EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 5, 1995

.0926

[English]

The Chairman: We'd like to welcome everybody here this morning, particularly the minister. The minister seems to have his priorities right here.

Hon. Roy MacLaren, MP (Etobicoke North): Sorry I'm late, Jim.

The Chairman: Actually, you're just about on time, Roy.

Roy, you can talk for twenty minutes or leave us some time for questions in the twenty minutes.

Mr. MacLaren: Good God, I don't have twenty minutes. I can do this in two minutes, I think.

The Chairman: That's fine.

Mr. MacLaren: It's simply this. With regard to my own riding - and I'm sorry to be so parochial about it, but it is a subject of some interest to me - the north end used to be along Steeles, as it will be again. That seems to me a natural and good boundary. In other words, the section that for eight years has been assigned to Sergio Marchi's riding, York West, would be returned to Etobicoke North.

As I said, that seems to make good sense in that the boundary would then follow a major artery, a major road, which I think should be one of the guiding principles in the delineation of ridings.

That leads me back to the main point I wanted to make, which is that the southeast boundary of the riding does not, as proposed, follow any sort of principal street. Rather, it follows an arbitrary boundary or arbitrary suggestion, which I don't think is at all appropriate in assigning boundaries. What I mean by that is that we have a boundary that is based on a creek. In principle, to use non-major streets or hydro lines or small creeks is not a good idea. Boundaries, I think, should follow major streets because communities tend to centre on such streets and the divisions that can then be created have a certain sense.

Let me just take this as a specific example of what I mean. I don't know if you have a map of the riding, but in the southeast corner, the lower right corner, there's a proposed boundary that follows so-called Humber Creek. Humber Creek disappeared a number of years ago; it went underground. It is in pipes for the most part. You would be unable to find it if you were to go to Etobicoke North. Therefore, not only do the constituents not know it's there, but certainly I think the local voters would be baffled as to why such an arbitrary division is made.

Specifically, just to take as an example, there is a rather ludicrous situation that would develop. The creek, which is underground, passes under some houses. Two of them would be in Etobicoke Centre and the other ten on the same court would be in Etobicoke North.

.0930

As a member of Parliament, to get to the houses that are in my riding I would have to pass through Etobicoke Centre and go in and out and in and out. On the face of it, that doesn't make any sense at all to me, and I don't think it would make any sense at all to the voters, whose neighbours would be in another riding, Allan Rock's Etobicoke Centre.

Let me be more specific about it. The new boundary effectively means that 10 houses in Etobicoke North can only be reached by car, by driving out of the riding and back into Etobicoke Centre. It also means that a dead-end court with a total of only twelve houses will have ten houses in one riding and two in another. Obviously, this will create a great deal of confusion. Neighbours on the same court will live in two different ridings with two different members of Parliament.

I want to say again that the creek is not a very logical boundary, since part of it is underground and not visible. It does not separate so-called natural communities or neighbourhoods. I would therefore suggest that a major street nearby, Royal York Road, be used instead. Specifically, we would suggest that the boundary follow south from Dixon Road to Royal York Road to Lawrence Avenue West, east to Scarlett Road and then on to the Humber River.

I can give you that in a little more detail if it is of interest, but the basic point I wanted to make was that I would urge that the boundaries follow the major roads rather than this underground creek.

The Chairman: Are there any questions?

Mr. Hanrahan (Edmonton - Strathcona): I'm still trying to put this together.

You're telling us that your main concern is these ten houses that are caught on one side with the creek going through on the other.

Mr. MacLaren: That's one concern. The parallel concern is that the creek is invisible. I doubt that the people who live in the area even know there is such a thing as Humber Creek. It's underground in great sewage pipes and has been for years.

Mr. Hanrahan: So it's possible that the people in one house could be on the creek itself and one of them would vote in one riding and one vote in the other.

Mr. MacLaren: Precisely.

Mr. Hanrahan: Obviously the concern here is community of interest.

Mr. MacLaren: Yes, but there is an additional concern. I don't think we facilitate the participation of people in politics, in elections, in the process, by assigning boundaries to ridings that mean nothing to them.

If people sense they are in a riding because a main street is clearly the boundary and everybody knows that street X is the boundary and everybody living to the north of it is in one constituency and everybody living to the south is in another...instead of doing that you assign an underground creek that nobody even knows exists; they have no sense of what riding they're in: ``My neighbour says he's in Allan Rock's riding but I think I'm in MacLaren's riding. Why is this? We live next door to each other and it doesn't make any sense.''

In broader terms, that doesn't facilitate the participation of people in the electoral process.

Mr. Hanrahan: It's almost undemocratic. I understand his concern and I sympathize.

Mr. MacLaren: It's a very specific concern, and I'll just leave that with you, Jim.

Mrs. Stewart (Brant): In the documentation it says the only change made to the proposal for Etobicoke as a result of public hearings was to the boundary between Etobicoke North and Etobicoke Centre, east of Highway 401. Did you make this proposal to them at that time, as well? Did they hear this message from you about the creek at the time? Did you go to the Electoral Boundary Commission in advance of this representation?

.0935

Mr. Nick Masciantonio (Special Assistant, National Caucus Liaison, Office of Minister MacLaren): No.

Mrs. Stewart: So chances are if they had heard this from you, they would have more than likely taken a major artery.

Mr. MacLaren: It seems so sensible and logical, I would hope so.

Mrs. Stewart: If we go to the Royal York Road, do you have any idea what kind of numbers that takes out of Sergio's riding and puts into yours, Roy?

Mr. MacLaren: This has nothing to do with Sergio. If you go to Royal York Road it wouldn't shift the numbers very much.

The Chairman: The numbers aren't a concern of yours, Roy. You haven't mentioned numbers involved. It's just what makes sense.

Mrs. Stewart: It's just not a significant enough shift that would create any kind of a difference. It seems to be like some of the other things we've seen before, where a piece of logic has just been missed by the commission.

The Chairman: I'll make a note of that.

Would it be around 1,700 votes? How many polls are we looking at? Is it two, three or four?

Mr. MacLaren: It wouldn't be more than that. When you have 100,000 or so, 1,500 doesn't seem like very much.

The Chairman: It's what we call a minor variance.

Mrs. Stewart: That's right.

The Chairman: It's an adjustment.

Is there anything further from any of the committee members?

Mr. Hanrahan: It just seems to me that nobody visited this area to have a look at it. They just looked at the map and said there's a creek there, let's go with that.

Mr. MacLaren: It does appear on some maps, at least, but in fact it's partially underground. There are a couple of places where it comes out again and then drops back. But the basic point is it would not be in the minds of the electorate as a natural boundary.

Mrs. Stewart: Particularly if it splits neighbours.

Mr. Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): Just to support what Mr. MacLaren is saying, I looked at the map the commissioners were working from and in bold letters - it looks like the St. Lawrence River - it shows Humber Creek.

Mrs. Stewart: You don't have a boat; we know that.

Mr. MacLaren: I may have a seaway.

Mr. Richardson: But you should see it. It flows through here. It says Humber Creek on both sides of that big line.

Mr. MacLaren: That squiggly line is the so-called Humber Creek. The straight line runs across Dixon Road. One could extend Dixon Road almost to the Humber River. That would make some sense, but it doesn't make any sense to follow this so-called Humber Creek.

The Chairman: Is there anything else from any of the committee members? Thanks. Your concern is being noted. If you have anything written that you want to submit that you haven't already submitted, we'll pass it on. That's our job.

Mr. MacLaren: Thanks very much.

Mr. Richardson: There are big numbers here. It shows Humber Creek flowing in a broad stripe right into the Humber River. It's just a natural thing they could fall into.

The Chairman: Oh, yes, if they've never been there, I suppose they'd think it was a great flow of water.

Mr. Hanrahan: It's starting to become a bit of a concern that these people have not visited many of the areas that they -

Mrs. Stewart: I don't think it's necessarily their responsibility to visit each riding and determine it. The system is set up such that they make a recommendation, and they very much expect to hear public concern like this, where people tell them they got this mixed up because it's just an underground creek and they should shift to a street or something.

With the potential change in legislation, people didn't take advantage of the system as it existed. So these are things that probably would have been corrected. It's another example of something that is quite obvious but was missed because of the cartography.

The Chairman: We're pleased to welcome Larry McCormick, our next witness. Larry, thanks for being on time. You represent Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington. No doubt they want to add something to that; I don't know.

Mr. Larry McCormick, MP (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): Good morning, Mr. Chair, other people of the committee, ladies and gentlemen.

The Chairman: You have twenty minutes, Larry.

.0940

Mr. McCormick: I'm sure I would like to add to the riding. Here's just a little bit of history on the riding, including the latest boundaries. I have more than 5,000 miles of main road. I officially have the most miles of road of any riding in all of Ontario, so I certainly would like to add to it. Yet, at the same time, we're not really looking to take much away or add very much.

I heard an earlier presenter talk about a logical boundary. It is interesting to note that in our quest to change the boundaries, some in the public came forth and offered their suggestions and demands. There are two basic changes proposed in Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington.

Once upon a time, some wise person in Ottawa - we always liked to blame Ottawa before I wore this hat, and now the public still likes to blame Ottawa - said that we'll have a riding called Kingston and the Islands, which made sense. We didn't throw in all the Thousand Islands to Kingston; we just threw in a few main ones to the riding that's represented by Mr. Milliken. But we also gave him an island called Amherst Island, which is part of Lennox and Addington. I represent the north part of Hastings, all of Lennox and Addington, and two-thirds of Frontenac, except for Amherst Island.

Amherst Island, like many parts of the seaway, used to have 2,000 to 3,000 people on it. Probably, it has 600 today - I'm being generous - headed by Mr. Trueman, of television fame. Their children go to school in Lennox and Addington County. They take the ferry to Lennox and Addington County. Most of them shop and work in Lennox and Addington County.

So the public is saying there was a slip somewhere along the line for it to be part of Kingston and the Islands, and not where the logical line seemed to be. In Lennox and Addington, whether it was today's boundaries or a previous boundary, no one ever went to the bother of asking for it to be changed. It just seemed to get designated there. So we've had more people in the public make more mention of this than certainly any other political people around the country.

One other change on the map, I believe, is in part of the Pittsburgh Township south of the 401 in Frontenac County. I will lose a couple of miles of road. It's like the former witness who said, what's 1,500 people out of 110,000? It's a few miles of road to me. I'm not going to lose much compared to 5,000 miles of road.

But it's not just the people I'm going to lose either. These people work, play and eat in Kingston. They already think they live in Kingston. They go to another riding for their services, which is kind of neat, because they think they're part of Kingston and the Islands.

No, I don't have the right terminology, but when this commission had hearings in the Kingston area, a person I knew went and made a proposal. Another person, a retired professor of Queen's University, was there and made the same presentation and asked for this part of Pittsburgh Township to move in with Kingston and the Islands, because it's a logical line. Previously, we didn't seem to always draw the lines by the logical arteries.

The Chairman: What you're suggesting here is that you think Amherst Island should go in your riding, and Pittsburgh Township is more inclined to go to Kingston.

Mr. McCormick: The public is suggesting that, Mr. Jordan.

I guess I have to hang on to part of Pittsburgh Township. On the proposed boundary change, there's more of a distinguished feature that takes in the metro part of Pittsburgh Township, which would go to Kingston and the Islands.

The Chairman: What would that do to the population of Milliken's riding, Larry?

Mr. McCormick: I don't have those numbers. It would add maybe 5,000, 4,000 or 3,000.

The Chairman: Amherst Island has 600 or 700?

Mr. McCormick: Yes, that's the maximum.

Mrs. Stewart: As for the people of Kingston and the Islands, that makes sense to them as well, Larry?

Mr. McCormick: As I say, look at it with the riding. His office is already serving these people, because they feel part of it.

Mrs. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. McCormick: The other key part of the element here is the military base in Kingston, which provides services with Pittsburgh Township back and forth financially and all types of workings.

.0945

The Chairman: What's the natural boundary if you don't take all of Pittsburgh Township, Larry? Is there a highway?

Mr. McCormick: The proposed boundary on the map is the 401 highway, I believe.

Mrs. Stewart: So the argument the commission put here in terms of changing the Pittsburgh boundary, Larry, was to use the 401 instead of the railway. Highway 401 is a more logical boundary than the railway, using the existing district. Therefore, the commission has amended its proposal to extend Kingston and the Islands eastward and to include that part of the township of Pittsburgh south of Highway 401.

Are you saying that just doesn't connect enough of it - that using the 401 isn't the right boundary and it should go back to the railway? Does that make sense?

The Chairman: There isn't much difference. They run parallel.

Mr. McCormick: I'm answering your question by going around.

I got educated during the campaign when I was pounding on doors and saw signs from other ridings there. Then you find out that even the candidates and the people who've worked in these areas for years are not sure whose riding it is, in a little area called Codes Corner.

Do we not want the railroad for a boundary?

Mr. Richardson: That riding of yours has flipped over more than a pancake - that boundary.

Mr. McCormick: Yes.

Mr. Bryan Jones (Special Assistant to Peter Milliken, MP): The point is that those people who live there now, who aren't in Kingston and the Islands, think they are anyway, and they're calling our office and saying -

Mrs. Stewart: Help me.

Mr. Jones: And we have to say ``We're not your MP'' and send them somewhere else.

Mr. McCormick: But is there a big consensus on whether it's the 401 or the railway?

Mr. Jones: No.

The Chairman: Why not give Milliken the whole township?

Mr. McCormick: If it didn't throw the numbers out, it would probably be a very logical move.

Mrs. Stewart: It's funny that in Roy's riding - an urban riding - they use a creek and in Larry's riding they use the 401.

Mr. McCormick: The only thing is I would lose touching the Thousand Islands community, but I suppose I could enter into the next riding.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, Larry. We can meet somewhere anyway.

Mr. McCormick: I can spend my money in Gananoque, anyway, can't I?

The Chairman: Maybe we could move a creek out there.

Mr. McCormick: We have a few, though, sir.

Again, it was the public that came forward, especially with Amherst Island, and then of course with Pittsburgh. I have another area called Amherstview, which we won't get into or I won't have any people left.

These people around Kingston do think they're part of Kingston and the Islands.

The Chairman: There's a few in Marlbank. You're not giving up on those people.

Mr. McCormick: No; we're going to hang on to those.

The Chairman: Any way you want to go is fine, but why don't you just suggest that Pittsburgh go in with Kingston, as simple as that? The population of Pittsburgh is concentrated pretty much, isn't it, from Codes Corner in?

Mr. McCormick: Yes.

The Chairman: You have the military base, RMC and the whole -

Mr. McCormick: And all the new industry. In the industrial subdivision, they have the fastest-growing computer company in eastern Ontario. It's only a new facility; it's not homes. The people from Kingston are still going to work out there and will go back and forth more than ever.

I just think it's a logical boundary. It's not my desire nearly as much as it is the public's, really. They came to me. They also made a presentation.

The Chairman: If that would be your request - that Pittsburgh go in with Kingston - we should really get something from Milliken, in fairness. We should tell him what we're up to here and see how he would react. Have you any idea?

Mr. McCormick: Yes, I understand. I've talked to Mr. Milliken and he would react favourably.

The Chairman: To Pittsburgh going into Kingston?

Mr. McCormick: Yes. I know you need to confirm that, but he's told me the 401 or whateveris great.

The Chairman: Could somebody from Mr. Milliken's office tell him we've discussed this here and we'd like a letter of support? If he has strong feelings about it, we'd like that, too, I suppose, to become part of the report.

Mr. Richardson: I think he probably has the biggest riding in southern Ontario, territory-wise. It's certainly bigger than Victoria - Haliburton and Pembroke.

Yours is pretty big, too, Jim.

The Chairman: It's rectangular, though.

Mr. Richardson: Yours is big, Larry.

That would put you below 90,000, but I think it could be compensated for on the basis of area to cover.

Mr. McCormick: Yes.

.0950

Mr. Hanrahan: The public went before the commission -

Mr. McCormick: They did. The public has talked about Amherst Island for.... I ran a country store for twenty-some years before I came here. I sold produce. This time of the year there was an apple market, and the people from Amherst Island came to our store, located near Napanee, Camden East, a little village. I heard this from the people for 25 years before I wore this hat. It didn't just start yesterday.

Mr. Hanrahan: So it's obviously a community of interests. It's logical to me that if that's what the people want, then we should make....

Mr. McCormick: I'm sure not 100% of the people want it, but the people who have been there, the permanent residents, who aren't just in and out, feel that way.

The Chairman: Jane.

Mrs. Stewart: I just think that Larry makes his point very clearly.

The Chairman: We'll make note of it, Larry. For the sake of the report it'll be in there. We don't have the final word, of course, but we hope it works out for you.

Mr. McCormick: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Can we just go in camera to summarize MacLaren and McCormick for the help of our research people.

.0952

[Proceedings continue in camera]

.1000

PAUSE

.1004

[Public proceedings resume]

The Chairman: Thank you, Barry, for being here on time. Barry Campbell is the MP for St. Paul's. Barry, there are twenty minutes allotted. You can talk for the full twenty or give us some time to ask questions towards the end.

Mr. Barry Campbell, MP (St. Paul's): Sir, I don't believe I'll take the full twenty. Thank you very much.

The proposed revisions to the boundaries of St. Paul's - what I'm here to speak about - I believe include major flaws that must be addressed. I've provided you with a handout and I'll be going through the arguments and the maps to help you understand this, and you'll have something to take away if you want to reflect on the presentation this morning.

It's clear that in the absence of a shift in population, there generally should not be a major change in riding boundaries. There has been no major population shift in and around the central ridings of Toronto, including St. Paul's. Therefore, I would assert that the boundaries should be maintained as closely as possible with their current state. As you would well appreciate, being members yourselves, and from other presentations, continuity in boundaries is an important factor in contributing to the involvement of Canadians in the political system. Major changes to boundaries cause confusion and are disruptive.

Communities develop strong identities around federal ridings and I assert that these must be respected. Change for the sake of convenience is an insufficient reason for boundary change, and in St. Paul's, as I'm going to establish, it's simply not warranted.

I want to draw your attention to the first slide up on the wall. This is a little the way we used to show slides of our summer vacation at home in the basement.

.1005

We don't have a screen here, but up on the wall you are seeing a map of central Toronto. What we're going to do is show you a series of slides, which reflect the boundaries of St. Paul's from 1961 through to the current boundaries.

Andy, would you put up first the 1961 boundary of St. Paul's.

For the purposes of the first part of my argument, I want you to note the line on the right, or east. That straight line from the bottom of the riding up to where it then tracks in is Yonge Street. That is the 1961 boundary after the 1961 census.

If you then go to the next revision - that was after the 1971 census - you will see on the right that while they've shifted the riding north, they have maintained the boundary on the east, which is Yonge Street.

If we proceed now to the 1981 revision, which is the current boundary, you will see the same thing again. They've extended the riding northward and have maintained the boundary on the east as Yonge Street.

Yonge Street is a natural dividing line in the city of Toronto. People describe themselves living east of Yonge and west of Yonge. The census tracts are divided along Yonge Street, and attitudes are very much shaped by that centre line. It's considered a major dividing line in the city.

For thirty years the revisions to St. Paul's have respected that, moving the riding north, shifting it west a little bit, but never touching the eastern boundary, until we come to the current proposed revision, which does great violation to this principle.

Look at what it does. Do you see what's happened now? In the proposed revisions they have straddled Yonge Street, and while they've made some minor adjustments to the first proposed revision of a few months ago, they have not changed this fact; they have dramatically changed the eastern boundary of the riding, moving it from Yonge Street all the way over to Bayview. The natural dividing line is being ignored. People are being added who have never identified themselves with the St. Paul's riding but rather with the adjacent riding.

I'm also going to speak about what's happening in the north.

So my first point is that the proposed revision to the eastern boundary does violation to the principle of Yonge Street having been recognized for thirty years as the eastern boundary of St. Paul's, consistent with Yonge Street in the consciousness of people as a natural dividing line.

The second argument - it's actually the third because the first argument was that in the absence of population shifts, riding boundaries should not be altered as dramatically as they have been. In fact, at the end of the day here, our riding population will be right about what it is now. It's currently 100,660. With the revision it'll be 100,537, taking 123 people away from St. Paul's and splitting up a riding that has been for thirty years, as I showed you, west of Yonge Street. My second argument was with respect to Yonge Street.

My third argument is with respect to North Toronto. For the purposes of this argument, let's look at the 1961 revision. Over the years, through the 1971 and 1981 revisions, there were a number of complaints about the fact that the riding had an artificial boundary in the north and was splitting up the community of North Toronto.

.1010

You will see that changes over the years added North Toronto to St. Paul's. You see a piece of it being added, and you see in the 1981 revision the final piece being plugged in, in the north. If you follow the line of Yonge Street, you're looking at that sort of finger-like projection that is North Toronto. That recognizes the fact that earlier boundaries had split North Toronto. It really belonged with, was contiguous with, and shared a community of interest with parts of St. Paul's. As you will see in the new revision, it lops it off again.

Thirty years of fighting to add North Toronto have been torn asunder for no apparent purpose by the recent revision.

The Chairman: When you say ``for no apparent purpose'', are you suggesting they took the map and simply drew lines? There must have been some rationale for doing that. Obviously, you don't accept it.

Mr. Campbell: Well, I'm not aware of it. I would welcome the opportunity to debate it with the commission, if that were provided for in the procedure. This is, in some senses, clearly a line-drawing exercise. They do take representations.

It is beyond me why central Toronto ridings - you will have heard this from many of my colleagues - that have had no population shift whatsoever should be vastly altered by a process designed to split suburban ridings that are way over the average.

The Chairman: What about that riding to the east, from Yonge Street to Bayview?

Mr. Campbell: Yes.

The Chairman: Whose riding is that?

Mr. Campbell: That's John Godfrey's riding.

The Chairman: What's the history on that? What's happening with that?

Mr. Campbell: Well, it's always had Yonge Street as its western boundary. I have had Yonge as its eastern boundary. However, Mr. Chairman, you do raise a good point.

Joe Volpe represents the riding to the northwest. I believe Mr. Volpe appeared before you last night, and I would assume that he mentioned his own surprise at the suggestion that the North Toronto community, that jagged area that's been added to the north, properly belongs with his riding. There's no community of interest whatsoever with that salient of land, as I'll call it, and Mr. Volpe's riding to the west.

Whatever the justifications were -

Mrs. Stewart: Here's the justification. You're right. Essentially it's numbers. They talk about their new decision. The new dividing line is running from Yonge Street, along Woodlawn to Rosehill Reservoir, and then along Rosehill to Avoca and all through there. To partially compensate for this loss, the area lying south of Broadway Avenue east of Mount Pleasant Road to the Toronto city limits and south of this limit as far as Bayview has been removed from Don Valley West and added to St. Paul's. It's strictly numbers.

Mr. Campbell: Convenience. Numbers.

This exercise should not take place in the absence of consideration of community of interest, historical identification and the like, and that's what I assert has unfortunately happened here.

I have one more argument to make, but if the purpose is adding or subtracting population, there were certainly more coherent ways to do this. We could have simply moved the western boundary more westerly or easterly as required, because those are communities that are also artificially split. It's the same kind of community on the western boundary. Moving it two or three streets could have done the trick without doing violation to the rest of the riding's boundaries.

The western boundary is not particularly clear. There are no train tracks, no city borders and no streets such as Yonge Street to delineate the western boundary. That's where the flexibility should have been found.

I want to make one last point. I'll conclude and leave a few minutes for questions. There's another small pocket south of Mount Pleasant Cemetery that is now in the riding. This is starting to look a little bit like the napkin drawings of the President of Serbia with respect to the split of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's incomprehensible how that little salient of land ends up attached to St. Paul's.

In an earlier revision, subsequently amended, a whole additional area was also going to be added. The area along the train tracks was going to be added to St. Paul's, as the boundaries commission first proposed it. Pursuant to and in response to representations that it quite properly belonged in Rosedale where it's always been, it was lopped off and the most recent map is the one you see. However, for some bizarre reason - again, I assert population - they have left in this land salient. It has no relationship whatsoever to the rest of the riding.

To its north is the huge Mount Pleasant Cemetery. It's not at all linked to the rest of the riding on the north. On the west it's divided by Yonge Street, that natural dividing line that I suggest.

In summary, I simply say that the line-drawing exercise in St. Paul's, whatever the merits of it might have been on the outskirts of the city and reverberating through, has done great violence to traditions that have been maintained for over thirty years in this riding - the Yonge Street boundary on the east, the continuity of the North Toronto community to our north, which has been part of St. Paul's, this salient that they've added for no apparent purpose. I would urge the committee in their recommendations to the commission to suggest that to the extent population adjustments are what is driving this, they be found by adjusting the western boundary of the current St. Paul's and by leaving the northern, eastern and southern boundaries as they currently are.

.1015

If you want to go to that map alone, Andy, of the current St. Paul's, that will give people a picture of it, reflecting, as I say, thirty years of putting a community together that belongs together, and population can easily be found moving to the east or west along several streets where there are no natural dividing lines. The line's just been drawn right through communities that are the same on either side of the line.

That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to take questions.

The Chairman: John.

Mr. Richardson: Just to ride on the back of the reference to Mr. Volpe's presentation, he was pleading to get further west, to get back into his area of community interest. He was pleading to have his boundary extended further west. Where are we chewing up? You're going north into the area around what I call Armour Heights -

Mr. Campbell: Not quite that far.

Mr. Richardson: Just short of it. Who's riding is that in?

Mr. Campbell: This slide you're looking at is the current St. Paul's boundary effective after the 1981 census. It takes the riding almost as far north as you have suggested. Volpe's riding is immediately to my west and north, John Godfrey is immediately to my east, and due north of me would be Peterson, I guess.

A voice: No, it's still Volpe.

Mr. Campbell: Still Volpe up there? So what would happen, as I understand it, is when they lop off that jagged area up there it goes to Volpe. He would, I gather, rather see his boundary pushed west.

Mr. Richardson: He wants that in his traditional area.... He says that part is not homogeneously connected to the remainder of his riding. He'd like to go to Keele because the socio-economic mix is much more in flavour with the main -

Mr. Campbell: Whereas this piece of land north is very much consistent with the Forest Hill community to its south, which is the bulk of St. Paul's, and that's why it was added to St. Paul's in earlier revisions.

Mr. Richardson: And I agree with that.

Can I just ask one follow-up question, Mr. Chairman. Barry, skipping across Yonge, the only thing I can see there is the fact that it's a natural boundary, and the historic aspect, but there is a similar kind of socio-economic mix, would you not say?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, it is similar, but the fact is that people do tend to identify themselves as east or west of Yonge. The census tracts use Yonge as a boundary.

Mrs. Stewart: Knowing the area extremely well...you're right. The bottom end there around the reservoir to the east of Yonge - that's nuts. It truly does think of itself as part of what would be Toronto Centre - Rosedale. In the writing of the report it looks as if they probably just went to the other side of the reservoir as opposed to using Yonge Street.

Mr. Campbell: Bearing in mind and assuming that people go about their work in all seriousness, the major effort here is to balance population. Fair enough, but let's not do it at the expense of effective representation and identity that people have with ridings. I think lopping off the top end of St. Paul's, adding an area east of Yonge and leaving a little salient of land that more properly belongs in Rosedale does great violation to thirty years of work to put together a riding where there is a community of interest.

Mr. Richardson: Can I ask just one more question that might help Barry's arguments. What is the population as it's presently constituted?

Mr. Campbell: It is presently approximately 100,660. At the end of the exercise as proposed now, if you want to put up the proposed boundaries...when this great map drawing is accomplished, it drops by 123 people to 100,537.

Mr. Richardson: Can you just tell us, because it would really help us, what is the trade-off in population? What's the approximate population in the red area?

.1020

Mr. Campbell: To the north? It's hard for me to say. We have great density in the southwest, lesser density in the middle, and medium density in that salient to the north. I don't know. I cannot tell you.

I think that whatever population adjustment had to be done, if they needed in the end to remove 123 people from St. Paul's, they could have done it by moving the western boundary over by one street. You see they've made it zigzag up the left over the years to do just that. It could be done again.

Mr. Richardson: I asked the question because John Godfrey is on the north of that salient into Rosedale and Bill Graham is to the south. If it were sliced in half and it was not a large amount, it could be absorbed and the deviation from the mean wouldn't be as broad, because the Toronto ridings are in a fairly narrow band based on population, not community of interest.

Thank you.

Mr. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I'll make one observation, if I might be permitted.

I'm not sure how the commission went about its work, whether it started on the outskirts and said that these ridings - and I'm familiar with them as chairman of the greater Toronto area caucus - on the outskirts of the GTA are twice the size they should be and need to be adjusted, so they started adjusting from the outside in.

I would suggest that it might have been more appropriate to adjust from the inside out and say these ridings in the middle of the city are roughly stable in population, so leave them alone. Years and years of line drawing and exercises have resulted in ridings that have had fairly consistent boundaries for thirty years.

In order to accommodate growth, which has been in the suburbs, why should we do violation to the maps that have been drawn over the years in the central city, where there has been no population shift? If they began the exercise from the outside working in, I would suggest they did it inside out.

The Chairman: Hugh, we have another couple of minutes if you have a question.

Mr. Hanrahan: First of all, that was an excellent presentation. I really enjoy the visuality of this, not being as familiar with the city of Toronto as I perhaps should be.

I think in terms of community of interest, the logic is there. The variance is major, however. Again, I'm concerned about the domino effect here. If they were to go back to the way you had it before, how is that going to affect all of your neighbours? I can see the commission being very concerned with that as well.

Mr. Campbell: I heard one of the other members of the committee suggest that Mr. Volpe would not have a problem with giving back to St. Paul's that area of land in the north that has been lopped off and added to his riding. As he argued last night, and as I believe you said a few minutes ago, it had no community of interest with his present community. So I suspect you'd have no problem there.

Then Mr. Godfrey would get back his area, which he currently has to the right of Yonge Street, which has long been a part of that Don Valley riding. The rest of the adjustments could be accommodated quite simply with very minor map drawing.

I'm not sure you want to make a recommendation to the commission as broad and sweeping as what I suggested a few moments ago, which is that they go back and start from the centre core and make their adjustments on the outside rather than what appears to have happened. That's a major redrawing exercise, which I'd certainly welcome you recommending to the commission.

As an alternative, I think these adjustments can be made. The result would be restoring integrity to ridings that have long had boundaries in the centre of the city and that are now being torn asunder.

Mr. Hanrahan: So then if we just stay within those central ridings, with the concurrence of your colleagues you can see us recommending that to the commission and they should be able to handle it without major difficulty.

Mr. Campbell: I would think so.

Mr. Hanrahan: To suggest the other, that they start in the middle and go out, at this point in time I think is perhaps a little -

Mr. Campbell: Well, let me say two things in response to that. I'd certainly, at least as an aside, welcome this committee suggesting to the line-drawers, if I may call them that, that attacking city ridings that have had no population shifts and have long-standing boundaries, and doing violation to those boundaries, is not a way to proceed, as a bit of advice for the future. If you're trying to adjust for population shifts on the outskirts of a city, do it there to the extent possible, with a minimum of disruption inside.

.1025

Perhaps, as you hear representations from other city of Toronto members, you will conclude that only going back and doing the exercise in reverse of the order in which I think it was done will suffice. I haven't heard the testimony of the other members, but speaking as caucus chair for the greater Toronto area, I know many of us were very concerned that our boundaries had all been ignored and ridings disrupted for an exercise that was supposed to deal with population growth on the outskirts of the city.

Mr. Hanrahan: As caucus chair, Barry, have you discussed this issue with the members from Toronto? Have you had the opportunity to make a common presentation of your concerns to the commission?

Mr. Campbell: No, we have not. We have discussed among ourselves our common concerns, which I've expressed to you as an aside here this morning. Each member decided to go about their own exercise.

I suppose we could have been challenged or might still be challenged to see if we can put Humpty-Dumpty back together again, but this is a process that has involved each of us having particular concerns for our ridings. Indeed there may be members in the GTA who are quite happy about what has happened to their ridings. I don't think we wanted to preclude them from doing whatever they wanted to do. Everyone was going to come and do their own thing.

The Chairman: Is there anything further?

Thanks very much, Barry, for what you've given us here this morning.

Mr. Campbell: Thank you.

The Chairman: We're getting some repeats, as you can well imagine. People are saying simply ``We weren't the problem. Why don't you go and work it out there? We were, as we should have been, just fine.'' I think that's what I'm hearing.

Mr. Campbell: Yes, indeed. That might have been the way to avoid having to hear from so many MPs throughout the city.

I'm leaving with you a summary of the arguments, all of the maps we've looked at and the census tract, which shows you the Yonge Street divide that was used for census purposes.

The Chairman: Okay. You leave that with us and it will become part of our report.

Mr. Campbell: You each have copies.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thanks very much. It was a good presentation.

We're moving on to Dan McTeague.

Dan, we've kept you waiting about eight minutes on this, but we'll still give you twenty minutes.

Dan is here speaking for the riding of Ontario.

Mr. Dan McTeague, MP (Ontario): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to preface my remarks by saying I was in attendance at the Promenade Building as you listened to Maurizio Bevilacqua. It was interesting to confirm that we seem to find ourselves in very similar situations.

Your previous witness alluded to the need to perhaps look at changing where change needs to take place. I couldn't agree with him more. These are the ridings that are growing, and some of your major problems are occurring on the periphery of Toronto.

As I understand it, I have the third-largest riding to date, population-wise, in Canada, but we're closing in very quickly on the second position.

I'd like to give you an illustration of where we've been in Ontario riding over the past ten or fifteen years. In 1981 the current boundaries of Ontario riding, which I represent, constituted about 71,000 people. In 1986 that went to 128,000; in 1991 it was 183,000, and with a conservative growth rate, which is about 3% of what I know it to be, we are now hovering at 220,000 to 225,000 people.

I believe the commissioners may not have done as appropriate a job as they might have in demonstrating that this riding, by the time we get to the next election, may well have gone beyond the 25% tolerance rate.

I'm going to make the argument here that no matter what division is made based on what we see proposed today, it's going to be wholly unacceptable from a proportional representation point of view.

.1030

The map you have before you represents - and I'm sorry, I was not able to include the large section, the salient that reaches almost to Lake Simcoe, which will be part of the new Ontario riding - the area north of the town of Pickering. It's a vast area that is not very well populated and will be part of my argument.

I have concerns with the way this has been placed. I'm going to propose that it be transformed into two solid ridings that respect the community above all. With the map before you, going north out of the existing riding makes absolutely no sense.

As I indicated, by 1996 the riding will have already surpassed the tolerance standard of 25%, assuming a growth rate of 5%. In fact, over the past fifteen years it has been 8% to 12%. I want to low-ball the number because we perhaps have to take into account some slowdown in terms of our ability to grow. The infrastructure program, incidentally, is continuing to provide a stop-gap. There exist ample numbers of people within the Ajax -

Mr. Hanrahan: Could I stop you for a second? We get a lot of facts here and it's sometimes hard to register them quickly.

You made the statement that going north makes absolutely no sense, and then you followed that up with the logic behind it, which I missed. Could you run that by us again?

Mr. McTeague: That area north of the new Ontario riding takes in, as proposed, all of the northern parts of the towns of Ajax, Pickering and Uxbridge. It's the Uxbridge section that is unacceptable.

It's unacceptable from a population point of view, because it wasn't necessary. It is more in keeping with the Durham riding, which, if extended further west, would do one of two things. This is part of my conclusion, incidentally. This would fulfil their shortfall.

The report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission shows there is a 6.88% shortage - or below average - and that would be fulfilled if they were simply to draw the riding further to the west, which is the current boundary under Durham. It would also relieve the new Ontario riding of already being in a position, as of 1991, of being nearly 1% over the average.

I can assure you, since 1991, with an average growth rate of 5%, we are now 25% over the mark. So there is a demographic reason for this community of interest, and there's also, of course, the population growth.

Allow me to continue.

The configuration of these two ridings makes a mess of three communities. It halves the town of Pickering, it halves the town of Ajax, and it adds Whitby to an area with no identifiable common or community interest, East Gwillimbury and Georgina, that little section to the north. It basically gives the impression that we were looking to rejig the map simply to satisfy a numerical requirement.

I argue that the twinning of South Ajax with all of the town of Whitby, given the common established heritage - there is a traditional heritage there - would make more sense and would satisfy the community in the numerical balance that the commissioners obviously sought to achieve.

Conversely, the joining of all of Pickering with North Ajax would assure continuity from a community point of view and from a demographic point of view. Let me explain that point.

Pickering, in its entirety, is a relatively new community. If you went there twenty years ago, you might find 4,000 or 5,000 people. In fact, it was called Bay Ridges. It basically existed around what is known as the Frenchman's Bay that you see on the bottom left corner of the map, the southwest quadrant.

The town of Ajax to the north and the town of Pickering evolved at the same time, demographically, in terms of their age, and in terms of their ethnic composition. There's a tremendous degree of similarity.

I should point out to you that a lot of people have moved to Ajax and Pickering, particularly to North Ajax and all of Pickering, due to the lower cost in housing. Therefore, it has attracted a very similar clientele, a similar electoral group of people.

.1035

The current distribution that I have proposed would set the stage, perhaps in the next round of redistribution, for three separate ridings. That would be one for Pickering, one for Ajax, and one for Whitby. The population today of Pickering, incidentally, is 75,000, that of Ajax is 70,000, and that of Whitby is 80,000. You can see that, again, the 5% growth rate from 1991 to, say, the next round of redistribution would make these all viable even if we were to increase the threshold.

As I will explain it, what I'm trying to do is make a simple block here and cut the ridings in half along geographic lines that make sense. All of Whitby and South Ajax twinned would make one new riding for the purposes, without distorting or creating a disproportionate imbalance in terms of numbers over the next few years. On the other hand, North Ajax and all of Pickering would satisfy the numerical balance we are trying to achieve, both sides having somewhere in the area of 110,000 to 115,000 souls.

The other important aspect of this distribution would be to keep the towns represented by their councils in the same setting that they've existed in since the outset, that is, a rural-urban split. The people, whether they live on the airport lands in North Pickering or Claremont, do identify with the town of Pickering. The people in Whitby, whether or not they live north of Taunton Road, do identify with the town of Whitby - whether they live on the farm or whether they live in the community. In all those communities, if you've had a chance to drive through them - I suppose most members of Parliament who are driving from here to Toronto have no choice; they will drive through that riding - you will notice there is some continuity in terms of the identity of the community.

I am providing for you a copy of a resolution by the Town of Ajax. One may make the argument that Ajax may feel offended at the recognition that it is divided in half. The resolution passed last year by the Ajax council seems to in fact indicate a greater emphasis and interest in representation by population. That was a unanimous vote, and it would not at all affect or hinder the leadership or the direction in the town of Ajax as far as the split is concerned. In any event, the split will take place because we don't yet have justification for three new ridings, but we have two gargantuan ridings developing out of this one.

The final point I wanted to touch on was recognizing that this riding is literally the fastest-growing riding in the fastest growing-community in the country. In the next eighteen years it is estimated that the Durham region will grow by 140%. That is a rather substantial amount, and it will obviously lead the country in growth.

Ontario riding is a name, although I suspect that this group or this body may not be in a position to change that or may address this in a fundamental way. The name Ontario riding is a misnomer that only has relevance in historical terms, in terms of the county. The county disappeared in 1973. It may be more appropriate as far as identifying a community of interest between Ajax and Whitby to call it Whitby - South Ajax on the one side and Pickering - North Ajax on the other. Although I'm not going to overemphasize the point, the reality is for many members it's confusing. You can imagine the difficulty of going door to door and identifying yourself as the member for Ontario riding and the people assuming you are somehow affiliated with the provincial government.

I will conclude my remarks by suggesting that the division as it now stands will probably satisfy all the criteria that I believe the commission sought out. It will also ensure that there is balance on both sides and will, above all, not destroy the community of interest, which has been long established in this community.

.1040

As a footnote, I should point out to you that the town of Ajax developed as a wartime industry town and was once constituted of the old town of Whitby. Therefore, there is a lot of alliance, certainly in the southern part of Ajax, with the traditions and with evolution in terms of Whitby.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: It's time for questions.

Jane, do you have any questions?

Mrs. Stewart: Yes.

So your suggestion then would be to have two ridings. Rather than, for example, Uxbridge going north into Newmarket - Georgina, it's more of a community of interest with Durham or what we would call Whitby - South Ajax?

Mr. McTeague: Right.

Mrs. Stewart: Do you have any sense of the population? What is it for Uxbridge?

Mr. McTeague: Uxbridge has probably about 4,000 to 5,000 people in the township itself. The town itself has about 1,200 and the outlying rural area probably another 3,000.

Mrs. Stewart: But they would clearly identify themselves more with Scugog than with what's happening to the north of that?

Mr. McTeague: There are two arguments here. First, Uxbridge may feel that its political message may be watered down by the urban residents of Whitby. The second is that Uxbridge is currently connected with Scugog, with Port Perry, as it's currently represented by the member for Durham.

The Chairman: Hugh.

Mr. Hanrahan: Dan, what you're telling us makes logical sense, as usual. We've looked at the issues of geography, the community of interest, and name change. I don't see any major problems with your presentation.

You've also taken into account the future job of the commission, which I think is significant. What we have now are two, ultimately three. In the area of variance, it's not really a major variance, in that Uxbridge could easily go into the next riding.

Mr. McTeague: It is currently with the existing riding of Durham. If I'm following the commissioner's wisdom in terms of dividing these ridings, the riding of Durham is currently under the mark by some 6.8% - I'm only going by memory here - while the Ontario riding is still over.

So why they would not have simply left the boundaries and confined them to the existing Ontario riding, at least as far as excluding Uxbridge, is beyond me. I realize their task is quite wide, but this simply would affect far too many people and leave a lot of people in Uxbridge feeling rather uneasy that their intentions or their voting patterns or their beliefs or their values would ultimately be determined and decided by people as far as forty to fifty miles away in Whitby.

Remember, as my previous witness had suggested, this is a problem that talks about the whole matter in the GTA. Many of these people are really not part of the GTA.

Mr. Hanrahan: How many people did you say there were in the town of Uxbridge?

Mr. McTeague: The township itself has probably in the area of about 5,000 at this point. Because I don't represent that riding, I only know one area that is growing right now and that's the town of Uxbridge itself, which had about 1,200 to 1,500 people at the last check.

The Chairman: So it's just a village, really.

Mr. McTeague: It's a very small population. No doubt it will grow, but its growth is nowhere near the records being established in the town of Whitby.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the town of Whitby has recorded for the second year in a row the highest number of building permits for residential purposes in Canada.

The Chairman: You could talk to Alex Shepherd, the member from Durham. Have you talked to Alex about this?

.1045

Mr. McTeague: I've mentioned this to Alex, and he finds it a little puzzling that this is suddenly now put into Whitby, which he knows has very little in common with it. I don't know if he's made his presentation at this point. He may refer to that as well.

The Chairman: I don't think he's made a presentation, but he may have submitted something.

What you're saying may make perfect sense, but it may not be a major factor for Alex either way. That's what I suspect.

Mr. McTeague: Alex currently represents the township of Uxbridge. I suppose if he or someone wanted to represent that area, they would see that the community of interest, from a political point of view, has been maintained.

The Chairman: Yes, okay.

Mr. Richardson: Is this the first presentation you've made on Ontario riding, Dan?

Mr. McTeague: I've made a presentation to several members of the councils in my riding.

Mr. Richardson: You didn't appear to appeal before the commission?

Mr. McTeague: I did not; my riding president did. I believe that was because I was out of the country at the time.

Mr. Richardson: Does this in any way sound like the presentation your riding president made?

Mr. McTeague: It is very similar to the one my riding president made, except at the time the nub of the position taken by the riding president was why the division line should have taken place along Ravenscroft. We were trying to find a way of keeping Ajax together.

Ajax's council and the commissioners have indicated that it would be impossible to put Ajax and Pickering together because you would have a population somewhere in excess of 150,000, based on 1991. You'd be back to the same problem.

To answer your question, I've discussed it with the president, David Crawford, and he is in complete support of the position I've taken. But we've had to do that in the context of the changing climate.

Mr. Richardson: A lot of people have come forward who have not previously made a presentation, and the cement gets harder every day away from the decision of the commission. It makes me ask why there wasn't a strong proactive.

Some people mounted rather massive assaults, with community people and fifteen or sixteen groups representing them, to have the boundaries changed in a meaningful manner. There were very powerful lobbies.

The figures you're quoting really go only by the census of 1991. Their mandate flows from the census.

Mr. McTeague: Correct.

Mr. Richardson: I don't think they have a factor built in for growth at all.

Mr. McTeague: No, they don't.

Mr. Richardson: Certainly you make some strong points, because we're aware of growth. Pickering - Ajax almost hits the button at 102,000, which is around the average of Metro Toronto ridings now; many of them sit in that range. The town of Ajax and the town of Whitby, which they have outlined, would be at 98,000. Is that because they probably anticipated growth?

Mr. McTeague: That's possible, but I would suggest that the numbers that were supplied in 1991, again, are really out of whack with reality. Even when we campaigned, as all candidates did in the last election, the list was woefully out of sync with reality. It's very difficult to try to create an environment of political certainty and representative certainty when people feel they're not getting enough representation.

Mr. Richardson: Thanks very much.

The Chairman: Thanks very much, Dan. We're pretty well right on schedule. We appreciate your coming out; I think you made an excellent report.

Our next witness is Sergio Marchi, representing his riding of York West.

The way this thing works, Sergio, you get twenty minutes.

Hon. Sergio Marchi, MP (York West): I don't think I'll take more than one-third of that.

The Chairman: What you don't use for talking we'll use for questioning.

Mr. Marchi: Maybe I will talk it out, then.

Thank you very much and good morning, Mr. Chair and fellow colleagues. I'm going to make essentially three comments with respect to the proposed riding boundary changes insofar as York West is concerned and then perhaps one point on a larger, more generic issue relating to Toronto.

.1050

Point one is that they are proposing on the northwest side of my existing boundary to take a small part of York West, which is now in Etobicoke, and give that to Etobicoke North. So they would respect the Humber River on the northwest corner as a natural boundary.

What they would do is open the eastern boundary instead. So instead of Black Creek being the northeast boundary, it would go all the way out to Dufferin.

It would be my contention that this would be a mistake insofar as the community development of the neighbourhoods is concerned. I believe that the community in Etobicoke, which is now affixed to York West, is more symmetrical to the remaining portion of York West found in North York than the eastern proposed flank would be.

That is for two reasons. I had questioned this some years back when in fact they had York West go over into Etobicoke. I thought that would provide some difficulties from a community development perspective and also from an accessibility perspective, because, at the time, the only access was by Steeles Avenue.

Since then, they have also opened up Finch, which died at Islington Avenue at the time of our last redistribution discussions, and which now has since been built across the river. So there are north and south access points, which makes it much more connected.

Second, look at the type of community. Not only the single-family dwellings, but even the social-cultural mix is exactly the same on the west side of the river as it is on the east side.

Oddly enough, it has brought people from both municipalities a little closer together as opposed to the magnets on the eastern side being eastward and on the western side being westward. So there have been some things developing between the city of Etobicoke and the city of North York - at the risk of sounding corny - that have been very positive. So I would argue for a retention of that part of Etobicoke in York West.

The second point is that by extending the riding eastward, I think we're going to get away from the concept of community that developed in North York. I think right now the bloc of the community is this. Under the proposal, you would have almost a hammerhead approach. I think there are not as many similarities with this corner - it includes a university and industrial, commercial, apartment, military and single dwellings - as you would have if you allowed Black Creek to be the eastern division.

I think there's a lot more symmetry in this part of the town than if this junk was added to the existing part of York West.

The third point is that Art Eggleton, who is the current member for that proposed area of York Centre, argued similarly for the purposes of his riding. I believe he was to come last night. He couldn't do that, so he has been rescheduled. But he says in his written submission that by taking out this chunk from his riding and throwing it into mine, it isolates it much more than you have to. So he is arguing that this place fits in nicely with the rest of his community, as opposed to trying to put it into York West.

They may not be major points in comparison with that of some other colleagues who are coming before you, but I think, from a community-development perspective, it would be a mistake to open up the eastern flank. I would retain the western flank as is.

The last point in reference to Toronto is that I think it would be a mistake to eliminate the one riding, as proposed. I think some of my other colleagues from the Metro Toronto area may have spoken to this. I think it would be a mistake in the sense that I think the pressures on urban members - not to say anything about rural members - are quite great.

For instance, I happen to be the Minister of Immigration, but I also know the kind of work that a subject like immigration creates. Immigration is largely an urban phenomenon, whether we like it or not. It certainly is in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, to the tune of 75%.

.1055

An issue like immigration places incredible demands on members of Parliament, to the tune of roughly 70% to 80% of their workload. Immigration being the emotional issue it is, it's quite taxing not only on the members of Parliament, but I would submit even more on their constituency assistants, who are de facto MPs from Monday to Friday. They are the face of immigration, more so even than my officials and sometimes members of Parliament.

It's a classic example of the kind of pressures that an urban MP in a city like Metropolitan Toronto faces.

I would think it would be a mistake to eliminate a riding. I think if we can lower the quotient, it would allow members of Parliament to do their work a little better, given the uniqueness of some of these Metro-type issues.

Secondly, I think there is some cynicism in our urban centres, more than in our rural centres, because a lot of people don't know who their MPs are. In a rural constituency the networks that bind people to their sense of community are greater than in an urban centre.

So I don't think we should be eliminating ridings and having more people per riding, given that cynicism.

Lastly, regarding the quality of service, I think we should be increasing the numbers of members in their respective ridings, not decreasing them. I think if people can make a connection with their member of Parliament, have access to and identify with their member of Parliament, it's a small step in the right direction towards increasing the credibility of and confidence in the institution of Parliament and elected representatives.

At a time when we're trying to rebuild that in an urban centre like Toronto, I don't think it's the time to increase the quotient. This is the time to make those constituencies a little smaller, a little more manageable, and increase the bonds between a member of Parliament and their constituency.

I know there's a domino effect - my riding is partly being changed and so are the ridings of Roy MacLaren and Art Eggleton. The movement is doing something like this and then it squeezes out the riding over here, held by Sarkis Assadourian. Before we start doing that we should also look at what the concept is of a member of Parliament in Metropolitan Toronto, and the pressures, and perhaps reverse that kind of flow that has led to the squeeze play on the right side of the spectrum.

I'd take a step back and not make the suggested change of eliminating the riding. If we don't eliminate that riding we'll increase and enhance the role of a member of Parliament in urban Toronto. Secondly, it would allow the community development arguments that I spoke about in my riding to take shape, and there won't have to be the kinds of domino effects that we've been seeing in my riding, Roy's riding, and so on.

Those are the four brief points I would make for your consideration. I do hope you'll consider them after you've had a chance to deliberate.

The Chairman: Thank you. Hugh.

Mr. Hanrahan: Thank you for your presentation, Sergio. You make one point that we haven't quite heard before, and it's one that's been in the back of my mind as well, that in urban ridings many people don't know who their MP is. In all honesty we must admit that. In the presentation that we saw just previous to Sergio's, when we saw how those boundaries changed over time, we can see how this doesn't help the matter.

I would like that observation to be made in some manner. While we have to go through this exercise by law, the consistency of ridings has to be a future concern.

Have you made a presentation to the board itself, and have you had any reaction to that?

Mr. Marchi: Which board?

Mr. Hanrahan: The committee.

Mr. Marchi: No, I haven't.

Mr. Hanrahan: Is there any evidence of opposition or support in the community with regard to the changes?

.1100

Mr. Marchi: I think it would be fair to say it's low on their totem pole of priorities. Outside of discussing this with a few individuals, I haven't chosen to make it a cause célèbre.

I think there is largely a genuine ignorance of the proposed changes, and I haven't sought to make it as big an issue because I don't think, in the big scheme, I want to suggest that the changes being made to York West are of any crisis proportion. I believe in the things I've said, and I think the community would back me up.

Then there was some unknown factor as to whether or not the process was going to be changed from the Senate perspective, so there was a lot of uncertainty.

I have not gone out there and solicited the views of constituents.

I agree with your earlier comment about some of the things I've said about an urban member. What is happening north of Metropolitan Toronto is very much that exercise. That is to say, how can you allow a York North to continue? They have taken the existing riding of York North and I believe are suggesting three ridings. They are doing something similar in Mississauga, and I would agree with that.

But if we take that principle and apply it to Metropolitan Toronto, even though Bevilacqua's riding is huge in comparison to mine or David Collenette's or Tom Wappel's, I think a similar principle is at play, given the density of the population of Metropolitan Toronto as opposed to the geography of the ridings to the north and west of the city. But I think the same principles would hold true north and south of Steeles Avenue.

Mr. Hanrahan: I have just one final question.

If I understood you, the changes you are proposing to keep more of the Etobicoke area as opposed to gaining in the east would, from your perspective, decrease or eliminate the domino effect.

Mr. Marchi: Yes, they would. Right now I retain the portion bounded by Steeles Avenue, Martin Grove, Albion and the Humber River. They would eliminate that from York West and give it to Etobicoke North, so the push becomes eastward.

I'm being pushed now. Instead of to Black Creek, I would go out to Dufferin. Art Eggleton, instead of finishing here, will finish there. What happens all the way through is it ends up with Sarkis Assadourian just getting the squeeze play. The circle is that way.

What I'm suggesting is let's think about what we're doing by eliminating this riding. If we do, then what that does is counter the flow and we go back to, essentially, the status quo.

Mr. Hanrahan: Thank you.

Mrs. Stewart: As Sergio has pointed out, there are things that obviously would have been done differently, I expect, had there been more submissions to the commission at the front end.

If you look at the documentation in the report, no objections were received concerning the electoral districts of York Centre, York Southwest, York West or Parkdale - High Park. There were none. The commission had no benefit of community direction in terms of community of interest details of boundaries. As we've found on several occasions, the effectiveness of the work of the commission had to have been constrained by virtue of that fact.

Some of the things that seem obvious from Sergio's point of view and from Roy's point of view are things that I think would have been considered by the commission, had we not had the confusion of the process.

Mr. Marchi: There was a period when not only the constituents and the ratepayer groups didn't know, but when the elected representatives really didn't know, how things were going to play themselves out.

We didn't want to put the community through a process that would then simply be cancelled or overtaken by other events in the Senate, because then you'd have to put that same community through the hoops twice. So I chose not to put them through the hoops at all.

As Jane said, you lose some of the aspirations of the local neighbourhoods and perhaps ratepayers who may want to have a comment. My guess would be that not as many would like to, because I don't think the changes are profound. But there are some changes that I think we need to make in order to try to have those constituents tune in instead of tuning out.

.1105

Right now, if you ask a ratepayer group or a local association what they think, they may tell you, ``Well, who really cares, quite frankly?'' They are overtaken perhaps by their cynicism about politics. They might not know who their MP is. If they don't know who their MP is, how are you going to get them to focus on whether the boundary should be the Humber River or the Black Creek River? To them, it really doesn't make a difference.

I think we as elected members have to figure out how to enhance the riding boundaries, with a view to strengthening the public's belief in their institutions as much as possible.

People only have thirty seconds for politics; they've got busy lives to lead. I think in large part, in ridings like ours, where the problem is indifference, we will have to take the bull by the horns, give it a good shake and find a riding boundary change that will give greater life to the bond between a member of Parliament and his or her constituents in urban Canada.

The Chairman: Putting a bit of a check at least on the indifference, if nothing else, by having a little more consistency.

Mr. Marchi: Sometimes it works to the advantage of urban members. Anything my colleagues from rural Canada do or say may be in the front pages of their weekly newspaper, and word travels instantaneously.

The Chairman: I know you envy us.

Mr. Marchi: When I make a mistake, my advantage is that sometimes no one hears the tree fall, so it never did fall.

For instance, you notice this when you go canvassing. People get confused: ``Are you provincial or are you federal? I thought you were municipal.'' And I was, as an alderman. It's incredible how people are unaware, and I am not blaming them. Life is busy, life is complex, and sometimes they have good reason to turn off their parliamentary channel.

In the long run, I think we need to build those bonds. I think smaller ridings in urban centres, not bigger ones, is the way to go.

The Chairman: I think that's an important point.

John, did you have something to add?

Mr. Richardson: No, not really. I think Jane covered my point.

In the rural ridings you get city councils, township councils, and county councils appearing to see that the community interest is not disrupted. There may be fifteen presentations on behalf of my riding to see that at least one part is sustained as an identity. I don't have to tell them to do that. I don't have to organize that.

Mr. Marchi: Isn't that a reflection of exactly what we are talking about, when you really get down to it?

The Chairman: Is there anything else?

Thanks very much, Sergio.

Mr. Marchi: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thanks for keeping us on schedule.

The next witness, and the last one this morning before we go into committee, is Tom Wappel, representing his riding of Scarborough West.

Mr. Tom Wappel, MP (Scarborough West): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Twenty minutes, Tom, and that will include the question period.

Mr. Wappel: I don't need twenty minutes, Mr. Chairman.

Members of the committee, I am not going to talk about politics, other than peripherally. I want to talk about my riding. It is described as number 79 on page 57 of the 1994 booklet.

This is for illustrative purposes. I will just hold this up. This is the east half of Metropolitan Toronto. This north-south line here is Victoria Park; that is the municipal boundary. Of course, the lower edge is Lake Ontario. On the west side of the riding is the city of Toronto; on the east side, the city of Scarborough.

In the city of Scarborough there are five federal ridings. My riding is Scarborough West, which, as you can see, is down in the southwest corner. What I want to deal with first is my last submission in my letter, which is with respect to the name.

.1110

Speaking of confusion, as Sergio was, I get a lot of calls from the western side of Scarborough, from Steeles right down to the lake, because people think that because I am Scarborough West, I represent the west side of all of Scarborough, and sometimes people think the west side of Scarborough starts here and goes over here.

An accurate geographical description of my riding would be Scarborough Southwest. It is the most southerly and westerly riding and it's not about to change. It's very static in terms of the building structure there, in terms of the amount of open area left for development, for apartments, etc., which is to say, there is not very much.

Now, the description that is in the book affects virtually nothing in the existing riding. What it's going to do - and I've got some detailed maps - is it's going to increase the size of my riding slightly in this general area in the northeasterly section of the riding. I just wanted you to have an idea of roughly where Scarborough West fits in Metro and how in fact it is Scarborough Southwest in comparison to the other ridings.

I have a detailed map - a copy for all members and the clerk. I have blown it up, so the scale is not as you saw it on the smaller map. There is also one minor complication in that in my Notice of Objection I referred to a community known as Guildwood Village. You will note that on the map I have reproduced, the area I referred to as Guildwood Village in my Notice of Objection is referred to as Scarborough Village on that map. That's the only map I could get my hands on that would illustrate for you what I wanted to say.

I am going to refer now to Scarborough Village and I don't want you to be confused as to why I referred to Guildwood Village earlier.

The first map you will see is highlighted in yellow and, as I've indicated to you, it is the commission's recommendation as to what should happen with the riding of Scarborough West. As you will see, it proceeds eastward. Interestingly enough, Sergio was talking about things proceeding eastward as well. What it would in fact do is take a portion of the current Scarborough East represented by the Hon. Doug Peters. I don't know if he has or will be before you, but this is currently his riding.

I want to make three comments on the current proposals. First, you will notice a small, lined area in the southeast portion by the Bellamy Ravine Creek and Lake Ontario. Based on the description the commission has put forward, this portion, which is relatively uninhabited, would be removed from my riding. However, in my view, there's no logic to doing this because, as I read the description, it would only be the northerly half of Hill Crescent that would be in my riding.

Thus, the homes on the southerly portion of Hill Crescent from Markham Road, which is the heavy, solid line north-south, west to Bellamy, which is probably ten or fifteen homes at most, would suddenly find themselves in Scarborough East for no apparent purpose, while their neighbours immediately to the north across the street would be in Scarborough West.

That criticism also extends to another part of the description put forward by the commission, as I read it, of the remainder of Hill Crescent, whereby the north portion would be Scarborough West, the south portion would be Scarborough East. To me, that doesn't make any sense. It is a residential street; it is not a main thoroughfare. There is clearly a community of interest. The people on that street are close-knit. They know each other.

.1115

I don't know a great deal about the area east of me because it's not my riding. I do know it is what we would call perhaps a very upscale crescent, and there are professional people living there with the same interests and concerns. Being near the lake, they of course have environmental concerns and this kind of thing.

As far as the commission's recommendations are concerned, on their face, it would seem illogical to me to proceed along Hill Crescent to the Bellamy Ravine Creek in any event. There would be no reason why the commission could not have simply stopped at Markham Road. That's the first point.

The Chairman: How many people would be in that little triangle?

Mr. Wappel: I'd say a maximum of fifty people.

I say the description is unclear in number 79. If we assume the southerly portion of Hill Crescent is not included, and if the commission means that all of Hill Crescent is included, I lose nothing except for the fact that we've got this kind of jog based on Bellamy Ravine Creek, which is a geographical oddity, whereas Markham Road is a very straight north-south road that proceeds from Lake Ontario to Lake Simcoe. So there's no reason for the commission to have gone beyond Markham Road. If we're talking about the south portion only, we're talking about a very small number of homes. There are very large homes in that area - 100- to 150-foot lots - so we're not talking about dense population.

The Chairman: You're talking about the south side of the street?

Mr. Wappel: Yes, and for the purposes of the way in which I read this - and I repeat it again for the record because in my submission it is not clear - I'm assuming that in all cases the north side of Hill Crescent would be in my riding; everything within the diagram.

The Chairman: We'd have to check on the description of the other riding and see what is included in their understanding of it.

Mr. Wappel: If you turn the page, you will see something highlighted in red. This is what I call recommendation 1, which would be my preferred recommendation. In effect, it is what in geometry would be called an inverted isosceles triangle. Really what it does is obvious when you look at the map. It gives me an additional.... And by the way, I'm not arguing for the same boundaries. If people want to give me an additional 10,000 constituents or so, that's fine. It's not a problem and I'll do the work. But if you're going to do it, what I'm basically saying is to do it logically.

So if you take the triangle and use Highway 2, which is Kingston Road, as the boundary, what you in fact do is preserve the Scarborough Village community that is south of Kingston Road and that goes down to the lake. There is absolutely no disruption, we continue with Markham Road north-south as the boundary, and we have this extra area.

Generally speaking, this area was, for the most part, undeveloped land until a few years ago. It has now been the subject of rapid development of apartment buildings. It is primarily high-rise apartment buildings and high-rise condos, so there will be a significant population in that triangle. My guess would be - and the commission would probably know better - a probable 4,000 to 7,000 additional electors. Currently I have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 95,000 electors, and I believe they want to put me up to about 105,000 or thereabouts.

My preferred option would be this: completely preserve the Scarborough Village community and the Guildwood Village community as shown on this map, with Scarborough East, which is where it has historically been for many years.

If we turn to map 2, which is in green, we see what would be my second recommendation - not my preferred recommendation, but my second nonetheless. Here again you can see a very simple idea, which is to proceed in the north to Guildwood Station, which you see at the top, and simply draw a north-south line down Livingston Road and right into Lake Ontario. It's very simple and you then have all of Scarborough Village coming into Scarborough West - the entire community plus that triangle I was showing you.

.1120

That might give me more people - in fact, it clearly would - than they're currently recommending, but at least it would keep the community together and represented by one member of Parliament, as opposed to at least two.

Mr. Hanrahan: Tom, do you have an idea of the number? I guess it's more than 25,000 if it goes over.

Mr. Wappel: I don't think it would be that many. These are all south of Kingston Road. With some exceptions, we're talking of single-family dwellings with lots of 50 or 60 to 100 or 150 feet in width. So they are primarily upper-middle-class to million-dollar homes, especially as we approach the lake and the bluffs. We're talking very large estates. We're not talking about a particularly high density south of Kingston Road-Highway 2. North of Kingston Road, which is the apartment side, it's a different story. My only reason for suggesting recommendation 2 is, in fact, to keep that community together. It's that simple so I won't flog it to death.

Recommendation 3 is what I would call my compromise to recommendation 2. This is highlighted in blue, and again you'll notice that I've kept the triangle. It is a given in all of the submissions at the top, but what I've done here is suggested a splitting of Scarborough Village. If the thing must be done, then why not cut it in half on a north-south line, directly south of the line of Scarborough Golf Club Road? You would then have at least half of the community together in one riding, and the other half of the community together in the other riding on a north-south basis, which, generally speaking, is how the ridings have historically been divided in the eastern part of Scarborough.

Yes, it's true that one side of Scarborough Golf Club Road would be represented by Scarborough West and that it would be Scarborough East on the other side of Scarborough Golf Club Road, but it is not a residential street in the common sense of that term. It's a well-used thoroughfare. It is the street that feeds this community so that it can get to Kingston Road, the big six-lane road that moves traffic in and out of Scarborough, into the city and out into the further suburbs. So there's already a natural division in people's minds. You go to Scarborough Golf Club Road to get to Kingston Road. So at least that portion to the west of Scarborough Golf Club Road would remain a viable community and the part east could sort of drift toward Guildwood Village.

Again, this is not my preference. My preference would be to keep Scarborough Village together as it's shown on this map. I would then be honoured to represent the people in the triangle I showed you.

I think that covers all of the proposals I made, with the exception of one, which is sub (d)on page 2.

I'd just like to repeat that if the commission doesn't buy any of these arguments, if it doesn't buy your recommendations - assuming that you recommend what I've said or some variation of it - and if they insist that they are going to go with what they did, I would implore them to at least stop at Markham Road and leave that small chunk with me in Scarborough West, and also to include both sides of Hill Crescent, if it is not already included.

The Chairman: And change the name.

Mr. Wappel: And change the name to Scarborough Southwest.

The Chairman: Okay, questions.

Jane.

Mrs. Stewart: I would say that from Tom's presentation the appropriate source or selection on the east side of Markham Road is anything but what they gave you. You've drawn every other option and would accept any option other than what they've given.

Mr. Wappel: That's correct, and that's simply because the way they've done it is illogical from a community perspective.

The Chairman: John.

Mr. Richardson: I happen to agree. I see two solutions. First, if I was drawing it, I would prefer to cut Markham Road, which would be your eastern boundary. But in light of what we heard from other presenters in Scarborough, there is some merit in your next option, that being to take all of the village in presentation 2, the one in green.

.1125

In terms of population, it wouldn't have that much of an effect on the riding of Scarborough East. There was some concern that there was a distortion of Scarborough North, which had a negligible amount of population in that major distortion of the boundary. I don't know how it will work, but there are two simple ones: Markham Road or the total part of that area south of Kingston Road to the lake.

That's all I can see, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wappel: I don't know if Mr. Peters has been here, but certainly from what I know of the commission's suggestions with respect to Scarborough East, I should tell you that they would change it so that it would proceed on a north-south basis to Steeles Avenue.

Relatively speaking, in terms of a municipal area, there are vast tracts of undeveloped land in there. Even if there was a population loss by way of taking recommendation 2, for example, there is no doubt that because of the development that will inevitably take place in the area and that is already proceeding, Scarborough East would catch up in terms of population within a few short years. I'm not sure of the numbers, but if it lost, clearly Scarborough East would only lose in the very short term because of the development going on in that area.

Mr. Richardson: Just as a follow-up and out of curiosity, Tom, is that vacant land around Uxbridge, etc., and in the east-northeast section of Scarborough part of the old Pickering airport tract?

Mr. Wappel: It's even further east than that. That's east of the Rouge River. It's right out of Scarborough. It would be primarily, if not exclusively, in Dan McTeague's riding.

The Chairman: Anything else, panel? Tom?

Thank you very much for your maps and for your presentation.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you very much for the opportunity. Good luck with your deliberations.

The Chairman: We will continue in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]