SELE Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

¹

1530

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

¹

1555

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

º

1600

The Chair

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

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

º

1605

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

º

1610

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

º

1615

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

º

1620

The Chair

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.)

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

º

1630

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

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

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Scott Reid

º

1635

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay)

º

1645

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon

º

1650

º

1655

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

André Harvey

»

1700

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ)

Mr. André Harvey

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

»

1705

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

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

»

1710

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

M. Scott Reid

Mr. Michel Gauthier

»

1715

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

»

1720

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

»

1725

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon

»

1730

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 020

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I don't know whether you have consulted each other to determine who would go first. I believe it's Mr. Gagnon, but I'm not sure.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): I'm not sure whether my colleague has any other commitments or not. No? Then it's OK?

    An hon. Member: No, that's OK.

    The Chair: Well then, Mr. Gagnon, you will be first.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you, Madam Chair. It is rather strange to be sitting on this side of the table.

    The Chair: The others said that same thing.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: So, I'm not the only one to have made that comment!

    When I saw the new electoral map as it would apply to the riding of Champlain after July 2004, if I'm not mistaken, I was a little surprised--indeed, very surprised. The fact is, I am here to ask questions. I am wondering on what basis the calculations were made for the purposes of readjusting the boundaries of the new ridings.

    I've always believed that a voter, wherever he may live, is entitled to the same services as everyone else, because he or she is a taxpayer. But when you look at a riding like Champlain, which ranks seventh in Canada, if I'm not mistaken, and ridings in Montreal and Quebec City, you soon see that the influence of voters in these respective areas is not the same.

    The Chair: What name has been suggested for your riding?

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: The name suggested is Saint-Maurice--Champlain. The current name of the riding is Champlain, and it has been suggested that the name be changed to Saint-Maurice--Champlain.

    The Chair: Is it Trois-Rivières or Saint-Maurice?

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: No, Trois-Rivières is next to it.

    The Chair: What map are we talking about?

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): It's map 2.

    The Chair: There have been a lot of changes in Quebec, so it is sometimes difficult to determine where they are.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon You will see that the riding, as currently constituted, covers an area of approximately 31,000 square kilometers. The riding of Champlain is big enough to hold three or four European countries, and there would still be room to erect walls between each of them. I always tell my constituents that we could have Israel and Palestine at each end of the riding, and that there would still be enough room in the middle for another country; that way the two of them wouldn't fight.

    Because of its size, it is very difficult to work in this riding. For example, last Saturday, I was supposed to attend a supper in La Tuque, to celebrate Disabled Persons Week and the anniversary of an organization for people with disabilities. I left home at 3:30 p.m., drove 335 kilometers to have supper in La Tuque and go back home, and yet I had not covered even one third of my riding. So, it is wrong to think

    So, it is wrong to think that voters in the riding of Champlain, or the future riding of Saint-Maurice--Champlain, have the same rights. I was having a discussion with this lady over here. A riding in Montreal or Quebec City may have 100,000 or 125,000 constituents; it doesn't make much difference. But in a riding like Saint-Maurice--Champlain, the number of constituents is not that high, and yet you want to provide the services your constituents are entitled to received.

    At the present time, there are approximately 74,000 voters in my riding; in the new riding, there will be 93,000. The number of constituents is being increased by 11,000, and the area it covers, by 7,000 square kilometers, which means I will have 37,352 square kilometers to cover.

    I really wonder what member of Parliament would be capable of providing the services that people have every right to expect--for example, in places like Weymontachie, Lac Édouard or La Tuque. Who can say that in a riding that size, people will receive the same services?

    I believe the Act should be revised. The number of constituents should not necessarily be considered. If you divide part of Quebec or Canada among 94,000 voters, that is a fairly simple matter, except that there will be places where people won't be able to receive the services they're entitled to.

    Because every voter is of equal value, has the same rights, and is a taxpayer like everyone else, I believe that in a riding like the ones in the Mauricie region, we should be cutting back the number of voters, rather than trying to have more or less an equal number in each.

    One of the reasons why I object to the new map is that in my own region, we will be losing a vote in the Parliament of Canada. To me, that is serious. As politicians, we make nice speeches about developing the regions, maintaining the regions, and providing them with the support they need. And yet, in my area, we have just lost one vote. The riding of Saint-Maurice--Mr. Chrétien's current riding--will be swallowed up in the riding of Champlain. That means there will be one less elected member of Parliament in the Mauricie region.

    The riding of Trois-Rivières is being expanded, and either Champlain or Saint-Maurice will disappear. Here in the Parliament of Canada, there will be only two members of Parliament for that region. In my opinion, we don't have the right to do that. If we want to help the regions to develop and if we agree that the regions require assistance, we certainly will not be helping them by reducing the services available to them.

    Those are my main arguments. If you have questions, I can provide further clarification. I am suggesting that at the very least, we stick with the status quo.

    Let me give you another example. I was invited to attend the swearing in of an Aboriginal chief in Weymontachie; he, too, has a right to receive services from his member of Parliament. I never found a plane that would get me there. I would have had to take a helicopter. It would have cost me $700 or $800 an hour to provide the service that these people, too, are entitled to receive.

    I am presenting reasons that I see as logical as to why we should not draw up the electoral map based only on the number of voters. We should also look at the size of ridings, so that people are able to receive pretty much the same services everywhere.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Mr. Gagnon, we have heard testimony to the effect that the regions have lost a Member of Parliament, because we know there have been changes as a result of urbanization, both here in Canada and elsewhere in the world. We understand that your riding covers a very large area, but there are others as well, such as Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, which is larger than your own riding.

[English]

    Which one is, now?

[Translation]

    Mr. André Cyr (Project Manager, Electoral Geography Division, Register and Geography Directorate, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): It's 14. That's the most common one.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: In terms of the changes, you are taking…

    The Chair: There is a little bit taken off here and there.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Yes, that's right.

    The Chair: So, this is what he has lost?

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: No, this has been added.

    Madam Chair, the changes are quite major. Let's take the case of Cap-de-la-Madeleine, next to Trois-Rivières. That town is in the riding of Trois-Rivières. You have Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Sainte-Marthe-du-Cap-de-la-Madeleine, and Saint-Louis-de-France that will be part of the riding of Trois-Rivières. I have nothing against the idea of their being in Trois-Rivières, because it's a pretty good arrangement; they all have about the same population. But then you're taking the rest of the population in the riding and lumping it together, even though there is no natural fit. For people in Champlain, Batiscan, Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, Saint-Narcisse, Trois-Rivières is their city. They do business in Trois-Rivières.

    Now, for the federal MP, the riding will be Shawinigan--Grand-Mère. There is no community of interest with Shawinigan--Grand-Mère. And yet they are taking away from the riding of Champlain a part that works well with the rest of the riding and asking people to work instead with Shawinigan and Grand-Mère, even though they don't identify with those communities at all. It's not right to do that. That just doesn't suit their way of working.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: So, which way would they go then, in your opinion?

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: The whole lower part of the riding is Trois-Rivières.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: So, you think Shawinigan would be better off with Trois-Rivières?

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: No, not necessarily, because Shawinigan--Grand-Mère is a community in itself; it is now the new City of Shawinigan.

    I'm talking about the eastern part--Champlain, Batiscan, Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, Saint-Prosper, Saint-Narcisse and Sainte-Geneviève-de-Batiscan. People in those towns are used to working with Trois-Rivières, and now they are being put with Shawinigan--Grand-Mère, which is in the north.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: You have to realize, however, that this is a numbers game.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: It's probably too much of a numbers game.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes. And when I say it's a numbers game, I say that advisedly. There is no doubt that Shawinigan--Grand-Mère is where there a real community of interest, and if you don't put them with Trois-Rivières, they will be alone. And yet you can't leave them by themselves, because their population is not great enough to constitute a riding. If you make them a riding, what will you do with the rest--for example, La Tuque and the area to the north?

    The only thing I agree with you on is that Champlain is already a huge riding, like some others in Quebec and in Ontario as well. Except that here, we are adding the area around Saint-Maurice and taking a little bit off in the southern portion of the riding.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Could I ask a question?

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: It's not really my job to answer questions, but if I can be helpful, sure!

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: I just want to know what we mean when we talk about regionalization, and the need to help the regions. It's not just the fact that Shawinigan--Grand-Mère can't form a riding; it's also the fact that in Mauricie, we are losing a member of Parliament.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: I agree with you.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: The numbers game is too large a part of this. I don't know how many constituents this lady has in her riding. I have no doubt that we could add 10,000 or 15,000 more without that really changing much. That's why dividing Quebec based on the number of voters makes the numbers too important a part of this.

    It's just ridiculous, and I'm not the only one saying this. What is proposed for the riding of Champlain makes absolutely no sense.

    The Chair: The whole country is affected by this, not just Quebec.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: But what can we do to change that?

    The Chair: Well, that's another matter altogether.

    The Committee has asked to have a meeting in September to request that the government amend the legislation. But for now, we have to recommend something else to the Commission. If you don't like this, what exactly would you like? Be careful, though, because numbers have to be considered.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Well, for a region like Mauricie--and there may be others--I think we have to back off a little. My view is that we should not be placing much emphasis on the number of voters, for the reasons I cited earlier.

    The Chair: But what exactly do you want? This or that?

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Well, at the very least, I think Mauricie should stay the way it is now. It is still a very large riding. There are other large ridings, but we are used to working together--at least that. While we're waiting for other reforms, if there are suggestions to be made, then we should amend the legislation. My view is that if you live in Parent, Québec, you are a taxpayer just as if you were living in Montreal. And yet at the present time, people living in Parent or Weymontachie, or in the northern part of the riding--such as La Tuque--are not receiving the same services.

    The Chair: I understand, Mr. Gagnon, but right now, the riding of Saint-Maurice is at minus 20%, and your riding is minus 10% of the provincial quota. So I don't think…

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: For 2001, you have a population of 86,686. That means you are 10.17% below the provincial quota. Right? And in Saint-Maurice, the population is 77,068--meaning minus 20% of the quota. We have to work with the provincial averages.

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): It's minus 25%.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, ultimately, it's minus 24%.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: But sometimes there are ridings at minus 43%.

    The Chair: No, no. What I'm getting at is that if you don't like what is proposed, you can say we need the same number of MPs in the north, but the situation is no different in Northeastern Ontario. So, if it proves to be impossible to keep the same number we have now, what will the best thing be for you and for your riding?

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: I'm telling you about the drawbacks. It will be difficult to get people to work with Shawinigan--Grand-Mère when they're used to being part of Trois-Rivières. I don't know how we could arrange this to satisfy everyone, but I know that in this riding, based on what is planned, it will be very hard to get the work done. It will be difficult to work in the riding, as proposed. It already requires a super human effort to provide service to everyone in the riding of Champlain. But now we are expanding it and reconfiguring it, putting people in there that don't really belong.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Earlier you said that you would have needed to take a helicopter to go to your meeting, but if these residents were to be put in a different riding, would it still be necessary to use a helicopter? Would that not make any difference?

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: No, it wouldn't…

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I guess that wasn't a good example.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: No, I agree. I just wanted to make it clear how difficult it is to work in these conditions.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: But one way or another, they will have to be given services.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: My view is that we should not place as much emphasis on the number of constituents in ridings such as these.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: But in your case, what you're saying is that there is no community of interest. Minus 20% is exactly what it says in the legislation, which ended up at minus 25% so that the Commission could give preference to a community of interest. Your argument only relates to the community of interest for the 25%. Nowhere does it say it has to be zero. It is within 25%. The legislation fits with the court ruling, which was that it could go as low as minus 25% to reflect a community of interest. Human beings have to come before the numbers.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Godin, you misunderstood me.

    It's not just that Saint-Maurice has minus 20% and his riding has minus 10%, but it's also that the other two guys who came before us today have minus 45%, and minus, minus, minus.... So there is going to be one fewer MP in that northern region, as there is in Ontario.

    To accommodate the difference, if he doesn't want Grand-Mère in his riding, it could be joined to Trois-Rivières, which is below the provincial quotient. He has to find another solution. We can't just say, “Oh, we should keep the status quo, and there should be another MP in the north”, because then the citizens of Montreal rightfully say, “Why don't I get my share of an MP? I'm not getting my quotient.” So if he doesn't want....

    It's not just him who is at minus 20%, but a whole region.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: No, no, you're right, but he was only talking about the two of them, not the four others.

    The Chair: Yes, but this applies to the entire northern region.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: It's the domino effect. Did you attend the hearings in November and December?

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Yes, I did.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: And what were your arguments then?

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: They were the same, and at the hearing, I can tell you that the commissioners seemed to be very very sympathetic to our arguments as a whole. I can also tell you that at the hearings, all those that attended--there were 13 or 14, I believe--and presented briefs were unanimous, not only M.P.s representing the Liberal Party and the Bloc québécois, but all the individuals that appeared as well. In terms of solutions, a very good solution was proposed there. I don't have it with me today, but it is discussed in the notes from the hearing, which you have. Someone redrew the map starting from Montreal and configured the whole area in a way that would be logical for regions such as this one. But what happened here was that people crunched the numbers and, on the assumption that they needed about 94,000 voters per riding, they took 7 million and divided by 94,000 and came up with this. But they have placed too much emphasis on the numbers. Maybe the legislation forces them to do that. If so, the legislation should be changed, because if we are really serious about wanting to help the regions, we certainly won't help them by ensuring that everyone leaves.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: But while we're waiting for the legislation to be amended, we need to know what suggestions you may have or what your specific expectations are with respect to the geographic layout of your riding. Can you think of any solutions that would get us around the problem?

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: I think the best solution, while we're waiting to take other action, would be to maintain the status quo, because that is the way we're used to working.

    The Chair: Yes, of course, but do you have an alternative suggestion?

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: If you want us to work on that, I can certainly try to propose something, but I feel very strongly that although it could be all right to have Cap-de-la-Madeleine together with Trois-Rivières, putting the rest of the riding with Shawinigan just won't work. So that's why I'm saying that the only real solution is to keep things the way they are now.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: But other than the status quo, are you suggesting Grand-Mère and Shawinigan be annexed to another riding than Saint-Mauricie--Champlain? We have to do something with this. If you don't want them, where should they be put?

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: It's not that I don't want them; I'm just giving you my opinion.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: But that's what we're hearing. We can't attach them to the clouds; we have to do something with them.

[English]

    The Chair: Just for your clarification, please don't misunderstand. It's not that we're not sympathetic, but we are very sympathetic to your perspective. The committee has talked about making recommendations in the fall suggesting that we should be looking at two provincial quotients in the less populated parts of our country. These ridings are becoming enormous in parts of the country, so we are very sympathetic--but we're also very realistic.

    In spite of the fact that the provincial commission looked at the numbers and played this numbers game.... In fact, they recommended one riding that's minus 17%; one that's minus 15%; one that's 12%; one that's minus 20%; another at minus 15%; and another at minus 20%. So even though they've really tried to get the numbers, they have also been well below the provincial quotient in some cases.

    What we're trying to figure out is whether there is something by which we can make your life better, and whether there maybe is something we can suggest to them that will improve the situation, but not solve the whole problem.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: I have to say that in all honesty, I haven't really done that analysis. It's a matter of reviewing the entire situation. There is a commission in place to do just that, that has travelled all across Quebec. We are being asked to react to the analysis that has been carried out, but I haven't had the time to do that and I really didn't feel I had a mandate to do the Commission's work, except to say that at the present time, there are three members of Parliament in the region--Mr. Chrétien in Saint-Maurice, myself in Champlain, and the MP in Trois-Rivières. As far as I know, with the new map, people will not be changing places. People who live in each of those ridings still live there and they have been well served by their members of Parliament thus far. As far as I'm concerned, taking away one MP from that region is a serious mistake.

[English]

    The Chair: But, Mr. Gagnon, they've used the MRCs the province has already created. Right? They're using the counties as already established.

    If there's some county in which you think there could be a change, and you want to come back to us and give the information to Mr. Sauvageau or Mr. Guimond by tomorrow, then we will take it into consideration. Otherwise, we'll probably reflect what you've said in our report, but if we can't find a solution, you know they'll say, “That's very nice, thank you”.

    We'd like to propose a solution, so if you have something for us, we'd be very happy to hear it.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: The real solution would be to amend this legislation to ensure a more logical distribution, but that hasn't happened. Perhaps you could suggest that.

    The Chair: I have already tried to do that.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: I will talk to Mr. Sauvageau and we will try to work together to find a solution. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. I just wanted to say that yours is a very beautiful region of the country.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: And they have an excellent MP to defend their interests.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Bakopanos, you have the floor.

[English]

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be with you today to bring forth the same arguments that I'd like to remind the committee I also brought forward at the time there was the public consultation.

    I don't want to repeat everything I've said. I hope all the members of the committee had a chance to look at my presentation and also at my objection to the Electoral Boundaries Commission report for Quebec.

    I'd like to highlight at least five points that I think are relevant as to why I'm asking that the status quo...and I do have, by the way, a proposal, if the committee would like to push me to suggest some change to the changes already proposed.

    I'd like to put on the record something that I believe other members of Parliament have put on the record, which is a letter asking for the status quo that was sent to Mr. Claude Despatie, secretary for the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec, signed by all my colleagues on the island of Montreal. The question that has to be asked is, why are we asking for the status quo?

    The reason we are asking for the status quo is as follows, and I will read it into the record:

We are unanimous in wishing to maintain our ridings' present boundaries. We consider the proposed redistribution to be legally unfounded: the island has only experienced modest population growth since the 1991 Census.

    And we know where that population growth took place because other colleagues have come forward to say so, mostly on the west island of the island of Montreal.

Its population has grown by a mere 2.1% (i.e. 36,852 residents) in the past decade. Furthermore, we consider the allowable variation from electoral quotient that the Commission has chosen to use to trigger boundary changes (i.e. more or less 5%) to be far too restrictive given the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act permits a variance from quotient of plus or minus 25%. Yet, despite the Act's allowable variance, the Commission has opted to relocate over 196,000 voters from their existing ridings to new ones. In many cases, the proposals would undermine established communities of interests and identity, even though the Act clearly requires that these realities be respected in the redistribution process.

    I will base most of my arguments today on that change. And I believe those realities were not respected.

    So, Madam Chair, you have a copy of the letter that was signed, asking for the status quo. Obviously that was rejected by the commission.

    I found it very interesting that it was rejected just the same. Yet, after the consultations, my neighbouring ridings of Papineau--Saint-Denis, Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, Saint-Laurent--Cartierville, and Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel managed to maintain over 100,000 voters, and yet my riding and the riding that is next to mine, Bourassa, were given the same amount of voters, 99,000-and-something. So even though they wanted to keep the population under 100,000, after the public consultation, there were still ridings, my neighbour ridings, that were allowed more than 100,000 voters in their recommendations.

    What is more disturbing in the case of Ahuntsic is the fact that they have chosen the eastern end of the riding of Ahuntsic, a small road called Bruchesi. It's the yellow part on that little map.

    So the eastern end would be... Bruchesi would be a small street on the west, and the limit right now would be J. J. Gagnier and St-Michel.

    There would be no respect actually for the actual community of interest that has existed in the riding of Ahuntsic for the last few years.

    I'd like to also put on the record what Judge McLachlin said when he gave his majority opinion at the Supreme Court. He said the municipal territories and natural geographic limits of a riding have to be respected. In this case, I don't believe they were respected. It is not a natural street, the street of Bruchesi. It is a small street in the riding of Ahuntsic, whereas St-Michel is a major artery in the riding of.... And I have pictures. I will pass them around to members of the committee.

    If the commission had wanted to stick strictly to a mathematical formula and they actually wanted to respect also what Judge McLachlin said, the natural proposal should have been, if that was their intention, to go to the south end of my riding, which is actually bordered by a railway line, which you cannot see on the map that is presented there, but you can see it on the map that is actually in the book, which is the commissioner's book. The Canadian National runs a railway line on the southeast end of my riding, which is a natural boundary, and it would be a small square that would be Papineau, de Louvain, and St. Michel streets. And that, right now, before the island of Montreal became one city, was part of Saint-Michel--Saint-Léonard--the border of Saint-Michel and Saint-Léonard.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: For the benefit of members, if you have your street maps, Boulevard St-Michel actually cuts right across the island of Montreal. And this other road, Bruchesi, is not listed on any map.

    All right, Mr. Borotsik and then Mr. Proulx.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): It's the whole area that's there right now, Eleni, that you would like to come back into or incorporate back into Ahuntsic?

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, that's right, because it's a community of interest.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, that's fine. But that yellow area is the only one you're concerned about now?

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: That's what they're proposing as a change, and I'm saying no, it doesn't make sense.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I understand that.

    But you talked about the barrier, that one right there, that picture you have.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: It's on the south end.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's that little section right there. You want to retain that.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I want to retain the yellow that's up there. And if you had to propose a change, I do not wish to get rid of it, personally. I love my constituents in that part of the riding. They're very loyal. This part naturally belongs...because you can't get in; you can only get through here and through there.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, time out. My clarification is simple. That area over there, that other one, the one in the south, you want back in. But that yellow one now, you wouldn't have difficulty having that go into the adjacent....

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Let's be clear. I prefer the status quo. If I cannot have the status quo, that's the part that should have gone.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, thank you. I understand. Numbers are important.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Eleni, the part that was formerly yellow, it changed colour, Bruchesi. Who lives in there in the sense of what's the

[Translation]

community of interest?

º  (1630)  

[English]

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I have pictures too. There is an Italian church, Notre Dame de Pompei, on the south end here. Most of this area on the bottom part is made up mostly of my Italian constituents, who have a school and a church.

    So if you're going to divide the Italians living on this side of the riding with that, and with the church belonging here going into the northern part of the other riding.... So there is a natural affinity around the park, the church, and the school.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: South of that is also an Italian community.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Actually, it has changed. It is mostly--

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay, so it is on the other side. The west is also Italian.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: A lot of the stores in this area--

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: No, no. We know what we're saying.

    What's on the other side? What's in Bourassa on the other side?

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: It's an industrial park.

    But there are Italians living here in the northern part. I'm not going to say they're not--but that's not my riding.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: No, no. But immediately east of the section that would be removed from your riding and be assigned to Bourassa, what's that area right there?

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: It's industrial all along there.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: And what about going up?

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: That's residential or a mixed population. I don't have the figures because that's not my riding.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Is it also an Italian community?

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: You'll have to ask that of the member of Parliament from Bourassa.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Surely you know what's on the other side of the street.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: No, my limit is Saint-Michel.

    But, yes, there are Italians living in that riding, if that is what you are asking me.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: What you're telling us is that to keep it, they have to stay in your riding.

    I'm just wondering why the commission has moved it to the other riding. There must be other people of that same community--

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I think the commission made their decision based on a mathematical calculation. I do say that, and other members have said it. I don't think they took into consideration.... It is exactly the point of my brief that they did not take into account the community of interest.

    Whether that community of interest is divided into three or two parts, I don't think is the object of our discussion today. The object of our discussion is, did they take into account the community of interest that has existed in the riding of Ahuntsic, be it on the west or the east side? Yet they did a calculation based on numbers, which is 99.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Did you make your point at the commission?

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, I did. You have copies of the brief I presented to the commission.

    It's exactly the same argument, except the part where I said that if we have to propose a change--because there absolutely is a domino effect when you're making changes, which I respect--it should be to the south end of the riding, because of the natural geographical barriers that exist. That would respect both the law and the judgment of the Supreme Court.

    The Chair: We see the train tracks on the map.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I have pictures, by the way.

    The Chair: Would you circulate those pictures?

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: If we put that area back in, what are the numbers?

    The Chair: That's just what I was going to ask.

    André, can you give us the numbers?

    Meanwhile, I have three questions already from Scott, Benoît, and Rick.

    Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): I was going to ask you to do the numbers, because it's actually not really a domino effect. Three ridings are affected. It's conceivable it will all work out--or not--but I'd like to figure that out first.

    Can I ask about the chunk on the map that's currently in yellow?

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I am proposing that--if it is necessary to make the changes.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Right.

    It adjoins an area in your riding and of course an area in Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel. I am just wondering, is that little area also an Italian area?

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: It has become a very mixed area. It's Haitian, Italian, Arab, and French Canadian, of course.

    Mr. Scott Reid: There's an area in Ottawa like that. It was French Canadian, it has become Chinese, and it's now gradually becoming Somali, and--

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: There's been a shift in the population. But I would also say it's very Italian.

    Do you want to know the difference in terms of changing the population? I made that calculation too. If you remove that part from my riding, approximately 3,100 electors would be shifted to the federal riding of Saint Léonard--Saint-Michel, whereas at the moment, the commission's proposal for the part from Bellechasse to Saint-Michel would shift 5,800 electors.

    Mr. Scott Reid: If you go west and north into your constituency, versus going south and east into the other place it could be attached to, what is the ethnic composition of those neighbourhoods? It's Italian up where you are, but what about the side over in Saint-Léonard or close to it?

º  (1635)  

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: There's a park there, which I believe is empty. If you notice, there is no residential area there.

    It used to be an old quarry, but it has now been covered over. It's the old Miron quarry, where the Cirque du Soleil actually now has its tent. There's no population there, though it's mostly Italian. So there would be an affinity here.

    Mr. Scott Reid: What about access?

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Again, I'm talking about a riding, Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel, which is not my riding.

    Mr. Scott Reid: But you can tell me about access. There are only two points of entry.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: There's access here and there's access through here.

    Mr. Scott Reid: So going into that other riding--

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: There is access on this main street, Charland, and then you would have access from here--

    Mr. Scott Reid: So there are three points of access.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: But there is not access from Saint-Michel. I have a picture showing that you don't have access through Saint-Michel. There's a barrier.

    The Chair: First of all, we need the numbers from André.

    Here's the question.... If we give Eleni what she's requesting, or if we just add the green box to the current riding--

    Mr. André Cyr: The green box is 6,000.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Is it 6,000 even?

    Mr. André Cyr: Yes.

    The Chair: How many are in the yellow box?

    Mr. André Cyr: There are 4,000 in the yellow box.

    The Chair: I just have a question, though. Bourassa is at what?

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: The recommendation will bring it to 3.48%, plus Bourassa.

    The Chair: Yes, for Ahuntsic, but Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel is six over. So her riding would become...?

    Mr. André Cyr: It would become ten over.

    The Chair: They're all urban ridings, so it doesn't really matter that much.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: What would happen to Bourassa if we deduct the 6,000?

    Mr. André Cyr: It would be minus three.

    The Chair: But did Bourassa get anything from anybody else, or give up anything from anybody else?

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Bourassa got a little bit more from the former Anjou, and it also lost some to Anjou.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Was that the part over there?

    The Chair: That would have been Honoré-Mercier.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Basically, what we're hearing is that she wants her riding as is.

    The Chair: Well, so did all the members who signed the letter.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, that's why we signed the letter--after much discussion, by the way. It wasn't done without discussion.

    The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Did all three MPs sign the letter?

    The Chair: All 40 MPs.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Here, do you want this copy?

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Actually, I'd like to get one.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I'm surprised you don't have it, because I submitted it.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Actually, the package I have from you doesn't seem to have a lot of the things you said--

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I don't understand that, because I presented a huge package.

    The Chair: We'll get them for you.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: The clerk should have given you all the mémoires.

    The Chair: We'll get them, don't worry.

    Benoît.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I just want to know whether the member for Bourassa, Denis Coderre, wants your part or not. Have you discussed this with him?

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes. First of all, he signed a letter stating he was in favour of the status quo but did not make a presentation when the Commission held its hearings. I told him that I, personally, am opposed to this, because I am not the type of person who likes doing things behind the scenes. Everything we're doing is public.

    But Mr. Proulx, rightly so, raised the following issue: where are we going to get the voters that will allow us to achieve a balance with the other ridings? It is still below 25. There is not much of a difference.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So, there is no problem.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: In my view, no, but I can't speak for my colleague.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I see. Thank you.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: But in my opinion, the fact that he signed the letter shows that his position is clear.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I just have a point of clarification. There were attachments P-1 through P-7, which we don't have with this presentation.

    The Chair: They're right there. They were quite lengthy, and we didn't think everyone wanted to....

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: The one Eleni mentions is the list signed by members of Parliament, which is P-2.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: Scott has the package.

    We'll make available anything you want.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: So we never received it because of its size.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Madam Chair, I realize there's a rule about only circulating things that have been translated. Only the clerk can do that.

    However, there is no rule saying a witness cannot circulate something. So if Ms. Bakopanos felt so inclined, she would be breaking no rules if she made copies of these and gave them to us, or had them sent to our offices afterwards, or whatever.

    I make this comment purely as a notation.

    The Chair: I think that was a point of order, or something.

    Mr. Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Actually, it's not necessary to do that for me. I understand what you're doing--and I understand the numbers. I'm not opposed to it, as long as the list signed by the members is agreed to.

    I guess the only question I have is the chairman's question. Where do you currently reside or live in the riding?

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I live in the west end of the riding. I've resided there for 32 years.

    Autoroute 15 going to the north is a natural barrier to my riding.

    The Chair: So you're not affected.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Chair, perhaps I'm out of order, but just on Mr. Borotsik's point of order, I was under the assumption that because all the documents were important to seeing the overall picture--and at least the submitted letter in French and English on the status quo--I'm a little....

    The Chair: Just so it's clear to you, we have a different clerk with us, and we will sort out that problem. We will make sure that everybody around this table has any document we have and we want.

    We'll take care of that.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: May I also say that the letters by the school commission and the borough of the four municipal councillors are important, because they also talk about the natural limit of the riding remaining the same.

    I will get you a copy, Mr. Reid.

    The Chair: We have it here. Everybody will get a copy, don't worry.

    Just to clarify, Saint-Michel is a large road. It's already used as a boundary in the bottom part of what they proposed.

    I have had this problem in the past where they haven't used big roads--and the train tracks are another big boundary. So we hear you loud and clear.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Chair, there are no cities now, and the City of Montreal is amalgamated, as you know. But just to be precise so that nobody comes back behind closed doors, the natural limit of Montreal north is Rue J.-J.-Gagnier, going into Saint-Michel. I say this just in case, because it was actually raised in the public consultation.

    So it's Rue J.-J.-Gagnier on the north side, and then it goes into Saint-Michel. It's hard to see on the map.

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: You can leave those pictures with our researcher.

    Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, I will.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Dear colleagues, we have four members of Parliament who will be appearing together.

[English]

We're hearing from all four of these people together.

[Translation]

    Ms. Girard-Bujold, what is the name of your riding?

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): At the present time, it's Jonquière.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm just trying to find the best map for everybody.

[Translation]

I have been to Mr. Harvey's riding, but not to the others.

    Who will be speaking first?

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: We will let Sébastien speak because he is the one most affected by this. Sébastien's riding is the one that is slated to disappear.

    The Chair: And what is the name of your riding at this time?

    Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay): The current name of my riding is Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay.

º  (1645)  

[English]

    The Chair: Can we get the maps up so that we can see all of them at the same time?

[Translation]

    Mr. André Cyr: Do you prefer the ones in colour--in other words, the current ridings or the proposed ridings?

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Perhaps we should begin by looking at the current riding to get an idea of what it looks like, and then look at the proposal. This is a beautiful riding in Lac-Saint-Jean.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That is really small.

[English]

    The Chair: You're going to see it better on map 1...because it's Roberval and Chicoutimi-Le Fjord. Map 1 will work more easily.

    Sébastien.

[Translation]

    Mr. Sébastien Gagnon: Madam Chair, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak today. It's perfectly natural that our views should be heard, but our situation is definitely problematic and that is why my colleagues from the region and myself have come forward today to talk about it.

    You have been given a document that I may refer to. It reflects all the testimony during public hearings that took place last fall. We have recorded the arguments we found most effective. They reflect a regional consensus that our four ridings should be maintained.

    So, there are two major reasons behind our request today. I will be addressing the question of maintaining our four ridings in the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region.

    First of all, it's important to consider that our region is a resource region. Like other regions, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, it is trying to cope with the problem of an exodus of young people from the regions. I will come back to that in a moment.

    Over the last ten years, we have seen a decline of approximately 2% in the number of young people or relatives in the region. While that may not be enormous, it represents about 7,000 people. In a way, it is not a lot; some people do not believe this is a valid argument to take away an additional resource in our riding, but it is a small region that is currently making every possible effort in that regard. When I say it is making every possible effort, I should just explain some of the background. I remember that back in 1996, when we organized supper-forums across the region about the exodus of young people, we realized that there were no resources or monies allocated to address this issue. However, nowadays a great many organizations and politicians are engaged in efforts to deal with this problem. This is a major item because it is very much dependant on this decision. You are taking away a riding, supposedly because we don't have enough people, but it's important to understand that resources as a whole are all being channelled to ensure that the regions can thrive. So, this is a very important prerogative that justifies such an approach.

    I want to draw a parallel with the fact that we have lost 2% of our population. Further to this readjustment, the plan is to take away one quarter of our representation, which in my opinion is not an appropriate way to approach this issue.

    By recommending the elimination of an electoral district, we are also sending a very bad signal to our region. It's as though we were saying that this area is not essential to balance development in Canada. By giving almost total priority to numerical criteria in this readjustment, we are contributing to a continued imbalance in the rural regions, as compared to the urban regions, in terms of development, as well as fostering the decline of the rural areas, thus imperiling the sound occupancy of regions across the country.

    Since 1947, our region has relied on four federal members of Parliament and continues to play a prominent role in efforts to promote development. I imagine my colleagues are called upon on a daily basis to get involved in sectoral and action committees. Earlier, I was the one describing the problems, but the fact is that all my colleagues are full partners in efforts to address the problem.

    I would like to draw to your attention the fact that if the unequal value of one vote among Canadians has any importance in terms of electoral boundaries, then the vote of a citizen in Quebec doesn't have the same value as that of a citizen living in Prince Edward Island. I refer to that in this document. Other examples are also mentioned.

    Why is it fundamental that this concept be applied in an almost absolute fashion across the province, and yet so differently from one province to another? If we are able to understand that difference, why can we not use the same logic to ensure the vitality of the rural areas in the name of democratic balance in Canada. That is why I'm asking the Sub-committee to look favourably upon our request to keep four MPs for our region.

    Another equally important point that I want to make has to do with the concept of a community of interest, and how vital this concept is. For many years now, the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean area has developed around four centres--Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, Jonquière, Lac-Saint-Jean-Est and Lac-Saint-Jean-Ouest. That is approximately where the four MPs are located.

    Development, both economic and social, has always occurred in our region through the development of strong alliances in each of these specific areas. There are commercial and industrial, as well as social, community and cultural forums and roundtables. All of these groups operate on the basis of those four specific districts. MPs in the region take an active part in these forums and roundtables. These communities of interest are therefore very closely knit and are very effectively involved in economic development. But by removing one of these electoral districts from our region, as recommended by the Commission, as well as disproportionately reducing our regional power and influence, we are effectively causing a complete imbalance within these natural communities of interest and identity.

º  (1650)  

    In addition to having to cover huge areas, such as Roberval, with 66,000 square kilometers--whereas in Montreal, the largest riding covers an area of only 105 square kilometers--the Commission's recommendation would have the effect of making the areas to be covered even larger, but merging communities that have nothing in common in terms of their development structures.

    Anyone who knows anything about the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean area knows full well that, for example, putting the towns of Jonquière and Alma in the same riding makes no sense whatsoever in terms of the history and development of these communities. I hasten to add that this is in no way a reflection on either one of these towns; the fact is, however, that they simply don't have common development structures. That is a major problem.

    The same applies to all the other municipalities in the Lac-Saint-Jean area, which have always worked closely with the Town of Alma because, with its population of 35,000, it has been the focus of economic development in this community.

    I would like to refer you to page 11 of the document, and specifically to the table entitled “Frequency of Purchasing in Alma”, so that you can really understand why…

    This appears on page 12 of the English version of the document, Madam Chair.

    The shaded area, which is darker, represents Alma. Let me give you an example: let's draw a line across Lac-Saint-Jean, separating it into two halves. Students all head to Alma, and have always done so. We're talking about communities like Desbiens, in the southwest. The same applies to the northwest: all the people that live in that entire shaded area go into Alma. That's important. Why? Because for my generation, as well as for my parents and my grand-parents, Alma always was the centre of economic activity that everyone was drawn to.

    So, the entire development of the area, the LDCs, CLSCs and CFDCs were concentrated in that community. You can't just come along one day and remove an economic centre like Alma and believe that you won't be causing major problems economically.

    I referred to CFDCs a moment ago, but there is also a natural attraction there. Where do people go shopping? In Alma. So, there is a kind of psychological barrier drawn around the entire area outside Alma. People all work together, including on boards of directors, in the hospitals, the community groups, and so on. It has been a magnet for the region for a very, very long time.

    So, you can't just come along one day and remove--I intend to say no to this because I am from Métabetchouan--the magnet that Alma has represented for people in the region, and put it in the upper lake region, for example. As I said, I am not familiar with that area of Upper Lac-Saint-Jean, because I did not attend school there, I did not go to the hospital in Roberval, and because naturally, there was already something established there.

    Madam Chair, that is the second reason why my riding cannot be carved up. What is imperative, and what is absolutely necessary is to maintain the status quo with respect to my riding and keep four members of Parliament for the region of Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean.

    I would just like to add as well that an opinion poll published in Le Soleil over the week-end talked about an increasing trend among people to identify strongly with their province and their country. While many different factors are behind that trend, it seems to me that carving up the whole area and removing an electoral district will hardly lead to increased representation for our region at the federal level.

    There is already a lack of resources--we can see this in the negative migration patterns--and on top of that, they now want to take away our resource, and are actually telling us that the more things decline, the more resources they intend to take away, and that there is really no point in living in the regions. I don't think the popularity rating will be very high.

    In closing, I would just like to act as the spokesperson for constituents in my community, whom I represent and who could well be sacrificed, supposedly because the population of our area is not high enough. I would invite people to look at the regional press and note the tone of the reaction to this exercise, as well as to the action of my colleagues. For example, right from the start, Ms. Girard-Bujold circulated a petition last fall that clearly demonstrates how representative that view is. I would also invite you to consider the reaction of all the towns and municipalities that forwarded resolutions expressing their complete disagreement with this proposal.

    So, I can't see how we could come along and take away four ridings, when everyone in this community of 375,000 shares the same view in that respect. So, in the name of democracy, I am asking that these four ridings be retained for rural areas that are already fragile.

    Thank you.

º  (1655)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

    Who will be the next one to speak?

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I just want two minutes to make a few comments. Without repeating what Sébastien has already said, the argument we are making here today does not in any way support redistribution. What we want is to keep what we have, as Sébastien pointed out in his comments. Also, we make reference to sub-sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the legislation. Sub-section 15(1) deals with the electoral quota; that has been set at 95,800. Sub-section 15(2) deals with communities of interest and identity of electoral districts in a given province, and with the historical pattern in those districts. By referring to the sub-sections, we are saying that the Commission has erred, that it considered only sub-section 15(1) and ignored sub-section 15(2). In addition, the motions I tabled with the Commission from all the municipalities in my region, as well as associations representing some 270,000 constituents, stated unanimously that the community of interest and community of identity of the electoral districts had to be respected.

    I think it's very serious that an attempt is being made here to redefine the boundaries in a way that runs completely counter to the wishes of the people, who want to keep what they now have. In any case, this is very serious. The same process took place in Quebec a year ago. They wanted to take one riding away in the Gaspé, so people in the region mobilized and asked that the status quo be maintained. Quebec responded by meeting the expectations of the people of Gaspé. That is what we in the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean area are asking unanimously--that the status quo be maintained. So we are asking you to support our vision, the vision of the four members of Parliament representing the four electoral districts in the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region.

    Thank you.

    Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Is it OK with you, Michel?

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Yes.

    Mr. André Harvey: Madam Chair, I would like to begin by thanking all my colleagues on the Committee. This is highly technical work that is exceedingly laborious and difficult. I want you to know how much we appreciate the work you are doing on the Committee.

    Just to quickly illustrate the issue we are facing in the regions… Of course I realize that elected members who represent large urban communities, like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary, work just as hard as we do, but just to illustrate the problems the resource regions are facing nowadays, in our region, the equivalent of about 140 businesses with a staff of 50 have shut down in the last 15 or 20 years. We have lost 7,000 jobs over that period, in the aluminum sector alone. So, we are facing major challenges.

    The regions we represent are extremely beautiful, but in order to ensure their development and be able to keep our young people at home, we have tremendous challenges to meet in terms of culture, tourism, business development and research. We are trying to bring the main research centres and resource sectors closer together.

    What I am really trying to say is that I obviously support what Sébastien and Ms. Girard-Bujold have said. We are asking you to consider aspects other than numbers alone, knowing that the numbers do not work in our favour, precisely because we are facing major challenges. So, we would very much appreciate keeping our four electoral districts, because we believe we have a real uphill battle ahead of us in trying to keep our regions open and thriving over the next 25 years, and as you know, we have no constitutional protection, unlike the provinces, when it comes to keeping those four electoral districts.

    Thank you very much. Unfortunately, I have to leave now to attend another meeting. I am pleased to have had this opportunity to speak with you, if only to emphasize how much we appreciate the work you are doing on the Committee. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Michel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Madam Chair, colleagues, the Commission that reworked the electoral map had quite a challenge to meet: finding a few ridings in order to keep up with the movement of constituent populations. It had two choices. It could have decided to take them out of urban areas, where ridings are quite populated but cover a much smaller area, and where communities of identity and connections between streets and neighbourhoods are perhaps less significant than in the regions. The other choice was to go into the regions where the population is in decline. That is the choice the Commission made, and that is the tragedy.

    This is a region that is completely isolated in Northern Quebec--the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region. To access it--and I do this every week--you have to cross 250 kilometers of parks and areas with little or no population. So, this is an area that is complete unto itself. The Commission based its decision on the fact that the population had declined.

    As my colleague was saying, the total population of Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean is large enough to warrant our retaining four ridings. That is what the Commission did in the northern part of the riding of Roberval, which is my electoral district. The region of Chibougamau and Chapais is here, and my riding is over here, in this part. Chibougamau is here, somewhere up in the north; the towns are not identified.

    So the Commission decided to take the area that includes Chibougamau and Chapais, a pretty small area located here in the north…

    The Chair: I think Chibougamau is on the other side.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Is this the new map?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: In that case, Chibougamau is somewhere over here.

    So, Chibougamau and Chapais have been linked up with Abitibi, rather than Lac-Saint-Jean. The first serious error it made was to have chosen an isolated region trying to cope with a problem of population decline that, despite a loss of 7,000 or 8,000 residents, still has the ability to retain these ridings, from a purely mathematical standpoint. So, an area with approximately 10,000 residents was taken away and annexed to another region. That is the worst thing about this; it's totally unacceptable. You can't artificially decrease the population of one region, because you want to go ahead with a separation, based on numbers alone, that makes sense politically.

    The argument made to the Committee was that the Mayor of Chibougamau wanted to be with Abitibi. Historically speaking, however, I have to say that Chibougamau and Chapais have always been part of the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region. In 1984, when Guy St-Julien was a conservative M.P. and the member for Chibougamau and Chapais, Chibougamau was part of the Abitibi. But that was the only time in living memory. It's really a question of affinity; the people who live in Chibougamau and Chapais, which are isolated communities, are mainly from the riding of Roberval, particularly the northern part of the lake. They go to Chibougamau.

    I was told that the mayor of Chibougamau wanted this to happen, but the mayor of Chibougamau had misunderstood the situation. In the letter he sent to the Commissioner, and in the comments he made it sound as though Chibougamau was part of the provincial riding of Ungava. He referred to the north, James Bay, and the interests of the economic community, which are not relevant considerations. Chibougamau and Chapais are in fact part of the north and the James Bay region, but first and foremost, they are part of the riding of Abitibi.

    Community organizations, the town of Chapais and a variety of groups all sent me resolutions. Even councillors from Chibougamau didn't understand why the mayor had taken that position; on his own initiative, without informing me, he decided to write to the Commission to ask to be part of Abitibi. Yet there is no consensus on this. The Committee's role, however, is to ensure redress when unfairness occurs. I realize it may be difficult to choose between the excellent arguments made by your colleagues.

    In my case, I am here representing our region to tell you about an injustice. In addition to losing 8,000 residents and being about to lose an electoral district, we are also facing the artificial loss of 10,000 residents in northern Quebec. Those 10,000 residents of my riding live 250 kilometers from Roberval, the main town. By lumping them in with Abitibi, the distance would stretch to 400 kilometers; it would be much further. If you want to make a positive recommendation, remind the Commission that they should not be carving up the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean area and adding to the problems it is already facing.

    By keeping Chibougamau and Chapais in Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean, in terms of the numbers, there would no longer be any reason to take a riding away from the region. I maintain that the Commission based itself on the testimony of a single man--who was completely on the wrong track in terms of his reasoning--to determine that it was in the interests of Chibougamau and Chapais to be lumped in with Abitibi. In this case, the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region is the loser.

    What I'm asking is for you to restore justice. I'm not asking you to make cuts here and there, but simply to leave us with our current population base. We are only making the same request that any of you would make. I am sure that none of the members of Parliament present here would want to see thousands of residents of their region taken away and put into another one. I know that you understand my position and I trust that you will support my request to keep Chibougamau and Chapais in Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean, and thus preserve four electoral districts for this isolated region.

    I have full confidence in your decision, and I thank you for your attention.

»  (1705)  

[English]

    The Chair: I just have a question before we turn to the other questions.

    André, the province of Quebec retained the same number of seats, so if they've cut in several places, where did they add them? Were they all in Montreal?

    Mr. André Cyr: It was to the suburbs around Montreal.

    The Chair: The suburbs around Montreal. So just south of the island of Montreal?

    Mr. André Cyr: No, it was mostly south and north of Montreal--

    The Chair: Longueuil and all of that area?

    Mr. André Cyr: Laval and Longueuil.

    Mr. Scott Reid: [Inaudible—Editor]...regions of northern Quebec that each lost one seat each.

    The Chair: It think it is divided differently. They moved a little east.

    Mr. André Cyr: But not by that much.

    The Chair: They lost some territory, but they may not have lost a seat.

[Translation]

    Mr. Scott Reid: Two regions in northern Quebec have each lost one seat, and two new seats have been created in the Montreal region.

    Mr. André Cyr: Previously there were three in Laval and north of Laval; now there are three and a half. There is one on the north shore in Rivière-des-Prairies, as well as one south of Montreal, in the suburbs, in Montérégie.

    The Chair: So that is the region that has lost one seat, and the other is…

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): In terms of the other one, we will be seeing the domino effect I described this morning. From Manicouagan we come down to Trois-Rivières. The riding of Charlevoix is split in two: half of Charlevoix is put in with Manicouagan, and the other half is annexed to my own riding, which obviously means minus one here, as well as minus one in Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean.

»  (1710)  

    The Chair: I just want to say to our Quebec colleagues that if you think you are in a difficult situation here, you should know that in Ontario, we have lost one seat in the north and near Niagara, whereas three new seats have been added to the Toronto area.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Yes, Madam Chair, but I'm certain that nowhere else did they come along and take residents from one region and add them to another. That is an unacceptable process.

    The Chair: Of course.

[English]

    So it is a problem right across the country, the fact that the law is currently written with one provincial quotient.

    Just so you understand, this committee has already talked about coming back in September and making some recommendations for changes to the law, because we think there should be a remote area.

    I have questions from Mr. Sauvageau and Mr. Reed.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I want to thank my colleagues. I am very pleased to see all of you.

    I fully and totally agree with your request for four ridings. We keep coming up against the numerical formula. The fact remains that we have 75 ridings in Quebec.

    As part of our proposal to the Commission, which dealt with Laval-Laurentides-Lanaudière, we asked that there be one less riding. So, in Laval, rather than having three and a half, we proposed that there be three, thereby allowing us to add the surplus portion to Lac-Saint-Jean.

    The idea of there being one more--in other words, 76 ridings in Quebec--is impossible. We can't have 76 ridings. But what was suggested to the Commission for the nine or ten ridings in Laval-Laurentides-Lanaudière was to retain the three ridings in Laval--in other words, Laval-Est, Laval-Ouest and Laval-Centre--in their present form. In addition to that, there was some redistribution in Laval-Laurentides-Lanaudière, thereby making it possible to create a fourth riding in Lac-Saint-Jean.

    So, not only do we support you, but we have found part of the solution to this problem. I believe our Committee has to be imaginative, as we have seen in the other provinces, and respond with concrete suggestions to the legitimate requests made to us, such as the one you are making today.

[English]

    The Chair: We appreciate your compliment that we were imaginative, and other....

    Mr. Reid and Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

    M. Scott Reid: I have a question for Mr. Gauthier. You mentioned the provincial riding of Ungava, which I believe is pretty much the same as Baie-James--Nunavik, although there are some differences in the Abitibi region. Using the laser pen, could you show us the differences between those two ridings at the two levels of government?

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Yes.

    Here you have the provincial riding of Roberval and the federal riding of Roberval; they include Chibougamau and Chapais, as you see here. At the provincial level, you have the riding of Ungava here, and below, the riding of Abitibi. They are separate. At the federal level, however, you have Abitibi, part of Ungava, Chibougamau and Roberval.

    So basically, when I said earlier that this is not common practice, what I meant was that parts of the population are not generally transferred from one riding to another; in this case, a whole portion of the region that it belongs to now has been carved off and included in another large region of Quebec. That is the issue. The area around Chibougamau is part of this region. But now, all of a sudden, Abitibi is becoming a larger region and gobbling up that town.

    Basically, what they did is cut off part of the region, as if we had suddenly decided that the Laurentian region would be put in with the Abitibi, or if we had lumped the Outaouais and Témiscamingue regions together. It's a little like taking part of Témiscamingue and putting it in with the Outaouais and justifying that by saying that the population of Témiscamingue had declined and therefore one riding had to be removed. People would say: no, they've taken a large section of one region and attached it to this other region. I think that is one of the rare places where that could be done. It's not just a town that has been moved; it's a whole portion of a region.

»  (1715)  

[English]

    The Chair: Can you just clarify this point?

    We heard this morning from Mr. St-Julien that someone was happy that Chibougamau was in Nunavut.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: The last time the map was redrawn, Mr. St-Julien came and met with me, and we discussed Chibougamau and Chapais. I am very surprised to hear what was said today in that respect. At the time, we discussed this, we gave each other our word and we shook on it. He was not interested in having Chibougamau and Chapais; on the other hand, I said I would not touch his district. I was prepared to leave the Oujé-Bougoumou reserve in Mr. St-Julien's riding, because of the Aboriginal population there.

    Oujé-Bougoumou is at the far end of the riding, just above Chibougamau. I found out today, however, that Mr. St-Julien would be happy to have Chibougamau. Personally, I would be happy to have all of Abitibi and see it included in Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean, but that is not the issue here. I will have to talk to him and ask him how it is, in that case, that when we talked about this man to man, we had an understanding, we agreed, and we even shook on it. He admitted that Chibougamou and Chapais were not part of Abitibi. Nobody can claim that Chibougamau and Chapais are part of Abitibi.

    It seems to me that to avoid a situation where his region would be losing ridings… I don't really know. Perhaps Mr. St-Julien wants to expand into other areas in order to increase the population base in Abitibi. We should put the question to him.

    Chibougamau and Chapais are not part of Abiliti; they belong in the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region. People there do business with the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean and the regional offices of Quebec provincial ministries are in Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean; they don't deal with the Abitibi. He is happy, because that increases the population of his riding. But unfortunately for him, they happen to be in my riding.

    The Chair: Mr. Godin, followed by Mr. Proulx.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I find this surprising. Mr. St-Julien wanted there to be two MPs because he said his riding was already too large.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: In that case, he should leave my riding alone and look after his own!

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I'd like you to explain this to me. Earlier, you said that Chibougamau should be included in Roberval, right? Because here, the proposal is to put Chibougamau in the Abitibi riding. What you want is for Chibougamau to once again be part of your riding. That area has a population of about 10,000.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: About 12,000.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: All right; 12,000, then. But where are you getting the rest in order to justify having four MPs, if you are reducing the numbers in each one?

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: No, there is no problem if they don't touch the riding of Roberval. We crunched the numbers and the rate does not exceed the limit of minus 25%. That's why they wanted to remove Chibougamau.

[English]

    The Chair: No, no.

[Translation]

Be careful now.

    Ms. Girard-Bujold, for your riding, the rate is minus 30%. Mr. Gauthier, yours is minus 27%, Mr. Harvey's is minus 14%, and Mr. Gagnon's is minus 28%.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: If you take the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region as a whole, the average for all four ridings is about minus 22% or minus 23%. André Harvey's riding is at minus 14%.

[English]

    The Chair: He's at almost minus 15%.

[Translation]

The other three ridings have fewer residents than the provincial quota and do exceed the limit of minus 25%.

    Mr. Proulx, you have the floor.

»  (1720)  

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: I just did a quick calculation. The four ridings, as currently configured, have a total population of 288,000, which is distributed as follows: Jonquière has a population of 67,000, Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, 69,000, Chicoutimi-Le Fjord, 82,000, and Roberval, 70,000. The quotas range from minus 14% to minus 30%.

    The three reconfigured ridings have a total population of about 278,000. That confirms that transferring Chibougamau and Chapais would mean a population loss of about 10,000. The quotas would be as follows: Chicoutimi--Le Fjord would be at plus 2.32%, Roberval, at minus 15%, and Jonquière--Alma, at 1.73%. That would mean that all the ridings would have a quota close to zero, except in your riding, Mr. Gauthier. If we added the 10,000 residents of Chibougamau and Chapais, its population would rise to approximately 91,000, and the rate would be minus 4%, approximately.

    Without wanting to defend Mr. St-Julien, it is important to recognize that in the summer of 2002, the proposal was not that Chibougamau and Chapais be part of the Baie-James--Nunavik riding. I believe those communities were supposed to be part of the new riding of Lac-Saint-Jean. I believe Mr. St-Julien was surprised, perhaps pleasantly surprised, to read in the March report that the proposal was to redraw the boundaries of the riding that currently goes by the name of Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik to include Chibougamau and Chapais.

    When Mr. St-Julien tells us he is happy, that means that he is happy with that arrangement and accepts it, but I really don't think he tried to spirit away 10,000 or 12,000 of your constituents, Mr. Gauthier.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Which would not be consistent with our agreement.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: And far be it from me to come to the defence of Guy St-Julien.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: But the fact is that you allowed him to avoid a major problem--namely the problem he would have had with me when we met up.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: I was thinking mainly of his health, Mr. Gauthier.

    The fact remains that the Lac-Saint-Jean region, under this new proposal, would lose a riding, and that hurts. It makes you sick to think they're going to do that, because this is a very special region, a region that needs representation, and yet it is going to lose its fourth riding.

    But even if we added the 10,000 or 12,000 residents in Chibougamau and Chapais, I don't see how we could come close to the desired percentage. We could suggest--and the Committee may want to consider this--retaining four ridings in Lac-Saint-Jean--in other words, treating the Lac-Saint-Jean region the same way northern Ontario may be treated. But in that case, we will have to ascertain what riding could be eliminated elsewhere. We could provide for special treatment for this large region and suggest to the Commission that it depart somewhat from the rule. I believe that's what you are asking.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, exactly.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: And if we included Chibougamau and Chapais, that would help us to work the…

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That would mean about 72,000 on each side. Basically, with a redistribution across all the areas, we would end up with about 72,000.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, you're probably right; it should be something like that.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I don't remember whether that changes the quota.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: With a population of 72,000, you will all pretty well be close to the limit of minus 23% or minus 25%.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: It's minus 22%.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Yes, it will be minus 20% or minus 25%, but we will still be within the permissible range and you will have done such a noble deed!

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That's right.

    Mr. Sébastien Gagnon: You'll use all the means at your disposal. That way we can reverse the migratory trend and everything will be OK.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, exactly.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I want to thank Marcel for his comments.

    The Chair: There is something else. In my opinion, if we can say that the fact that a region is smaller is not a problem, we should also be able to say the reverse--in other words, that having a larger population in a city is not a problem.

»  (1725)  

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: I don't think it is a problem. We would have to say yes, it is a problem and we're prepared to consider it. In my view, the biggest issue for us will not be to convince the Commission to go along with minus 23% or minus 24%, but rather to find some territory somewhere to complete the riding we would restore to the Lac-Saint-Jean region. If we don't crunch the numbers properly, and if we put a riding back into Lac-Saint-Jean, that means that we may not be able to keep the new riding in Laval or the one on the north shore of the river, the name of which escapes me for the time being.

    The Chair: I believe the Commission tried to arrange things so that all ridings would be at 10%, not at 25%. So, it's a little different from the others.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes. On the other hand, we can find a numerical solution for the rest of the province, and even go as far as to say that we consider the greater region of Lac-Saint-Jean to be special and to have been hit hard. Also, distances are very great; this is a very large area. We have a lot of very large ridings in Canada; Abitibi and Baie-James cover large areas.

[English]

    The Chair: Well, yes, but of course the other thing is that since we funded that new highway out there, maybe there will be more people moving.

    Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Benoît Sauvageau commented earlier; he represents the Laval region. Laval said not to increase the number of ridings. He agreed with the status quo and the idea of leaving the riding as it is currently, so there you have your riding.

[English]

    The Chair: There we go. C'est fini.

    Scott's wondering about that. Last year we were all in Chicoutimi. Most of us drove through the area. A new highway to increase the potential for the economic development of the region was announced at the time. They think they will grow as a result because there are a lot of good workers and good industry in the area.

[Translation]

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That's in my riding, Madam Chair. It's fantastic.

    An hon. Member: It's in Mr. Harvey's area.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: It's in the region.

    The Chair: And it's really very beautiful.

    Are there any further questions? Does anyone wish to make other comments?

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: If we are not able to find a fourth riding, would you agree to the idea of dividing up the region into three ridings, as has been recommended? I know you're going to tell me that would not be acceptable, but what is your plan B?

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Our region has said that it wants the status quo. People in our region are unanimous on that.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, I understand, but even if the region says that and we say it also, it is possible the commissioners will say no.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, there is the population quota. The 25 per cent rule has to be respected.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: In any case, I understand your question.

    I can't speak for the others, but in terms of the riding of Roberval, which is in the far western portion, any increase in population will occur in the immediate population base. It would be terrible if we were to lose part of it. It is clear to me that any extension in Roberval can only occur in one place. If we don't put Chibougamau and Chapais back in, we will have to look to the east and carve off part of neighbouring ridings. But I'm not sure that will really suit them. There is no other choice in Roberval.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: But even if there were only three ridings, Chibougamau and Chapais would be returned to the region.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Yes, Chibougamau and Chapais could certainly stay.

    Mr. Sébastien Gagnon: We have looked at this from every possible side, from every angle. The Commission comes along and selects a riding and without considering the historical pattern at all, decides to separate it into two portions. You can't just annex an area based on numbers alone. I come back to what I said about Alma, which has a population of about 35,000 to 40,000. You can't just take my whole riding and lump it in with Mr. Gauthier's. What they did is separate it into two. They separated it using the rationale that since there was a population base, they could lump it in with Jonquière.

    I come back to the argument that I made earlier; it comes down to something very personal. If you separate the population in two, you are separating something that now forms a whole. There is no desire to have a large town, because it's too far away, but it forms a whole for the community of interest. We have an excellent example of communities of interest in this region.

»  (1730)  

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    Could you get back to us to see if there are some edges on either side that we could include, if we're going to be looking at this cascade effect? We've already had somebody talk about how they don't want Baie Comeau in their riding, and we're quite sympathetic to them. Think about a little bit on the edges to enhance the area for division by four. Could you come back to us with some additional territory that we could...?

[Translation]

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Madam Chair, Mr. Harvey asked to annex part of my electoral district and the area around Lac-Saint-Jean in the Saguenay. Mr. Harvey wants to take back Saint-Fulgence and also to have part of the riding south of Jonquière, on Boulevard Harvey.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: I didn't hear Mr. Harvey say that.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, he said it during the initial hearings when he made his presentation.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Well in terms of the initial hearings, the decision has already been made.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, but he requested that and he got it. That was added to his riding.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: In the redistribution of the three ridings.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes. That's right.

[English]

    The Chair: Just for the attention of members, either way, no matter what's changed, Mr. Harvey has requested the riding remain Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, whatever may happen to its boundaries. If you have any specific suggestions, let us know and let Mr. Guimond know as soon as possible.

[Translation]

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: In any case, the next election will be based on the old map.

[English]

    The Chair: Oh, yes, that's right.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: We'll call for a general election before the twenty-first of June.

    The Chair: Colleagues, if I can keep you here for a couple of minutes, we can go in camera. We're just going to suspend. Could everyone stay for a couple of minutes more, except for the MPs?

    [Proceedings continue in camera]