[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 17, 1995

.0900

[English]

The Chairman: I think we're ready to go. I appreciate that you are here on time. We have four witnesses here this morning if everybody shows up. I've been told we have to be out of this room at 10:45 a.m., so that's another reason for keeping the schedule.

The first witness is Maria Minna from Beaches - Woodbine. Welcome, Maria. The timing on this is 20 minutes, so you can use it all for your presentation or leave some time for questions.

Ms Maria Minna, MP (Beaches - Woodbine): I'll be brief. I think I've given you most of the stuff.

My riding is called Beaches - Woodbine because it starts, as you probably know, at the famous east-end beaches of Toronto, which attract people from all over Metro for walks on the famous boardwalk. The redistribution takes the riding from the lake front basically all the way to North York, and includes a chunk of North York, which makes no sense whatsoever.

There are two very distinct communities here. One is the East York community at the north end of my riding at the moment. East York is a very old community. It goes back to pre-war and also includes the small modest homes of soldiers who came back from the war. I have a map that I'll pass around for you to look at, which goes back to 1850 and shows Cosburn, which is one of the streets. It's a very old community. It's been around for quite some time.

It proudly calls itself the last little borough in the country because it is the Borough of East York. It is the only one left. There have been umpteen attempts to try to amalgamate East York with the City of Toronto or North York, but it just hasn't happened because of its distinct community feeling. More community events are held within the borough because it's small than any other community I know. It has a very distinct identity.

The difficulty in bringing the riding boundaries up to North York is that the North York portion is very small, so 95% of the riding would be comprised of two very distinct communities. These would include the Beaches area, which is very well known across Metro and sometimes even outside of that area, and the East York part. Only about 5% or less or the riding would include this little piece of North York, which has been tacked on to add numbers. This makes no sense in terms of historical community of interest in the area. It's not really part of any of the communities in the rest of the riding.

The south end of the riding, the southern Beaches, as I said earlier, is a very distinct community. It goes back to 1813 and so on. Part of the break-up in the southwest part of it makes no sense. Ashbridges Bay is part of the beach area with the boardwalk and isn't all that huge. It's called Ashbridges Bay because of Ashbridge estate, which goes back to 1850 and even earlier. The great-grandmother of the Ashbridge family is still living in Ashbridge's House in the riding. The house will be on one side of the boundary, and half the bay will be on the other side, which makes no sense whatsoever. This is a community, again, which is the reason it's called the Beaches.

.0905

The last redistribution caused some problems in the riding, in that the East York part was not traditionally part of the Beaches area. The expansion, which was in order to give more population, went up to East York, which is why it's now called Beaches - Woodbine.

Yet every time I go to the doors or talk to an East Yorker, I get a reaction from them: ``What the hell is this about the Beaches? Why are we part of the Beaches? We're in East York here.''

If you talk to the Beaches people, they don't even acknowledge that East York is there, let alone add on North York. Relating to North York is like going to another world. It's a whole other country to them.

So it's difficult enough to have those two communities. They are two very distinct communities that I deal with. Because they're two large, distinct communities, you deal with them as separate halves. But tacking on a tiny little piece doesn't make sense.

The other is that Greenwood Race Track, as some of you may know, has been sold to a developer, who is developing houses. There will be 1,000 units built sometime soon. The work has already started. It's no longer ``if or but''; the land has been sold and the work has been started.

The only thing that's happening right now is that the community is trying to negotiate a way with the developers to maintain at least 20 or 30 acres of that land for parks. But the city has definitely already accepted that 1,000 units will be built. That's a given. All that will happen now is a matter of working with the community to make sure of the design, make-up and all that stuff.

The numbers are there, so there will be about 5,000 to 7,000 new residents living in the area, if not more. On the main route of Queen Street, there will be some high-rises, so you're likely to get a lot more people. So in terms of population that will add to it, and that wasn't taken into account.

I spoke to the commissioners when I appeared before them. They said they couldn't deal with that, but they seemed to be interested in changing the name of the ridings. They had a book with them. Someone had apparently suggested that all the double and hyphenated names should be changed to one single name because that would make it easier for everyone.

The suggestion for Beaches - Woodbine was Norway Avenue. There's a tiny street in the riding called Norway. Somehow this guy thought that was a nice name. I said that if he wanted to be lynched by the Beaches people, then he should go right ahead. This is a very strong community. The two communities - Beaches and East York - are very strong communities.

The Beaches area includes the whole Ashbridge area. In fact, when Greenwood Park is built, a lot of the activity will move further west. We have the Beaches Jazz Festival, which attracts 100,000 people every year. We have the the Beaches Canada Day festivities, which attract about 60,000. I'm not exaggerating; These are factual numbers. We have the Beachfest at the end of the season, in September, which attracts about the same amount of people. It's a really thriving and very visible part of the city.

East York has its own thing. They are very proud to say they have the longest ongoing - it goes non-stop - Canada Day parade.

What we have been thinking at the riding is that adding a bit of East York to us is acceptable, because that's a continuum of the community we now have. It's acceptable, but it's not necessarily all of East York. If you want to give some population to our riding, adding a portion of East York is acceptable, because that's still a continuum of what the riding already has.

Going into North York goes into a whole other community with a whole other history, with different kinds of problems and issues that don't really have anything much in common with the historical East York and the Beaches areas, which, as I've said, are two very distinct communities.

Breaking away part of the heart of Ashbridges, which is the bay and which is part of the Beaches, from the riding makes no sense at all. It's like someone coming into the middle of your living room and saying, ``This portion is no longer part of this family''. That's really what it's like there. This is that kind of community.

I'll stop there and let you ask questions.

I'll send around, for you to look at, a very old map that goes back to the 1800s. I've put an asterisk next to the Ashbridge estate and Cosburn, which is part of the north end of East York. The bay line is actually turned around and goes the other way now. It looks different at the bottom end because the bay part has been turned around. It's going in the opposite direction on that little arm so it takes in that beautiful park. It's really lovely down there.

.0910

The Chairman: Thanks, Maria. Can we keep this and make it part of the record?

Ms Minna: Sure, if you like. I have other copies.

The Chairman: Are there questions?

Mr. Hanrahan (Edmonton - Strathcona): The problem I have is I'm not that familiar with the area and you've gone through it fairly quickly. I'm trying to find boundaries, and they're all over this book.

Ms Minna: I can help if you like.

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes, I'm going to need a little bit of help here. Beaches - Woodbine, as I understand it from this schmozzel, right now goes about halfway up what's proposed. They're going to add to the north end.

Ms Minna: The riding right now goes north. It stops at what's called Taylor Creek Park at the north end of it.

Mr. Hanrahan: And is that north and south of Taylor Creek or is it just south?

Ms Minna: Just south. My riding stops at Taylor Creek.

Mr. Hanrahan: Okay, so it's the riding and everything north of that.

Ms Minna: Yes, it's everything north, which is all of the rest of the municipality of East York, but then it goes beyond the boundaries of East York into North York, which is a whole other huge borough that is not part of the historical area of the east end of Toronto. East York is almost like East Toronto. It's very old community and they pretty well developed at the same time, as you can see from that map.

Mr. Hanrahan: As to the area that has been added, part of it has a community of interest with Beaches.

Ms Minna: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Hanrahan: But it is sparsely populated. There could be an area of growth there.

Ms Minna: In East York? It's not really sparsely populated. There's a bit of industrial area, which probably cuts down, but it's quite heavily populated.

Mr. Hanrahan: And the other part?

Ms Minna: The other part is North York. North York is a brand-new borough that developed during the 1970s and 1980s. It's not part of the historical East York area. Currently the North York area belongs to Art Eggleton.

They've tacked on a very small piece - it's only about 5,000, I think, or even less - to the riding of this big borough at the north end, which doesn't make sense whatsoever. They aren't going to relate to Beaches - Woodbine, first of all. You can't change the name, because then you alienate 95% of the rest of the riding in order to make it palatable to those 5% up top. They really should stay with their natural community borough, where they are now, which is part of the North York community.

Mr. Hanrahan: So you have no problem with the east and west boundaries. The south obviously you can't change.

Ms Minna: The west, yes, because -

Mr. Hanrahan: That little part that's coming from Eggleton -

Ms Minna: Yes, the north part.

Mr. Hanrahan: What I'm looking at here again is this domino effect. Is Eggleton's riding the only one that's going to be affected?

Ms Minna: Actually that's Collenette's riding, not Eggleton's; I'm sorry.

Mr. Hanrahan: Oh, I see.

Ms Minna: We have two points. One is that the north end is stretching into North York. The other is on the west end, which now goes to Greenwood. On the southwest, from the lake to Danforth, Greenwood is the dividing line. When you take that chunk off and go over to Coxwell, it cuts off the whole of Ashbridge, which is what I've been talking about.

So I'm losing in the southwest a community that's very much a community of interest and gaining in the north a community that is not a community of interest, which makes no sense. In addition to that, there is growth as a result of the development of Greenwood Race Track, which will add population anyway on the southwest.

Mr. Hanrahan: Can you tell me, just off the top of your head, how the population is going to be affected?

Ms Minna: I would say by about 5,000 to 8,000 people. One thousand units will be built there in addition to some high-rises along Main Street.

Mr. Hanrahan: Do I understand from you that half of the development of the race track is going to be in one riding and half is going to be in another?

Ms Minna: No; that stays within the riding. The track itself stays intact, but the land around it, which is part of the park and play area and Ashbridges Bay, will be divided. The Ashbridge estate, which was the original part and which is why part of the Beaches area is called Ashbridges Bay, will be divided. The Ashbridge house is on one side and Ashbridges Bay is on the other.

The historical part of that area is just mangled; that's what I'm saying. Some of the people have lived there for two or three generations. They're very proud of their community. They don't consider you a Beacher until you've been there 50 years. I have a few years to go myself.

.0915

Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Maria, we've had submissions from Minister Collenette. Certainly he seems to accept your proposal; he wants to keep that portion of North York that is now part of his riding in his section. There's agreement between the two of you there.

Do you know how large is the population that has been given to Broadview - Greenwood, that is, to the west of Coxwell?

Ms Minna: I'd say you're talking about 5,000 to 10,000. It's about what they're giving me at the top.

Mrs. Stewart: So the difficulty is population in Broadview - Greenwood.

Ms Minna: East York is now a very small borough, and it's been chopped up into four or five different ridings, which is really unfortunate. So Dennis could easily go north, even if it means crossing - I mean, I can cross the creek, and so can he, in essence; it doesn't matter. He can go north of him into what's called the Northcliffe area. Then he can in fact add the population he needs without going west and squeezing into a community that is really not part of Broadview - Greenwood.

The Beaches community has really no history -

Mrs. Stewart: With the northern end.

Ms Minna: That's why it's been divided that way. It's been like that for the last 50 or 80 years. Every time there's been a redistribution they've maintained those boundaries because of that historical relationship to the community.

In terms of community, the East York community, the north end, for Dennis, has been a positive area -

Mrs. Stewart: It's contiguous with what he has, yes.

Mr. Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): Mr. Chairman, I know they don't take into consideration the potential when they make these up. They take it as it is at that point in time.

On your point about the former Woodbine Race Track, I missed your total projection on figures for that.

Ms Minna: About 5,000 to 7,000.

Mr. Richardson: The way it stands now, that would be in Broadview - Greenwood.

Ms Minna: No, that would stay in Beaches.

Mr. Richardson: That little jog-off on the side stays with you.

Ms Minna: The Greenwood track stays with me. You just sever the map. You look at Coxwell and go from the beach up to Danforth and sever that. I lose what's west of that, between Coxwell and Greenwood. That's the part that's being taken off.

Mr. Richardson: That's what you want in your riding. You want to retain that.

Ms Minna: Yes. It's part of the historical part of the riding. It's very much part of Beaches. When the people in the community found out they were very upset. These are just not people who are one way or the other in terms of party line; they just don't like the fact that the riding already is called Beaches - Woodbine. East Yorkers don't relate to the Beaches area and the Beachers don't relate to the East Yorkers. Now we bring in North York.

Mr. Richardson: On the community of interest aspect - and you're bidding on this, but the population one will put you out of whack - what you're giving up to David is minimal. You're talking around 1,000 people.

Ms Minna: What I'm giving up to -

Mr. Richardson: I would guess that what you're giving up to David Collenette in the north is around 1,000.

Ms Minna: Yes, that small piece in the north David Collenette obviously can keep. It doesn't make a major difference one way or the other. I still have 5,000 to 7,000 new people coming into my riding anyway.

If you add parts of East York, which are part of the natural community of interest, it doesn't change. It keeps the riding fairly cohesive in terms of community of interest, historical relationship and events and so on, without bringing in the North York element at all.

Mr. Richardson: Population-wise, Maria, that may put you into the biggest riding in Metro.

Ms Minna: Well, then, don't give me all of East York. All I'm saying is that the reason this was done was to increase the population.

Mr. Richardson: Yes. I just wanted to bring it to your attention that this flipping -

Ms Minna: I'm quite happy to stay as I am, quite frankly. There will be 5,000 to 7,000 new people anyway. I'm at 95,000, so that puts me slightly over 100,000. As I understand it, that's within the ballpark in terms of population.

All I'm saying is that if you need to add some to bring me up to 120,000 or something because you're trying to increase riding populations to a particular maximum, a chunk of East York will do that without getting into North York.

Mr. Richardson: The biggest bump would be to - I think the accommodation with Collenette is a reasonable one, and it could be accommodated. Have you talked at all to Dennis Mills about that?

.0920

Ms Minna: I have briefly. Dennis didn't even put in a proposal. He doesn't care one way or the other. He's happy with his riding. It's still East York. It's still a very positive and very cohesive riding. He already has a huge chunk of East York. By the way, in East York he goes as far north as I do, so moving a bit further north, as I'm moving, won't make much difference to Dennis. In essence we have the same community, the same interests. The only thing is that my community in the east end is being chopped up.

Mr. Richardson: I have no other questions. The community of interest is a strong plea. The other strong factor is trying to create a reasonable balance of numbers in the riding.

Ms Minna: I'm going to be inheriting an additional 5,000 to 7,000 people in the riding without any boundary changes.

Mr. Hanrahan: You made submissions to the committee. What kind of community support did you get for the position you've taken?

Ms Minna: It was very strong, because most of the events that take place in the riding are called Beachfests or Ashbridges Bay cross run, the Terry Fox Run or what have you. These are the events that take place in the community. One is interchangeable. The Lion's Club, for instance, does the Easter parade. The Lion's Club does a lot of fantastic work in the riding. Their clubhouse is in Ashbridges Bay, which is now divided in half.

What I'm saying is that it's all one community.

Mr. Hanrahan: That's a point I would reflect -

Ms Minna: I could give you the Lion's Club charter and a list of the works they've done in the community. It's all one and the same.

The Chairman: We've got a term here: ``minor variances''. That would be the case with the Ashbridge estate. I think that's just a minor variance; you've cut your rural community in two.

Ms Minna: Yes.

The Chairman: We can make note of that, too.

Is there anything else? We're on time, down to the second.

Thanks very much, Maria, for coming in.

Ms Minna: It's a pleasure. Thank you.

The Chairman: The next witness is John Manley, who is due now. I don't see him, so we'll have a short pause.

.0923

PAUSE

.0926

The Chairman: John Manley will likely not be coming, but he has just submitted a written report. He may show up. If he does, we'll validate him, which gives us a little bit of time here. But there's a couple of little things we have to do.

I guess things have been coming in sporadically, but since we met last week, various people who have appeared before us have submitted written submissions, in addition to the oral ones they made. They've followed it up with written submissions. We obviously need some kind of a motion to make these submissions part of the record as they come in. Will somebody move that?

Hugh moves it, and John seconds it.

We still have a few minutes. I thought perhaps we could go in camera now and talk about the report as we received it just to see if you think it's where you hoped it would be and took the form that you wanted. Can we do that now so we could talk about this until the next witness arrives in 10 or15 minutes?

[Proceedings continue in camera]

.0942

The Chairman: I want to welcome our next witness, the Hon. Art Eggleton, right on time. We appreciate it. You have twenty minutes, Art. You can talk for the full 20 or you can leave us time for questions.

Mr. Art Eggleton, MP (York Centre): I'm happy to take even less than that because I have to be over at the cabinet at 10 a.m.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, when I first became a candidate in York Centre I remember people used to ask me where the boundaries of the riding were. While it was easy to talk about the 401 or Steeles Avenue on the north, it wasn't so easy to describe where the east and west boundaries were because they meandered all over based on the Don River, west branch and the Black Creek.

Even though it may not be the most convenient way to describe your riding, it really is the best and most logical way to divide the boundary because it divides it in a way that keeps communities that are cohesive together.

What is being suggested in the proposal you're considering goes away from those logical, natural boundaries into a new set of artificial boundaries. I don't think the citizens of York Centre or the citizens of all the other ridings in Metropolitan Toronto should be inconvenienced by this kind of shift for the sake of reducing by one riding.

I know redistribution has to take place from time to time, but I think when you come across a situation where you look at the number of ridings and a comparatively small adjustment has to be made - i.e., one riding less according to the population statistics - a lot of people would be put to a lot of inconvenience through that kind of shuffle.

People get used to the communities they're part of, the natural boundaries of the communities like the rivers, and they get used to their member of Parliament - at least I hope they get used to their member of Parliament. I think you have to weigh very carefully whether you should shuffle them off into another community. On balance, looking at this redistribution plan, the people of York Centre should not be put to that kind of inconvenience.

I think the creek on the west and the Don River west branch remain good, logical boundaries that keep communities together. For example, the east side this portion of the Willowdale riding has no relationship with the community on the other side of the river and shouldn't be added on.

We're talking about adding on a chunk on here. There's no relationship, in terms of community activity, between people on this side and people on this side. It's much the same over here as well on the west side.

.0945

On the west side, I think you heard already from my colleague Sergio Marchi, whose riding is York West. He feels the same way, that the natural boundary makes more sense. Instead of using the natural boundary, they're talking about extending the boundary along Grandravine Drive. It's not even a major thoroughfare; it's a residential street. Dividing that community in half I don't think makes sense.

I would hope we would not be proceeding with this plan. I'm sorry that the other options have been held up in that other place, but I don't think this plan makes sense for the people of York Centre, so I would ask that you recommend not to proceed on this redistribution.

Mr. Hanrahan: What are you recommending?

Mr. Eggleton: Keep the boundary as it is.

Mr. Hanrahan: Exactly as it is?

Mr. Eggleton: Yes. As I said, you obviously can't keep boundaries the same forever and a day, but I think we have to be very careful before we make changes in boundaries and I don't think there's enough of a justification to do that in the Metropolitan Toronto area. I think we should keep the boundaries as they are.

The Chairman: The factor they are using here, almost totally, is population. There's some variance allowed, but you're suggesting that isn't what the main component of this should be; it should be community.

Mr. Eggleton: Yes, community cohesiveness and people's ability to relate to a particular riding and to their member of Parliament instead of constantly being shifted.

There have to be major shifts in the riding to the north. Our colleague Maurizio Bevilacqua has far too big a riding. That is far out of line with what things should be.

But this is sort of tinkering. It's taking off some in the west and adding on some in the east. I think, when it comes right down to it, that kind of tinkering is just not in the best interests of the citizens of York Centre or any of the other communities that are affected by this. If massive change is needed because of massive redistribution, that's a different story. Of course you need that. But not this little tinkering. It's inconvenient to the people.

Mrs. Stewart: I just point out that the minister echoes, as he points out, comments made by Minister Marchi as well, when it comes to the focus of urban ridings, the connection with the member of Parliament and the question of whether significant shifts like this make sense when there have really been no significant population changes at all.

Mr. Richardson: I just want to add that Jim Peterson made the same comment on the east side of the boundary, and we both support your contention.

Mr. Hanrahan: It seems to me they just took the crayon again and went down the line.

Mrs. Stewart: Do you have any disappearing rivers there?

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes, underground rivers.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Hanrahan: I have no objection to anything you're saying here. It's simple common sense to me.

Have you made some submissions to the committee through organizations? Is there community support for objections to the changes?

Mr. Eggleton: Certainly in our consultations with the communities, yes. If an MP is doing his or her job, he should be relating to those community organizations. He should be getting involved with what their needs are in their community and the different issues.

As you get involved with them, you try to become their champion. When they need some support, they look upon you as someone they can come to. I've built up that kind of relationship. I come from a background in municipal government, where grassroots politics is an important part of day-to-day life as an elected representative. You get used to getting involved with the community organizations and they get used to you.

Now all of a sudden we're going to say, well, you have to go somewhere else and relate to someone else. And in fact, if you happen to live on one side of this residential street rather than on the other side of it, you're in a totally different area. Even though you belong to the same ratepayer association locally, too bad; you're going to have two different MPs to relate to.

I don't think that's the way to serve people, and that's certainly what I'm hearing.

Mrs. Stewart: I have an important point to make too. It's the same one as my colleague pointed out that Mr. Peterson made. Using a residential street as a boundary and splitting it in half is the ultimate in effrontery to the citizens' community of interest.

.0950

The Chairman: But you're saying that the upheaval isn't worth it, just to balance -

Mr. Eggleton: That's right. I can understand it in Bevilacqua's riding; he has the equivalent of about three ridings. I can understand that. That's not right at all. But this little tinkering here that is going on in most of the Metro ridings, I think is wrong.

Mrs. Stewart: In fairness to the committee, we looked at its report on this particular area, and they say that no submissions were made from the community of York Centre and others. As we've mentioned so many times before, their lack of information from the grassroots, from the citizenry itself, has left boundaries that probably wouldn't have made it through had these presentations been made, given the confusion over Bill C-69. We can understand why that happened, but I think it has limited the success of the project here.

Mr. Richardson: Mr. Chairman, just as an aside, I note for those of us around here that our communities raised a storm of concern and the ridings we ended up with reflected community interest, and that's probably why we ended up on this committee. But it is important, if there is an early concern, that the community gets involved early.

Mr. Eggleton: I think we would have heard from more community people except there has been some confusion over which plan we're proceeding with and people are not sure of the status of this.

Mr. Hanrahan: Even among ourselves.

The Chairman: Is there anything further from any of the committee members? Minister, do you have anything further?

Mr. Eggleton: That's it.

The Chairman: I think you're very succinct.

Mr. Eggleton: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We have almost 10 minutes before Bob Speller comes. Did you want to go in camera for those 10 minutes and talk about that?

[Proceedings continue in camera]