[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 31, 1995
.1104 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please.
The committee is ready to deal with its business of the day, that being the report of the subcommittee of this committee that dealt with the matters of the electoral boundaries in Ontario.
Mr. Richardson is here as a member of that subcommittee. Its chair, Mr. Jordan, is absent because he cannot be here today, so Mr. Richardson is here to answer any questions members of the committee may have with respect to the work of the subcommittee.
.1105
The floor, of course, is now open for members to make comments on the draft report of the subcommittee, which would be incorporated in this committee's report.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
In terms of other business, one of the items that was raised in the House yesterday was in regard to an item that's long been sitting on the agenda - about seventeen or eighteen months. It is relative to changing the standing House rules so that O Canada could be either sung or played on Wednesdays. There was some indication from the government during yesterday's conversation that they may put it back on the agenda to be discussed again, with a recommendation possibly going to the House from this committee. I was wondering whether the chairman could indicate whether or not that would be considered.
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I indicated in the House yesterday that I would be happy to deal with the matter in this committee.
I point out that in this committee on May 5, 1994, on a motion by Mr. Hermanson, it was agreed that an informal panel composed of Diane Ablonczy, François Langlois, and Bernard Patry meet with Deborah Grey regarding the singing of the national anthem in the chamber. It was to report to the committee on or before June 1, 1994. There's no record of any report received from the informal working group.
Mr. Speaker: Would you be prepared then, Mr. Chairman, to reactivate that committee and -
The Chairman: I expect we ought to reconstitute it since those members are no longer members of this committee. François Langlois still is, but Madam Ablonczy has left the committee. Mr. Patry is also no longer a member of the committee. But this might be a faster way of dealing with this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin, would you be interested in sitting on such a sub-committee, or should we ask that question of Mr. Langlois?
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Chairman, do we really have to strike a sub-committee to study that issue? Couldn't we simply discuss it in this committee? It seems to me that this matter could be resolved in no time.
The Chairman: All right, then. In that case, perhaps Mr. Speaker can move a motion.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I think you had a motion that Mr. Manning put to the House yesterday. Perhaps the terms of the motion could be brought to the committee. We could have a look at it, circulate it, and discuss it, either later this morning if we finish with the Ontario report or on Thursday after we've completed the Quebec report. I think members of the committee are prepared to deal with it.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I'm just wondering if we could perhaps get a few notes from our staff. We could then put it on the agenda for Thursday.
We could ask, for instance, about a couple of things that I'd like to know. Do other jurisdictions do something like this? There are a few questions of that nature. Perhaps others have a bit of information they would like to get as well.
We have to get those reports done because there is, of course, a legal constraint that's applicable. This is the biggest one, so it is very heavy for today, but we could do it Thursday after the other item of that day. At that point, we could presumably dispose of this item.
The Chairman: Okay.
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Perhaps I could add that the text of the motion that Mr. Manning read in the House yesterday should be in Hansard. From a procedural point of view, it might be looked at in order to see if it accomplishes the aim that Ms Grey wanted. That way, when it comes before the committee, we can decide if we want to adopt those words or others like them to achieve our goal. Okay?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Turning to the Ontario subcommittee report, Mr. Richardson, do you want to make a brief presentation to the committee? Are you interested in doing so, or do you want to sit and just answer questions? We're in your hands, sir.
Mr. John Richardson, MP (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): I think, Mr. Chairman, I will take a brief moment to give you an overview of the work of the subcommittee and some of its recommendations to be passed on to Elections Canada.
The Chairman: The floor is yours.
Mr. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur): I have a point of order.
We have a copy of the report here. Do we have a copy of the recommendations that go with the report?
The Chairman: I think they're all here in the report.
.1110
Mr. Richardson: They're in each individual section. You'll notice in the summary,Mr. Arseneault, that there are some specific general recommendations in our summary, and I'll highlight those in the preamble.
There are some on page 2, and you'll find that ``Overview of common concerns'', on pages 5 and 6, shows some of the common concerns that flowed directly from the testimony and allowed us to draw some conclusions. We felt these should be forwarded on as recommendations for avoiding some of the pitfalls that we found in our hearings with the members. The concerns were quite tangible and quite concrete.
Mr. Chairman, we met for five days in October, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 17th. We heard from 38 members of Parliament. At the work of the subcommittee, one-third of the members of Ontario appeared, and it was quite apparent that these members spent many hours in preparation.
The subcommittee is unanimous in the view that the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission should give the report its most serious and immediate attention.
The subcommittee did not take its duties lightly. It realized that this particular redistribution was unprecedented in that it touched upon almost every riding in the province and generated objections from one-third of the members of Parliament from Ontario. Many hours and effort were spent by the members who presented objections. The subcommittee members were impressed with both the effort they put in and the diagrams and statistics brought forward, as well as their concerns about some of the following.
One of the things we felt was that many of these concerns were not presented to the commission in its first round. Where people had made strong, well-prepared presentations in the first round, their concerns were heard. That wasn't the case in every instance here, but it is what flowed directly from the conversation when the questions were put forward.
The subcommittee realized the difficulty in policy choices behind the commission's report. It is conscious of the domino effect involved in the changes at this late stage in the readjustment process; however, the subcommittee feels that the circumstances involved in this particular readjustment are unique. It urges the commission to give serious consideration to the objections described below, to the extent that the changes are still possible.
In particular, there were a number of objections to the subcommittee in terms of minor variance. These involved proposals that would not greatly change the population of a constituency and that would not create the ripple effect, because all affected members of Parliament are in agreement with the proposals. There was certainly harmony in the House, and agreement, one to another, on most of the changes that were proposed.
Finally, the subcommittee would like to comment on what appeared to be the key issue of the majority of the objections: the appropriate balance between equal representation and effective representation. The subcommittee realizes the importance of equal representation, but feels the commission did not give sufficient importance to the counterweight of community of interest or effective representation.
As the Supreme Court of Canada said in Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), 1991, ensuring that ridings are equal in size has never been the sole factor in Canadian electoral redistribution:
- But the parity of voting power, though of prime importance, is not the only factor to be taken
into account in ensuring effective representation. Sir John A. Macdonald in introducing the
``Act to re-adjust the Representation in the House of Commons'', S.C. 1872, c. 13, recognized
this fundamental fact:
- ...it will be found that...while the principle was considered to a very great extent, other
considerations were also held to have weight; so that different interests, classes and
localities should be fairly represented, that the principle of number should not be the only
one.
- Notwithstanding the fact that the value of a citizen's vote should not be unduly diluted, it is a
practical fact that effective representation often cannot be achieved without taking into account
countervailing factors.
- First, absolute parity is impossible. It is impossible to draw boundary lines which guarantee
exactly the same number of voters in each district. Voters die, voters move. Even with the aid of
frequent censuses, voter parity is impossible.
- Second, such relative parity as may be possible of achievement may prove undesirable because
it has the effect of detracting from the primary goal of effective representation. Factors like
geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to
be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity
of our social mosaic. These are but examples of considerations which may justify departure
from absolute voter parity in the pursuit of a more effective representation; the list is not closed.
The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act allows the commission to depart from the quotient, at their discretion, by up to 25% for two reasons: to respect the community of interest, the community of identity or the historical pattern of an electorate district; and to maintain a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated rural or northern regions of provinces.
Since the population of Ontario in the 1991 census was 10,084,885, and the province was assigned 103 electoral districts, the electoral quotient for each district was 97,912. After hearing over three dozen objections, the subcommittee is of the opinion that the commission allowed its work to be inappropriately dominated by the goal of voter parity or, as Sir John A. Macdonald put it, ``the principle of number''. Because the constitutional formula allowed only four additional districts for Ontario but the rapid growth areas required six new electoral districts, the commission proposed to remove one district each from metropolitan Toronto and northern Ontario.
The subcommittee feels the effects of these deletions were too severe for the additional degree of voter parity to be achieved. The commission does not seem to have given sufficient consideration to the extent of community and political disruption involved in the boundary readjustments, or to the detrimental effects on voter identification with the federal political process.
The subcommittee is convinced that the members who appeared before it were predominantly influenced by concerns about the effect of redistribution on their constituents and on the communities of interest within their ridings, and not by personal considerations. Particularly disturbing were comments by such experienced politicians as the Hon. David Collenette, who noted that this commission seemed more resistant to small changes based on community of interest than were previous commissions:
- But when you're talking about small slivers such as the one we described south of Eglinton
Avenue, it's an orphan in the area if it goes into East York.... In past redistributions there has
been some sensitivity to these requests.... But this time, for whatever reason and they have their
arguments, it's not acceptable.
I'll now turn to Bill C-18 and Bill C-69.
As the commission noted in its report, the current redistribution took place under unique and difficult circumstances:
- After the Commission's proposal was published, the House of Commons introduced Bill C-18
on March 18, 1994 (passed by the House on April 13, 1994), the effect of which would have
been the termination of the work of this Commission.... In accordance with Bill C-18, the work
of the Commission is suspended upon filing this report....
I don't want to go through the work of Bill C-18 or Bill C-69; I'd just like to get to the meat of it with some of the concerns suggested by Mr. Arseneault. Here are some of the recommendations we think, in a general way, could be incorporated into the overall report.
As the hearings progressed, a number of common themes emerged from the objections raised. The subcommittee does not feel it appropriate to comment on all these matters, recognizing it's never easy to balance all the relevant factors involved in electoral boundaries readjustment, and it is impossible to satisfy all of the competing concerns. It may be useful, however, to describe the most commonly heard concerns of this report.
Many of these concerns related to the question of how much emphasis should be placed on staying as close as possible to the electoral quotient. Aside from the northern districts, most of which were 20% or more below the quotient, nearly all the proposed Ontario districts were within 10% above or below the quotient.
A large number of objections revolved around the argument that the commission had not sufficiently used its discretion to protect communities of interest or rural ridings. This did not apply to situations in which a member felt a smaller riding would better serve the interests of constituents.
In several instances such as Oakville, Milton, or London West, the member felt that including an extra area would best serve the community of interest and a higher than average variance should be allowed just so the community of interest could be maintained.
A number of objections dealt with matters of geography, including the size of the riding and the topography, how boundaries were chosen, and the effect of reaching natural boundaries such as major highways or rivers.
The northern Ontario members in particular described the difficulty of properly servicing an overly large riding. Some ridings were described as unworkable because too many geographic areas and distinct communities of interest were involved, such as Erie, which has a loop in southern Ontario going from Lake Erie up the Niagara River over to Lake Ontario and into Norfolk County. So we're into those kinds of conundrums that crunched out the 101,000 ridings in southern Ontario.
The members described how parts of a proposed riding could only be reached by going through another riding. The Hon. Roy MacLaren explained one of the boundary lines in the proposed Etobicoke North follows a creek. Although it looks significant on the map, it actually disappeared underground years ago. In several instances members suggested that the crossing of major traffic arteries such as Highway 401 or Yonge Street in Toronto violated an unwritten principle of electoral redistribution.
All of those little jiggers they made to achieve this idea of population equality brought about a change in every riding in the metropolitan area because one or a hundred or two hundred people would be moved and it didn't seem to be of any consequence.
The theme of community of interest or identity was a recurring one. Numerous times the subcommittee was told that the commission had overly emphasized the electoral quotient and unnecessarily split a strong community of interest, such as the community around Bathurst Street in Toronto, or the community of Nepean, whose town hall was moved into the riding to the north.
Some members referred to traditional groupings of communities that the commission had ignored. Mr. Bevilacqua, for example, noted that the City of Vaughan, the Town of Aurora, and the Township of King have traditionally been placed in the same riding through the majority of redistributions, but are divided by the present proposals.
The question of anticipated growth raised difficult issues. The commission's mandate is based on the results of the 1991 census and not the population of a riding in 1994. However, some members, especially in high-growth areas, argued that the commission could have used its discretion to better anticipate obvious developments. Sometimes new information about future growth became available after the public hearings, as with Windsor.
.1125
Members from several regions argued that boundary changes should take place only where there have been major population shifts. If riding populations within a region are comparatively stable, the changes should be as minimal as possible.
Everyone realized that growth areas around Toronto needed additional ridings, but several members expressed the view that the major boundary changes should have been concentrated in this region and not extended to the rest of the province.
The question of whether urban and rural constituencies were best represented separately or as a mix was frequently raised. Rural members tended to view that strict observance of electoral quotient, which is relatively high in Ontario, as detrimental to the interests of rural constituents, who increasingly found themselves in ridings whose political interests were dominated by an urban majority.
Finally, a number of members commented on the communication problems or indicated they had not been aware of the original proposals of the commission hearings. While the subcommittee understands that the commission can do only so much to publicize its proposals and hearings, special care must be taken to keep the affected members of Parliament informed of the boundary readjustment process, if only because their detailed knowledge of the constituency could provide the commission with particularly relevant insights.
As a final point, the subcommittee notes that its work would have been somewhat easier if maps of existing boundaries had been placed at the end of the commission's report, together with the maps of the proposed boundaries. Although many members brought maps that indicated their present riding boundaries, the formats differed significantly.
The subcommittee also had one member from outside the province who made a good contribution, and that was Mr. Hugh Hanrahan from Alberta, who brought a nice distant view to many of the concerns.
Overall it is difficult to understand why, when we have 103 ridings, all those 103 ridings, with one or two exceptions, had to be touched to achieve the four new ridings.
I'm ready to go into detail on the ridings. Before I do, I would like to pay tribute to the two people who had to work significantly late hours to support us. Those were the clerk, Carol Chafe, and Mollie Dunsmuir, the researcher. They worked long hours so they could be ready for us every day. It was a struggle to keep up, and I appreciate their contribution to this report.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Richardson. Maybe the easiest way to go through this report, given its length, is by region, as the subcommittee did.
Is that agreeable to the committee if we just take a quick run through by region? I have something to say on one of these.
Mr. Richardson: I gathered you have.
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): Justice, Mr. Chairman, of course.
The Chairman: Yes, justice is what we're after here.
Mr. Richardson: Are you happy to sit there, Mollie? You're the holder of all the background information. I wouldn't want to make a mistake, because there'll probably be some astute questioning taking place here.
The Chairman: I don't have a question. I'll just make a comment because the report anticipates a comment from me. I did not send a letter and I'll make my comment here, if committee members will indulge me for a moment.
I have a comment about page 12 of the report. Mr. McCormick, my next-door neighbour, surrounds me on three sides. He has asked to take on Amherst Island, one of the island townships that are part of Kingston and the Islands. I have no objection. If the 350 or so residents who live on Amherst Island wish to go with the rest of Lennox and Addington County into Mr. McCormick's riding, it makes sense to me. It's easily picked up on map 3 in the back of the book. It's a separate township and it is part of Lennox and Addington. Everything else in Kingston and the Islands is part of Frontenac County. To me, it makes little sense that there be this division. I'm happy to represent the residents of Amherst Island, but Mr. McCormick knows them, deals with them and is happy to take them as well.
.1130
With respect to Pittsburgh township, in my view the proposal from the commission is a good proposal. It follows the line of the provincial constituency boundary, which has been the subject of a lot of confusion. My current boundary excludes the part of Pittsburgh township the commission has proposed I take over. I agree with the proposal.
I don't suggest that it's necessary to add any more of Pittsburgh township to Kingston and the Islands, which will only increase the population beyond a significant deviation from the quotient. Now it's almost at the 10% level, and I think if the rest of Pittsburgh township were added in it would exceed 10%. I don't know how many thousands of people live north of the 401 in Pittsburgh township, but it would be a significant number and it would add substantially to my population base, which I think is already at 103,000.
I'm happy to take what has been proposed. Might I suggest we leave it at that? I don't thinkMr. McCormick will be disappointed if he doesn't lose more of his riding. Picking up Amherst Island is a modest accretion of only 350 people. It's pretty slight. As I say, most of the people living there deal with the other parts of their county rather than with Kingston. Does that clarify it?
Mr. Richardson: Is he prepared to lose Amherst Island but keep the rest as the status quo?
The Chairman: ...as proposed by the commission. Okay?
Mr. Richardson: That's right.
The Chairman: So we'll fix that in our drafting of the changes to this report and in preparation of our report, which is what is going to go forward.
I think that's the only comment on section 2, unless some other member wishes to comment.
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): You just tell those people that you don't love them any more, is that right?
The Chairman: No, I'm being very careful to say that I still like them very much, but if they want to be represented by Mr. McCormick I can assure them they'll be very well represented.
Mr. Richardson: I think it's logical. Mr. Chairman, I do believe that if Amherst Island wants to go.... It is part of Lennox and Addington, and it just makes a natural community of interest. Then there will be no change to Pittsburgh. It stays as the commission -
The Chairman: - as the commission proposed. That's quite satisfactory. It enlarges my riding at Mr. McCormick's expense, but he gets a little of his own back with Amherst Island.
We were starting through this by region, and the Ottawa region is number one. Do you wish to make any comment on the committee's recommendations or on the committee's comments?
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): I think it's quite evident, as the chair of the subcommittee mentioned at the beginning of his remarks, that within this region there was substantial agreement among the members of Parliament about how some of their concerns about community of interest could be resolved.
For instance, I notice that Mr. Manley, Mr. Bellemare, and Mr. Bélanger are virtually in agreement on preserving some communities with the riding that they most naturally belong to. It introduces some slight variations from the norm, but certainly within tolerable levels.
With respect to the three ridings of Nepean, Ottawa West, and Ottawa Centre, which are all involved in some interchanges of territory, there was again substantial agreement between myself and Beryl Gaffney that the boundary between what's now the Ottawa West riding and her riding of Nepean should remain at Baseline Road and that the community of Nepean should be kept as intact as possible within the new riding.
Both of us - myself, in some detail - made suggestions as to how additions to the existing Ottawa West riding could be achieved, could achieve the population level, and could still accomplish that by leaving that important boundary for Nepean at Baseline Road.
Again, on the east side Mr. Harb and I agreed on how that eastern boundary of the Ottawa West riding, the western boundary of Ottawa Centre, could be adjusted to better preserve community of interest.
In light of that, Mr. Chair, I think certainly there should be no hesitancy on our part in endorsing what is commonly agreed among the members of the ridings of the region to be a reasonable solution to better serve the people of our region.
The Chairman: What do you want the report of the committee to say, Mrs. Catterall?
.1135
Ms Catterall: Is the committee in general prepared to start endorsing recommendations on specific ridings? I guess that's the starting point, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: My sense is that the committee is prepared to do that. In some of the subcommittee reports we have fairly specific recommendations. I take it we're endorsing them. I haven't heard anyone, at any of the meetings to date, say that we're not accepting this recommendation or that recommendation from one of the subcommittees.
I think there has been some disagreement in the committee with the emphasis on a deviation from the quotient by the commissions urging them to deviate more. But other than that, I've heard no attempt by any member of the committee to disagree with or to block a recommendation from one of the subcommittees. So if the subcommittees haven't done that, I think the committee can do it if the committee wishes to.
Ms Catterall: I propose, certainly for the national capital region, that the committee endorse the recommendations made by the local members of Parliament to adjust the riding boundaries to better preserve community of interest.
The Chairman: As outlined in this report?
Ms Catterall: As outlined in the report of the subcommittee.
The Chairman: So you're happy with the outcome.
The purpose of these meetings is to give direction to our drafters who will be drafting the committee report.
Mr. Arseneault.
Mr. Arseneault: I'd like to make a comment about the report. It's well done and again, it has a common theme, one that is very common to the other two subcommittee reports that we received. That is the theme with regard to the community of interests and the overall strict adherence to the quotient, the number quotient. Some of these commissions went with that and it seems as if that is not acceptable. There wasn't enough flexibility in the commissions in dealing with communities of interest.
The other area that they raise or emphasize, which the other committees did just briefly, but which is in more detail here, is the confusion with regard to Bill C-18 and Bill C-69. It's well-outlined in the document on pages 4 and 5. During the public hearings there was a great deal of confusion. Many of the MPs did not submit positions with regard to the boundary changes because they thought the process would be stopped and a new process started.
I know the same thing occurred in my province of New Brunswick where it was not necessarily that MPs did not make presentations, but that a lot of the groups with a vested interest in those concerns did not make any presentations whatsoever because they too thought the process would be stopped. I think that should be pointed out. It's very important.
In light of that, it's also important, Mr. Chairman, that we have received a letter of reply from the chairman of the committee in the Senate. That reply is totally unacceptable. They are delaying the process again. I hope that this committee will not help them in delaying that process and that we take some definitive action soon, action in the House of Commons.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Okay.
Are there further comments on the Ottawa region?
I see there are none.
What about the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto? Are there any comments on this aspect of the report?
Okay.
What about the area surrounding the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto? This is on page 27 of the report.
Mrs. Parrish, please.
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin with an overall general comment for Mr. Richardson.
I was really thrilled not to be on this committee. I think it was a horrendous job. I'm amazed at how well you did. You've really walked a nicely balanced line. Your recommendations are thorough. I'm pleased to see you haven't overemphasized rural ridings versus urban ridings, because I know it was a difficulty in Ontario. You haven't stressed the needs of the rural voters over the urban.
I had my first appointment cancelled and I cancelled my second one out of respect for the workload you had, because my objection was quite philosophical and it was based on Bill C-69, which is not getting passed.
.1140
In your preamble you touched on Bill C-69 quite nicely. You talked about five-year reconsiderations; you talked about only major shifts inspiring a redistribution; and you talked a little about how you would obviously give emphasis to communities of interest.
People in my municipality did participate in the public meetings despite our lack of interest and inspiration because we thought everything was going to be changed. They did have the alignment changed in Mississauga to follow communities of interest, so it was a good change. That's why I didn't jump up and down and do too much about it, because I know we're getting one extra riding there and other parts of Metro and Ontario are losing ridings.
I think it's important to stress again what Mr. Richardson has stressed in his report. Some of the fundamental concepts of Bill C-69 have to be stressed again and again because we did the right thing with that legislation. We did address the concerns in this report, and we could have headed off a lot of this nonsense.
The main interest to me is community of interest, and it has been addressed here. My other concern is super-ridings, which I constantly harp on. I think if you don't build in the anticipation of super-ridings, you will have 250,000 people with one MP.
I don't flatter myself that the residents in my riding gave a darn, fundamentally, who their MP is; they care about the party that person belongs to. But they do care about getting adequate representation. They care about getting a vote that counts the same as a vote from any other Canadian in this country. I think they care about access to my office staff and what happens in my office.
This is doomed to have super-ridings in it again. I can see them coming already, because this is based on the 1991 census.
I must stress how appreciative I am. You've done an excellent job on this, more in the preamble than anywhere else. I won't burden you with my theories on how Mississauga should have received another riding, because it would be outrageous to expect one at this point.
I am eagerly anticipating Mr. Harris' reaction to this because he has vowed publicly, and subsequently contacted my office through one of his minions, that the Ontario government will be following our boundary alignment for its next provincial election. Based on these riding redistributions there will be 103 seats instead of 130, so his comments or his attempts at gerrymandering...it should be fairly interesting.
The other thing is that our legislation - I have to put one last plug in for Bill C-69 - did not put us in a position where politicians are now sitting around a table and the public perception is we're gerrymandering communities, or making sure we can get re-elected. I think in Bill C-69 the bulk of the input would have been from the public, the councillors, and the communities of interest, not from this last-ditch effort.
Again - a rather lengthy speech - Mr. Richardson, you did a wonderful job and I'm glad it was you and not me.
Mr. Richardson: It was a team effort of both the politicians and the support staff.
Mrs. Parrish: It's amazing.
Mr. Malhi (Bramalea - Gore - Malton): I agree with the proposed boundaries of Bramalea - Gore - Malton. I think they will look after the interests of the community.
I believe that Malton and Bramalea should be in the same electoral district for the basic reason that while Malton is in Mississauga, a natural relationship has developed over the years with the areas of Brampton closest to it, such as Bramalea, because Malton is isolated from the area of Mississauga by a large industrial area southwest of it.
Residents of Malton find it more convenient to use the passport, immigration and employment, educational, hospital, bus, and police services in Bramalea than in Brampton or Mississauga. Community and social organizations, church groups, temples and sports groups are also based on natural links between Malton and Bramalea. Employment opportunity at Pearson International Airport and in nearby industrial areas also reinforce the community of interest of the area.
While I appreciate the objections raised by the other two members of Parliament from Brampton and Mississauga, I still think the proposed boundaries are very fair to the community of interest in that part of Bramalea - Gore - Malton.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments about the area around Metropolitan Toronto?
On page 32, northern Ontario, are there any comments on the subcommittee's work on northern Ontario?
.1145
Mr. Richardson: I didn't know if you wanted to skip the central region. You're the only one who made any comment on Hastings. I gather that there were no other objections from Glengarry - Prescott over to Wellington.
The Chairman: No. I had done that region because I think I was the only one who commented. Nobody else seemed to be interested.
Mr. Richardson: Mrs. Ur, you sat on that, and you're in that region as well.
Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): No.
Mr. Richardson: No. You were southwest. Okay. I just wanted to be sure that we didn't give them short shrift, that's all.
The Chairman: No.
We've moved in order so far. We went out of order once. We did number 2 and then number 1, and then 3, 4, and now we're on number 5, page 32. No comments? Number 6, on page 35, central Ontario. Any comments? Number 7, the area west of London, on page 40.
Mrs. Ur: I'd like to say a few words on this, and I too thank John and his committee and staff for the well-put-together document.
I made presentations all along re redistribution.
Originally, when my boundary came out, I received a call from a radio station asking me if I had my pilot's licence. I questioned why he would ask me that. My riding was going from Lake Huron to Lake Erie, which is a quite substantial territory.
I guess they did take into effect the community of interest, the east-west flow in traffic. When they made the second boundary adjustment map, they had taken a portion of Kent and given me the townships north of the Thames and divided Kent into Kent - Lambton - Middlesex, and the rest went into Mr. Pickard's riding.
Again, this is reliving old history. That was a portion of a riding earlier, but it did not gel. The community of interest - and we seem to be echoing the same chair - was not there. They found it very difficult to share the same concerns, and we've already experienced that.
Mrs. Parrish, my colleague, might not agree with me on this. I'm not here to badger rural or urban ridings, but I guess I'm a bit prejudiced because I do represent a basically rural riding. Whether you're a rural MP or an urban one, it's very important to be able to represent your constituents.
I can certainly understand her workload with the number of constituents she has to represent, and I certainly respect the heavy duty she has. On the other hand, we also have to respect, whether it's in southwestern Ontario or in the northern frontier land, as they're referred to in northern Ontario, that those people equally want to be represented by their members of Parliament, whether it be by car, air, or whatever.
In southwestern Ontario, my riding is a fairly large one. It's certainly not as large as northern Ontario, but there are small communities dotted all along there. It doesn't matter whether you are in a village of 100 or a town of 7,000 or 8,000: they still expect that member to be there and the community of interest in order to have the communities together.
Lambton - Middlesex flows east-west, Sarnia - London, and adding the four townships to the south is not going to be conducive to a good working relationship.
Sue Barnes made an excellent point. In her riding she had 840 constituents added, an agricultural area, whereas she is totally urban. I'm sure that she would do a good job in representing those people, but it's still an area where a rural segment is added into an urban area, and that might pose some difficulty for her.
All of my colleagues in my area have presented their concerns well, and it has been addressed in the document, but I have problems with it as it is.
The Chairman: Mrs. Ur, are you making any specific comment on the report of the subcommittee, disagreeing with anything it says?
Mrs. Ur: I sat for some of the presentations, and it appears to be as my colleagues have stated.
The Chairman: Any other comment? No?
Number 8, the London area. Any comments? Number 9, Brantford and Hamilton, page 46. Number 10, the Niagara Peninsula, on page 47.
.1150
That appears to cover the province.
Are there any other comments?
Mr. Richardson, I thank you. I think we've completed our review of this report. I hope that our researchers have enough material to write whatever additional comments they need for our report.
Is there any other business to come before the committee? No?
I think we've completed the agenda for today.
On Thursday we'll be meeting again and dealing with the Quebec report, which members now have in their hands. It's not quite as lengthy as this. We expect also to have some dealings on the issue of the national anthem.
I declare the meeting adjourned.