EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, October 2, 1995.

.1527

[English]

The Chairman: Welcome.

Hugh Hanrahan, from the Reform Party, is here. He wasn't here on Friday.

Hugh, I want to touch on a couple of things we agreed to in an informal way on Friday - and Jane Stewart and John Richardson. What we agreed to on Friday was to try to set these opportunities for people to come and raise their objections in about twenty minutes. Twenty minutes is the time they get seated until they are gone from their seats, that sort of thing. If they want to use eighteen minutes to talk, that will leave us two minutes for questioning. If they want to use ten minutes to talk, it would leave us eight minutes or so for questioning. It's entirely up to the person how he wants our time deployed here.

Mr. Bellemare is the first to appear. We're right on schedule and we intend to keep it that way.

Mr. Hanrahan (Edmonton - Strathcona): Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering if you had agreed on the method of questioning. Would we all get a chance at it?

The Chairman: It will depend on the time, but we'll try to establish some process such that no one party will dominate, if that's agreed upon.

Welcome, Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Bellemare has presented us with this report, which we could read at our leisure. I assume there is quite a bit in here that he's going to be talking about. We're going to go by trial and error: let it run and see if this process is going to work satisfactorily. If it doesn't, we'll change it.

The floor is yours, Mr. Bellemare. You'll have approximately eighteen minutes to talk.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare, MP (Carleton - Gloucester): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the invitation to come before you.

I've consulted professionals in the field of electoral boundaries and commissions in order to get a better picture in my presentation.

Aside from preparing a short report, I've also prepared a map. The map is a huge map. I cannot leave it with you. It's just for the sake of explanation during my presentation.

The law provides that the electoral boundaries should be changed according to certain rules. I appreciate the fact that my riding currently has a population of approximately 15,000, larger than that of the province of Prince Edward Island. Notwithstanding that, I still feel very comfortable, but I accept the fact that there is a quotient rule or a quota rule. In the province of Ontario, it is approximately 97,000 and some. For the sake of brevity, I shall use 98,000.

.1530

Section 15 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act stipulates that the Electoral Boundaries Commission shall - I underline that word - be governed by two fundamental principles in the readjustment process, the first being that the population of each electoral district shall, as closely as is reasonably possible, correspond to the electoral quota of the province, in this case 98,000.

The act further stipulates that this provision is subject to - I underline ``subject to'' - the second principle, which is that the commission shall consider the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district.

Even though section 15 of the act allows the commission to depart from that electoral quota by as much as 25% either way, meaning 25% more or 25% less in margin, the purpose of the community of interest, by making the first one subject to the second one, and the more important one according to how one reads the law, it appears as if the community of interest is prime. This is why the law permits the 25% variant.

The commission has looked at the reports of the commission throughout the province of Ontario and has kept its variant to about 10%, instead of going to the 25%, save for the northern ridings.

[Translation]

You have received my objection motion. I basically agree with the commission. We must avoid radical changes.

[English]

I don't think we should have radical changes.

I have at least one grave concern, which I will point out to you.

When I wrote in my objection, I thought in terms of identity of municipality. So I was thinking in terms of how the city of Gloucester, the city of Nepean, the city of Ottawa, and the city of Vanier should be integral parts of any kind of a riding - maybe like Brockville if Brockville was big enough. Brockville or Kingston should not be chopped up in different ridings. So I had that in mind, but I discovered in my research that this was not feasible. This was sort of like a municipal ideal, but on the national level, with the geographic aspect and the numbers, you could not work that out very easily. There was an immense problem, but the law does stipulate community of interest as a basis that you still have to look at.

So I dropped the idea of trying to get all kinds of parts of the city of Gloucester back together since my request for appearance in front of a committee and when I wrote in my objections. So wanting Cyrville and all parts of Ottawa-Vanier to come back into my riding would not be practical, and I've given that up, because I discovered that there was a sense of community affiliation, community of interest, the historical patterns, and the numbers. Also, you could not affect negatively, to the point of affecting below even the 25% quotient, an adjoining municipality.

I have met with the members of Parliament from the adjoining municipalities, and it would appear as if everyone is in agreement with my last proposal. The one that is of greatest effect is the one with Minister Manley, and he is out of the country today so he could not send someone or be present, obviously, for this meeting.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Bellemare. Would you suggest that you're speaking here on behalf of John Manley, as well as yourself?

Mr. Bellemare: On the question of the point I'm going to bring up, yes.

The Chairman: All right.

.1535

Mr. Hanrahan: Can I interrupt? Are you speaking just for Minister Manley or are you speaking for other members as well? You mentioned that you've met with other members.

Mr. Bellemare: Yes, I've met with other members. They do not disagree with my point of view.

Mr. Hanrahan: How many are we speaking of here?

Mr. Bellemare: There are two ridings involved.

Mr. Hanrahan: Thank you.

Mr. Bellemare: The two ridings are to the west and to the south. The one to the east is Don Boudria's riding and he's not affected. He has no interest or gain or loss of any kind.

I've lost all of the township of Osgoode, which would come below the city of Gloucester. My assistant will point that out to you. I've lost all of that. That township is usually 10 miles by 10 miles, which is 100 square miles. That would be below Gloucester.

Below Nepean would be the township of Rideau, which I lose, which is another 100 square miles. That's fine. What you see in green is what is left of Carleton - Gloucester.

The commission in its judgment looked at the community of interest. It had originally kept within my riding the community of Greely, which was in Osgoode below Gloucester. It was pointed out at the meeting last year that this was removing this particular community from Osgoode, and it wanted to stay with Osgoode. So to keep the community of interest, to respect that point of view, the commission removed that.

There is a little spot that I had called Hunt Club. Hunt Club was divided between Ottawa South and Carleton - Gloucester. It was a subdivision divided in two. It didn't make sense. It should have gone either one way or the other.

The commission, rightly so, looked at the community of interest and amalgamated both sides of that community into one called Hunt Club and gave it to Ottawa South, and that is fine. What I don't understand, though, is why they've taken Beacon Hill away from me and given it to Ottawa - Vanier. They didn't take all of Beacon Hill away, they just took the north part and left the south part in my riding.

Now, Beacon Hill has a community of interest. The churches of all denominations, synagogues, business centres, community centres, and schools are all amalgamated in one community. It is one solid community that has grown through years. I object to the removal of Beacon Hill North from the riding. Historically, it belonged to Russell way back in 1900 and it was all part of the same riding. Then it become Ottawa - Carleton. In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s it became Carleton - Gloucester. Historically, as the law says, it was always part of that part.

Now, you will notice there are two lightly drawn arrows. There an axis up north that goes from east to west, and that is the Montreal Road, the Queensway. This is the community axis that goes back and forth between Orleans and Beacon Hill. Of course, it goes toward Parliament Hill if everyone wants to go to Parliament Hill, but that's the axis.

You get to Blossom Park, which is given to me and which I don't want. The axis of communication and of a community of stores, churches, schools, and so on is along Bank Street, north and south going towards the airport.

You will notice some pink areas. There are two pink areas. You get the one on the top. That part is a huge buffer zone that separates Ottawa - Vanier from Carleton - Gloucester or Beacon Hill. In there you have an airport and surely you'll never put people there, or at least not for the next 50 to 100 years. It has a National Research Council. We're not about to demolish those buildings. People work there; they don't live there.

.1540

You have a brand-new building for CSIS, railway lines and Highway 417, so population-wise you cannot do anything in there. It is a huge buffer. Between Beacon Hill North, the yellow area, and Vanier, the pink area, there is a buffer that will stay a buffer for the next century at the very least. The commission leap-frogged over that, miles apart, to expand Ottawa - Vanier, and then turned around and gave me Blossom Park.

You will see that the second triangle of pink happens to be the Mer Bleue. No one in his right mind would ever live there. It belongs to the federal government. It's NCC land, a marsh, a bog. There are no roads.

I point out that particular area because there are absolutely no north-south roads. From Orleans to Blossom Park there is absolutely no community of interest. Only birds can actually move from that area to the south.

You have to go to Ottawa - Vanier, from Ottawa - Vanier to Ottawa Centre and down through Ottawa South. You travel through three or four ridings before getting back into my riding. Again, as far as community of interest goes, I find it absurd. In order to reach that part of my riding I will have to drive through four ridings.

I don't understand why Beacon Hill North has been removed. I would like it to stay within Carleton - Gloucester. It answers the law as stated:

...the commission shall consider... the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district.

It answers all three.

If you leave Beacon Hill North in my riding, it does not negatively affect any of the ridings adjoining me, according to quotients variables. It is within a variant of approximately 10%, and the commission can go as high as 25%, so we have lots of room to live with.

Mr. Manley, the member for Ottawa South, has told me he definitely wants to keep Blossom Park because it belongs to the Ottawa South area. You have to think in terms of the airport and the shopping centres and the Bank Street area. Bank Street is the axis.

There are actually two axes. The north-south axis is Blossom Park with Ottawa South, and the east-west axis is Orleans with Beacon Hill, which has existed forever. In between that triangle is no man's land. No one lives there. There are some rented farms.

That huge buffer is not correct. You have to jump about three or four miles to get to the riding. It's like giving me part of Quebec. Quebec is closer to Beacon Hill than to Vanier. It's about half a mile, and in this case they've used a buffer which is about three or four miles long. I don't understand. It's beyond me.

Again, I implore you to look at the law that says there should be a quota. As a resumé, there should be a quota, which is about 98,000, but because of community of interest - and that's in the law - and the historical patterns, there has to be a variable. The commission must look at variables of up to 25%. I suggest in this case it's 10%. It does not affect negatively any of my colleagues or the adjoining ridings.

.1545

The Chairman: If you had to summarize your concern, Mr. Bellemare, would you say it's that lack of consideration to community of interest in the definition of the proposed boundaries?

Mr. Bellemare: Yes, it's the community of interest.

The Chairman: Is that what Mr. Manley's concern would be, if you had to summarize it?

Mr. Bellemare: Yes, it's the very same one, because of the axis I pointed out to you.

The Chairman: Okay, because we have to write a report, and we won't necessarily put in every word you've said. These people can compile it or condense it in some way, and if that is what your main concern is, that's likely where the emphasis will be.

Mr. Bellemare: If the Ottawa River is a huge buffer between my riding and Gatineau, or the Quebec boundary, there's a larger buffer physically between Beacon Hill, my riding, and Ottawa - Vanier.

The Chairman: The reason we're letting this go a little bit, committee members, is he's bringing Mr. Manley's concerns too.

Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Manley is aware, by the way, that I'm here, and I'm going to make those points.

The Chairman: This is a little peculiar to the first witness.

Mr. Hanrahan: I have just a couple of questions.

First of all, let me thank you very kindly for your map, because, as I trust you're aware, I'm from Alberta and this is all very difficult for me to follow. This is an ideal way of making a presentation.

Mr. Bellemare: If you showed me a map of Toronto, I'd be as mixed up as you are.

Mr. Hanrahan: Your concern is with Beacon Hill and Blossom Park. Surely when the boundaries committee was drawing up the new boundaries, they must have been under the same restrictions that the rest of us are. Can you think of any possible reason they would have drawn it the way they did?

Mr. Bellemare: I believe they tried to get all ridings as close to the quota as possible. It became evident to my researchers and me that this became their prime target. They may have forgotten the community of interest, which is indicated in the law.

It is odd that they looked at community of interest in Hunt Club and in Greely and then they divided up Beacon Hill in two.

When I say they give Beacon Hill to Vanier, they only give one part of it. They don't give the other part. They keep the south end inside the riding. So they divide parishes, organizations, service clubs, businesses and school districts in two. It's really severed in two. It's beyond my comprehension.

Mr. Hanrahan: So as I read you, they have essentially taken the electoral quota and made that their essential argument and forgotten the community of interest.

It would also seem, from what you've presented to us, that Beacon Hill was historically a little bit like a football that went back and forth.

Mr. Bellemare: No, it always was - The name of the riding constantly changed. Originally, in 1867, it was Russell. Then there was a growth in the Ottawa area and there was some development in Russell and the name was changed to Ottawa - Carleton. Beacon Hill was still in there. Then it became Carleton - Gloucester.

Now the commission has changed the name to Gloucester - Carleton to indicate how important the municipality of Gloucester is. Yes, they may have made this oversight by removing part of it and giving me Blossom Park, which belongs, in my mind, to the Ottawa South axis even though it's part of the rural-urban area of Gloucester, going south towards the St. Lawrence, towards Kingston. But they divided Beacon Hill in two.

Mr. Hanrahan: Have your researchers found that this is relatively unique to Beacon Hill, or is this something we're going to come across quite frequently as we go through each one of these ridings?

Mr. Bellemare: Whoa!

Mr. Hanrahan: Or did you go that far?

Mr. Bellemare: No, sir.

Mr. Hanrahan: So that's an unfair question. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): Mr. Bellemare, could you tell us the numbers on the Beacon Hill-Blossom Park switch? We have everything but the numbers. Where would Beacon Hill be on the scale of numbers, for voters?

.1550

Mr. Bellemare: My old riding was 145,000, approximately. It goes down to 103,000. Ottawa - Vanier was about 87,000 plus, and it goes to 90,660. Ottawa South is the one that grows from 94,000 to 107,000. But that's within the quotient of 25%. As a matter of fact, it's within the 10% quotient, which is what the commission was working on.

Mr. Richardson: It wasn't very clear there, Mr. Bellemare. Approximately how many people live in Blossom Park? Have you any idea?

Mr. Bellemare: If I may round off the figures, in Blossom Park there are approximately 12,000; in Beacon Hill North, approximately 10,000.

Mr. Richardson: That's all I wanted to know.

Mr. Bellemare: There's a variant of only 2,000.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger isn't on the committee, but he has come in and asked if he can have a minute or two, because he's affected by this. He has a neighbouring riding.

So if the committee is agreeing to that, Mr. Bélanger, go ahead.

Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): I shall make three comments.

The first concerns Ottawa - Vanier. It is 87,000. I would like to point out that a sliver of it is being proposed to go to Ottawa Centre; it's essentially one poll. It's like a piece of pie. As much as I would love to continue representing the people who live in that area, I have to agree with the commission that there is perhaps a greater community of interest with Ottawa Centre than with Ottawa - Vanier. But if this group decided to recommend that it stay, then they'll be most welcome.

Number two, I have to agree with my colleague Mr. Bellemare that there is a greater community of interest between Beacon Hill North and Rothwell Heights with the rest of the riding than with Ottawa - Vanier. I say ``greater'', and that word was chosen very carefully. It is not to say that there is no community of interest with Ottawa - Vanier. There is a greater one -

I think my colleague is not aware of some of the plans to deal with that buffer zone, which is not as severe as he might indicate. Quite a lot of people live in there. As a matter of fact, quite a few people from Rothwell Heights commute through the buffer zone, the NRC campus, back and forth, to go to work. It is there, and it won't take a hundred years for it to be developed. The Rockcliffe air base is there and people are starting to think about the development of that eventually.

So I perhaps wouldn't go to the extreme of saying that it's totally isolated. There is some buffer zone.

My third and final point is the following. Although I would be perfectly happy if my colleague's arguments should prevail - and I think he has some very good arguments - if the commission were to insist on increasing the size of Ottawa - Vanier, then in my view they have looked at the only area where it could be done, which is eastward. This is because if you go westward you're going over the canal, which is historically a pretty solid boundary, along many lines. On the south, where Ottawa - Vanier has been in the past, it has been proven not to work because of the Queensway and a lot of railway lines. There's a no-man's zone there, almost a demilitarized zone, and it wouldn't work. So extension on the west and the south is, at best, very difficult.

So if the commission were to insist - and I repeat that I agree with my colleague's arguments - on expanding or increasing the size of Ottawa - Vanier, then I agree with the commission that it should be done eastward and Beacon Hill and Rothwell Heights are prime areas for that.

Mrs. Stewart (Brant): My question has been answered. I just want our colleague to explain if there are any other directions for expansion of Ottawa - Vanier.

The Chairman: We have a few minutes, because Mr. Bellemare is representing two so he got two spots in the line-up.

Do you have anything else?

Mr. Hanrahan: I guess maybe a point of clarification. I don't want to cut into Mr. Bellemare's time.

Are we here to make concrete recommendations, or are we here just to hear the report and submit what has been told to us?

.1555

The Chairman: This is my understanding of our mandate: there was a process you had to go through to get here, and you've obviously followed the right process to do that. The idea was that you wanted an occasion to be heard on the effects it's having on your particular riding. This is that opportunity. I don't think we have any mandate, really, to criticize what has been done or what is anticipated, but only to compile those and collate them in some fashion and give them to the full committee by October 16.

Mr. Hanrahan: So our support for this particular riding would be of no significance whatsoever.

The Chairman: I don't think it's our role to support or deny; it's to give you the opportunity to express your concern about the effects this would have. That's my understanding of the mandate. That's why I was trying, to some degree, to summarize it. I think I did that in what I said earlier to Eugène. I think we all did the same.

.1557

PAUSE

.1607

The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian has arrived.

I appreciate your coming over a little earlier, because we have some time for you right now.

Before we start into that, I just want to go through the process that's being used here. We didn't describe it when we began, and we should have.

From this subcommittee we report to the full committee. The full committee reports to the Speaker of the House, who in turn reports to the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province. That's the process. We're at the subcommittee level and we will make a report to the full committee by October 16.

You're on, and you have 20 minutes. You can use as much of that as you want to talk, but whatever is left over we'll use for questions.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian, MP (Don Valley North): Thank you very much.

I came a little bit early to learn from the other presentation, but there was nobody here for me to follow so I have to start my own procedures. I have four copies of my presentation.

On July 11 I presented a motion to the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs protesting the redistribution boundary changes that occurred in my riding of Don Valley North. The result of these changes was that Don Valley North has been eliminated, partly by the Don Valley East and Willowdale ridings. The southern portion of my riding went to Don Valley East and the western portion went to the Willowdale riding.

.1610

Last year when I appeared in front of the commission, again for the same subject, and asked them if they started from the west side of Metro Toronto and went east, they said yes. I understand they also did the same thing in 1981 for the 1984 census changes: they started from the west and went east. With the domino effect, one after the other, I lost my riding.

The figures shown here are for 1984. A situation happened again that was not fair. If you follow the distribution of 1984 votes, you see we gave away 23,000 votes. We gained almost 14,000 from York - Scarborough. That's a total of 45,000.

I feel it's totally unfair to do this. Basically, the last time I had a meeting with the commission, my impression was that we had to respect natural boundaries, such as rivers, main arteries, and what have you. That's why I did not propose that the Don Valley North boundary would go north to Markham or east to Scarborough and south of the 401 highway. It's because the 401 is one of the main distinguishing features not only of Don Valley North or Metro Toronto, but in the whole country. It goes from east to west. That's a landmark we should not be crossing.

But obviously that 401 boundary has been crossed a few times in a few areas in Don Valley North. So if it can be done once, why can't it be done in the case of Don Valley North? Retain the boundaries of Don Valley North as a proposal for them to review and go south to where maybe about six or seven high-rise buildings are. That will bring my number up to a population standard of 90,000 to 100,000. Or one could go further east to the Scarborough - Agincourt riding and maintain the riding.

I personally see no reason for the commissioners to eliminate the riding for the sake of increasing the number. If it's going to be increased, it can go south of the 401 to Don Valley East or east of Victoria Park to the Scarborough - Agincourt riding and get a couple of thousand votes from there to maintain the boundary. This way we can follow their logic, which is that you can go wherever you want as long as you can maintain 90,000 to 95,000 citizens.

Mr. Hanrahan: Could I just interrupt you for a minute? I think, Mr. Chairman, we're being relatively informally here.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Hanrahan: I'm looking at your map here.

Mr. Assadourian: That's 1984.

Mr. Hanrahan: Okay. You have 1980-84 and 1988-93 here.

Mr. Assadourian: And its present boundary.

Mr. Hanrahan: And its present boundary as it stands now. Is that all going back?

Mr. Assadourian: This part northwest of it is going to Willowdale.

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes, okay.

Mr. Assadourian: The southern part of it is going to Finch and to the Don Valley East riding.

So I basically have no riding. At one point I complained last year that one line was going through my residential street. I live on a residential street, which is about four or five metres wide. The north side of the street was in Willowdale; the south side of the street - this is the side I live on - was in Don Valley East.

After that, I suppose they went to map and said they would drop the line to the Finch main artery. So they dropped the line to Finch.

The commissioner visited the ridings one by one to see the characteristics they have to deal with in the ridings. I think I would advise the commissioner to visit the ridings maybe - someone should visit those ridings - and give a report on the characteristics of the riding so that it should be maintained.

Mrs. Stewart: Sarkis, let me just be clear: your riding is going to be eliminated.

Mr. Assadourian: Totally eliminated.

Mrs. Stewart: However, it was only in the last redistribution that it was created.

Mr. Assadourian: Yes.

Mrs. Stewart: And it was created by virtue of the fact that there was a community of interest at that point.

Mr. Assadourian: That's correct.

Mrs. Stewart: The indications were such that Don Valley East gave up a large portion of its riding to create Don Valley North?

Mr. Assadourian: No. We took some from York - Scarborough at the time.

Mrs. Stewart: Okay, you took some from the east, south and -

Mr. Assadourian: No, we gave to the west and south, and we took from the east.

Mrs. Stewart: Okay.

Mr. Assadourian: We took in York - Scarborough.

.1615

One point has to be made. It's also in my presentation; I didn't go over it. A metro line is coming on Sheppard Avenue, which goes right down the middle of my riding. That construction has already been on for a few months now. If that thing is completed, we expect to have large construction going on around the subway stops and the subway line for residential citizens so they can live in and around the area where a subway will be serving.

The Chairman: You think that should be a factor in anticipation of that?

Mr. Assadourian: Yes, because if you don't take it into account now, you're going to ten years down the road.

Mr. Hanrahan: Was there not an announcement, Sarkis, that there was going to be some restriction on the development of the subway under the new government?

Mr. Assadourian: No. They have two lines, Eglinton and Sheppard. The Eglinton line they cancelled, but the Sheppard line is as is.

Mr. Hanrahan: Okay.

Mr. Assadourian: It goes through my riding.

Mrs. Stewart: I just want to be clear. So your boundaries are Victoria Park on the east, Bayview on the west, the 401 to the south, and Highway 7 on the north.

Mr. Assadourian: It's Steeles on the north.

Mrs. Stewart: And it's going to essentially be gone. There will be no Don Valley North.

Mr. Assadourian: It splits in two. There is no more Don Valley North.

Mrs. Stewart: And the reasoning is, as far as you can understand, that there needs to be more population in Willowdale and Don Valley East.

Mr. Assadourian: That's my reasoning. I asked the commissioners last year, if you were to start from the east and go west, would that save my riding? They said yes. Basically they came and said okay, we're going to eliminate one riding from Metro Toronto. Why, I have no idea. Nobody told me why. I'm just guessing it's because of population. My riding happens to have a population of 88,000.

Mrs. Stewart: So they're just going to split it. Essentially, does it split in half?

Mr. Assadourian: Yes. The west and the northwest go to Willowdale and the south goes to Don Valley East.

Mrs. Stewart: In that mix you have the Don Valley and the 404, right?

Mr. Assadourian: Yes. The 404 goes through the riding.

Mrs. Stewart: So that's a big barrier. And then you keep going over to Bayview, so you have Henry Farm.

Mr. Assadourian: Henry Farm, yes.

Mrs. Stewart: You have quite a big residential area in there, to Bayview.

Mr. Assadourian: But the river there - the creek - splits and goes to Finch. Finch goes west to Bayview. Bayview Village is not in it.

Mrs. Stewart: Okay, I'm with you. So the creek stops you.

Mr. Richardson: Sarkis, you've shown us where sections are going to Willowdale and Don Valley East, but there's a fairly big chunk of the riding that sits there, and I don't know what it's attached to in your drawing.

Mr. Assadourian: Which drawing?

Mr. Richardson: In the top right-hand corner it shows it came from York - Scarborough. What happens to this section of Don Valley North, the northeastern section and the section that's in the centre? What happens to those two pieces?

Mr. Assadourian: Willowdale took up to Finch.

Mr. Richardson: Yes, I see that.

Mr. Assadourian: North up Finch from Finch to Steeles has gone to Willowdale. South of Finch has gone to Don Valley East.

Mrs. Stewart: So all this is going over to Willowdale.

Mr. Assadourian: Yes, this portion of it.

Mr. Richardson: The arrow should show it at the top. It's attached to the part going to Don Valley West.

Mr. Assadourian: It's almost fifty-fifty.

Mr. Hanrahan: Am I reading this right? This is going over?

Mr. Assadourian: Willowdale, yes.

Mr. Richardson: Yes, but the arrow that goes down below showed the bottom half of the -

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes, right.

Mr. Richardson: Okay. That clarifies the point. There's nothing left in your riding, then.

Mr. Assadourian: No, it's gone completely.

Mr. Richardson: What would you like to see in a reconstituted riding?

Mr. Assadourian: Basically, if we can cross the 401, then we can go north or we can go south. They decided to go north for no reason that was explained to me. If that's the case, why can't we go south so I could maintain my riding?

Or they could go east to the Scarborough - Agincourt riding, take a portion of that and then come up again with a 90,000 to 95,000 population, because that's 100,000 now in Scarborough East, anyway.

Mr. Richardson: Just to follow up, Sarkis, these ridings are for such a small area. We have some where they're travelling miles, and they have about 110,000 or 115,000 and many municipalities to interact. East York wouldn't even be an interactive centre.

.1620

What struck me was the small size of the ridings in the city of Toronto. The suburban ridings are big, but some of the ones in the centre are smaller in population than some of our rural ridings

Mr. Assadourian: In my riding I have about 62 high-rise buildings. It is one of the densest areas in the country, I think.

Mr. Richardson: I can see that area. It's just south of the 401.

Mr. Assadourian: The Graydon Hall area. I could take all the Graydon Hall area from Don Valley East.

Mrs. Stewart: You don't have that now, though.

Mr. Assadourian: No, I don't.

The Chairman: In summary then, Sarkis, would you say you're proposing they simply not eliminate your riding?

Mr. Assadourian: That's basically what I am proposing.

Mr. Hanrahan: To carry on from that, Sarkis, as we mentioned, this is like a house of cards; once you pull one down, they all come down. If they don't eliminate your riding, what will be the effects on the next and the next and so forth?

Mr. Assadourian: It will be like a domino effect. That's why I suggest we only go a short distance south of the 401 and maintain the high-rise buildings in the Graydon Hall area. That will give me a population of approximately 95,000, which will be within the limit the commission is requesting of 90,000 to 100,000 population.

Mr. Hanrahan: And it will have a minimal effect on the surrounding ridings.

Mr. Assadourian: Oh yes, for sure.

The Chairman: Are there further questions?

Mr. Assadourian: There may be minor adjustments, but let's see if we can keep the riding as is.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Sarkis, for coming in. We appreciate it.

Mr. Assadourian: If you have questions you know where to get me.

The Chairman: The clerk has just pointed out that the submissions we are receiving should become part of the overall report we're going to submit. So she has drafted a motion that the document entitled whatever, presented to the subcommittee by whomever, be filed as an exhibit with the clerk of the subcommittee. Are you all in agreement with that?

In other words, these exhibits as received will become part of the report we submit to the whole committee.

Mr. Richardson: Could I just ask a question about these submissions for clarification? If we can't make firm recommendations, can we make observations?

The Chairman: I don't see any reason why we can't. At the end, in summary, we'll have to do more than just hand them the box of paper. Maybe they'll expect us to condense it into a page or two.

Mr. Hanrahan: I would guess that we'd be more likely to have success with general observations rather than with specific ridings and so forth.

The Chairman: That's why I want them to summarize their specific concern in a sentence or two. His concern is that his riding is being eliminated. It's like the dominoes. If you're going to reinstate that riding, it's going to affect a whole lot of people. I'm not sympathizing with them or agreeing with them, but that would be the effect.

Mr. Hanrahan: That's reality.

Mr. Richardson: From my observation, all those ridings are small. The numbers are well under what the Ontario average is. They are in the 80,000 bracket and are in downtown Toronto.

Mrs. Stewart: Does the clerk have a report that identifies the population in each riding?

Ms Mollie Dunsmuir (Committee Researcher): It's in the back of the electoral boundaries. I'll try to add that for tomorrow.

Mrs. Stewart: It's here. That's fine, I have it. Thank you.

.1624

PAUSE

.1626

The Chairman: Okay, we're coming back. We're waiting for Mr. Bélair.

We're doing so well here that I guess we could have put these in shorter spans of time; maybe in future meetings we will. I don't think we necessarily need the full twenty minutes, judging from the experience we've had here so far, with three people. Maybe we can even do a little better than that on future ones.

The Clerk of the Committee: Okay, I'll try moving them up a touch.

Could we perhaps get the motions through first?

The Chairman: Oh, I'm sorry. We didn't vote on that motion?

The Clerk: No. What we'll have to do is do it individually. Each of them gets assigned an exhibit number. The document presented to the subcommittee by Eugène Bellemare -

The Chairman: I thought that's what I did when I read it.

Mrs. Stewart, are you paying attention to this dilemma we're in?

Mrs. Stewart: I'm going to vote in support of the motions. I think we should just have a general motion that says that all submissions made by witnesses will be part of the record, as opposed to making one every time we have a meeting.

The Chairman: That's what I thought we were doing.

The Clerk: I like that one.

The Chairman: That's the one we have. Did we not agree to that?

An hon. member: We did earlier, when we discussed it.

The Chairman: We're agreeing to that.

All right, that was on the air; that was for the record. According to that motion, so that we don't have to do it each time, when they come in it automatically becomes part of the record. That's what we wanted to do.

We may be able to carry these on by just phoning one another from the office, they're working so smoothly.

We're waiting for Bélair. We'll suspend for five minutes.

.1628

PAUSE

.1634

The Chairman: We're about to reconvene. I want to thank Mr. Bélair. There was a last-minute change to bring him here a little earlier than was initially anticipated.

Mr. Bélair, there's about twenty minutes here for you to talk and for people to ask questions. You use as much of that as you like to talk and then we'll see about the questions. I've received a copy of your presentation, and the rest are being distributed.

Thank you.

Mr. Réginald Bélair, MP (Cochrane - Superior): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think this is the tenth time I have appeared before some committee or other. I have been told that most of you have not filed objections, so I suppose the things you will hear during your hearings will bear another significance. For those of us who have been involved in the process for the last year and a half, much and everything has been said.

.1635

For the purpose of the committee and to serve my own purpose as well as those of my colleagues of northern Ontario, it was a must for me to be here today.

I have a text. I'm going to go through the text very quickly and I'll be pleased to answer any questions you have afterwards.

I would like to thank the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity today to present my views.

I also commend the standing committee on their efforts to pressure the Senate to pass Bill C-69 as soon as possible. The fate of many rural ridings and that of Cochrane - Superior depend on what will be presented in these committee hearings and in the Senate's forthcoming decision.

For the following reasons I emphatically oppose the provisions in the 1994 report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario whereby the riding of Cochrane - Superior would be eliminated.

The commission failed to comply with the Representation Act of 1974, which establishes ``adequate and realistic representation for all Canadians'', including the citizens of northern Ontario and Cochrane - Superior. The elimination of the whole riding in northern Ontario and thus one representative to the House of Commons would violate the rights and interests of the residents and jeopardize their representation.

The commission failed also to properly inform the public of its work and the electoral boundaries readjustment process in detail. I, for one, found out via The Globe and Mail that indeed there were hearings coming up. I think this is very serious.

At least members of Parliament could have been contacted by the commissioners themselves. In turn we would have mobilized our key people in northern Ontario to express their views. In Thunder Bay there were three witnesses and in Timmins there were two, including myself, just to tell you.

The citizens of this country have a right to be informed at the outset and to be given the opportunity to comment on and participate in the whole process from beginning to end.

The commission also failed to consider the special geographic factors of the Cochrane - Superior riding with regard to its size, the distances between the communities, the remoteness and isolation of the communities and access for all constituents to their member of Parliament.

In Canada there are thirteen large northern ridings with an area of 100,000 square kilometres. My riding has existing natural boundaries and stretches from the Hudson Bay coast in the north to Lake Superior in the south, and from the Quebec-Ontario border to the Thunder Bay - Nipigon riding, for a total of 351,000 square kilometres, with 41 organized communities.

It takes eighteen hours to tour the riding on travelable routes. It is essential to consider the vast distances that make up the majority of the ridings in northern Ontario. Travelling across these large ridings to attend meetings or functions and to meet with constituents taxes a member's energy and capacity to completely fulfil his or her duties while representing the needs of the constituents.

Charter flights to the remote communities along the James Bay and Hudson Bay coasts are absolutely necessary, as these constituents also request the presence of their member. Members in other ridings attend functions at either end of the riding in the same day, within hours, and in some cases within minutes.

Constituents in Cochrane - Superior already feel isolated from the larger centres. Meeting personally with their member and feeling counted is of paramount importance to many constituents, namely municipal leaders, senior citizens and citizens with particular concerns.

Eliminating Cochrane - Superior and dividing it among the four neighbouring ridings will further tax the member's time and energy and will increase the constituents' feelings of isolation. Geography, not population, should be the deciding factor in determining boundaries in northern Ontario.

.1640

The commission also failed to respect the community of interest of the rural communities and failed to give adequate consideration to the demographics of the Cochrane - Superior riding. The economic disparity of northern Ontario and my riding of Cochrane - Superior is evident. High unemployment, limited secondary industry, and dependence on the natural resource sector, which is dictated by the world market, all affect the socio-economic make-up of all ridings in northern Ontario.

The towns and villages of my riding are totally interdependent. Certain regions share the same economic, social, and cultural interests. Some regions have been working together since the establishment of northern Ontario some 75 years ago. To divide these areas would be to sever solid, traditional ties and not ensure a reciprocity of survival.

As an example, according to the recommendations of the commission, Kapuskasing and Hearst would be twinned with the city of Timmins. The needs and concerns of this urban community would overshadow those of the outlying rural areas. The same thing would apply with the west end of my riding, which would be twinned with the city of Thunder Bay.

The commission also erred in using the electoral quota as the sole factor in determining electoral districts. In terms of population, northern Ontario, with a population of 802,000, is just about equal to the combined population of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, 850,000. Northern Ontario to this date is represented by 12 seats, while these maritime provinces are guaranteed 14 members of Parliament according to the Constitution. Therefore, given the similarity in population, northern Ontario should be given equal consideration.

A balance has to be created when readjusting boundaries. They need to maintain an equality of votes in both rural and urban ridings while redesigning boundaries that are fair to the rural ridings that cover large areas.

Let me also remind you of the Senate's amendment to Bill C-69 concerning their proposal to reduce the variance to 15% as opposed to the 25% variance that was approved by the House. This 25% variance is broad enough to protect ridings with a smaller population, as in the case of most of the northern Ontario ridings. With a variance of 15%, the north would lose 2.5 ridings and there would be little chance for any rural riding to survive.

Bill C-69 in its entirety, as passed by the House of Commons last April without any Senate amendments, is vital to the survival of Cochrane - Superior and all rural ridings in Canada. This bill has been the choice of the people through their elected representatives in the House.

I have received many letters from my constituents opposed to the elimination of Cochrane - Superior. They will not settle for obscurity within the country and they refuse to compromise on the loss of fair representation.

Clause 19 of Bill C-69 would allow the commission to recommend changes to existing boundaries only where certain factors were sufficiently significant to warrant such a recommendation. The purpose of this clause is to prevent changes in boundaries merely for the sake of change or alterations where there have been only minimal shifts in population.

Subclauses 19(4) and 19(5) state that the commission may depart from its application to the rule when considering the economy, traditional natural boundaries, the rural characteristics of a territory, and access to means of communication and transport. This certainly applies to the riding of Cochrane - Superior.

[Translation]

A riding is much more than a demographic boundary for electoral purposes. It is a social, economic and cultural combination involving several thousands of people.

A riding is a tool allowing a community of shared interests as well as a means of expressing the identity and the way of life of its citizens.

In this regard, a riding should have the same status as a city, a province or a country. Any substantial change to its limits might entail significant economic and social changes to it.

Bill C-69 gives enough leeway to commissions to allow them to review in all fairness the limits of existing electoral ridings while maintaining their economic and social balance.

.1645

I would like to thank all subcommittee members for their attention. I hope they will be more successful than we have been so far.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bélair.

Mr. Hanrahan, have you a question?

Mr. Hanrahan: It's not necessary, Mr. Chairman, to begin with the Reform Party each time. I don't mind doing it; I appreciate it, but feel free to go anywhere you want.

The Chairman: Okay. I thought we were staggering it. I think we'll move to Mrs. Stewart.

Mrs. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Bélair, for your succinct presentation. As I understand it, we're going to take Cochrane - Superior and give pieces of it to four different ridings.

Mr. Bélair: Four adjoining ridings, yes.

Mrs. Stewart: So Hearst, Kapuskasing, and Cochrane will go south to Timmins?

Mr. Bélair: You may not be familiar with it, but I'll explain to you. The Hearst-Cochrane region has always existed as an entity. The actual recommendation states that Hearst and Kapuskasing would go with Timmins while Cochrane and Iroquois Falls would go with Timiskaming.

Mrs. Stewart: And then Geraldton and Schreiber, right up along Lake Nipigon, will go into Thunder Bay?

Mr. Bélair: Thunder Bay - Nipigon, yes.

Mrs. Stewart: And then the far north will be part of Kenora.

Mr. Bélair: That's right.

Mrs. Stewart: What's the total population now of Cochrane - Superior?

Mr. Bélair: It's 64,000.

Mrs. Stewart: You say you've got 41 specific communities. How many first nations?

Mr. Bélair: There are 21.

Mrs. Stewart: Are those part of the 41 or are they separate?

Mr. Bélair: No, they are part of the 41.

Mrs. Stewart: So of the 41, 21 are first nations.

Mr. Bélair: That's right.

Mr. Hanrahan: Thank you for an excellent presentation. It was very clear and succinct.

I just wanted a couple of clarifications. Your whole argument seems to be based on geography and the size of your riding.

Mr. Bélair: And fairer representation.

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes. The 64,000 constituents that you presently have would be divided among the other four. Are they approximately the same size, meaning 64,000?

Mr. Bélair: The other ridings are a little bit bigger, except Timiskaming. Thunder Bay - Nipigon would be approximately 75,000 to 80,000. It would go up to about 92,000 to approach the Ontario quota of 97,000.

More than that, I'm deeply convinced that the commissioners, when they redistributed the ridings, looked at the population only. They did not take into account the severe circumstances under which a member of Parliament has to function in order to be able to adequately represent people.

Mr. Hanrahan: I represent a city riding in Edmonton, but I certainly sympathize with you knowing my colleagues from northern Alberta and the distances they have to travel. It's very immense.

Here's the other thing I would ask you. Would keeping this proposition of eliminating one seat but increasing the budget or the staff of the other four be one way of dealing with it? If not, why not?

Mr. Bélair: In the end, that's what may happen. Right now we all have just about the same budget, and we go along with this. But if your riding increases by, let's say, 15,000 or 20,000 people, then you certainly will have to make some readjustments in your budget in order to be able to comply.

The counter-argument of this would come from MPs from Metro Toronto who have 150,000 people yet have the same budget as ours.

Time after time we all made requests to the Speaker of the House of Commons to adjust this, and it has been refused each and every time.

Obviously, as Canada is this huge geographic misunderstanding, some exceptions should be made. But Speaker after Speaker, starting with Madame Sauvé way back in 1980, has always refused to make any special allocations for those ridings.

.1650

Mr. Hanrahan: The other point that caught my attention when you were going through your report was you mentioned that the commission failed to properly inform the public of its work and the electoral boundaries readjustment process in detail. You found out through The Globe and Mail.

Mr. Bélair: That's right.

Mr. Hanrahan: How long ago did that happen?

Mr. Bélair: In March 1994.

Mr. Hanrahan: Why were you, as well as the rest of us, not kept informed? Have you inquired about that?

Mr. Bélair: No. That's all we found out.

We told them, but their reaction was, well, you found out and you're here, so what's your beef? People did not have time to prepare, because that was in March and the hearings were held on May 3 and 4 in Thunder Bay and Timmins, which gave them about six weeks to prepare. For us, also, to start the ball rolling, get the information, do the research and get them going - we didn't have time. Three in Thunder Bay and two witnesses in Timmins; that's all we had.

Mr. Hanrahan: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Richardson: Reg, was the loss of one seat directly attributable to the boundary regulations or was it directly related to the decrease in population in northern Ontario over ten years?

Mr. Bélair: No, the population has been fairly stable for the last fifteen years, I would say.

When the commission redistributed the boundaries and eliminated the riding, it complied with a request from Metro Toronto to reduce the number of constituents in those ridings that were extremely big. That is understandable. That is why my riding and Kent are gone, plus the four that Bill C-69 will allocate to the province of Ontario. That gives six ridings to Metro Toronto; that's where they're all going.

Those ridings have been reduced from a maximum of 240,000 in Maurizio Bevilacqua's riding to approximately 125,000 today. But we are paying the price.

My riding will be divided into four parcels that will be annexed to adjoining ridings. All those ridings will at least double in size. I don't know if I can put it this way, but I may be the sacrificial lamb because I have the large riding, as well as Bob Nault with Kenora - Rainy River.

Can you imagine? Bob Nault will inherit all of the northern part of my riding plus what he has already, and his riding is 310,000 square kilometres already. That's big. With my portion, he will be in the neighbourhood of 450,000 square kilometres. That's why it doesn't make sense. Bob Nault will end up with those reserves - those first nation communities - that Ms Stewart was talking about. He'll try to service that.

That's the other point I am making here. Wherever you come from in Canada, constituents want to see and talk to their member of Parliament from time to time. The telephone is somewhat personal, yes - there's a voice - but they never see you in person.

Can you imagine in the wintertime? I did not talk about the weather today. In the wintertime, when you visit the first nation communities up north, you travel by car to the airport, by charter plane to the community and by skidoo to the village. Those are the conditions we have to put up with.

I'm not complaining. I accepted the riding when I ran as a member of Parliament and when I was elected. I accepted it as it was. But don't make it any tougher to service. You need to ensure you have a presence in those ridings.

As I said in my text, in all urban ridings you can go around walking, many of them in an hour or an hour and a half. That's for most of the ridings in Canada. When you get a rural riding it's very different.

We always have this feeling that once again we have to be at the mercy of southern Ontario. I'm talking about Ontario only now. I'm talking about isolation, services, communication and means of transport. Just on the cost, I can tell you it costs me $1,000 a week to travel back and forth to Ottawa by plane. It's 550 miles from home.

.1655

So it's all those factors. When you build them in, after a while people wonder if they are really getting a fair return on their taxes. Losing a member of Parliament for the whole region or not seeing their member of Parliament as often as they wish simply worsens the fact that we are isolated. We're not as bad as Nunavut can be, but we are indeed isolated and things would only become worse if one riding is lost.

The Chairman: I want to thank you very much, Mr. Bélair, for your excellent presentation. Your oral concerns and your submission will become part of the subcommittee's report. Thank you; we appreciate it.

Mr. Bélair: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We have with us Mr. Thalheimer from Timmins - Chapleau.

I want to thank you, Peter, for readjusting your schedule a bit to accommodate us. The format is about 20 minutes. You can use it all to talk if you like, but if there are a few minutes left over for questions out of the 20 minutes, we'll ask some.

Mr. Peter Thalheimer, MP (Timmins - Chapleau): I think Reg has made it very easy for me because he's touched on all of the salient points.

I just want to pick up on what he said about servicing the communities up there. As you know, this is the first time that I've been unfortunate enough to be elected. To service those communities is so hard on an MP. People expect you to be there at certain locations.

Take, for example, what's coming up now, November 11. Where do you go? A lot of those communities have never seen their MP in their ridings on November 11 or any other situation like that. I can make maybe Timmins and Iroquois Falls in a day, and even then it's really pushing it. It's the same with July 1 and any of these sorts of things.

These people are constantly left out. They feel left out. The MP just can't get out there and service all these areas. This year I'm making an attempt to go into another part of the riding to try to cover November 11, but of course that will be at the expense of Timmins because I won't be able to attend Timmins. This is why it's just impossible. My riding is about 550 kilometres east to west.

Just before I came back to the House last fall, I attended Shining Tree, a little community about 200 kilometres from Timmins. There are about 40 to 50 people there. They have one school and I dropped in. They have grades 1 to 8. It just happened that I was going through there and I dropped in. I made it a point to drop in at the school, and I'll tell you they couldn't believe it. The MP had dropped in. This had never happened before. People expect that, and we as members should occasionally be in a position to service these communities in that way.

If you make the geographical areas larger than they are now, it means there will be even less personal contact. Aside from the fact that it's very draining on the MP, of course travelling is all down time. I travel by car, so I can't work, I can't do anything; it's completely down time. It's tremendously draining and you're not accomplishing much.

When I go out on the road for a week, I might do four or five hours of actual work during the whole week. The rest of the time is always travelling. So it makes it very difficult.

I think they have completely failed to recognize the community of interest aspect of it in this redistribution in our area. For example, Timmins itself is a community and immediately next to it are Cochrane, Iroquois Falls, and Matheson, all within 30 miles or so.

Right now in my riding I have Iroquois Falls, for example. Reg has always had Cochrane in his riding. The community of interest - the paper, the television, the radio - reaches these communities within that area. Now it's proposed that only Timmins would go directly north into Reg's riding.

In the community of interest that now exists, the shopping, the paper, the service clubs, the airport, and all of these things are intricately tied to Timmins. Now it's proposed to rip that away, to take Iroquois Falls, Cochrane, Matheson and all that away from there - and you're right next to there, physically - and they go into Timiskaming - French River. It simply doesn't make sense.

.1700

I now have that problem for the western part of my riding. The western part of my riding goes right down to White River. So you have in the area Wawa, with a population of roughly 6,000 people, and White River, Dubreuilville, Chapleau. The Wawa area is basically tied in with Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie - their paper, all their communication, their airports, their travel and so on. They're more tied into that aspect or that geographical area, the Thunder Bay-Sault Ste. Marie area.

That community of interest now is lacking with regard to Timmins, from the western part of my riding. The redistribution is not going to help them, in any event.

That is the type of thing we're going to create with the north now if we get rid of Cochrane - Superior and Timmins completely goes. We'll have no community of interest with any of those people.

In the past, of course, the Cochrane - Superior district has always had its connections along that line - Cochrane, Kapuskasing, Hearst and so on. They have closely knit communities. They didn't basically tie into Timmins, as now would happen.

Did the commission take into account the size? Obviously they didn't. Sure, we can increase our budget and have more sub-offices. I don't have the budget for it, but right now, ideally, I should have a sub-office out in Wawa. I have only one office in the constituency, in Timmins itself, as well as a part-time one in Iroquois Falls. I don't have the budget, but ideally I should have one in Wawa, or down in that area, to service that area. I should have one in Chapleau. I don't have the funds.

It's very important to people that they contact somebody from the community there, even if they don't get the MP himself. They feel less neglected.

A voice: More important.

Mr. Thalheimer: More important, of course.

Sure, it's fine to say that we go down and service a location - I'll put it in the paper or I'll let the municipalities know I'll be down next Thursday and Friday, that type of thing - but it's not the same thing. Who can come out that Thursday or Friday? They'd like to see you but they have their jobs, they have their priorities. So I have to set a date to say I'll be down Thursday or Friday, and if they don't see me, that's too bad. Then you wait another year, or another six months, for the MP to come around.

I try to service them during the winter months and during the summer months. I try to get out to these communities, but it's very difficult.

Those are my observations on that. Right now in my riding there are 44,000 voters, in a population of about 65,000. Adding on a few more people is not going to make that much difference as far as I'm concerned. Whether I serve a population of 85,000 people or 44,000, that's not the big problem I have today. The big problem I have is those distances, and getting in contact with those people. There's only so much you can do by phone and by letter and by fax.

The Chairman: Mr. Hanrahan, do you have any comments or questions?

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes, I do.

I may be searching for your insight here more than in any way trying to be argumentative, but Reg and Peter, I feel a little bit awkward, as one politician talking to another, with regard to this particular issue. A number of my constituents have asked me why this process is going on. We have an arm's length boundaries commission that is non-political, and you guys are politicians. You're going to be looking after your own best interests rather than theirs.

How would you guys respond to that?

Mr. Thalheimer: I don't look at my best interests but at the best interests of the communities. That's what I'm looking at. They're non-political. Until I was elected I never realized myself just how difficult it was from a geographical point of view to try to service these people and to make them feel part of the system. I'll tell you, they accept it, but it hurts. It's very evident when you come to these communities that they feel left out of the process.

.1705

Do these committee members really understand what it means to service people in an area like mine? My submission is that they don't understand. You have to get out there and actually see them and get a feeling for them. Then you know what you're talking about.

This is why I think they were thinking in terms of numbers, such as 65,000 people versus 125,000. For them, it's more important that the MP has a certain number rather than trying to service the numbers. In the rural ridings in which we have more people, such as 100,000 to 150,000, you can make that up very easily with staff. Staff can be there for assistance. When the MP goes into his riding, he or she is there. The people have that feeling and contact.

They don't have that in our areas. That's what the commission lacked. They didn't see that in my submission.

Mr. Hanrahan: The only other question is what Mrs. Stewart asked earlier with regard to the essential democratic concept of one man, one vote. I know we violated it in the north because of geography and in Prince Edward Island because of history, but you would see the 25% as being much more acceptable than the 15%, obviously.

Mr. Thalheimer: Certainly.

Mr. Hanrahan: That's the range you would see.

Mr. Thalheimer: Certainly. If we got away from the 25%, there would be so much inequity. I don't think anybody should be hung up that much on one man, one vote. I think representation is what counts. In a country like ours, it's impossible to try to balance that by a one man, one vote situation.

There are contacts that have to be made. Whether the votes in my riding are 25,000 less than that of Toronto, the representation is still there. In a country like ours in which you cover a larger geographic area, that argument, in my view, is not fair to the people.

Mrs. Stewart: I would just point out that, as you say, one of the key differences between the submissions we'll hear from northern Ontario versus the populated south is the notion of distance and servicing. With the huge distances between these communities, a community of interest is not such a critical thing. It's more availability and access to the member of Parliament. But the issue that we do have in the south is community of interest.

However, Mr. Thalheimer just pointed out that in his riding the one community of interest that does exist, which includes Cochrane, Timmins, and Iroquois Falls, is being put together in a different format than it was before while leaving out another one. So the whole notion of a community of interest is being destroyed -

Mr. Thalheimer: It's completely destroyed. You're right.

Mrs. Stewart: - in the one particular area where it does exist among those communities.

Mr. Thalheimer: That's right.

Mrs. Stewart: So it was bringing Cochrane in a little bit with Iroquois Falls but leaving Timmins out, which is the main city and has the main body of newspapers and that sort of thing.

Mr. Thalheimer: For those surrounding communities, that's right.

Mrs. Stewart: So the measure that has been put does destroy that -

Mr. Thalheimer: That community of interest.

Mrs. Stewart: - one piece of community of interest that is part of the legislative act at this point.

Mr. Richardson: I have just one very quick question. I can understand that. I noticed they tried to write up, though, in the commission's report that they did take in the community of interest, particularly for the francophones. They thought they were doing that, at least.

The Nickel Belt riding, which swings around Sudbury, tried to bring in as many of the francophone people as possible in that area to assure some continuity of the francophones. I think the riding of Timiskaming moved up and picked up Cochrane.

Mr. Thalheimer: Yes, and Iroquois Falls. Iroquois Falls is now in my riding and Cochrane is now in Reg's riding.

Mr. Richardson: It seems now that the rationale was to give a francophone presence again through that. It's a rather convoluted way to get up there from where the present member lives, if he's going to run in that riding again.

.1710

Mr. Thalheimer: That rationale in the Timiskaming - French River district -

Mr. Richardson: It's a long, thin riding.

Mr. Thalheimer: - doesn't fly. It starts immediately east of Sudbury and goes right up to Cochrane.

Mr. Richardson: I know.

Mr. Thalheimer: It's dumb. If anything should have been cut out, if we're going to lose one seat, I think that was the seat that should have been redivided in that area, as they initially had proposed, that Timmins would take in Iroquois Falls and go to the east, taking in Kirkland Lake. Kirkland Lake is only 100 kilometres or so from Timmins. That area is more united, or more together, than -

I think it would have made more sense that if they were going to take away a seat from up there, they should have left Reg's seat intact and then divided up the Timiskaming - French River one. It would have been much more equitable, in my opinion.

Mr. Richardson: I noticed that the rationale, when they broke up Reg's riding, was that they moved the two towns into yours because there was a community of francophone interests. That was the rationale given there.

Mr. Thalheimer: Well, yes.

Mr. Richardson: I don't know what the original move requires a lot of around it. I don't know if this -

Mr. Thalheimer: In the Nickel Belt and Sudbury districts they are basically one community up there. They are fairly close together. It's not the same as in the areas in the rest of northern Ontario. They are very much like Thunder Bay and the two ridings we have, Thunder Bay - Atikokan and Thunder Bay, and then Timmins and Sudbury. Those are cities in themselves, really. The rest of us are all over the map.

Mr. Richardson: I appreciate the submission, Peter and Reg, because it shows us the strong concern there.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Hanrahan: I appreciate the submissions, gentlemen, on your unique problems. As I said, they are very, very difficult to deal with, and I wish you the best of luck. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Thalheimer, your oral submission becomes part of the report, which is pushed on up to the full committee.

Mr. Hanrahan: Thank you.

The Chairman: I want to thank you very much for coming out.

Mr. Bélair: Would you allow me just 30 seconds? There are two points I want to mention.

First, we from northern Ontario fully understand the situation some of our colleagues from southern Ontario, or from Metro Toronto, are in. We fully understand that.

The second point I want to make is that when the hearings were held last year, the three commissioners were from southern Ontario. Two of them admitted that they had never been north of North Bay. Yes - never north of North Bay. When I was at the hearing I spent 50 minutes on the bench. They were asking about the geography of northern Ontario. Can you imagine? It's those people who divided those lines.

So it's more than obvious - and that's what I said in my opening statement - and I'm more than convinced that they simply looked at the population and said, ``There it is''.

Mr. Hanrahan: Maybe it would have been better if it were the other way around in that we had some of these commissioners sit down with some MPs and let them know what life is like, let them visit the ridings across the country and then come up with some of this stuff.

Mr. Bélair: The commissioner was a judge. He was paid $240,000 a year to do his work. It's hard to tell someone like that to come and spend some time with me in Attawapiskat on a first nation reserve and try to see what kind of services they're getting from their member of Parliament.

The Chairman: Okay. If there are no further questions, we will suspend the meeting until 7 p.m.

.1715

PAUSE

.1854

The Chairman: Shaughnessy Cohen is going to make her presentation now. For the sake of the committee, we just have one other person tonight to follow right on the heels of Shaughnessy, so we should get you out of here in good time and that's what we wanted to try to do.

Ms Shaughnessy Cohen, MP (Windsor - St. Clair): I just want to indicate that I'm also speaking this evening on behalf of Mr. Gray, who will not be able to appear before the committee but who has the riding adjacent to mine.

The Chairman: We'll make a record of that.

Ms Cohen: His objection, his motion, has been filed as well with the committee; you should have that in your records.

.1855

I've included a little package of documents that I've put at each place. On it, you'll see a finely executed coloured map, using crayons from Mr. O'Reilly's riding. I essentially wanted to show you the boundary of the proposed riding, which is in red. The purple is what is proposed to be deleted. The green is proposed to be added. The brown is what is to be developed as a result of some recent house building activity in Windsor.

Having said that, there are a couple of things that you should know about the city of Windsor, which relates to all three of the Windsor ridings: mine, Mr. Gray's and Ms Whelan's. With respect particularly to mine, the city of Windsor is actually an amalgam of several communities. The town of Sandwich was the original capital of the western district of Upper Canada and is an historic town. There's the city of Windsor, the town of Walkerville, which is in my riding, the town of Ford City, the township of Sandwich East, which has also been called East Windsor, and the town of Riverside.

The city very much centres around those communities, and those communities, although they are all part of the city of Windsor now, nevertheless are identified by the people who live there as being separate communities. So if you ask someone from Windsor where they live in Windsor, they'll say they live in Riverside, Sandwich East, East Windsor, Ford City, Riverside, or Walkerville.

Historically, the communities have developed so that all of the people who live in Walkerville generally shop in the same areas, go to the same schools, use the same routes to get home at night, and go to the same churches. These are very clearly and identifiably separate areas or communities within our city.

If I can just refer you to the map, you'll see that the purple area, which is proposed to be deleted from the riding of Windsor - St. Clair, is bounded on the south by some railroad tracks, but on the north it's bounded by Tecumseh Road. Detroit is north, so the river is north just to orient you. So the upper part of that map is basically north.

That purple area is what is known as South Walkerville. The other side of Tecumseh Road, just north of that, is Old Walkerville. That's one community that is being divided by this proposed redistribution.

I'm sure, Mr. Chair, you will remember that the name of my riding used to be Windsor - Walkerville when it was represented by Paul Martin Senior and latterly by Mr. Justice MacGuigan. Walkerville has always been really the heart and core of that riding, as is recognized in the riding's former name.

So to divide that community in two in terms of their federal interest is, I would submit, strange, to say the least. I've had a lot of comment about this from people at home. These are the junkies who sort of watch this kind of division.

Taking it out and putting it in Windsor West would mean bringing it completely out of one federal jurisdiction into another. I know Mr. Gray joins me in this. It just seems a strange and really arbitrary division when the community is originally structured the way it is.

The green part, which is proposed to be brought in from the riding of Essex - Windsor, covers new areas that used to be part of a separate township and are still linked very clearly to what is the township of Sandwich South, which is just south of that green area and is in Essex - Windsor.

What's interesting is that Sandwich South is a rapidly growing residential area in Susan Whelan's riding. The people from there have a sort of joint interest or a community of interest with the people in Fontainebleau and Forest Glade, which are the two subdivisions you would find within that green area. So the people in the township of Sandwich South for instance would come up to Tecumseh Road to do their shopping and would go to churches. Of course, they wouldn't go to schools because they're not in the city, but they would go to churches in that area, and they would have more of a community of interest with the people in the township of Sandwich South.

.1900

The brown part I've marked off is a brand-new area. I've given you a clipping from the The Windsor Star about this. This is an interesting area because it's the last big residential area on the official plan in my riding.

What's also interesting is that it is about to be developed. This article is not totally accurate. It says it will take from 15 to 25 years to service, develop and sell it. But, in fact, as a result of some developments in the last few weeks, it's going to develop more quickly than that. It's going to be the largest single subdivision ever created in this city of Windsor. It will be larger than Forest Glade and larger than Fontainebleau, which are located in that green area.

I should tell you that the green area looks geographically larger, but it has huge industrial plants in there. The Ford Essex engine plant is in there and there are several very large industrial operations in there including industrial parks and that sort of thing.

The brown area is completely and totally residential. It will have more than 15,000 people living in it by the time it's finished. It certainly will have enough people living in it within the 10 years after our redistribution to take the population of this riding up over the allowable levels if we leave in the green area.

In my view, this is problematic. It's something that was not anticipated at the time I went before the commission. It wasn't known at that time that CN was on the verge of selling and planning to develop the land. That announcement was not made until after I went to the hearing. So they did not have that information, and I think it's vital.

With respect to the rest, there is an apparent conflict, on the face of our two motions, between what Mr. Gray said and what I said about developable land in the city. Mr. Gray points out that the commission failed to recognize the potential for the immediate future residential development in his riding. He refers to it as having the largest amount of serviceable land ready for future development.

Then I say that I have the largest residential land that's developable. The land in my riding has not been serviced, but it is ready to be serviced and will take slightly longer to develop. There's more land in Mr. Gray's riding, but it's not all residential. It's serviced at this point, so it's ready to go. That's the discrepancy.

The Chairman: Excuse me. Do you have a brief? Are you reading from a written submission by Mr. Gray?

Ms Cohen: I just have his motion here that he's filed with the committee already.

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms Cohen: There are a couple of things you should know about Windsor. I know that housing starts have not been very great throughout Ontario over the last few years, but I would just like to give you a few figures from Windsor, Tecumseh and St. Clair Beach, which are the communities that I represent.

In 1991, the village of St. Clair Beach had 6 new residential units. This is in a village of 2,000 people. In 1994, 76 new residential units were built. In 1995, there are plans for 5 new commercial developments and 309 residential units for 971 people. So that will be a population increase in that community of almost 30%.

In the town of Tecumseh, in 1991, 112 residential units were built. Last year, there were 335. So far this year - I wrote this in mid-summer - 245 residential units had already been built. The majority of those are single-family dwellings.

The city of Windsor experienced significant growth over the last five years. While in 1991 only 279 single-unit dwellings were built, there were 549 new single-family dwellings built last year. That's the largest number since 1978. Residential construction rose to an all-time record of $87 million last year.

The Hemson report studied Canada's 25 census metropolitan areas and ranks Windsor third on the basis of economic performance. Windsor is booming in terms of construction relative to any other place in the country. It's booming because of a commitment of the big three plants to continue in our community, but also because of a switch in focus in the community in terms of economic diversification with the Windsor casino.

.1905

Like it or not, it has brought in 2,500 jobs so far and another 600 jobs this year as a result of a riverboat casino that's going to be in operation by November. The new permanent casino will bring in another 2,500 people. So as a result of this casino project, we are going to have over 5,000 excellent jobs in the city of Windsor. In case you are wondering how that will translate into housing, let me tell you that a dealer in the casino makes about $50,000 a year.

Because of congestion and other problems, it's projected that most of these people will move into the downtown core in Mr. Gray's riding. The projections the commission has made and based its proposals on fail to take into account some of these things. As a result, within three to five years Windsor West is likely to exceed the 25% deviation if it gains south Walkerville. This is quite problematic.

If we make Windsor into two ridings, which is what is proposed, and don't leave Ms Whelan with her corner of that city, then you will probably have two ridings within five or six years that exceed the deviation by over 25%.

Some of this information just wasn't available at the time we appeared before the commission. That's because the town is moving at a rate nobody in this economy ever expected.

While you're at it, if you're thinking of investing somewhere you should come to Windsor. Open plants; give us jobs.

It's our view that the commission has ignored the impact development is going to have on our two ridings.

Mr. Gray's riding has the largest number of rental units in the city. My riding has the second-largest number of rental units in the city. Our vacancy rate, according to CMHC, has dropped to 1%. Part of it's because of the increased number of jobs; part of it's because of an increase in population; part of it's because of the economic development of the community. But we are now down to a vacancy rate of 1%, much of which is concentrated in Mr. Gray's riding. That's just other evidence of what has been happening in terms of development in that community.

In the final analysis, although parts of Ms Whelan's riding of Essex - Windsor are proposed to be added to mine, and I would very much like to represent those people - I'm not rejecting that at all - nevertheless, when the city is being carved up for federal representation, I would suggest to you that within three years there will be problems with the boundaries as they are chosen now, in terms of the two city ridings, because they will exceed their current populations by more than 25%.

Also, the Essex - Windsor portion of the city has as much in common with the township of Sandwich South, as it's now developing, as it does with either Windsor - St. Clair or Windsor West.

For those reasons I would ask that you consider these representations.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We have a little less than eight minutes left for some questions. Mr. Hanrahan, do you have some questions?

Mr. Hanrahan: Yes. I'm getting better at these maps, Shaughnessy, but they're still difficult for me to put together all at one time.

You repeated at least twice that the reason for the map being drawn in this manner was because the information wasn't available in the first submission. Whose problem was that? Was it simply not available, or was it because the committee didn't seek to search it out?

Ms Cohen: I don't know what the committee did. I know what I did to prepare to appear before the commission. I appeared before the commission for myself and also on behalf of Mr. Gray. Mr. Gray's office and my office each did the research for our two ridings and I put it together.

Basically, at that time the city had no idea that CN was planning to develop those properties. We were just at the beginning of the casino development, and we all thought we were going to get about 2,500 jobs out of it. We had no idea what was going to happen as a result of that development. It has just gone beyond anybody's wildest dreams in terms of what it does. Of the people who come to spend their money there, 95% are from the United States. It has created this huge tourist industry in our community that we never in a million years thought we'd have, even when we were planning it.

.1910

Mr. Hanrahan: As you suggest, it will probably make this whole process redundant within a period of five years.

Ms Cohen: Yes, unless we leave the boundaries where they are now, insofar as the city of Windsor is concerned. If the boundaries are changed, then Mr. Gray's riding and my riding are going to boom in terms of population. The Windsor part of Ms Whelan's riding can't expand any more because it's pretty much full. There isn't much room. There are a few little pockets where there could be residential development, but there wouldn't be 100 new single-family units going in there.

Mr. Hanrahan: Mr. Chairman, I would very much want to ensure that those last two statements by the witness are recorded in the record.

The Chairman: We'll make sure that's part of the record.

Mrs. Stewart: Just for clarification, Ms Cohen, it seems to me you're requesting that Windsor West remain as it is, Windsor St. Clair remain as it is and Essex, which is slated to be taken out of the system -

Ms Cohen: Out of the city. Keep its corner.

Mrs. Stewart: But there are other significant changes that are happening with it. Is it disappearing? Is that possible?

Ms Cohen: It depends on how you look at it. It wouldn't be Essex - Windsor any more because it wouldn't have any Windsor component in it under the proposal.

Since we're here in Ottawa, we worry a little bit about what they might say at home. I don't know what the plans are in terms of the city expansion, but you need to remember that Windsor's right up against the border and right on the river, so it can't expand to the north. If the city were ever going to expand, there'd be no point in having it expand into Tecumseh or St. Clair Beach because they're completely residential. There's nothing there for the city. The city could only move into what is essentially Ms Whelan's riding. I don't know whether that's going to happen. I'm not suggesting it would, but there's a real community of interest there between that sort of green space I've coloured in and Essex - Windsor. It's really the only place where there can be contiguous future residential development now.

Mr. Richardson: I'm just thinking about the case of growth rates, as proposed by Ms Cohen. If that's true, halfway through the life of the maps they would be over that 25% deviation rate.

One thing, Shaughnessy, I didn't understand is that Sue Whelan's area is that heavy industrial area with the engine plant, and there are some other factories there.

Ms Cohen: I have all of the big three in my riding, but Susan has what's called the Essex engine plant, which is a huge complex right where Lauzon Parkway and Ec Row intersect. From about the R in Windsor, that whole corner is taken up with that. On the other side of the Lauzon Parkway there's a huge cultural centre. The actual residential development in there is in two subdivisions, and together they would not have the population of the new subdivision that is going into my riding on the CN land.

Mr. Richardson: To me the outstanding point you're making is that the growth is above the norm in Canada, and you'll be bumping the ceiling of the deviation in approximately five years.

Ms Cohen: Yes. The two things we didn't know and the commission couldn't have known when it considered it were that the CN land was going to be developed, and the casino was going to provide the kind of economic infrastructure for the city that it has.

.1915

The Chairman: Thanks very much, Shaughnessy. We've made a record of your very valid concerns. We appreciate your coming over.

Ms Cohen: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: The next witness is Bonnie Brown.

Ms Bonnie Brown (Oakville - Milton): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for your time, and thank you for your patience in agreeing to serve on this committee. I'm sure you'll be cross-eyed before it's over, looking at maps.

I'm here to make a proposal that essentially rejects the proposal of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, even in their second revision. Before I go into that, I must say that considering the integrity of Halton County, of which I was a regional councillor for a while, I think their second revision has improved how the people of Halton County are to be served. As I have served those who belong to the town of Milton and the town of Oakville, and I'm serving them right now, I'm interested in how all these pieces of the puzzle fit together.

The proposal I will make includes two options, each of which has a rationale beneath it. It also includes agreement by the only other member of Parliament affected. That person would be Julian Reed. I believe they're calling his riding Halton Centre.

In map 1 you see the larger Halton County. At the bottom you will see some coloured boundaries. I'm going to talk about the town of Oakville. The lake is the southern boundary. The western boundary is Burl Oak Drive. The eastern boundary just shows the city of Mississauga on the east. Then you see a variety of northern boundaries.

The municipal boundaries of the town of Oakville are up to and including the green line. Oakville has an urban area and a rural area. The urban envelope boundaries are the red. Cutting the urban envelope not quite in half is the suggestion of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, drawn in blue.

That forms the essence of my objection. The community of interest of the people living in Oakville is living in Oakville and having an Oakville address, of which they are very proud.

When I put my motion forward and when I appeared before the Electoral Boundaries Commission, I was trying to go along with the rate-payer groups, the council of the Town of Oakville, the Liberal riding association, and the PC riding association, all of whom were asking the commission to adhere to the municipal boundaries of Oakville, for which you see the most northerly boundary is green. They seemed to reject that proposal by not changing their own suggestion in their revision. So I have a more moderate position.

Map 2 is a planning map from the Town of Oakville. You can see it's very clear where the urban development in going to be allowed. It is south of Highway 5 or Dundas Street. The green above is zoned agricultural. There is a commitment to that in the form of the official plan of the Town of Oakville and the official plan of the Regional Municipality of Halton, both of which have been approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. So it looks as if housing will develop only south of Dundas Street.

As you can see by the blue line, it means the neighbourhoods of West Oak Trails, River Oaks, and Iroquois Ridge North are being cut out of the urban envelope and the community of interest they share with other residents in the town of Oakville by the suggestion of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. So I'm going to suggest that either the urban envelope boundaries, represented by the red, or the municipal boundaries, represented by the red plus the green, be the new riding.

.1920

What does that do to the numbers? I'm going to ask you to go past pages 3, 4, and 5 for a minute and turn to the numbers and look at table 1. This includes the town of Oakville and the various neighbourhoods.

The town population in the Electoral Boundaries Commission proposal would be 100,000 people. If we include those three neighbourhoods north of the Upper Middle Road you add another 13,000 people and you come up with 114,600.

How does that compare with the other options I have described? I turn to table 2. The proposal of the Electoral Boundaries Commission shows the riding of Oakville with 100,833, or 2.98% above the quotient, and the riding of Halton, which is Julian Reed's riding, with 100,335, or 2.47% above the quotient.

But I ask you to consider for a moment the urban nature of Oakville as a town and the rural nature of Julian's riding, which while it includes two small towns is mainly rural and is a huge area for him to service, from the point of view of geography. It may not be huge compared with ridings in the Northwest Territories, but certainly it is much larger than most of the ridings in the GTA. He has to travel a lot to get around to the villages, hamlets, towns, and various individual farms in the riding. While this looks appealing from the point of view of population being very close, the work involved in servicing that rural area I think should be taken into consideration.

Now we move down below the dark line to option 1, or the green boundaries, which indicate the municipal boundaries of the town of Oakville. That would give the riding of Oakville 114,670, which would put us 17% above the quotient and give Julien Reed's riding of Halton 86,000, or 11% below the quotient.

We have supporting documentation, a resolution by the Town of Oakville council, suggesting that this is what they would prefer. The PC association presented theirs to the Electoral Boundaries Commission in Hamilton at the same time as I did. I believe at least one of the municipal rate-payer groups also had proposed that. There have been letters to the editor, there have been editorials in the paper, supporting this green boundaries idea.

The second option is slightly different. It is about the urban envelope; that is, those people who live in an urban setting, on streets with average-size lots, with shopping malls and various neighbourhood schools, etc. It is that they be grouped together and that the people who live in rural settings be grouped together.

That would put a small number of people from the town of Oakville, I think a total of just over 700, into Julian Reed's riding, but they would be there with other people who live in rural settings; people who do not have municipal sewer services, municipal water services, etc. That would give Oakville 113,000, or 16% and change above the quotient, and Halton 87,000, or 10% below the quotient. Mr. Reed has enthusiastically agreed with this one, and he said should you be interested in it, he would be happy to supply a letter to that effect.

Once again, the advantage of this is that only two ridings would be affected and both members in agreement. So there would be no domino effect, which is what I know the Electoral Boundaries Commission sees as its worst nightmare.

The next entry is the motion from the Town of Oakville and the planning report that accompanied that agenda item at a town council meeting.

Are there any questions so far?

I have some other ideas, but if you grasp what is on the map you have the essential argument.

.1925

Mrs. Stewart: Ms Brown, we drive along Highway 5 and see the incredible growth up there. How do you expect to service a community of probably far more than 114,00 for another 10 years?

Ms Brown: That's what I'm saying. The official plan approved by the Ontario Municipal Board agrees with the town of Oakville and the Regional Municipality of Halton that the lands north of Highway 5, which are triple-A farmland, are to be reserved for agriculture.

Mrs. Stewart: What are the expectations for growth north of Upper Middle Road, between Upper Middle Road and Highway 5?

Ms Brown: In River Oaks the development is already at Highway 5. In Iroquois Ridge it is almost there, and in West Oak Trails it's about halfway there.

Mrs. Stewart: So the additional residential growth will occur only in West Oak.

To the tune of how many, do you think? I know it's one of the only places in Ontario where there is residential building now. So if it's happening now....

Ms Brown: Yes. There's no doubt about it. It's happening now. There has been a slowdown. It has picked up again, but we can still be sure that there won't be growth above Highway 5 and that this will remain in the envelope.

Mrs. Stewart: Does that mean the concentration south of Highway 5 is going to increase as people move into the Oakville-Burlington area?

Ms Brown: There's some room for building in West Oak Trails and in Iroquois Ridge north, and it probably will continue. I'm not sure of the size because those are fairly expensive areas with big lots and big houses. It isn't likely to be very dense.

I wanted to talk about this because the Town of Oakville had the idea for a long time to try to retain its title as a town, even though it has sufficient population to be a city. It has to do with the early planners who emphasized the Lakeshore Road as the shopping district.

We have one of the few viable main streets left in the many municipalities that abut Toronto. That was a conscious effort. The planners saw the lakeshore, the lakefront, as the main asset of the town. It has two harbours. It has a waterfront trail and just above the lakefront is Lakeshore Road, which is the main shopping district.

The town has put a great deal of money into keeping that core viable to offset the entrance of malls and it still is a very prestigious place in which to own a store and/or to shop. This gives the town a core. It has its libraries, its theatre, its art galleries, etc., all in and around the Lakeshore Road.

Therefore, the orientation of people who live in Oakville, even of people who live a block from Highway 5, is south toward the lake, toward the main street and the town hall. Everybody seems to point south to get anything they want. For services and recreation, they go south. That is why there were such objections from those people who thought they were going to live in Oakville, only to be told they now live in Halton and are grouped in with the rural dwellers and the small town dwellers of the other riding.

If you will now turn to page 3, you'll see that the presentation from the West Oak Trails Residents' Association says:

We are concerned that being lumped into Halton Centre, which is predominantly rural, would not serve our suburban needs.

I moved to Oakville because it was a small unique community located close to Toronto.

You have the statement of the Oakville - Milton Federal Progressive Conservative Association, which prefers the town boundaries.

There is the resolution by the Town of Oakville, which you've already seen on a separate sheet.

The riding I'm serving now has more than 100,000 voters, so I'm certainly not averse to these changes.

I am averse to breaking the integrity of the town and upsetting a group of residents who don't want to be placed in a rural riding. They feel they're urban people. People are tremendously proud to live in Oakville and they want to be grouped as a community.

On page 4, paragraph 2 shows that a lot of municipal tax dollars have gone into maintaining the viability of a real, old-fashioned main street. They've worked hard and they've put a lot of money into retaining the waterfront parks, and they are developing a waterfront walkway.

.1930

The infrastructure program put $11.3 million into Oakville. A sum of $5.4 million was approved for the completion of an outer harbour in Bronte and more money for the waterfront trail. The types of projects the town chose for its infrastructure focus on improving the access to and the condition of the core. By the ``core'' I mean the harbours, the lakefront, and Lakeshore Road. Streetscape upgrades, the Ford Drive construction, Neyagawa Boulevard - all those are north-south arterial routes to get people downtown.

With the suggested configuration coming along the Upper Middle Road, or the blue line, it separates the urban envelope and puts 90% of urban dwellers into the riding of Oakville and 10% of them into the riding of Halton. Those people will fall into a riding with farmers and the people from the small town of Milton, with whom they have very little in common. There are 13,000 who live between Upper Middle Road and Dundas Street, which according to the urban planners is the edge of the urban envelope.

I've talked with many people in town, the presidents of the rate-payer groups in those neighbourhoods and municipal politicians. Most people are saying they prefer to have the town of Oakville municipal boundaries. That will put us at about 17% above the electoral quota but comfortably below the 25% maximum I understand you are allowed.

The commission's report states that changing a district may require changes to other nearby districts. The commission has attempted to contain this ripple effect as far as possible within the area of its origin. I understand the changes I am advocating would impact on the riding of Halton by decreasing the population to 86,000, or 11.73% below the quotient. But the proposed district of Halton is geographically large. I know, because I have a portion of it in my riding now. It would have within its boundaries two municipalities and a portion of two others.

I have discussed this issue with my colleague Julian Reed. He feels, as I do, the people of north Oakville would be far better served as constituents in the electoral district of Oakville. He agrees and is willing to submit a letter to that effect.

Mr. Chairman, that completes my presentation.

The Chairman: Is Julian Reed going to appear before the committee? I think it would be important that he do submit that letter, if he said he would, and that he make it part of the submission you are making here.

Ms Brown: If I submit it to you, Mr. Chairman, will you distribute it, or should I distribute it myself to the various members or to the clerk?

The Chairman: I think if you send it to the clerk it will be handled properly.

Do we have any other questions?

Mr. Hanrahan: I don't. It was an excellent presentation.

Thank you very kindly, Bonnie.

Mr. Richardson: It's putting a lot of pressure on you, Bonnie, but I understand the rationale. It is the community of interest, and you're dealing with the one organization, the town of Oakville, based on the boundaries you've described. I think that is an efficient way to operate.

I gather the people from the town of Oakville did appear at the time they were drawing this up. Did they get any satisfaction from the commission at that time?

Ms Brown: When I spoke, the person from the PC association had been, say, two ahead of me, and I missed seeing him. I seemed to be with Walt Lastewka, talking about St. Catharines. He was after me, and I forget who was just before me.

In any case, they really gave no response. They just uh-huhed. They asked me a couple of questions, but you didn't really have a dialogue with them, if you know what I mean. It was quite difficult to have a sense of satisfaction. You didn't know what they were thinking. They were inscrutable. It was difficult. I think they were really working on the numbers.

Let me just say that if the people in that slice they're trying to take off the top of Oakville are put in with the rural and put in with part of Burlington, there is no bridge across the main creek there to join them. They would have to go up to Highway 5 and across. There is little interaction between those two communities. There is not a lot of toing and froing for shopping or any of those things, because Bronte Creek Provincial Park and a huge creek valley are between them. A fair amount of space on either side of that creek is undeveloped.

So if you live in Oakville you feel you live in Oakville. It's not like an urban setting, where it may be two municipalities but they are cheek by jowl. They're definitely separated and there's no community of interest that way.

.1935

There's little community of interest north into the rural. There's little going up to Milton. People in Milton are liable to come down to Oakville or Burlington to shop, but North Oakvillians would never go to Milton to shop, for example. The hospital and everything are in the older part of Oakville and that's where people are attracted.

I think the Electoral Boundaries Commission was really trying to do an excellent job around the numbers, and you can see they did because they came up with 100,000 for one riding and 100,000 for another. But the feelings of the people of Oakville were not really considered.

Let me just add one more thing. The town council, all the municipal councillors, all the rate-payer groups, and the main newspaper in town know that we are all working together to try to get this changed and they know that I am their spokesperson at this point. They don't have another crack at it. If in fact this boundary remains, they will perceive that I have failed to deliver what they want and what has been espoused in the paper very heavily. So I ask for your serious consideration.

Mrs. Stewart: I have just one last question. You're saying they understand that by maintaining at least as a minimum the red line boundaries, they're going to have a member of Parliament who has to represent more than is typically the case of constituents, but they believe that given the cohesiveness of the community, that lends some sense of ease to the role of the member of Parliament because the issues will be similar.

So they would far rather maintain the ``community of interest'' than have perhaps more available time from a member of Parliament?

Ms Brown: Yes, that's right. You have stated the case perfectly. That's it exactly. They are now living in a riding with more than 100,000 voters, so they will see it as a big improvement because there will be that many fewer.

The Chairman: I just have one question. In looking at the map, it seems to me just by guess that you can get to any place from that green line down within 20 minutes.

Ms Brown: Oh, yes.

The Chairman: You can service that riding with more speed than your colleague from the north, certainly.

Ms Brown: Absolutely.

Mrs. Stewart: It's far more likely that the people will come downtown to your office if they need to see you than go to the north to another location.

Ms Brown: I can be quite honest with you. What would happen because of the bus service and because of the arterial roads for drivers is that those people would be coming to my office anyway. I'd be saying, but Julian Reed is really your member, and they'd be saying, we don't care, we're not driving 20 miles to Milton to an office. That's what would happen.

The Chairman: Is there anything more? Is there anything further from committee members?

Mr. Hanrahan: No, I'm quite pleased.

The Chairman: Well, if you fail on it you can tell those people back home it wasn't your fault. You made a super presentation.

Ms Brown: I'll tell them to send all their letters to you, Jim.

The Chairman: Send it to the clerk. But it's something else that failed you if it doesn't work.

Ms Brown: Unfortunately, excuses don't sell in Oakville. They want me to deliver.

Thank you very much for your time.

The Chairman: Thank you.

To the committee members, that wraps it up for today, but we start here tomorrow in this room at 9 a.m. and we'll be clicking right along. It was natural to have a few little problems when we started out, particularly when it's Monday and people had short notices and so on. But I think it's gone very well so far.

Mr. Hanrahan: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I'd like to go in camera and off the record if I could.

The Chairman: Okay, we will.

Before anybody gets away, we start here at 9 a.m. and it goes right through until very close to noon, running at about 20 minutes a clip. That should work fine.

That's the end of this, and we'll go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]