;

SELE Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, June 5, 2003

1540

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.))

Hon. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.)

1545

Hon. Robert Nault

1550

The Chair

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Hon. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Scott Reid

1555

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Robert Nault

The Chair

1600

Hon. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Hon. Robert Nault

1605

The Chair

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Hon. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

1645

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr (Project Manager, Electoral Geography Division, Register and Geography Directorate, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer)

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Peter Adams

1650

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Peter Adams

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Peter Adams

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

1655

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

1700

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marcel Proulx

1705

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Michel Guimond

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Michel Guimond

1710

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Michel Guimond

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Michel Guimond

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Michel Guimond

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)

1715

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri

1720

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Tony Valeri

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri

1725

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1730

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1735

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

M. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

1740

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

1745

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1750

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

1755

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

CANADA

Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 017

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, June 5, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1540)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order.

We are the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment, and we're very pleased to have with us today the member for Kenora--or right now “Kenora--Rainy River”, correct?

You'll see we have some aids here, including the aid of Mr. Proulx's head.

We have André Cyr, representative of Elections Canada. He has some fabulous technology here. If you suggest we move things left, right, or centre, he can do the numbers for us. So occasionally we pause to get the information from him.

As well, we all have before us the various maps.

Guys, would you mind calling the House and finding out what the bell is for? Thanks.

We're on map one.

Over to you, Mr. Nault.

Hon. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I assume I have 15 minutes or something like that.

The Chair: Roughly, yes, including questions.

Hon. Robert Nault: What I wanted to do, with the short time I have, is bring the concerns of the people of Kenora--Rainy River as it relates to the boundaries commission's report and what we consider to be one of the largest exceptions ever made, if not the largest exception made, in the province of Ontario. If adopted, it would put the proposed new Kenora riding at 43.73% below the provincial quotient.

For those of you who are wondering what's been changed, I'll show you. In essence, this little section here is the Rainy River district, which has been part of the Kenora riding for I don't know how many years now, but I would assume at least 30 or 40 years. It's been there as long as I can remember, and I've been their member of Parliament for 15 years.

I'll go to the three recommendations I want to make to you and then give you some explanation of our major concern.

I recommend that you in turn recommend to the commission that Atikokan be added to the riding of Kenora--Rainy River, as originally proposed by the commission; that you recommend to the commission that they maintain the electoral boundary as it presently exists by taking into consideration that presently Kenora--Rainy River, as it stands today, is only 1.3% below the allowable variance, and is not the problem at all; and that by recognizing—these are the three different recommendations and ways that you can approach the concern the commission had—the unique circumstances in northern Ontario, all northern ridings be allowed a 5% to 7% increase in the allowable variance. This solution, in my view, would resolve the current geographic and political realities facing northern Ontario, and would in effect provide for fair and proper representation.

This unprecedented exception, when reviewed by the next commission, I believe could be ruled as unacceptable and lead to putting Kenora--Rainy River riding back to what it is now.

I don't understand, quite frankly, Madam Chair, whether in fact...and this I would like to have explored. I haven't done it myself, but I am of the view that I'm not sure the commission has the power to make an exception of this magnitude without properly notifying us of the huge exception they're making.

One of the things I wanted to mention to you is that the commission made reference, in one of our newspapers, the Fort Frances Times, that I, as the member of Parliament, had not made representation during the presentation period. You will note that at the time the commission proposed that Atikokan be added to the Kenora--Rainy River riding. This was acceptable in that the addition of Atikokan would have made sense to me, because before my tenure as a member of Parliament, and the short one of my predecessor, the Liberal member of Parliament for 19 years had Atikokan at one time in their riding, and then Atikokan moved to the Thunder Bay riding.

It was recommended in the first maps that Atikokan come back, to deal with that small 1.3% below the allowable variance that we were over. If Atikokan went in, that would resolve the issue. It would have made a lot of sense, simply because Atikokan shares similarities of community interests, including geographic, economic, and size, with the communities in the current riding.

Had a huge exception been expected, I would have made a formal presentation. In addition, I'm convinced that all the municipalities within the Kenora--Rainy River riding would have objected at that presentation stage. As you know, we get maps before the hearings; we look at the maps and we say, well, I guess we can live with a little bit more of a size of a riding--which is the largest in Ontario today. Without knowing that someone was going to make the kind of exception they did make, we were under the view there was no need for us to make presentations.

¹ (1545)

Hon. Robert Nault: Madam Chair, you'll notice a large group behind me. Most of my colleagues behind me are mayors and reeves of the municipalities of Kenora and Rainy River. They happen to be here this week as part of a mayors' week, meeting with a number of ministers and ministerial staff, sending messages to and lobbying, on behalf of their regions, the ministers of the crown.

I've laid out for you the recommendations that I think make sense. I very much want you to know this is not a political matter. In all the elections I have stood for as the member of Parliament for Kenora--Rainy River, I have virtually broken even, both north and south, so in fact this does not improve my political opportunities whatsoever.

I just happen to be of the view, and my representation to you today is to suggest, that Rainy River should be part of the Kenora--Rainy River riding, as it was previously, because we have a community of interest. We are part of the same watershed. We have obviously been connected as communities for many years now. The distance between the Rainy River district and Thunder Bay is substantial. and a member of Parliament of a large urban centre would be representing a very rural district in northern Ontario.

Instead of having what I consider to be an acceptable distance, about a two-hour drive, as between the centres I now represent, if you continue to include Rainy River, it will be about a six-hour drive from the community of Rainy River to Thunder Bay.

And there's no reason for that, really. As I said to you before, our riding was not the issue at all. I certainly would like you to send our message to the commission that making a huge exception like this is not to the benefit of the citizens and residents of the Rainy River district.

Based on time, I will end the vote. I will stop there. Obviously, I'm open to questions by members of the committee.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Just before I turn to Mr. Reid, I see in the report--and maybe, André, you can confirm this for us--that your current constituency is minus 26.83%.

Mr. Robert Nault: Right. The acceptable variance is at 25% in Ontario.

The Chair: Yes, but currently you're at minus 26.83%.

Mr. Robert Nault: Yes, which we estimate is 26.39% below the quotient, if I'm not mistaken, which is 1.3% below the allowable variance.

For the sake of this debate, the existing riding of Thunder Bay--Atikokan is at 29.39% below the quotient, approximately 3.3% below the allowable variance. So it's been my suggestion all along that if the commission wants to make an exception, it would make more sense to make an exception that is small--5% to 7%--than the huge exception to Kenora--Rainy River of 43.73%. It just doesn't make good sense, in my view, to do something like that.

The question I had put to you, on behalf of the residents of this riding, is how will the next commission see this huge exception, and what would be their view of it? I'm of the view that they would see it as making no sense, and end up putting it back. So we would have to live apart for 10 years and end up going back again, simply because, as I understand it, the rule of thumb in Ontario is to stay within that 25% variance. That's been the rule of thumb all along.

The Chair: No, the legislation for the whole country is that; they're supposed to get within that, except in exceptional circumstances.

Hon. Robert Nault: The only point that's been made about exceptional circumstances is that it's too large for the member of Parliament to service it. I take exception to that, of course. I've been its member for 15 years, and I think we do a pretty good job of managing our way around the riding.

You might keep in mind, though, that about two-thirds of the riding is totally isolated. You can't get there by road. In fact, perhaps I can give you a sense of how the riding really works.

Where is the map showing Lake of the Woods? Okay, if I'm not mistaken, that's the end of 105. That's Red Lake. That's basically the end of the road, and from here on up are totally isolated first nation communities. The only way you can get there is by air and/or winter road. So this part here is basically the part I drive to in the summertime, which is, I think, in the northern Ontario view, a legitimately small riding.

Sorry, I don't want to make you dizzy, Paddy.

The Chair: No, it's okay--as long as you don't do the Georges Farrah throw-it-around-the-room.

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): I'll try to be brief here because of the time constraints.

I'm guessing, and you can confirm whether I'm correct or incorrect in my assumption, there was some form of municipal amalgamation along the Rainy River between the last redistribution and the current one. Is that correct?

Hon. Robert Nault: Yes. Kenora had, for example, three municipalities merged into one, but for all intents and purposes the amalgamations were relatively small.

The largest centre in the Kenora--Rainy River riding is Kenora. It has a population of about 17,000. The second largest is Fort Frances in the Rainy River district. It has about 10,000. And it goes down from there. The majority of the communities, 51 first nation and I think 32 non-native communities, all are very small and very rural, and very much fit together by the watershed, as I said.

Mr. Scott Reid: What I'm wondering about is that the boundaries commission seems to have contemplated only two possibilities here. One is to divide along this line, in its initial presentation, and the other is to divide along this line there, in its revised presentation, as opposed to using the line here. I was wondering if they had done that because they were attempting to not split some municipality with that dividing line.

Is that part of the consideration here?

¹ (1555)

Hon. Robert Nault: No. What they were...under the first map was to include, on the other side of that line, a community called Atikokan. So we would have inherited just one community of, I think, 3,500 people. That would have put us above and beyond the quotient, as we understand.

So that dividing line had very little to do with that issue of dividing a community of interest.

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): You didn't attend the commission out your way, in probably November or December, because you were satisfied with their original proposal, and there was no problem. Are you aware of anybody testifying at that commission to make this change, in favour of this change?

Hon. Robert Nault: No one. No one ever imagined that the commission would make such a large exception. We still can't figure it out, to be honest with you, what the rationale would be. If it was good for commissions over the last 50 years to have a riding this size, then we don't quite understand why all of a sudden it's not acceptable and why they would make such a large exception to this.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Probably it's that previous commissions didn't have computers to tell them exactly how to cut the line so that the population would be down.

The Chair: But also, to be fair, right now the three ridings in that area, on the current map, are Kenora--Rainy River at minus 26.83%; Atikokan at minus 29%; and Thunder Bay--Superior North at minus 30%. Timiskaming--Cochrane is minus 35% and Timmins--James Bay is minus 33%. So when they knew they were losing population in general in that area, and it's supposed to be to a maximum of minus 25% unless there's an exception, that's not an exception when all of them are more than minus 25%.

So I think they were actually trying to solve a problem they maybe thought they had, that you can't have every riding be an exception over the 25%. It may not be right, but I'm just telling you what we gather they were trying to do.

Certainly we heard from other members in the north who don't like what they came up with, especially how much it deviated from the original consultation map.

This committee, just so you know, is asking to be reconstituted in the fall to make recommendations to the House about how to change this process so that we don't end up in these situations where you consult on one map, and it's an objection-based system, so people who like the map don't show up and then they make some changes to the map that nobody expected, and there isn't another round for the public in which to participate. As you may remember, that was a piece of legislation that got blocked in the Senate in the first part of the 1993-95 mandate.

That seems to be a theme that has emerged as we've done these hearings right across the country.

Mr. Adams has a question.

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): I do, Madam Chair.

In my presentation to the commission in my region, I made a general point, which I'm going to make again to this committee later, that in the rural areas--and goodness knows, the minister represents a rural area--it's even more important to think of the design of the riding. Now, we do understand the importance of numbers, and the representation by population, but in rural areas it is even more important to think of the design of the riding and the way people relate to it.

I represent a rural riding, but it's nothing like this in size. So I would strongly urge that whatever the subcommittee does, it tries to make that point. It's not simply the way a member can serve the riding; the way the people relate to the riding becomes very important if it's as big as this.

The Chair: Mr. Nault, you've given us two options. One is to go back to the map they consulted on, and one is to go back to what you currently have.

Hon. Robert Nault: And a third option.

The Chair: What's the third option?

º (1600)

Hon. Robert Nault: The third recommendation is that if the commission believes an exception is important to make to rectify some of the issues in northern Ontario, why would they not choose a smaller exception to each riding, anywhere from 5% to 7%, versus a huge exception of this magnitude? The question goes back to the argument made many times in the House of Commons, that every vote is as important, no matter where it is. So all of a sudden it's okay for the member of Parliament for Kenora now to represent only 60,000 when someone in Toronto could represent 120,000 constituents. If we're going to make an exception, I would have thought you'd want to stick to the whole argument that weighing of votes would be as close as possible in one jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction happens to be Ontario in this case.

You might find it quite strange that I'm here fighting for a larger riding, but I am here simply because I believe Rainy River district belongs to this particular configuration. We have communities of interest. The members of Parliament who have represented this area--me for fifteen years and the members before me for five years and nineteen years--have always had Rainy River as part of our riding. It's been acceptable, and the leadership behind you very much supports that.

To go back to the very obvious point I made earlier, if we had known for an instance that someone would have recommended this, every single one of us in this room would have been there making a presentation. That's the unacceptable part of this.

As my final point, I believe, quite frankly, this is illegal. You cannot make exceptions like this without a legitimate argument. There's no argument for this riding to be cut like this, so different from other ridings in Ontario. I don't know how anyone has the power to do that when we've always argued that you had to be within the 25%.

The Chair: Right.

Just before I turn to Mr. Reid, I'll tell you that in discussions with some of your northern colleagues we've also thought about the concept of two provincial quotients rather than one, especially to consider the special circumstances of rural and northern communities.

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid: I don't know this area well, so I'll have to ask you this. Looking at Timmins--James Bay, which seems to me to be more or less the same physical size as the riding you represent, I'm guessing it would not be any easier than yours to service in terms of getting around the riding, but I notice there's a substantial population difference. That is to say, it's only about 22% under the provincial quotient, whereas you're about 40% under.

I guess what I'm sort of struggling with here with is whether it might not make more sense to recognize that all northern ridings...or certainly all very large northern ridings, because not every riding in the north is large. For example, the one around Sault Ste. Marie is not particularly physically large. But all the larger ones could be brought into line with each other at perhaps more or less 20% to 25% under, or something of that nature.

I wonder if that wouldn't be a fairer solution. I'm actually wondering whether that might not be a recommendation we could make as a committee to the commission.

The Chair: We asked Mr. Serré to come back with a redraw of the entire north, so....

Hon. Robert Nault: Our recommendation to you is that if you had an exception that ran around 30% versus 25%, you would correct the problem you're looking to correct and I would get to keep the Rainy River district.

Look, in honesty, they have chosen my riding because they start from the west and go east. They chose this one as the way to rectify all the other problems down the road. We take exception to that particular method of approaching the business of repairing some of those issues. Kenora--Rainy River, as you know, was only 1.3% above the 25% quotient, so we weren't even the major problem. Thunder Bay and other ridings had more problems.

Just to answer the member's question, Timmins, number 58 on the map, basically, for all intents and purposes, is the same as ours. It's a little bit smaller, and it has fewer isolated communities, but it has a very large aboriginal population and a very rural population as well.

So I would say that Mr. Bélair, who represents that riding, would have the same kind of work structures I would. We spend half our time in chartered airplanes and the other half in a car driving to the communities.

º (1605)

The Chair: Who is “Mr. Blair”?

Mr. Robert Nault: Reg Bélair.

The Chair: Oh, Bélair. It's been a long week. We all thought you said “Blair”, like Tony Blair. Sorry, it's been a long day.

When we come back, André—I think we're about to start three bells—if we could get the numbers of what Mr. Nault has proposed for Atikokan and for Kenora—Rainy River, that would be great.

We thank you very much. We would suggest that you talk to Mr. Serré, because he is supposed to be coming back to us with a redraw of the entire north. There were problems from pretty well every single member up there. We said, “If you think there's another way to do it, you tell us, because we don't want to arbitrate between all the various members. You can do that yourselves.”

And Thunder Bay—Rainy River--

Hon. Robert Nault: That's Mr. Dromisky. I understand he has come forward to the committee, or will, arguing the same as we are, that it's not their preference to have the Rainy River district within the Thunder Bay—Atikokan riding, which is what it used to be called.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Nault, and thanks for bringing our biggest audience yet.

Colleagues, we will suspend.

º (1606)

º (1640)

The Chair: I call the meeting back to order.

We have with us, for the riding of Peterborough, Mr. Peter Adams.

Your real first name is John, and you wanted to call it “Johnborough”?

Mr. Peter Adams: That's right, Johnborough, yes.

I want to thank you, as chair of the standing committee, and you, colleagues, for your fine work. I know it's not easy for you.

I'd like to make a general point and a specific point. You can see the riding of Peterborough. My general point, as I said earlier, I made at the commission, and it's a concern for rural ridings in the future. The rural population of Canada is getting smaller and smaller every census. This means, I think, that not less thought but more thought should be given to the way rural Canada is represented by the various electoral boundaries commissions.

As well, it's not always the case but I think it's often the case that the main changes occur in the cities, and their effects ripple out into the rural areas. Quite often--and I believe this is true in eastern Ontario--the rural areas are considered not of themselves but as an afterthought.

The other thing about rural areas is that because the legislation is driven by numbers, there is a tendency to have to cobble together large regions, often unrelated regions, simply to meet the numbers. And by the way, I do recognize that. The one general conclusion I have from it is where it is possible to have in a rural area a coherent riding, a riding that is natural, a riding not so much that the MP can serve but to which the constituents can relate, then I think the commission should go out of its way to retain those coherent ridings.

So instead of just making changes in the cities, and the changes rippling into the rural areas, they should make the changes in the cities. Then they should look at the rural areas and say, yes, this would be a good rural riding, and do their very best. Then cobble together the rest in these fairly amorphous rural ridings.

That's my general point. If the committee is going to look at this in the future, special care should be given to the design of rural ridings, with particular emphasis on the community of interest, the historic association criteria.

In the case of Peterborough, I want to thank the commission, because their original proposal was.... The riding of Peterborough was what you see there, in brown, plus this little white area, which is the former North Monaghan township. In the original maps, the commission proposed taking out that little piece--for reasons they explained--and this piece here, this large rural township that you see here.

Local people of all parties and municipal representatives appeared before the commission and argued against both of those changes.

The commission came back, and had left this large township in--previously, as I said, the line would have been there--but taken out this former North Monaghan township.

So the proposal, as you can see, is of that brown area, but with this little white patch taken out of it. The reason for this is that this white patch, the former North Monaghan township, in recent years has been combined into one township, with Cavan, Millbrook, and North Monaghan.

The argument they give for taking it out of the riding is that it is better that this part of the township be with its township.

And by the way, I accept that argument, except I think the whole township should be in Peterborough riding. The riding should go like this, around this section here. I appeared before the municipal council of that....

By the way, the commission quoted the reeve of that township as saying that he felt it would be much more appropriate if his entire township should be in the same riding. He and the council agreed with me that this riding should in fact be Peterborough riding.

That brings me back to the original point I made and that I heard you discussing, as I'm sure you've done many times. For these people, the city of Peterborough is their natural centre. It has been their natural centre since before Confederation. They use the hospital there, they go there for shopping, they often go there to school. In fact their kids go to high school in Peterborough. Farmers' services are in Peterborough. They are not in Lindsay, which is a town someplace up here, which is effectively the centre of the next riding over.

º (1645)

Madam Chair, I agree with the commission that it is better to unite this entire township of Cavan, Millbrook, and North Monaghan, but I think it's better, for the reasons I describe--it's the natural home--that it be in Peterborough riding. This would increase the size of Peterborough riding, but it would still be comfortably within the limits set by the commission. At the moment, the riding is slightly larger than the quotient; it would just be slightly more, and slightly better.

I can give you a little bit more evidence. I'm not interested in this for taking on extra work, but a couple of censuses ago, the townships up here, that one and that one, which are both in Peterborough County, were taken out of Peterborough riding. I still do routine MP work for those people.

I have no objection to doing that, and my office does it. They come for passports. What is more significant, though, is they complain to me, or they praise me, for government activity, but come election time, they discover that in fact they can't vote for me.

I would suggest to you, going back to my remark about coherent rural ridings, that this in the end is the object of the exercise. If the people relate to their riding, the political process works its way out, because they go after the right person--it's not just a matter of the work--on the good things and the bad things, and they get to vote for the person who represents them.

Now, if in fact this current map stands, and North Monaghan goes out of my riding, I will still do all the work for North Monaghan, and I will do it gladly. But those people will not, naturally, then relate to the member over here, who in fact...and it has nothing to do with him at all; it's simply because they don't instinctively look in that particular direction.

Madam Chair, that is my first point. I hope we can give some advice on the design of rural ridings in the future. I think it is particularly important that rural ridings be coherent where possible. In this particular case, I accept the commission's argument that this small piece should be joined to its township, but in my view, that township had better, for democratic reasons, be in Peterborough riding.

The Chair: Mr. Cyr, numbers?

Mr. André Cyr (Project Manager, Electoral Geography Division, Register and Geography Directorate, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): There are 8,500 residents in that township. Currently both ridings are at plus 3%. With the changes, it brings Haliburton--Kawartha Lakes--Brock to minus 4.5%, and Peterborough to plus 3%; it was at minus....

The Chair: No, that doesn't.... It's at 3% over.

Mr. André Cyr: I put them in the wrong riding, sorry.

Mr. Peter Adams: Those numbers are not out of line.

º (1650)

The Chair: Well, so far they're incorrect.

Mr. André Cyr: [Inaudible—Editor]...almost 11%.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Adams, according to the report, it says specifically that the reeve of the township of Cavan, Millbrook, and North Monaghan, writing on behalf of the council, argued that the township should be kept together in a single electoral district, but he didn't say which one.

Mr. Peter Adams: Well, he's told me Peterborough riding, and I believe that's what he meant when he made that presentation.

That is one of the points, Madam Chair, I am trying to make. I agree that the township should be in one. I simply think, with them, it should be in Peterborough riding.

The Chair: The second thing is, they in fact consulted with North Monaghan in the other riding. The consultation document, with the exception of the addition of Havelock County, did have North Monaghan out.

Mr. Peter Adams: That's correct. So they accepted our advice on one end of the riding and did not accept our advice on the other end of the riding.

The Chair: And where is the constituency office for Haliburton?

Mr. Peter Adams: In Lindsay, which is roughly there. There are lakes and a variety of things, more than you can see here, in between. Lindsay is the centre for this region up here, not for this region down here. The city of Peterborough is there.

In fact, North Monaghan is adjacent to the city of Peterborough. One of its boundaries is the city of Peterborough.

The Chair: But what about the Cavan part?

Mr. Peter Adams: This is Cavan, and the village of Millbrook is like the capital of Cavan, if you want to think of it that way. This is Peterborough County; that's the boundary you see here. This is the other county you see over here.

So they would come into Peterborough County completely and Peterborough riding.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Proulx and Mr. Guimond, do you have any questions?

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What's the reaction of riding 42 there to losing that area?

Mr. Peter Adams: It would be--

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Haliburton.

Mr. Peter Adams: --John O'Reilly in Haliburton--Victoria--Brock, as it is now.

As far as I know, we both agree that they should be united in the same township. You'd have to ask him--it's not for me to say--but I suspect he agrees with me.

By the way, he agrees with me that Peterborough is the natural centre, and that I already do the work for the entire section. He and I share that. I pass information to him when I'm doing it and so on.

But I wouldn't like to say categorically for him that he doesn't want it in the riding.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Who is “him” again?

Mr. Peter Adams: John O'Reilly.

The Chair: And Millbrook is the community that's the furthest away in that square?

Mr. Peter Adams: Yes. Millbrook is the village, and Cavan is the township around it.

The Chair: So Cedar Valley is part of the township?

Mr. Peter Adams: Exactly, yes. Cedar Valley is like a subdivision.

The Chair: So they're pretty close to the 115.

Mr. Peter Adams: Yes, they are.

The Chair: So they'd end up on a bigger highway getting into Peterborough than if they drove all the way over to Lindsay.

Mr. Peter Adams: Absolutely.

The Chair: They'd have to go up the 35, I guess.

Mr. Peter Adams: They'd go down the 115 to the 35 and back up again.

The Chair: Oh, okay.

[Translation]

Are there any other questions?

[English]

All right, thank you very much.

[Translation]

The next witness is Ms. Allard, from Quebec.

[English]

Map seven, I think it is.

Madam Allard.

º (1655)

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Madam Chair and dear colleagues, Île de Laval currently includes three ridings and there's a proposal to add half of a fourth. The officials working on the electoral map reform clearly told us that keeping the current names of Laval-Est, Laval-Ouest and Laval-Centre was not an option. We were clearly told that the name of my riding had to be changed and the name suggested was Duvernay, a name that I think does not reflect my riding. I tried, with the assistance of the Société d'histoire et de généalogie de l'Île-Jésus, to try to find name that would better reflect the history of the area. I didn't realize that the perfect name for my riding was right in front of me, the name Alfred-Pellan.

I had originally suggested to the commission to name my riding François-Berthelot, after the second lord to own Jésus Island. Subsequently I was in touch with Alfred Pellan's widow who told me that she was living in my riding. I thought that Alfred Pellan's reputation could certain benefit the riding of Laval-Est. That is why I spoke against the name of François-Berthelot and asked that the riding be therefore named Alfred-Pellan, which would work quite well with the riding to the north of Laval, which will be named Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. In Laval, therefore, there would be two ridings with the names of well-known painters, and this would reflect the history of painting in our ridings in Quebec. That is why I suggested the name Alfred-Pellan.

The Chair: Who was François Berthelot?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: François Berthelot was one of the first founding lords of Jésus Island. His first domain was in what is currently Laval-Est. He was involved in the trade of Jésus Island for the Island of Orléans. His past wasn't particularly glorious in the end, because he sold Laval Island. I think that choosing a more contemporary figure, Alfred Pellan, will better reflect Laval-Est's history.

Alfred Pellan was a painter who was born in 1906. He had an extraordinary career in Paris. He then came back to Quebec during the Second World War and made his home in Laval-Est. His wife still lives in my riding in a fieldstone house bought by Pellan in 1950, in Auteuil, on the banks of Mille-Îles River. Madeleine, his widow, still lives in this house. I was at the Governor General's the other evening, and many of his works were hanging on the walls. Alfred Pellan had the same status in Quebec's history that Borduas did. I think that his reputation speaks for itself.

The Chair: That is the first change you are suggesting.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: The first change that I am proposing is that the name François-Berthelot be replaced by the name Alfred-Pellan.

The Chair: Are you requesting any other changes?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I am also opposed to one of the ridings having the name Laval.

I don't know what the commission was thinking when it proposed these names, but it suggested an older name, Duvernay, that dates back to the time of a Conservative member, Vincent Della Noce. Of course I'm going to object to the name Duvernay. But I also see that one of the ridings could have the name of Laval. I think that is somewhat sad. It will cause confusion. I think that if some ridings are going to have the names of well-known painters, then we should be consistent and ensure that all four ridings in Laval have painters' names. I am opposed to the current riding of Laval-Centre being called Laval because the other ridings will not be able to have that name. I think that this is too bad. I don't know what point you're at in your considerations.

» (1700)

The Chair: But Laval is l'île Jésus.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Yes, they're one and the same.

The Chair: L'île Jésus is only a small part...

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: No. It's the whole island. That is why I think it is rather strange that Laval-Ouest is being given the name of Île-Jésus. I don't know if Ms. Folco has stated her opposition, because in my riding there are painters whose names could be used. I have not coordinated my activities with Ms. Folco's, but I believe she has also stated her opposition.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Ms. Allard, would you object to the ridings being called Laval-Centre, Laval-West, Laval-East and Laval-North?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: No, but it would be more difficult in the case of Laval-North, because that's not Laval; that is Laval-Rive-Nord.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes. A part of the Marc-Aurèle-Fortin riding would be in Laval and another part would be in the old riding of Terrebonne—Blainville.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Some people have proposed Laval-Rive-Nord, and I thought that the name was consistent. But we were told that there was no question of keeping the names of Laval-East, Laval-West and Laval-Centre.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Why?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I don't know. The commissioners we appeared before told us that. They clearly stated that the words “east”, “west” and “centre” in a particular area would no longer be used and that new names had to be found.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: It's much easier for constituents to situate their ridings when those words are used. Everyone knows where Laval-East, Laval-West and Laval-Centre are, but I am not convinced that people will know where the riding of François-Berthelot or that of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin will be.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: And yet...

Mr. Marcel Proulx: But you're right. If the area to the west of the island is called l'Île-Jésus and a part in the middle is called Laval, that is not fair to the other ridings. What it means is that people can no longer situate themselves geographically.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: When I mentioned this, I was told that everyone knew that Louis-Hébert was in Quebec. The tendency of the commissioners was to start giving...

Mr. Marcel Proulx: But it's not like that everywhere. It is not like that in Ontario and in the other provinces.

» (1705)

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: When the name Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was suggested for Laval-Rive-Nord, I agreed because there is already a museum in that area called Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. Furthermore, because the name Marc-Aurèle-Fortin had already been suggested and the commission seemed to want to opt for the name of the artist rather than the name Laval-Rive-Nord, I thought of the name of an artist and I found that of Alfred Pellan.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: If you had to choose between the name of an artist and a geographical description such as Laval-East, which would you prefer?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I prefer Laval-Est, because ever since I was elected member for this riding, I have been fighting to have the riding recognized and to be recognized myself as the member for Laval-East. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the idea of representing the riding of Alfred-Pellan. In fact I have a problem with that.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Federal politics aside, do the inhabitants of your riding identify with the name Laval-East? In the city of Laval, are Laval-East, Laval-West and Laval-Centre recognized?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I think that constituents recognize that Laval-East used to be called Duvernay. I did not want to go back to calling Laval-East Duvernay. In fact there is a sector in Laval-East called Duvernay. I also did not want to anger the other communities of the island living in the sectors of Auteuil or Saint-Vincent-de-Paul. Furthermore, why call the riding Duvernay rather than Saint-Vincent-de-Paul ? So I tried to find a name that would correspond... Obviously if I could keep the name of Laval-East, I would be very pleased.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Fine.

The Chair: It's strange that there was no mention of the fact that the words “east”, “west”, “north” and “centre” would no longer be used. Only the fact that two names instead of four would be used was mentioned.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Excuse me?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: This isn't mentioned in the report.

The Chair: It is not mentioned in the report that we can't name a riding “east” or “west”.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: No. However that was clearly stated when we appeared, because we didn't think we would have to change the name of our riding.

The Chair: That's surprising, because this is not an obligation by law.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: If the name of Laval-East is preserved, I will be very pleased.

The Chair: But it's nice...

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I would be happy to keep the name of Laval-East. I think that it is geographically representative and accurate.

The Chair: I must say that it is nice to celebrate our history in this way.

Mr. Guimond, you have the floor.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Allard, if I have understood correctly, you appeared before the commission. Are you the one who suggested the name of François-Berthelot?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Yes.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You are the one who suggested it.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I didn't have a choice; I was told that it would be Duvernay. I was opposed to the name of Duvernay. When I appeared before the commission, the commissioner clearly told me that there was no question of keeping the name of Laval-East. I learned of it that morning. Because I only had a few days to suggest something else, I had a study done by the Société d'histoire et de généalogie de l'Île-Jésus. A few names were proposed. We quickly made a choice and sent in the name of François-Berthelot by the deadline. It was done quickly and the public was not consulted, but I only had 10 days to make another suggestion, otherwise, I was clearly told, Duvernay would be chosen as the name.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I have the same questions as my colleague, Mr. Proulx, had. You said that you would like the riding to be called Alfred-Pellan because it is a well-known name. That is not a sufficient criteria. We can't choose the name of someone like Guy Lafleur or Nadia Comaneci for that reason. The purpose is not to find the name of a famous person. It has to be a name that reflects the riding and its inhabitants. I personally didn't know Alfred Pellan, but I know who he was. Is that sufficient grounds to choose that name, or the name of François Berthelot or any other? I'll give you the example of my riding.

» (1710)

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: What is the name?

Mr. Michel Guimond: The name of my riding is made up of four names. The Quebec commissioners obviously went after those four names with a vengeance. They satisfied themselves by eliminating some. We all know where l'île d'Orléans is and the Montmorency Falls are known all over the world, but Alfred Pellan... Would you want us to make a recommendation?

This morning, we heard John Manley, who is the Member for Ottawa-South. In Ottawa there is Ottawa-Centre and Ottawa-South. Of course, each commission is independent. The commission in Ontario is not bound by decisions the commission in Quebec makes and vice versa. Would you like us to recommend that we come back to the status quo ante for your riding of Laval-East and that the names Laval-Centre and Laval-West be preserved?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: There would also be Laval-Rive-Nord.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I think that we should say Laval-North. After all, we don't say Laval-Côté-Est, Laval-Centre and Laval-Côté-Ouest.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Guimond, I think the commission was in a dilemma because the fourth Laval riding is made up of territories on both sides of the river. Marc-Aurèle-Fortin would be a good name for the riding because there is a museum and a street that bear his name. Marc-Aurèle-Fortin must have lived there. I think that is how they wanted to solve the problem of Laval-Nord. I don't think the people from the other side of the river would be pleased to see their riding called Laval-Nord. The people living in Lorraine would surely not want their riding to be called Laval-Nord. That is why they decided to call it Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

I am knowledgeable about painting and I was extremely happy to learn that Alfred Pellan had lived in my riding, had painted some of his paintings in my riding and that his widow still lived in the family home, which will probably be bequeathed to the community when she dies. It is not without good reason that I suggest the name Alfred-Pellan for my riding.

Mr. Michel Guimond: The island with the three ridings is called l'Île Jésus. We could therefore recommend that the three ridings on l'Île Jésus continue to be called Laval-East, Laval-Centre and Laval-West and that the new riding bear the name of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, because it is not on l'Île Jésus.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The southern part is on Île Jésus.

I think we should just ask Ms. Allard whether she would agree to keep her riding name as Laval-East.

Mr. Michel Guimond: We have our answer to that.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I would be very pleased to keep the name Laval-East, regardless of what happens to the other ridings. I do not think we could take the name Laval-Nord because that would create problems.

That said, I was under the impression that we were not allowed to keep the former names. So I thought of Alfred-Pellan. If you consult those who produced the report and see they had valid arguments to get rid of the names Laval-East, Laval-West and Laval-Centre, I will adjust and choose the name Alfred-Pellan.

The Chair: Did the mayor or someone else support that proposal?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: No, I do not believe so. In all honesty, I am making this proposal because of the tie that exists between Mr. Pellan and Laval-East. I think the mayor is especially happy that city hall is in the riding of Laval.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Allard.

[English]

And back to Ontario, with Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Given the time constraints, I'm sure I'll be brief enough for the committee to hear the next witness.

I certainly want to recognize in advance the challenge you face as a committee. Of course, in speaking with other members, I know you've been faced with a lot of disagreement, perhaps, on the boundaries and a lot less in terms of solutions. I'm probably going to be just as guilty of that, but I want to put a couple of things on the record.

In my riding of Stoney Creek, an exodus in population from the core of Hamilton has resulted in significant change in the Niagara area and in the Hamilton area.

» (1715)

The Chair: So much so that we're in Kenora--Rainy River.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Yes, we're unable to find the map.

I'd also like to put on the record that given the amalgamation of the new city of Hamilton, the former municipality of Stoney Creek has in fact been divided in two.

I do recognize the challenge we're faced with in terms of the population question, but I do want to put it on the record that Stoney Creek really does form a community of interest, so much so that I was able to argue successfully the inclusion of the name Stoney Creek in a riding where it was previously omitted. And that was a recognition of the historical significance of the name Stoney Creek and the Battle of 1812. A re-enactment occurs each and every year--this weekend, in fact--where the Americans come forward and re-enact that particular battle.

They also have--

The Chair: Is that where they tried to attack us and we defeated them?

Mr. Tony Valeri: Correct. It's actually where we pushed back the Americans. So I thought it would be appropriate to ensure recognition of that in our federal ridings; the name Stoney Creek remains.

I won't spend too much time making the case that the city of Stoney Creek should remain intact in a federal riding, with the exception of pointing out for the committee members that every other former municipality in Hamilton-Wentworth in fact survived this boundary realignment with the exception of the city of Stoney Creek. That would include areas in both Niagara and Hamilton--the areas of Pelham, Lincoln, Glanbrook, West Lincoln, Grimsby, Ancaster, Dundas, and Flamborough. All of these were separate entities prior to the amalgamation, in the Hamilton side now; they do remain intact and in one riding. The former city of Stoney Creek does divide between a riding of Niagara West--Glanbrook and a riding renamed Hamilton East--Stoney Creek.

As I said, due to the population requirement, I don't think I could make a coherent argument without affecting all of the other ridings. I'm not sure we would ever get to a point where we could meet the quotient requirement. So I would like to make two points to the committee.

One, I would like to convey to you the need to reconsider the criteria of planned population growth in your study. At least flag it in this study, and if you do consider further study, this should be an integral part of what you review.

Niagara and Hamilton have received major surgery as a result of the exodus of population, but no consideration was given to the growth areas, and there are substantial growth areas in upper Stoney Creek area and in Niagara, which has ultimately lost a riding. With the consideration of planned population growth, I think the additional riding in Niagara probably would have survived, and we wouldn't have seen the kind of surgery we've experienced. So I would ask you to reconsider that.

The other point I want to make really has to do with the name change. If we are going to accept the recommendations of the commissioners, then I would ask that we amend the name that's been suggested, Hamilton East--Stoney Creek, to read Hamilton--Stoney Creek.

I suggest this because the community of Stoney Creek would actually form the most easterly portion of the new amalgamated city of Hamilton and that particular riding. So the name Hamilton East--Stoney Creek, from a geographical identification standpoint, is somewhat redundant. Hamilton East and Stoney Creek are essentially now the same thing as a result of amalgamation.

So for simplicity and for better reflection of the riding itself, the name Hamilton--Stoney Creek is probably more appropriate. It would reflect the area of Hamilton that still forms part of that riding and would recognize the area of Stoney Creek, which also forms part of that riding and obviously has a lot of historical significance for the community beyond just Hamilton; it also has significance certainly in the area of Niagara and all the way through Halton.

So those are the two points I'd like to make. Obviously, my preference would be to have the former municipality of Stoney Creek remain intact. I don't think that's possible, given the population we're dealing with. It does have its own newspaper, it does have its own chamber, independent of Hamilton itself, and it does continue to present itself in a unique fashion with respect to its historical roots.

So I'd just like to leave you with those two points, and I'd be open to questions.

» (1720)

The Chair: So basically it's Hamilton--Stoney Creek. Is Niagara West--Glanbrook the right name?

Mr. Tony Valeri: Niagara West--Glanbrook would reflect, I think, the area. There is a portion of Stoney Creek at the top. Niagara West is certainly quite reflective of the Niagara area. Glanbrook across the top might also suggest ....

I think Niagara West--Glanbrook would work. The reason I think Stoney Creek is certainly important to recognize, in the lower riding, is that the actual monument and the battle of Stoney Creek actually occurs and is re-enacted on the lower part of that division of Stoney Creek. So I think it probably better reflects old Stoney Creek and the historical significance of the name.

The Chair: It's “upper” on this map, but you mean “lower” because it's below the escarpment.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Yes, lower because it's below the escarpment, but it's the upper portion of the map you have in front of you.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): What's the population?

The Chair: It's over by 7%, at 115,715. And Niagara West—Glanbrook is minus 16%.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So Tony's issue is--

Mr. André Cyr: No, that's not the right number.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Pelham is part of that riding as well, so...and I think it's about 109,000, if I'm not mistaken.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So really, your issue is more the name.

The Chair: And it's minus 7%, Niagara West.

Mr. Tony Valeri: It's more the name on reflection, because I have tried...and I have talked to so many people about how to reconfigure this. It's been found quite impossible to do so without substantially affecting neighbouring ridings. Obviously, once you make a change here you incur a bunch of changes in other ridings that might not make sense for other ridings as well.

Again, I think the rationale of the commissioners is that they viewed it as a city of Hamilton, because when they looked at this, the city was amalgamated. It was no longer individual municipalities.

If it were, I would suggest to you that the former municipality of Stoney Creek would have remained intact, and there probably would have been a much smaller riding in the Niagara area, which would have been a smaller rural riding in the Niagara area. And it does make sense to combine Pelham, West Lincoln, Grimsby, Beamsville, Vineland, and Jordan. I think the number might get you to about 75,000 or so, and obviously you then have a problem with the quotient.

But in terms of community of interest, that makes more sense than what we see up here.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Is there any reason why we'd have a difficulty with leaving the Stoney Creek name there?

The Chair: No, but I guess the other reason they probably went with Hamilton East—Stoney Creek is that the riding used to be Hamilton East.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Prior to my intervention, it was called Hamilton East. My suggestion was to ensure that the name Stoney Creek form part of that, and that the name be changed to Hamilton—Stoney Creek, given that Stoney Creek essentially designates the most easterly part of the new amalgamated city of Hamilton.

The Chair: It's a bit like “tuna fish”.

Mr. Tony Valeri: That's right; it's a bit redundant to say Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

So I think this name is better reflective because it does also incorporate the historical significance of the community of Stoney Creek.

» (1725)

The Chair: Okay. I think we've beaten that fish to death.

Thank you very much, Mr. Valeri. We'll take your considerations should we have the chance to reconvene and make some recommendations to the government about changing this process.

Now back to Quebec--in an effort to keep us completely confused. Good thing we're quick-change artists.

Your riding is called...?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, or NDG—Lachine.

The Chair: This is on map 10. The commentary is on page 106 in this book. So the map is on page 70, and the commentary on page 106.

Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: If I may, I'm aware that the clerk of the committee has received a series of petitions and letters, over 40 letters, from organizations and individuals in my riding supporting the position I'm putting forward before the committee. As well, I have petitions of over 500 names that have been collected in the space of literally three days.

I also have made copies of my riding itself, with colours to show the area being removed and the area the commission is proposing be added on. It might help in the discussions.

So I'd like to be able to table copies of the letters.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I'd also like to just begin by saying that the entire community of NDG is firmly behind the position I'm taking, that it should remain status quo. We've had, as I said, over 500 signatures in a very short period of time; 40-plus letters and faxes to the clerk supporting, asking that it be status quo. We also have a website up, and hundreds of constituents have hit on the website and as a result signed the petition, etc.

We have a motion adopted unanimously by the city councillors of the burrough of Côtes-des-Neiges and NDG, requesting that the NDG community remain in the federal riding of NDG--Lachine. We also have a motion from the board of directors of my Liberal riding association requesting the same thing.

So I think I can safely say I have strong support from the community of NDG requesting that the NDG community remain intact in the federal riding of NDG--Lachine.

I'd like to just give you a little bit of history. If you look at the actual...I've had this distributed, I believe. If you look on the right-hand side at the section shadowed in green, that is the section that the commission in its wisdom wishes to remove from the federal riding of NDG--Lachine and add on to the federal riding of Westmount--Ville-Marie.

I'd like to give you just a little bit of history. I mentioned it in my brief, so I don't want to go over all of the points. NDG was in and of itself a municipality. At the beginning of the 20th century, it merged in what used to be the old city of Montreal, which has now undergone a further merger. It actually is east of the current eastern border of NDG. The current eastern border of NDG is a highway, the Décarie Expressway. The actual old community of NDG goes a little further east. That was removed back in the 1990s and given to the Westmount--Ville-Marie riding association.

While people in NDG were not happy about that, there wasn't a major super-protest, because a lot of people on that little land had affiliation with the city of Westmount. However, all of the NDG residents who live west of the Décarie Expressway identify themselves as NDGers and are known as NDGers both within the new city of Montreal and all of Quebec.

There probably isn't a Quebec resident who reads a newspaper who doesn't know the name of NDG. I would say that a lot of social activists, environmental activists across Canada know the burrough or the neighbourhood of NDG, because it's a community that has been very active locally, provincially, and nationally on environmental issues and on social welfare issues.

So there is a strong community of interest, community affiliation, and strong community identification.

The actual riding as it now stands has a population, as you'll see, of a little over 101,000 residents. It's 5.6% over the provincial average. With what the commission is proposing, it's going to be 102,000, so in fact there's virtually no change in the population, and there's no change in the percentage over the provincial average, but it makes a big difference in the lives of the constituents of NDG.

So I am proposing status quo, that the eastern boundary remain at Décarie Expressway and that the western boundary remain at 56th Avenue of Lachine, which is the western limit of the old city of Lachine and the actual burrough of Lachine.

If, however--

» (1730)

The Chair: Just in front of you there is a pointer. Try not to blind us, or yourself.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay.

Along this edge is the Décarie Expressway. Do you see Highway 15 here? It runs right through NDG, the eastern limit of NDG. This white portion here, which is green on the map I had distributed, is the section that the commission wishes to remove and add on to Westmount--Ville-Marie.

My riding, as you can see, continues all the way down here. This section here is Lachine. Everything you see south of what is Highway 20 and then going up here, from this border and along here, is Lachine. The western limit of what used to be the city of Lachine and is now the borough of Lachine is 56th Avenue. That divides Lachine from Dorval.

The Chair: So your current riding...so geographically, you get quite a larger piece--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Huge.

The Chair: --but roughly the same population.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: In terms of population it's virtually the same.

The Chair: André, what are the numbers on the new Lac St-Louis?

This final document is not what they consulted on.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, it's not. The commission's initial proposal was to move the eastern boundary of NDG--Lachine to Marcil Street, which is three streets east of the Décarie Expressway, and to change the name of the riding from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to Lachine only.

So we organized in the community. My association and I prepared a full brief. We went before the commission in Montreal on December 16 and we made a case for the eastern limit to remain at Décarie Expressway. We even said that we could make an even better argument to include the little strip of NDG east of Décarie Expressway, which had been given to Westmount--Ville-Marie in 1996, but given that the residents are more or less okay with it, we don't want to re-open that argument. So we're prepared to keep the eastern limit at Décarie Expressway and keep the name, NDG--Lachine.

The commission in its wisdom decided to accept our recommendation that the name should remain Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine but to move the eastern boundary even further west from what they had originally recommended.

What's interesting is that if one adds on Dorval, then the name NDG--Lachine no longer describes.... It's irrelevant. It's irrelevant for Lachiners, it's irrelevant for NDGers, and it's irrelevant for Dorval, because it no longer describes in any way the riding.

» (1735)

Mr. Marcel Proulx: So it should be called NDG--Lachine--Dorval...?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, seriously, Dorval and NDG and Lachine are on Lac St-Louis. So if you went to my second option-- if you absolutely do not want to recommend status quo--then it's status quo plus Dorval, which increases our percentage above the provincial average but not to an extent that would offend or astound anyone. It would be about 10% to 11% over the provincial average. And then, I would say, you might want to look at NDG--Lac St-Louis, because a lot of the community organizations in Lachine and in Dorval that serve both communities call themselves Lac St-Louis organizations--for instance, the Club des personnes handicapées du lac St-Louis, or Club des pêcheurs et chasseurs sportifs du lac St-Louis.

The Chair: The problem is, we couldn't have two that say “Lac St-Louis”.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Lac St-Louis “East”; I am flexible.

M. Marcel Proulx: But if I may--

The Chair: And you're prepared to--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I'm asking for status quo. And I must say, when we appeared, I was not the only member of Parliament from the Island of Montreal to appear before the commission in December. We had a common position, which was that our riding should remain status quo.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What is the population, Mrs. Chair, of the piece of land at the east end of NDG--Lachine, the green doodad?

The Chair: It's basically the same.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I want to know how much it is, because we're going to have to figure out how much we're deducting from Westmount--Ville-Marie.

Mr. André Cyr: It would be around 19,000.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay, thank you.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: And Dorval, 17,000.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What about Westmount--Ville-Marie? Where does it stand?

The Chair: It's at 0.75% over, so we would knock that down quite substantially, unless....

For Westmount--Ville-Marie, did they change from the current riding?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. There was a piece taken away from it, and that was given over to the Verdun riding.

The Chair: Which is Jeanne-Le Ber, or Laurier...?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: No. Verdun is called....

The Chair: Outremont?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: No. They've changed it to Jeanne-Le Ber.

The Chair: I gave you that option earlier, but you didn't pick up on it.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I didn't hear that, I'm sorry.

The Chair: That's okay.

So they called it Verdun first. How far over is it?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: This is Westmount--Ville-Marie. This little white section here is Jeanne-Le Ber.

The Chair: What are you now?

» (1740)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.

The Chair: It's not in here.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: They might have printed it under Lachine--NDG. There was some confusion over the name after 1996.

The Chair: We have a document that shows us, for the current ridings, the distribution of population.

André, do you know this one? For some reason Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is not in it.

This happened once before. The only one we cared about was not on the list.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Do you remember, Michel, they said there was a riding they wanted to void, wanted to remove totally? That must be the one.

Mr. André Cyr: Look under Lachine, under L.

The Chair: There are 75 ridings, right? I don't see a disconnect in the numbers, that's the funny thing.

Oh, here it is. It's between K and L--a good place for N.

Mr. André Cyr: I think the original name was Lachine--Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, actually the original name was Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine East.

The Chair: I know. They just put it in the wrong order. It's fine.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Then it went to Lachine--Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. That stayed for two months.

The Chair: It's 6% over now. I don't know why they're doing this.

All of them...Lac-St-Louis is 14% over.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: When we remove that area from Westmount--Ville-Marie, and there are 19,000, I understand that NDG--Lachine will still be kosher. What's going to happen to Westmount--Ville-Marie as far as the figures are concerned?

The Chair: It will be way under, 20% under almost, unless you make a further change to them.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's a difficult situation on any of these, but is there a compromise that works better than others? If Westmount--Ville-Marie stayed on the avenue there, Hingston Avenue, if that area went with Westmount--Ville-Marie--and I understand your argument is to keep it--then Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine would be...how many?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It would be 101,000, just under 102,000. And as it now stands, it's 103,000-something.

The Chair: It's 102,900.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, it would have to be less than that, because you said there are 19,000--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's not 19,000. It should be about 11,000.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, we just got that it was 19,000 in Westmount--Ville-Marie, on the piece from Hingston Avenue--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: To the Décarie Expressway.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: --that would go to Westmount--Ville-Marie.

So that should, if it was 103,000, drop it back to 79,000 to 80,000, or did those numbers already come off?

The Chair: No. I guess where we've created some confusion is we were trying to figure out the numbers--

Mr. Gerald Keddy: For Westmount--Ville-Marie.

The Chair: Yes.

What we were saying is what's the status quo. The status quo is 103,000; the proposal is for 102,000, basically. They're all around the same.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Except one follows an electoral residents list.

The Chair: But the challenge is all the Island of Montreal. Is Verdun, Saint-Henri, Saint-Paul, Pointe Saint-Charles...is that the one that's now Jeanne-Le Ber? Yes?

So that's where they've had a population drop, and that's what they're trying to correct.

» (1745)

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But I guess the point I'm trying to make, Madam Chair, is there are really only two options, and maybe only one option. We either leave the area from Hingston Avenue with Westmount--Ville-Marie or we don't.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: We go back to status quo, which is what I'm saying; if you go back to status quo for me, then you go back to status quo for everyone. That's what the members of Parliament on the Island of Montreal....

In December there was a letter signed by every single MP on the Island of Montreal asking for status quo. It was tabled before the commission by the executive director of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada. There were several Liberal members of Parliament who went before the commission on the same day I did and who spoke before me or after me asking for status quo.

The Chair: So who asked for a change?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Nobody asked for a change. No one. We asked for status quo. The commission in its wisdom--

The Chair: You said the Liberals asked for status quo.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I was there when you had representatives of the Bloc who came before...or it was not the Bloc MP, it was the president of their riding association who came, and they also asked for status quo.

I'm not aware of one member of Parliament on the Island of Montreal who asked for a change to their federal boundary limits.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Chair, we had this discussion when I was here on my own south shore riding boundary changes, but for me, if everyone has asked for status quo, shouldn't that simply be the recommendation of our part of this committee? I'm not saying that changes anything, or affects the final outcome--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would be supremely happy, I would be dancing in the streets, I would be ecstatic if this commission in its wisdom recommended status quo for every...because I understand your problem. If you only accede to my opposition, then you have a boomerang effect for all of the others. The issue is, every single Liberal member of Parliament, and to my knowledge the other members of Parliament on the Island of Montreal, requested status quo.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: In the urban ridings, the population is just.... It doesn't affect the riding the same way it does in a rural riding. The ridings are smaller. They're quite often more cohesive because their communities are closer together, and demographics are packed in.

I mean, I don't know; I'm new to this committee, but....

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So am I. It's the first time I've had...well, the second time now, but--

The Chair: Here's my other question. What they consulted on, is that different from the status quo?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: What was consulted on in December--

» (1750)

The Chair: Is right in front of you.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: --is right in front of me, yes.

If you want, I can come around and show each one of you the little section--

The Chair: No, for the Island of Montreal.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That's what was consulted on.

The Chair: Right.

And with regard to the document you have before you, does it suggest changes to the current boundaries, the current ones?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. It's suggested changes to almost every single riding. In fact, I think for every single riding on the Island of Montreal they recommended changes.

In their interim report, that they consulted on, they came out with a report in September 2002, and then held hearings in Montreal in December 2002. They recommended changes. The changes they recommended to my riding were to take away a total of 6,000 residents, with the equivalent of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 voters, and it was to move the eastern boundary from Décarie Expressway three city blocks west.

The Chair: But then they came back with a completely--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: After I argued against it, they came back, and now they say move it an additional eight city blocks west.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: There might be something we would want to look at. We'd have to consult, which would mean Madam Jennings would have to come back.

What you see in brown now is the riding of Westmount--Ville-Marie. Starting around Avenue Marcil, whatever Madam Jennings is saying is south of Highway 15, if we were to take that away from Westmount and give it back to Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Westmount--Ville-Marie is very short. Westmount--Ville-Marie has lost the area where the pointer is now, called Outremont. She has lost that to Outremont.

If we were to swing this back into Westmount, it would bring Westmount back to probably around minus 10% or minus 12%. Westmount would still be at minus, because there's a section at the bottom--

The Chair: To Jeanne-Le Ber.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: --that goes to Jeanne-Le Ber. But it might be a situation that would be acceptable to Madam Jennings, it might be acceptable to Westmount--Ville-Marie, and it might be acceptable to Outremont.

The Chair: And Outremont would be under the provincial quotient.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes. Outremont is at there now, so it will be a little bit underneath.

The Chair: How much more under?

Mr. André Cyr: There are 4,800 in the area where your pointer is.

The Chair: So it's 5% under.

Okay. We'll look at that and--

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Would that look good for you?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That would look very good for me.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay.

The Chair: But then the only other thing is, Lac St-Louis is currently 5% over, and it would be another 15% over.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Where does that population come from?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's Dorval.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That has grown?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Dorval hasn't grown. No, none of the ridings have grown.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: But why is St-Louis all of a sudden so above the average?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's 5%.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, because we removed the section of 17,000 that they're giving to you.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Right now, with the existing boundaries, Lac St-Louis is about 5% over.

Yes, it is.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I believe you.

The Chair: The growth is in Pierrefonds.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It was moved further west. The adjustments by the commission make virtually no change to the percentage that ridings are over the provincial average. Those ridings that were over before...for instance, with mine, at 5.9%, under their recommendation, I'm 5.6% over.

The Chair: But here's the problem. If you take out this piece that's in your riding now and give it back to Lac St-Louis, Lac St-Louis will be quite a bit over. The reason, I think, is that Pierrefonds has grown. Pierrefonds on this list is the one that has the biggest growth and it is currently 16% over, I think. It has had a 7,000 population growth since 1991.

So I think it's Pierrefonds that's the problem. We may need to even out something there.

We need to get just the list, André, for the next meeting, of the Montreal ridings, status quo, and what the populations would be. And maybe that's our recommendation.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: There has to be something we don't understand. Look, they've given away the part that Marlene is talking to us about, NDG--Lachine, and they've only taken the little part near Boulevard Saint-Charles, and that's not a new area.

The Chair: How many people live there?

And they gave that to Pierrefonds, so they must have taken something out of Pierrefonds--

» (1755)

Mr. Marcel Proulx: They've taken it out of Pierrefonds.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Can I make a suggestion, Madam Chair? I realize it's too late in the stage we're at here, that your committee's at, but when the boundaries change people gave us the maps, they should have put the population in each section. There's absolutely no reason why we should be asking for population impacts; it should be down there.

The Chair: We're just asking for this little piece, to find out what the numbers are.

A voice: That's why we have the computer; that's how they worked.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Oh, I know, but it would just make it a lot easier for everyone--

The Chair: Yes, I know.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: --if it were sitting right in front of you.

The Chair: Interestingly, Mr. Keddy, each commission provided.... New Brunswick provided all these tables--past, present, future--in the book. All of the others have commentary before the maps. Quebec did it after. One organized without alphabetical order, on the numbers. It was a disaster, as far as we can tell.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: For instance, for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, right underneath it should be “103,000”.

The Chair: Yes, I know.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. And then they should provide, for the portion they're removing, exactly how many residents and electors--

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If the numbers are in front of us, we can figure it out fairly easily.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: --and for the portion they're adding on, exactly how many, without having to refer to the text. That's why I provided this, to make it more visually--

The Chair: We're going to go back to the status quo.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Yes, that's right. We're moving some people to Nova Scotia, we hope you don't mind....

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, we could use some population growth.

The Chair: No, actually, move them to northern Ontario and everything will be solved.

All right, I think we're having some “curiosity solves”--

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We know basically where we might be going, so let Madam Jennings and me do a little bit of work, and next meeting--

The Chair: Okay.

And if we can just get this list, André, just with the Island of Montreal ridings, that would be great.

Madam Jennings, thank you very much for coming and entertaining us.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: If I may, I'd just like to thank all of the members for their patience. I know this is not an easy task, listening to members of Parliament come here, and trying to understand maps, communities, and street names where you have no idea what it's about. So I do appreciate your patience in listening to me and my colleagues.

The Chair: You know what? None of us will ever get lost in Canada again. We know all the place names.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

We are adjourned.