to vote. All of you at the table know how much energy goes into this far better than I do.
I think what we are saying is that everyone has a responsibility to be politically active, at least at a minimum level, to select our rulers. I would suggest that in this practice the residue of an old idea remains: Politics is a worthwhile human activity.
As you know, ancient Athens is said to be the cradle of democracy. Aristotle, poet and politician, citizen of Athens, believed that politics was a noble activity. To be a politician was to have an honourable profession. In contrast, commerce, the making of money, Aristotle argued, was only fit for slaves.
It's not much of an exaggeration to say that in our contemporary democracies, the values have been turned around. Making and spending money is celebrated. Politicians and political activity are despised and rejected. How many high school counsellors would advise politics as a career choice?
The shift which has occurred is to be found in the language we use. Think of the human members who make up our community. In the past, we most frequently spoke of "citizens," the value of citizenship and the role citizens played in society and state.
Now the preferred term is "consumer." We are consumers in the marketplace of goods and services. This includes goods and services in the public sector: health, education, culture etc. Someone requiring medical attention is no longer a patient but a consumer of health care. We have elevated the role of consumer to be pre-eminent, at the expense of citizen. The valued relationship which existed between citizen and state and which consisted of a set of reciprocal rights and responsibilities has gone out of fashion.
Aristotle thought humans to be essentially political animals. Today our human essence and our value is defined by our role as a consumer. This I would argue is a passive role. Citizen is an active role which carries responsibilities, including the responsibility of participating in the political process. When you consider that less than 50% of the eligible electorate voted in this year's presidential elections, you may appreciate how far this value of participation has eroded and how great the distance we have travelled between the democracy of ancient Greece and contemporary America.
So, you ask, what does this all have to do with this bill? To promote fewer politicians, representatives of this province, which this bill does, is to reinforce current trends and attitudes that politics has no value and the popular perception that politicians are an unnecessary expense on the public purse and should be got rid of. This final conclusion may be somewhat disconcerting to the members present. I would expect that all of you believe in your worth and the value you are playing in promoting the public interest. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Ross. We have approximately 15 minutes, five minutes to each caucus.
Mr Young: I really appreciated your comments on citizenship and I agree with most of what you've said. I just took some notes here while we've been sitting here this afternoon on the number of places a person in our society in Ontario can go to express their political views, to seek exchange of political views and to ask for help with political issues, either individually or as a group, because I think it's incumbent upon us as citizens to take responsibility to do that.
We've heard comments here that we're an overgoverned people. I'm one of those people who agree with that. Let me show you why. If you have a concern with your local hospital, you can go to a hospital board. With the schools you can go to the school board. You can go to a federal MP or, what happens in really 95% of the cases, you go to the MP's staff. You can go to a provincial MPP or the MPP's office staff. You can go to a mayor or reeve. You can go to a local councillor. For many people you have a union; we've had unions here presenting on behalf of their members. You can go direct to government bureaucracies. Then there is a series of agencies, boards and commissions that you can go to to express your views: the Ombudsman, human rights -- too many to name.
I think it's incumbent upon individuals to pick up the mantle and to make us have better government by taking more of that responsibility upon themselves. I would ask you to please comment on how individuals can contribute more to their society by improving their own citizenship and not expecting government members to do everything for them.
Mr Ross: I wouldn't have any disagreement with your proposal that people within the community take an increased responsibility in their own affairs. I think this is very important in the day that we live in. It's really a question of how they do that and what kind of climate. I mean a climate in the sense of the ideas that are present that encourages people to participate within their own community. In order to do that, it's necessary for people to believe that their involvement will make a difference. I think that's where we move from political apathy to what we in the trade call political efficacy. Efficacy means that in fact you will make a difference.
I assume that all of you around the table ran for office because you thought you could make a difference. Now, how do you encourage other people to feel like yourselves? I think the way you do that is by the process of empowerment. People have to feel that they do have the opportunity to take some control over their own lives, but they're currently facing such a bewildering array of uncertainty in a world that is very rapidly transforming. It's exceedingly difficult, it seems to me, for any group of people, young or old, to know how they can insert themselves into society, into the political process, into their own communities and really make a difference, and globally --
Mr Young: I'd like to comment on that because I think one of the reasons people are confused is they find Confederation confusing. It is confusing, because if you have an education issue you want to go to your provincial MPP or the school board, but the federal government, with social transfers, funds it, so people are confused.
I think you'll find most people -- maybe not in the north of Ontario, but certainly in the south -- are unsure what riding they live in. One of the things this bill will do is, if you live in the riding of Oakville federally, you will live in the riding of Oakville provincially. It will make it much easier for you to take that first step, pick up the telephone, call and say, "I'm unhappy with this." Can you comment on that?
Mr Ross: I'm not sure that's the case.
Mr Young: I'm sure it is.
Mr Ross: If you take a look at people who are facing an election, federal or provincial, in the Metropolitan Toronto ridings, it's often very difficult for them to know (a) who their member currently is and (b) who's running. Part of the reason, of course, is that ridings don't have the same kind of immediate identity. There's not a community newspaper in many cases. Their boundaries are not clearly demarcated as they are, I would say, in the more rural and northern regions or in the more peripheral parts of Canada.
Mr Young: We had someone here this morning who said that we don't have freedom of expression in Ontario.
Mr Gilchrist: Very briefly, I wonder if you would agree, or what your comment would be, that part of the reason the public has become very cynical is, quite frankly, because politicians didn't do what they said they were going to do after they were elected; and that one of the things we can do to bring back that empowerment, to remove the cynicism, to restore some faith in politicians, is to actually keep our promises. In that regard, given that since May 1994, 13 months before the election, we promised that, if elected, we would copy the boundaries of the federal ridings, would you not agree with us that if we're going to have that mark of integrity, we are honour-bound to follow through with that promise?
1500
Mr Ross: I wouldn't first of all agree with the promises that were contained in the Common Sense Revolution. I have to, however, acknowledge that the electorate of Ontario did endorse the Conservative Party to form the government. Of course, there's a complicated way in which we elect governments, as you well know.
Whether reducing the number of members in Parliament is the best means to encourage participation, to engage citizens more actively in their community, I'm not sure.
Mr Gilchrist: But leaving aside what the promise was, do you not agree that it's incumbent on us to keep our promises?
Mr Ross: To keep your promises I think is a good idea, but if a promise is to be kept to change the boundaries of the Ontario ridings to be congruent with the federal ridings, and that is a promise that you are insisting you keep, then I would ask why you are holding these hearings.
Mr Gilchrist: Because we were looking for people to make suggestions, if there were substantive reasons given for technical alterations or something that the federal commission might not have considered. But every day in these hearings, to people who have come forward and said, "This bill is wrong," we've said, "Fine, tell us what change is right." The other side, they've been nodding their heads all day. They believe in redistribution, they say. They say our minds are made up. Mr Wildman, just to the last presenter, said: "We believe in redistribution but we think there should be a commission. Of course the end result should be we still have 15." So you tell me whose mind is made up.
The bottom line is that we've made this commitment. We said we will make sure that the test was fairness. We got a copy of the report. The report proves that they did hold those federal hearings fairly, and we have no other qualms about why we shouldn't keep our promise. If there were technical reasons or suggestions on how we could better find savings through cooperating with the federal electoral commission, those are the sort of things we want to hear. How can we make this better? Don't just tell us that the status quo is okay, because the voters last year said it wasn't okay.
Mr Sergio: Mr Ross, thank you for coming today. Are you a professor of political science, sir?
Mr Ross: Yes.
Mr Sergio: Do you see this issue as more of a political issue, if you will, rather than a real, realistic issue?
Mr Ross: Could you amplify? How do you mean, is it a political issue as opposed to what kind of issue? It seems to me that everything in politics is political.
Mr Sergio: Well, not really. If the Conservatives were not caught with this particular promise having been made in their Common Sense Revolution, do you really think, as a professor of political science, that today they would have come to the people of Ontario and say, "We are going to redistribute the ridings in Ontario"?
Mr Ross: I think so. Given the kind of views this government has and the members on the Conservative side, the proposal to reduce the number of politicians has a lot of currency. You will find favour with a lot of people by saying, "Look, we're going to get rid of a lot of those politicians." It's like getting rid of bureaucrats. It's the same kind of constellation of attitudes that exists right now.
As I say, it's very important to understand that the political has been debased. What we now have at this moment in our history is that we have exalted the private and we have diminished the public, and I think this government is keen on continuing that. I therefore would argue that the reduction in politicians, which is what this legislation says, apart from the technical side of determining how the boundaries will be drawn -- take a look at what the short title of this act is. That is meaningful.
Mr Sergio: In a way you're answering my question. That is why I posed that question. So it is politically good to tell the people out there? Somebody else before you said it's an issue that appeals to the public.
Mr Ross: Yes, I think so.
Mr Sergio: They've been playing to the public. Now, if you, the public, were given the facts -- and I'm not totally against redistribution, because it doesn't affect me. It's a matter of money, it's a matter of common sense, it's a matter of delivering services and good, solid representation -- at a price, of course. Then we have to say, if they want us to go along with the federal lines, are we going to be compensated the same way the federal members are going to be compensated, or are we going to be seen as less capable than the federal members? Are we going to have the same resources? Are we going to have the same pension benefits? Are we going to have the same salaries? Are we going to have the same staff? No. You see? No. That's not the point.
If you, as Joe Public, were given all the facts about, "What does this mean to us, cutting 27 MPPs?" -- the pros, the cons, the benefits, the assets, the negative points. You don't have that. We don't have that. They didn't give us anything. They didn't give you anything. They didn't give the public anything. They said, "This is what we promised; this is what we're going to do." If the public were given a set of pros and cons, do you really thing you would go along? I'm speaking now mostly for the north. Do you think you would go along with their decision to go ahead and do it?
Mr Ross: I think people want to be able to express their concerns and their needs in the forums where the decisions are being taken.
Mr Sergio: With knowledge.
Mr Ross: With knowledge. Currently, the institutions we have are old institutions. If you think of the institution to which you belong, Parliament goes back several hundred years. Political parties go back to the 19th century. You may want to ask yourself, are these kinds of institutions, which were created for a very different time and a very different age, appropriate for now? I think that would be a really interesting discussion to have. But that's not the issue at hand. The issue is to reduce the number of politicians and to redraw the electoral boundaries of Ontario. One perhaps is a technical question; I would advance the argument that the second is a highly political question, and you cannot escape it.
1510
Mr Martin: I think you've hit the nail right on the head here today. This piece of work is about shifting power. It's about taking power away from the people through a legislative process and turning it ever so subtly more and more over to an executive body that is driven, in this instance, by the marketplace and corporate considerations.
You took us through a bit of a history lesson today. I just want to do a very brief understanding as well and then maybe have some comment from you. It seems to me that we've always had tension between various groups, and it's about power, about who makes decisions that affect all of us and who wins and who loses in those decisions. We had at one point in our history the feudal lords fighting with the peasants. Then we had the Industrial Revolution, where the industrialists began to fight with the feudal lords over who would be in control. Then we had the rise of organized labour in conflict with the industrialists.
Over the last, I believe, 10, 15, 20, 30 years, we've come up with I think a more intelligent and inclusive approach to how we do business. There was a time in our history when government was done by all of the people. It was a smaller jurisdiction. All the people arrived and argued with each other and, ultimately, at the end of the day, somehow decided on some things they would do. We've become a bit more sophisticated. We elect people to do that on behalf of all of the people.
It seems this piece of work is about a shift from democratically elected legislative processes to more executive processes. It's been pointed out that the budget of the Premier's office, for example, has tripled in the last year at the same time as we're downsizing the money and the power and the influence and the numbers on the legislative side of the ledger. My hunch is that this is all driven by a belief that the marketplace decides best for all of us what's good for us. Is that a correct interpretation, do you think?
Mr Ross: If one considers the ideological climate of today, and we have to -- what are the ideas, what are the principal values and the weights we attach to those today? -- I don't think there's any question that we are very much enamoured of the marketplace and the market as the major mechanism by which to distribute goods and services and, ultimately, power.
That's why I make the distinction between consumer and citizen. It seems to me that a citizen means you have a right to participate by virtue of your residence in a particular community. Whether you have $1 or $20,000, your value is in your residence and the fact that you are a citizen of this community, and you have as much a right to participate, at the same level of importance, as your neighbour who may be very wealthy. A consumer -- the relationship is fundamentally different. If you have purchasing power, that means dollars in your pocket. If you don't have purchasing power, you are not a consumer, therefore, in our day, if you're not a consumer, you really don't have much value at all.
Mr Martin: One more quick question. I have about 30 seconds. On a different subject, does it make any sense for Ontario to base its electoral boundaries on commitments made by the federal government to, for example, PEI and the Yukon? Does that make any sense to you?
Mr Ross: To redraw the boundaries of Ontario consistent with the federal boundaries because of commitments that the feds have made to PEI? If you take a look at PEI, they have 27 seats provincially, four seats federally, right? If they were to redraw the boundaries of PEI consistent with the federal boundaries, you'd end up with a House of four, and I don't think the folks in PEI -- I'm a former resident of Charlottetown and I know the island fairly well; I know the Legislative Assembly -- would go for it.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Ross, for your balanced, interesting and intriguing viewpoints today.
VYRN PETERSON
The Acting Chair: Our next deputant is Vyrn Peterson. Mr Peterson, you have 20 minutes to march along. Please proceed.
Mr Vyrn Peterson: Mr Chairman, members of the assembly, my remarks will be relatively brief. I have a bit of a cold, and maybe that's a blessing for all of us.
As very much a federalist, I have to believe that the federal commission, when they went across this country and looked at how the ridings should be distributed, employed as many elements of fairness as possible. I'm not sure it was entirely successful, however, in that there are certainly valid arguments to be made in northern Ontario that representatives from here do not get from one end of the riding to the other as easily as in other areas of the country.
The statistic on Prince Edward Island was interesting, when you compare the number of federal seats to the number of provincial seats. It may be that there's room to take another look at northern Ontario.
But the overriding principle here -- I've heard some very good comments, but unfortunately I didn't get here very early -- is one of restoring the faith of the general public in the politicians to be looking after their interests. I think one of the largest steps taken towards that end is the downsizing of the Legislature, because the public can see that and understand that a serious cut is being made within what many people believe to be the politicians' own realm.
I don't know if this assembly can produce some other technical reasons for making some specific changes in northern Ontario that allow the promise to be kept where it's possible. I hope the deliberations are leading in that direction. If it is possible, it should be changed; if it's not, it is of overriding importance that people be able to understand the message that when a leader says the boundaries will match the federal boundaries, then that is exactly what happens. Some of us should perhaps have been involved when the federal hearings were taking place. We missed that opportunity. I don't know if any of these messages will get back to them, but unfortunately we're a shade late right now.
By far the overwhelming principle, in my mind, is that the public get the idea, even from these deliberations, that the discussions are not centred around an individual protecting their turf. This is a method of representation that we're talking about here. I have worked with some of these northern gentlemen, all three of them on this side, and I know they're above that, but I think they have some good points about the difficulties in administering to a northern Ontario riding through sheer distance.
It's easy to say that in a time of technological change, yes, you can do things with live video and you can do things electronically a lot better. In northern Ontario in the smaller communities, we don't have that opportunity. I come from Blind River, not too far from here, which is about 4,000, and it's only in the last couple of years that we could get the other buttons on our phone to work. There are certainly other communities out there that you can't access by means that may be employed elsewhere in this nation.
I'm glad the assembly found time to come to northern Ontario. As I said, I wish some of us had taken a more participatory role when the federal hearings were going on.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Peterson. We have 15 minutes. We'll start with the Liberals.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm certainly happy to see my good friend Vyrn here from Blind River. I think what you're saying is that the government is on the hook, that the Premier made a promise prior to the election, and the Premier wants to keep his promise because he wants to be seen to be keeping his word, but perhaps that promise was a little bit simplistic, particularly as it relates to rural areas and northern rural areas in particular, and that maybe somebody over on that side should be thinking about what can be done to fulfil the promise but still take into consideration the unique nature of "provincial" concerns in what will be this new mega-riding: currently the riding of Algoma-Manitoulin and the riding you're in, Algoma, and Chapleau and the district of Thunder Bay, a portion of it.
1520
I've worked with you. I've worked with your councillors. I know you've worked with your own members. Sometimes both of us have been at the same meeting. We have not always succeeded in being successful, I don't think, for the people of Blind River, but it hasn't been bad. Access has been -- at least the access was always there.
Mr Peterson: The access has been good.
Mr Michael Brown: Yes. I'd dig myself into a bigger hole, right?
I suppose there are suggestions. The thing the government forgets about the federal boundaries is that they're drawn in the context of Canada, not the context of Ontario. Therefore, rural distribution in our part of the world is affected by giving four seats to Prince Edward Island because the British North America Act guaranteed that they would have no fewer members of Parliament than they had senators. That was the deal. There are deals with the Northwest Territories, there are deals with the Yukon, and I think they're appropriate deals; I'm not saying they're wrong. But when you take the federal redistribution into account, they have to understand they've got four more rural seats here than maybe they should. That impacts on the way things are happening in Ontario.
If we could find a way, and that's what I hear you're saying, for the government to satisfy its "election promise," that might be to perhaps harmonize the electoral lists, harmonize the polls within ridings so that they are the same polls. We could perhaps have different ridings but all the efficiencies that could come from electoral list sharing and all the efficiencies that would come from polls could occur.
The promise is technically broken by the fact that they said they were going to go to 99 ridings. They're already wrong, because the federal redistribution came to 103, so the promise contradicted itself. I'm looking for an out for you here, Steve. And I'm talking and trying to protect your cold, Vyrn.
Am I characterizing your views correctly, in terms of what I'm saying? You don't think this is a terribly workable solution, but the Premier is on the hook, so let's find a way to make the Premier look good and get a reasonable solution also? I'm all in favour of that.
Mr Peterson: That sounds good. Well said.
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much, Vyrn, for coming. I appreciate your coming when you're not feeling so great. For the benefit of other members of the committee, Vyrn and I have worked with each other for many years. Also, Vyrn ran against me for the Conservative Party in one election campaign, and it was a very good campaign and a fairly fought one. I think it's useful to have you before the committee, Mayor Peterson, because in your municipal experience and also your experience as a candidate, you know something about the distances we have in northern Ontario.
I understand your presentation, and I agree with you that we were not as active as we should have been on the federal boundaries commission. I remember when it first came out, the first proposal for the changes in Algoma was that the riding was going to go up to James Bay. It was going to take a swath of northeastern Ontario up east of Timmins up along the Quebec border and just take in what is now Timiskaming and everything up to James Bay. Everybody, of all political persuasions as well as Independents, said, "This doesn't make any sense." It was as a result of that, as Mr Gilchrist said earlier, that there were discussion to say, "This doesn't make sense," that Manitoulin Island didn't have any community of interest with Moosonee. So there was a decision to redraw that.
I think every one of us in the north breathed a sigh of relief when the decision was made: "Okay, we're not going to have that kind of riding." Then when the final thing came out, we found they'd gone the other way, up to Manitouwadge. Frankly, a lot of us were a little taken by surprise. I think many of us thought they might decide to combine Algoma-Manitoulin and Algoma, but we didn't expect them to put Chapleau in the riding, nor did we expect that Manitouwadge would be added to the federal riding. There were those concerns, but I think Brent St Denis -- and I'm certainly not speaking for Brent St Denis, our MP -- breathed a sigh of relief when he found out he wasn't going to be representing Moosonee and everything in between. We were a little bit slow to react to the redrawn boundaries.
Mr Peterson: I would have to agree with that one.
Mr Wildman: I'm not asking you to argue with the promise made in the Common Sense Revolution, honestly I'm not, but my question is this: Do you think that decisions around electoral boundaries in Ontario should be determined by constitutional guarantees of four members for PEI in the House of Commons or an agreement that there should be three members from the far north, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in total, or that there should be 75 members from Quebec in the House of Commons, that those factors, which have to be taken into account in determining how we draw boundaries for the members of Parliament's constituencies, should be the factors that determine how many seats we have in the provincial Legislature at Queen's Park?
Mr Peterson: That's a very good question. If you're going to have the benefits of any cost reduction of having one enumeration system and one riding name, you certainly would have to take those factors into consideration in drawing the federal boundaries. I don't think they should be the only factors. Again we come back to the fact that there were opportunities to make presentations to earlier panels, and we slipped up and simply didn't do it.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. Mayor Peterson, I didn't know you were mayor, or are. We'd want to honour you for being so.
Mr Peterson: I'm not here as mayor.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I just wanted to follow up on some of that questioning about not making presentations when the non-partisan commission went around looking at the boundaries and to read you a few of the items that this come directly from the submission from that commission.
It says, "The commission took into account submissions presented during its public hearings to follow transportation routes more closely in its changes to Nickel Belt, Algoma and Timiskaming."
I'm just going to read a few of them: "All substantially below the provincial quota." "To follow recommendations of municipalities in this area." They're talking about Manitouwadge and the population down to the Pukaskwa National Park. Then they're also talking about the Timiskaming-French River area: "For this reason, while considering transportation links and communities of interest, most of the Timiskaming area is kept together and population is added to the south and to the north" etc.
In fact, from what I've been able to ascertain here, the presentations made to those committees were heard, and because of what they heard they adjusted the boundaries.
We've heard a lot of talk about eroding democracy and all that. Mr Martin is one who has presented in the House several times the definition of democracy, and part of that definition is, "With each citizen sharing equally in political privilege and duty." If you believe in democracy, you believe in each citizen having equal representation. Even with all that and allowing for differences in geography and distance, with these new boundaries the north would still have more politicians than, say, the south, if you go by representation.
One of the things we heard from the previous presenter also was that there's a great deal of cynicism about politics and politicians. My belief is that the reason is because, as everyone knows, politicians say a lot of things during campaigns and then when they're elected oftentimes they turn around and do other things. This government does not. This government campaigned on a promise to change the boundaries to conform to the federal ridings.
Having said all of that, you didn't make a presentation, and the time has come when we're fulfilling an election promise. What would you suggest the government do?
1530
Mr Peterson: I think the overriding one, and maybe I didn't state it as bluntly as some people may be used to, is that the public get the impression that the promise from politicians will be kept, because we don't always have that. That's not a slur on anyone, because circumstances do change and we're all pretty much aware of that. But I am not sure that if a good enough technical reason that was left out of the federal system were discovered at this point, it wouldn't give the room to fulfil the promise of still downsizing the government and ensuring that the riding size physically was within personal physical abilities to cover. When you talk 12 hours by vehicle from one end to the other, a whole day is gone and you don't make any stops in between.
Mrs Ross: I have only been elected for a year and a half, so I haven't been around as long as Mr Wildman, but I can tell you that I have tremendous staff in my office and 95% of everything that comes into my office is handled by my staff. I will tell you also that my staff attend meetings where I am unable to attend, for whatever reason, whether I am at Queen's Park or such. So I think we would be wrong to say -- and maybe you can explain this to me. Do northerners really need to see, face to face, their MPP on every occasion, or can they meet with staff? Are they different from those people in the south?
Mr Peterson: No, we're not that different.
Mrs Ross: Okay, I didn't think so. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Mr Hardeman, one minute.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you, Mr Mayor, for your presentation. I just wanted to say that prior to this life I was a municipal politician. I did have the opportunity to make representation to the boundaries commission. I can say that making those presentations does make a difference. My riding has in fact changed in such a way as was recommended by the local people who went before the commission.
We've heard a lot of discussion on the difference between the federal MP and the provincial MPP and the workload. In your opinion, do you not see the existence of municipalities and the existence of hospital boards and boards of education dealing with the responsibilities of the province as helping the work of the MPP, as opposed to the MP not having any of those bodies to rely on? They have to deal with all the issues individually, as opposed to the MPP.
Mr Peterson: It may help create work on the one hand. I think if the trend in government continues towards less program funding and more general funding where the municipalities would collect their own dollars for their own services, then you may see less need for presentations directly to one's MPP for matters relating to the province and program funding, because that seems to take up a lot of time.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Peterson, for coming in today. You're the mayor of where?
Mr Peterson: Blind River.
The Acting Chair: Blind River. We're pleased to have you here, sir.
CENTRAL ALGOMA WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
The Acting Chair: Our next presenter is Mrs Teresa Miller of the Central Algoma Women Teachers' Association. Welcome.
Mrs Teresa Miller: First, let me thank you very much for allowing me to speak. Second, let me say I feel sorry for all of us. It is 3:30 on a Friday afternoon and I know you've had two days of hearings and are probably going to hear more of the same things that you've heard already. I know most of you are looking at your watches and thinking about planes that you have to catch. Nobody drove?
Mr Wildman: I did.
Mrs Miller: Good for you, Bud.
Mr Young: It's like trying to teach a class at the end of the day, right?
Mrs Miller: Really, yes, it is. In 1983, it was determined by the members of the Legislature that the boundaries commission would hold public hearings on redistribution of the electoral boundaries and that representation in the north could not be less than 15 constituencies. The boundaries commission usually considered the following terms of reference for the purpose of distribution or redistribution: community or diversity of interest; means of communication; topographical features; population trends; special geographic considerations; and accessibility, size and shape were also to be included. The terms of reference in 1983 guaranteed the north 15 seats. I would like to argue our case for ensuring that continued representation by focusing on some of the considerations in the terms of reference.
First we must look at the communities and their diversity of interests. I believe that northern Ontario means economic diversity. The Algoma riding consists of small communities of miners, steelworkers, farmers, loggers, trappers, fishermen, seasonal employees, small businessmen and a few professionals. We are spread out along the Trans-Canada Highway, tucked away in remote forest regions or nestled along the shores of the Great Lakes. We have distinct ethnic communities like Garden River and Batchewana, both peoples of the first nation, and Dubreuilville and Chapleau, which are predominantly French, each struggling to maintain their unique culture amid the federal political overtones.
Communication has always been a problem in northern Ontario. Where I live in Echo Bay, I can only call two other communities and not pay long distance charges, a distance of about 32 kilometres. The situation is the same throughout the north. So if I were someone trying to phone my MPP, it is very likely that I would have to pay for it. Similarly, our postal system is not conducive to immediate delivery. Because we live out in the country, it takes a week or more to have letters delivered, sometimes to a local post office or to rural postboxes, never to your door.
Some remote northern communities have limited access to the more metropolitan newspapers and rely on local flyers and radio programs for contact with the rest of the province. Most of our communities are not able to access cable television. I doubt if they have ever seen a debate in the House. So these people need to have someone they can talk to face to face. They need to know they have not been forgotten by the bureaucracy of so-called responsible government.
Geographically, the Algoma riding spans 560 kilometres from east to west, but it takes eight hours to drive that distance. That is the same time it takes to drive from Sault Ste Marie to Toronto. I would like to focus on the logistics of dealing with 21,864 eligible voters once a week in an area that covers 40,000 square kilometres. This riding now is larger than many European countries: Denmark, Belgium and Switzerland, to name a few. Changing the boundaries to include Manitouwadge to the west and Killarney to the east would extend the distance to approximately 1,000 kilometres, take 14 hours of driving time and yet still have only one day to do it in. The area would then double in size to 95,000 square kilometres and would equal or be larger than 108 or half of the countries of the world: Austria, Hungary and Portugal, for example.
Having a close affinity with Lake Superior allows us special geographic considerations. Gitche Manitou makes his presence known every November through to May, and sometimes he is relentless. We are also at the mercy of the Arctic winds that sweep down from Hudson Bay. Periodically the jet stream will throw a warm front in there and really liven things up. I cannot impress upon you strongly enough the factor that weather plays in northern Ontario. It defines the very culture of our small communities and the nature of our work, our social activities and our daily lives.
I was hoping there would be a snowstorm to welcome you to northern Ontario so you could have a feel for the driving conditions that our members of Parliament face every week when they have to meet with their voters. Considering that we have winter for six months of the year and that we have some of the most treacherous highways in Canada, travelling to three and four communities in one day, which Mr Wildman has done for the past 21 years, can be extremely risky. These are the working conditions for anyone living in the north, but more so if part of your job description requires you to travel. It is imperative that you realize the working conditions for northern members are very different from those for people in the south. There is no public transit system. There is one two-lane highway.
1540
The Ontario Climate Centre has given the following statistics for the winter of 1995-96. You can see in November, December and January a definite increase in precipitation. It levelled off from February to April, but if you'll look at the total precipitation for 1996, it's 510 centimetres, compared to 310 the year before. This resulted in a 60% increase in precipitation, one of the heaviest on record. That in turn caused 971 reportable accidents. More than 10% of these in the east were fatalities, and these statistics do not include the farthest west or most northern part of this riding. It forced the closure of the only main traffic artery, Highway 17 east, a total of 39 times, compared to 11 times for the winter of 1993-94, according to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Sault office.
The Ontario Provincial Police, Sault detachment, claimed last winter as the worst winter on record as far as hazardous weather conditions. Add to that the fact that the Ministry of Transportation cut back on snow removal services and you literally have an accident waiting to happen. The ministry refused to meet the demands of that winter, and we can only hope Mother Nature will take pity on us this year because we know the government won't. Traditionally, northern Ontario has been synonymous with bad highways. We have, however, seen a major repair of our highway system. Unfortunately, it convinces drivers that smoother highways are safer highways. Smoother highways mean faster highways, and in the winter faster highways accelerate the dangers of being on the road.
I think it is essential that the committee realize that these considerations define the parameters of the working conditions for a minister in northern Ontario. Members of a provincial Parliament sit in the House for four days and on the fifth day are expected to be in their ridings. However, Mr Wildman's day is spent in his car travelling and so he usually spends his sixth day meeting with constituents. While most of his associates from the south are spending time with their families, Mr Wildman is travelling back from some remote community, assuming that the weather conditions are favourable, the highway has not been closed and his car starts.
The intent by this government to change the boundaries was in order to match the boundaries of our federal members of Parliament. I cannot imagine why this government would even equate the two positions; they have absolutely nothing in common. The federal ministers spend three weeks in the House and then a week home in their ridings. The problems facing the federal ministers are on a more global level, things like citizenship and immigration, the Coast Guard, the commissioner of official languages: important, no doubt, but one can hardly compare them to the bread-and-butter issues that face our provincial representatives on a daily basis.
On Wednesday evening I listened to the debate in the House, and member after member stood to read letters from their constituents, mostly women and children who are worried about eviction notices, their lost welfare cheques, hydro being cut off, and proper medical treatment. These are the families who are being so drastically hurt by this government's agenda. They need to feel secure in the knowledge that there is someone who is available, accessible and committed to them who can be their voice at Queen's Park.
It is a rugged life for many people who choose to live in northern Ontario. Families have lived in the same town for generations. Young people who had moved away in search of jobs or a better lifestyle are finding their way back home again to the security of their communities and families. Jobs are scarce. Many communities are poor, and many more families are on social assistance. The communities are isolated, so we tend to become very insular and very protective of what we have built. We have a different philosophy of life. It takes a long time to earn our trust, but once you have it, it's solid. Mr Wildman has it, as do many of his colleagues in their northern ridings.
In 1992, the Harris Conservatives argued that limiting the size of the constituent seats was necessary to reflect special circumstances and requirements of rural and isolated districts. This government wants to limit the voices of the people in northern Ontario by taking away five representatives at Queen's Park. How does this government think this will reflect the special circumstances and requirements of rural and isolated districts? We require more representation at Queen's Park, not less. It is impossible to expect any elected official to assume the responsibility of representing an area as vast as 95,000 square kilometres, but to have only one day to do it in is downright ludicrous.
Northern Ontarians have always understood and appreciated the predicament when it involves representation by population versus regional representation. However, it is imperative, given the strained economic times, the cuts to education and health, the increase in social services that we are experiencing, that we have someone who has established a consistent record of fair and honest representation in the House. It is imperative that the boundaries commission look at their terms of reference with respect to northern Ontario's economics, geography, accessibility, size, shape, diversity and communication. The north requires special considerations in all these areas. Changing the electoral boundaries to limit our voice in the future of this province will only reinforce what we already believe about this government: Their agenda is the only agenda.
The Acting Chair: Mrs Miller, we have 11 minutes for questions. We'll start with the NDP.
Mr Wildman: I just want to make clear that I didn't personally discuss this with Ms Miller before she made her presentation. Also, I do want to make a couple of clarifications. Actually, I have a 1-800 number, as many members do in rural areas, so people can call my office without long distance. I just wanted to make that clarification and also to point out, as you did, that last year was an unusually bad winter. It's not the norm; it's above the norm. We're all hoping we don't get a repeat of that.
I also want to make clear, and I'd like you to comment on this, my own personal concern in this matter is not about my own situation personally. It's more about whether or not we are going to have the ability to have good representation by MPPs from whatever political party in northern Ontario. I think my colleague Mr Brown would agree with that. Frankly, I think facing the size of constituencies we're not going to have so much a problem with incumbents, but we're going to have a problem attracting new people to run in northern Ontario in all three political parties. I think it's going to be more difficult for constituents to contact whichever individuals are elected. The incumbents are a different matter. They'll adapt. They'll run, and whoever wins, wins. The question is whether an individual who might be thinking about getting involved will.
This is only going to affect a few ridings because, as Mr Brown pointed out earlier, the urban ridings like Mr Martin's are not affected. You're not going to have that problem in the urban ridings in northern Ontario; it's the rural ones where it may be a problem.
It's been suggested that with new technologies there are other ways to keep in touch, so it's not as necessary for individual members to travel to communities, to be at community events, to attend meetings, meet with constituents, that kind of thing. We don't have digital telephone service yet, but we will, and we don't have cellular telephone service between here and Sudbury or north of the Sault, but eventually we will. In many cases we have faxes and that'll be expanded, and there are other methods.
What's your view on that, that with new technologies there will be other ways that constituents can maintain contact with their MPPs and so it's not as necessary to travel, so the geographic area, road conditions, that kind of thing, aren't as important?
1550
Mrs Miller: I disagree completely. What we're finding now is that if you can afford the new technology, that's great; if you live close to a centre that can access those kinds of technology, that's great. But for most of the communities in northern Ontario, because they are so isolated, first of all, you cannot access a lot of the fax machines, you cannot access the Internet. Most people can't afford computers. They just don't have the money for them. It's fine if you are, as I said, close to Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, a larger area where you can do that, but for most of the communities in the north, I don't see that as being viable unless the increase in technology or the improvement in technology is so great that they would allow that sort of thing to happen. But in the very near future, no, I don't see that happening.
The Acting Chair: Mr Gilchrist and Mr Young, you have three minutes.
Mr Gilchrist: I'll be brief and leave time for Mr Young. Thank you very much for coming before us and making your presentation here today. Just a couple of very quick comments.
I'm pleased Mr Wildman referred to one of the things I was going to say because there's no need for any resident of the north to incur phone costs. I believe all the members have -- and if they don't, it is not counted out of their budget. They are allowed as much in the way of expenses on the 1-800 service --
Mrs Miller: Thank you for clarifying that. I remember that now.
Mr Gilchrist: That's fine. Minor point. When we talk about technology, we heard yesterday in Dryden that, yes, they are certainly a disparate group of communities and geographically distant in many cases. Some 49 of the 50 first nation communities have fax machines. Mr Miclash, it's on the record yesterday, admitted that he hadn't even travelled to those communities until well after his first election. While it's a lofty goal to suggest that every member should be able to get to every household on any given day, the fact of the matter is that's just not realistic, nor is it expected by people. To suggest then that geography plays an overwhelmingly disproportionate part in the consideration that the boundaries commission could take I think has to be questioned.
Right now the members in the north have the option of how they set their workweek, as do all of us. If I wanted to spend more time in my riding and less time at Queen's Park, I can do that. In our party everyone has two duty days, two other days when you sit on committee if the committee sits. On the other hand --
Mr Wildman: Unfortunately, we don't have the same number that you have.
Mr Gilchrist: You don't have to have a quorum in the House either.
If there was a 50% increase in the workload back in the riding, the member could decide to spend 50% more time. They could go from one day to one and a half or to two days up here, and that's their choice. I really have difficulty with the rationale that just because there are some more households or because of the geography somehow the job is so different that they couldn't organize their workweek.
I guess the very last point I'd like to leave you with is, the defined mandate of the federal boundaries commission is identical to the provincial one. I have to believe that if you had made representations to both, you would have the same community of interest. You would have the same talk about phone expenses and lack of access to technology. You would want, for CPP, employment insurance, young offenders issues, gun control or whatever the issues of the day might be, as equally accessible an MP as you would an MPP, and I don't think you'd make two different presentations.
All we have to satisfy ourselves with is that the federal commission heard people, listened to them, assimilated their suggestions, and the report is very clear: They did hear the north. That's what gives us the comfort that unless something extraordinary was not made evident to the federal commission, we're on the right path here. Sorry. Mr Young, follow-up?
Mr Young: I must say I think you've done a major disservice to the federal MPs, saying that they don't deal with bread-and-butter issues and that the jobs have absolutely nothing in common. I think that's like saying a public school teacher and a high school teacher, those jobs have nothing in common.
Mrs Miller: And you would be right.
Mr Young: Federal MPs deal with bread and butter: immigration, pensions, unemployment insurance, taxes, veterans' affairs, as well as criminal law issues, and they express their views on education and health care. So I think you've done a major disservice to federal MPs and your statement is totally inaccurate.
Mrs Miller: Can I respond now? I don't know how far back I can remember. First of all, my experience comes with being a member of the Algoma riding for 20 years and having the same member of Parliament who has set out, as you said, his agenda, his workweek, and I disagree. Yes, they do need to travel and they do need to knock on doors and they do need to be seen visibly.
One of the previous speakers commented, "No, we're not that much different from the people in the south." I disagree wholeheartedly with that; we are very different from the people in the south. Our whole perspective on how we live, our philosophy, how we approach people, how we look at everything is so completely different. When we see a face coming to the door, and we've seen that face over and over again, we know that person is there and that person is going to listen to us, listen to our concerns and take it back. I have yet to see Mr St Denis. I don't know what the man looks like.
Mr Michael Brown: I appreciate your coming today because I think you've raised a lot of concerns. I've been learning something over the last couple of days, and I think Mr Wildman probably, sharing a constituency similar to the one I represent, would know this.
I have an office in Elliot Lake. My constituency office is in Elliot Lake, which is the largest community in the riding of Algoma-Manitoulin. Inevitably what happens is, I go to that office once or twice a month -- that doesn't sound like a lot, but once or twice a month -- to do constituency appointments. The other two Fridays, I spend one a month in Espanola and the other one I go to the various small communities throughout the constituency.
Frankly, I don't know how I would organize my life much differently than that and still get to see the people. But in terms of Elliot Lake, what never ceases to amaze me is that Monday, after I've been there on Friday, is when they call and they have to see me yesterday. It always happens just after I've been there.
One of the things I've found, and I think maybe the other side doesn't understand this, is that there's an informal culture to the smaller communities, that kind of thinks this access that they've had since the constituencies were initiated is something they should have. It's a service they like. They like to be able to see their member. They like to be able to see me at some kind of event and tell me there's a real problem in something on an informal basis, that they have a real problem with something that has absolutely nothing to do with why we're there in the first place.
It's that informality that provides us with information that we use on a daily basis, and that kind of closeness that comes from small communities is something I think I hear you saying you're afraid will be lost because, as you say, you haven't seen Mr St Denis. He is in as many places as he can be, I know for a fact, and Mr Wildman will tell you that. It's just that the riding is that much bigger and it is that much more difficult, and it's about to get that much more difficult for him.
Would you agree that's one of the cultural differences, that you expect to see us at these things?
Mrs Miller: Yes, definitely.
Mr Michael Brown: And you'll tell us about the child support payment or something that is on your mind, or whatever the issue is.
Mrs Miller: Yes, absolutely. Mr Young referred to the comparisons between the federal MPs and the provincial MPPs. When I was getting information, I never once looked -- well, I tried to look through the phone book and after a while I gave up. I just looked through the government of Ontario pages in the phone book to get the information, because that's where it is. We have information accessibility through those numbers on those pages, not the federal numbers. I'm sorry, I don't see any comparison at all.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mrs Miller, for appearing before us today and presenting your viewpoints.
1600
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
The Acting Chair: Next is Mr Shaw, from District 30 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Sault division. Mr Shaw, you have 20 minutes you can use at your disposal as you like.
Mr Geoff Shaw: Yes, thank you. I will essentially go through my brief. I'd like to welcome you to Sault Ste Marie. I know the last thing you need to hear is a cranky teacher at 4 o'clock on Friday afternoon when I'd rather be at my TGIF.
The Acting Chair: Not at all, sir.
Mr Shaw: I think I'm probably your last person. Perhaps my first comment in my brief gives you a hint as to the tenor of what's going to follow.
I welcome you to area code 705. I throw that in because Bill 81, in my reading of it, could easily be renamed Bill 905. That seems to be the part of the province sucking up the representation and the power that goes with it. As a little aside, that's also the power base of the government moving the legislation; however, that's just part of my cranky nature, I guess.
The first issue that I should quickly address -- and I gather you've heard from some other teacher groups today as well -- why I am here as a representative of the secondary teachers -- really, not of Sault Ste Marie; that should be of Algoma. This wouldn't seem to be a topic with direct relevance to education; however, it does speak to the general direction of this government as it slashes public spending in what I feel is an ill-advised and ill-considered way. The negative consequences of this slashing will be felt in Ontario for a generation or more, long after this government is gone.
In my years as president locally I've had many hard sessions dealing with the board of education, but I respect the democratic ideals the board represents. I would hate to see it go. This government has made it clear that it intends to create much larger boards, boards that can only be less representative and less democratic. Bill 81 is cut from the same cloth.
You've likely heard everything I'm going to say before. I don't think I can add anything new. I know Mrs Miller was making several points that I'm sure I will allude to as well, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't hear it again. Repetition can sometimes be a valuable learning tool. In any event, I've only got five or six points I'd like to concentrate on.
The issue of course, and everyone is aware of it, is that northern Ontario is going to lose five of its 15 seats. That's one third of the representation at Queen's Park. Other areas are going to lose representation in this shuffle as well but I'm not going to comment on them. I'll concentrate on the north.
Rhetorically, why should this be a concern? After all, it is intended to create a cheaper government. The question really has to be, is it better? Is it more democratic? Or are these issues even being considered by this government?
The so-called commonsense but anti-social offensive in Ontario has become infamous for reducing all issues to budgetary considerations: whether this or that will save money from the treasury so that savings can be channelled into servicing the debt or paying for a tax cut. No other consideration is allowed; not the people's education, health, social services, not even, it seems, the political process. Nothing escapes this simple-minded exercise, no matter what the damage to the society.
The size of ridings must be based on factors other than population -- I heard the byplay here a moment ago -- but like anything else in our complex society this issue is more complicated than it would appear at first. If population were the only factor, then the entire Yukon and Northwest Territories would not warrant representation by one MP. The new Tory government just elected in Prince Edward Island could hold its legislative sessions in the corner doughnut shop; that's how many members they would have. There certainly would be no need for an expensive Legislature.
Fortunately for the citizens of PEI, if not for Ontario, there is a well-established principle that geography, demographics and regionalism must be taken into account along with representation by population in determining riding boundaries.
The human factor: How much physical space can one individual deal with must also be part of any calculation of riding boundaries. Most of the ridings in the north are already immense; the citizens will be not well served by making any of them even larger. This diminishes the role of the MLA in Ontario and diminishes the democratic principles they represent.
As meaningful as the work of the MLA in Queen's Park is, MLAs are of most significance and have the most value for the citizens of this province when doing work in their constituencies when the Legislative Assembly is not sitting, unless the members of the committee consider only time spent in the Legislature as their job, much as many seem to think my job ceases when the class leaves the room. Obviously it doesn't apply to this group.
I go on to quote from one MLA, and I can't even remember which one I pulled this from: "It doesn't really matter whether you're a Tory, a Liberal or an NDPer. The physical requirements of being in a number of places all at the same time cannot be solved, regardless of what party you're with." Making the ridings larger simply exacerbates that problem. In Algoma, Mr Wildman's riding obviously, going from 36,000 square kilometres to 70,000 boggles the mind.
To pick up again from what Mrs Miller was saying, the reality of the north is vastly different from that of the south. We don't have any freeways. We have a few sections of four-lane highway but definitely not anything you would call a freeway. We don't have -- well, I said "reliable air service" but quickly corrected myself. We do have reliable air service where it exists. We just have a lot of communities that don't have air service, period. There are enormous distances to cover if the citizens are to be properly represented. A visit to the communities in one's riding can take literally weeks to accomplish, and add a northern winter, as Mrs Miller was saying as well.
We in the north often get the impression that as far as most people at Queen's Park are concerned Ontario ends somewhere just north of Highway 7. This is a very narrow and parochial view of the province, but I feel it's alive and well in this piece of legislation.
Next, I heard in the comment period after Mrs Miller's presentation -- it's easy enough to say: "The feds do it. Why can't provincial MPPs do it? What's so different?" My first comment is that there are different kinds of issues. I know Mr Young was saying that we did a disservice to Ron Irwin by comments like this, but I still feel that the roles are not the same. MLAs deal with the micro-issues much more than do the MPs. They deal with the municipalities, they deal with the personal problems, the local issues, things like family support, social assistance, day care, housing, the down-and-dirty everyday stuff, and it requires being there.
The comment was made about, would I be implying or would Mrs Miller be implying that elementary and secondary teachers were therefore different? My answer to that would be: You want to believe it. My job as a secondary teacher is enormously different from somebody teaching kindergarten or grade 1 or grade 2. I would be absolutely terrified to step into that position. I would be completely out of my depth. Yes, it is a very different job.
There is much more need in the provincial system for the individual to have direct contact with his or her representative. Legislators must be accessible to their constituents if they are to develop a sensitivity to the interests of those constituents. A fax machine, a telephone, a computer modem, and whatever else you want to add, don't constitute accessibility. There is no substitute for personal contact.
As an aside, I assume the answer to this question is yes, that the government does intend to allow more staff for these enlarged ridings. I would like to see the cost of putting a staff person in all the communities in Algoma, for instance. It will be a little bit of a different problem.
Talk, personal interaction, problem solving, not driving from one remote location to another, should be the task of our representatives.
Mrs Miller also commented on the community-of-interest concept. I'm not going to go over that again, the wide range of communities in our northern rural ridings.
We already have too many alienated people in this province, alienated from the very people who profess to govern in their interests. We don't need more. This is a centralization of power in Toronto and in the hands of cabinet and will only serve to further alienate the citizens of this province, in particular those in the north.
Centralization not only concentrates power in the south -- not only does the north lose five seats -- but it also dramatically increases the cabinet's power. There will be even fewer backbenchers and their voice, whether in government or out, will be diminished. The powerful get even more power. The bill does far more than just send 27 chairs to the dump, as so simply put by the Premier. The issues, as I said earlier, are far too complex for simplistic photo opportunities. This bill would redistribute the power that those seats represent while disfranchising the voters of the north. This is a refutation of the claims of inclusion made by this government when it came to power. The Premier says this bill constitutes leadership by example, but it really seems to be an example of a naked power grab.
1610
In conclusion, the reduction in the number of seats fails to address the Harris government's self-proclaimed mission of making government accountable. Neither does it make politicians more accessible. In fact, it contributes to less effective representation and diminishes the concept of government and, by extension, the concept of community. This alienation of the individual citizen from the legislator only aggravates the sense of alienation of northern Ontarians from Toronto. It's too easy to rubber-stamp the federal boundaries. To do so denies the communities of interest that have developed throughout the north.
One writer in the Toronto Star commented: "The main reason advanced to justify cutting the size of the Legislature to 103 seats is the need to save money. The sums expended to sustain legislators are very small when weighed in the provincial balance, but slashing them has great symbolic resonance." An editorial went on to call the savings "a drop in the deficit bucket." There are no significant savings to be realized by this move. The real issue would seem to be, as one of the Liberal MLAs said, that it's about downsizing democracy: "All you want to do is eventually replace all of us with 1-800 numbers."
Well, there's a price to democracy. Sometimes the price is paid with lives. We've just finished commemorating the sacrifice made by Canadians in two world wars to protect democracy. At other times, the price of democracy is much less dramatic. In fact, it may just come down to dollars, and this is one of those times. Thank you for your attention late on a Friday afternoon.
The Acting Chair: Mr Shaw, we have some questions for you. We have about 10 minutes, 3 minutes for each side, starting with Mr Gilchrist from the government.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Shaw, for coming before us here today. I'm going to start with your very first paragraph, your opening premise. I'm curious to know, considering that this commitment was made in May 1994, 13 months before the election, were you and your colleagues confident of the PC government winning an overwhelming majority government, a year before the election?
Mr Shaw: I'm sorry, what commitment are you referring to?
Mr Gilchrist: You're suggesting that our commitment to make our boundaries coincidental with the federal boundaries, which is part of the Common Sense Revolution, is somehow a power grab: "Strange perhaps that it is also the power base of the government moving the legislation." So we're to believe, since that's your opening premise, that this is politically motivated, that this is gerrymandering, that somehow we knew in May 1994 that we would win all the seats in area code 905.
Mr Shaw: Let's put it this way: I think in May 1994 you had a very good idea of where your power base was and that this was a very safe promise to make.
Mr Gilchrist: Oh, really?
Mr Shaw: I would assume that your pollsters would have had --
Mr Gilchrist: That's very interesting, because at the time the Liberal Party was standing at something like 52% in the polls and we were at 16%, before we came out with what I think many people have regarded as a visionary document, quite frankly the first time a would-be government has had the commitment, the integrity, to put forward their election plank that far before an election.
The other thing I find somewhat distressing is that in everything we've heard in our two days so far in the north and that I suspect we'll hear again in Timmins tomorrow, it's very much a north versus south attitude here. We haven't heard anyone say that there's a transition area, that Parry Sound, Nipissing, Muskoka are sort of half-north, half-south. We haven't heard that there are even a variety of differences between urban and rural northern seats, and I intuitively find a problem with that. We've just heard north versus south.
If the north is losing five but the south is losing 22 of the existing seats today, I wonder if you can explain to me why it wouldn't be perceived that the south is losing four times the voice it currently has. Let's leave aside rep by pop. It's losing four times the number of voices it has at Queen's Park and, if I go to your last page, it would therefore follow, four times the number of people there articulating messages for their constituents at Queen's Park. Why this focus on the five seats in the north when the south is losing four times as much?
Mr Shaw: As I said at the beginning, I did say other areas of the province were also losing seats and losing voices. I'm not talking about just the north. My concern is the fact that with any of these seats, whether it be the five here or the 20 in the south, you are taking away the voice of the people. You're taking away representation, diminishing democracy in this province.
Mr Gilchrist: So you're not saying the north is being treated unfairly relative to the rest of the province. I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I'm not suggesting for a second that you're agreeing with the bill, but you are telling us that you do not believe the north is being singled out?
Mr Shaw: Oh, I didn't say that.
Mr Gilchrist: Fair enough. Let me just ask one last thing then, because I know our time is short. I appreciate that we have an advantage that you don't, because we sit in the caucus meetings and we know the available time to try and articulate the views of our constituents. The previous two governments also had significant majorities; without splitting hairs on the exact numbers, they too had more or less the number of government members. We have 82 people, and we have a two-hour caucus meeting. Does it stand to reason that if the same number of people in this province were represented by, just to pick a number, 60 government members, each person in that room would have 25% more time each meeting to articulate their views, a 25% greater chance of being able to be on the agenda to be heard? Is that not a logical assumption, that, ironically, you can get to the point where there are so many voices clamouring to be heard that literally that's what allows the cabinet to some extent to go off on their own direction, because they don't get a chance to hear from all the sides? There's never enough time.
Leaving all the other factors aside, and I'm asking you this one very simple fact, if there were 60 voices in that caucus room, would we not have a better time, each of us, standing up for our residents than we do with 82?
Mr Shaw: Do you want to carry that argument a little further?
Mr Gilchrist: No, I didn't carry it further than that because I think that's a realistic number looking at the downsize.
Mr Shaw: Make it 20, make it 10, make it 50. What you're doing --
Mr Gilchrist: I'm despairing of the fact that at some point, and this is now five days, somebody will give me a straight answer to a question.
Mr Shaw: The straight answer is that of course you're going to have more say within the caucus hearings. On the other hand, the individual, the person I am out in the riding, does not have as much chance to get hold of one of those people, because there are fewer of them and there are more of us.
Mr Gilchrist: It's a tradeoff there.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you for your presentation. Having listened to your presentation, you raised one issue, and I think it's a significant issue, that hasn't been raised by too many presenters, what I believe to be one of the grand agendas of this government, and that is quite simply the transfer of effective power from the legislative branch to the executive branch of government.
It seems quite clear to me, when we look at the consolidation of power in the Premier's office and in the whiz kids, that this is what this is really about. It's really about taking it out of the Legislature where people may say things that affront the government or may not always agree with the government, and it is better -- always under the guise of efficiency of course -- to take that power behind the closed doors to make the decisions and essentially shut out the voice of the constituents -- not our voice as politicians; we are attempting to mirror the views being held in our constituencies.
My university schooling was in history and political science so it seems quite apparent to me. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more about this shift from the assembly to the imperial power of the cabinet.
Mr Shaw: My background is the same.
Democracy is messy. It really is. It's not efficient at all, and anybody who tries to make democracy more efficient is scary. I'm frightened when people start to say we need to make this democratic system more efficient. Efficiency and democracy are completely antithetical. Democracy is messy, and it has to be. That means a lot of people, it means a lot of voices, the more the better, the more the merrier -- not the fewer the better, not the more efficient the better, but the more voices. I find this very frightening, that indeed you take away the voices and you concentrate the power in the hands of the cabinet.
Mr Martin: I just want to clarify a couple of things. We have today, on a couple of occasions, both Mr Wildman and Mr Brown, spoken to the difference between urban and rural ridings in northern Ontario. To suggest that we haven't is just not true.
Another thing is just to point out that I make no apology for saying that northern Ontario is being dealt with unfairly by this piece of legislation. We're losing five out of 15; the south is losing 22 out of 115. We're losing 33% of our voice; they're losing 18% of their voice. That's clear, that's unequivocal, that's non-arguable, which gets me to the question I've wanted to ask for a while now but haven't really had a chance.
You belong to a provincial organization and you know what it's like to go from northern Ontario to southern Ontario and to be immersed in the large number of people who show up at these meetings and to have your voice heard, to have your concerns understood and to have decisions made that reflect that real and genuine concern.
I remember, as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, going to a small school near Midland where they were trying for years to get some renovation done. You could actually see through the floorboards down to the ground. In order to get a drink of water out of the fountain, you had to touch the thing with your lips, so there was all kinds of possibility for -- but they could never get it past the school board in Barrie, because there were too many of them and there was only one representative for the whole area they were in. Whenever you went to Barrie to go to the meetings, there were about 19 he had to deal with, or whatever.
My experience, and I think I share it with my northern colleagues, is that when you go down to the south, whether you like it or not, numbers are important. The more voices you have, the more clout you have, the more ability you have to make your point and get your concern heard. What's been your experience in your organization re that whole question?
Mr Wildman: By the way, Mr Stewart said that OSSTF was very democratic.
Mr Shaw: I wasn't sure how much sarcasm there was in that. However, I won't belabour that point. He's not here to respond.
My experience is very similar. We have a constant fight with our provincial office and with the rest of the province in terms of representation from the north. We have to ensure that there are as many bodies and as many voices present as possible, otherwise we get lost in the shuffle. You're dead right: 33% fewer voices in the Legislature. We face the same kinds of problems. Any province-wide organization does. Yes, if you're not from the north it's going to sound like a lot of cranky whining. It's the reality of living in the north.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Shaw, for bringing in your views. We didn't find you cranky at all. We had a good exchange. Have a good weekend.
Mr Sergio: Can we give my friend Mr Turco another few minutes, Mr Chair?
The Acting Chair: No, he had his 20.
Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, I'd like to table with the committee two letters from municipalities in Algoma district: one is from the township of Dubreuilville, which is a francophone community in the northern part of the district -- they weren't able to attend because of the distance; and one other from the township of Macdonald, Meredith and Aberdeen Additional.
The Acting Chair: The clerk will ensure that they're distributed in Toronto.
Ted has a 10-second advertisement. Mr Glenn: I have distributed one copy per caucus of research response to Mr Colle's request for information and Mr Wildman's request for information, which were changes to the number of ridings in each province, as well as the Camp commission's recommendations on representation in districts in Ontario. If you have any questions, you can ask me.
The Acting Chair: A housekeeping item: We're heading to Timmins, so be at the front door at 8:15 tonight. The charter goes out at 9:20.
Thank you very much for participating in today's events. I declare this particular session adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1625.