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

Monday, May 5, 2003

1545

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

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance)

1550

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Peter Goldring

1555

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

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

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

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

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Brent St. Denis

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

1600

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)

1605

1610

Mr. John Williams

1615

The Chair

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. John Williams

1620

The Chair

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

1625

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Brent St. Denis

The Chair

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

1630

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

1635

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

1640

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

1645

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Bob Mills

1650

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance)

1655

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

1700

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Betty Hinton

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Betty Hinton

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Betty Hinton

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Betty Hinton

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Betty Hinton

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Betty Hinton

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Betty Hinton

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Betty Hinton

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mrs. Betty Hinton

Mr. Scott Reid

Mrs. Betty Hinton

1705

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Mrs. Betty Hinton

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Jim Gouk

1710

The Chair

Mr. Jim Gouk

The Chair

Mr. Jim Gouk

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Jim Gouk

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Jim Gouk

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Jim Gouk

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Jim Gouk

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Jim Gouk

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Jim Gouk

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jim Gouk

The Chair

Mr. Jim Gouk

The Chair

1715

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Val Meredith

1720

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance)

1725

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

1730

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. John Cummins

1735

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Cummins

1740

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

1745

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

1750

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

1755

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

CANADA

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

NUMBER 007

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, May 5, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1545)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. We are the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

We're very pleased to have with us today Mr. Mills and Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Mills' documents were inadvertently circulated to committee members in English only, even though they were available in both languages. There are French copies here if you would like one. We'll do our best to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Colleagues, you have a copy of Mr. Goldring's objections. Just for the benefit of our two colleagues who perhaps haven't done this before, André Cyr is from Elections Canada. He has a map of Alberta and can go into smaller and larger details, so feel free to ask him to do some calculations, if need be. Otherwise, could you make presentations of five or so minutes, and then we can have some question and answers.

You're up, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the members of the committee for this opportunity to make some further remarks to my original application on redistricting to make some changes to the original boundary commission's guidelines and recommendations.

I want to say that I very much appreciate that approximately 75% of those recommendations were accepted. It's the last portion that I would like to speak about, if I could.

Could we pull up the map of the riding of Edmonton East, as it's being called now, so I can show you some of the areas I'm referring to?

While we're pulling that up, I want to say that I'm pleased that the community of common interest was considered, specifically for the area from the Riverdale community through to the Boyle-McCauley area and 118th Avenue, and over to the Beverley area. It's these final areas that I would like to appeal, to see if they couldn't also be considered.

If we look up at the top left-hand quarter of the map, where it says Edmonton North, that entire area up there was from the old riding of Edmonton North. My concern and request today is to give consideration to this other area of old Edmonton East, which has been removed, and I suppose replaced with a population in this area. My request is very simple: to consider taking that area and to put it in with Sherwood Park, and to take this area from the river and to add it into the Edmonton East riding. I'll explain some of the boundaries of that.

This area in Edmonton North encompasses from 97th Street up to 167th Avenue, and I believe that it's Manning Drive or 15th Street that comes to the south. In this area, there is a population of 43,737 people.

This other area here goes from the CNR tracks north to 153rd Avenue and Meridian and the North Saskatchewan River, down to the railroad tracks and back across. This area comprises a total of 31,244 people, which would give the riding a new or revised population of 106,667.

A comparison of the four Edmonton area ridings shows Edmonton Centre with a population of 115,900, Edmonton St. Albert with 113,146, and Edmonton Sherwood Park 116,103, making Edmonton East 106,667. The importance of this is that there are construction and new housing projects going on in this riding, so the 106,000 population will not remain that way for long. There is inner-city development and revitalization work going on, particularly in the Riverdale community, going up through this area. Subdivisions and other new developments are also going up there. So effectively, in a very few years, that riding's population will have increased quite dramatically too.

In keeping with this, I guess my proposal is to note that for the last number of years, perhaps back some 20 years, this section of the riding has been an Edmonton East riding, and this section up here has been out of the riding. So to ensure the common interest or continuity of the last number of years, unless there's a reason for changing the way it is now, I would like to see this area remain in Edmonton East, and this other area here be part of Edmonton Sherwood Park. That's the essence of my proposal.

Thank you very much for giving me the time for saying these few words. I'll be open to some questions, if you have any.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Goldring.

Can I just ask, who is the representative for Edmonton Sherwood Park currently, or is that the new riding?

Mr. Peter Goldring: That would be the new riding. The representative is still to be determined, but it was Ken Epp in Sherwood Park before.

The Chair: Are there other questions?

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): If I could, is the river on the east side of the area you want incorporated back into your riding a natural boundary? Do you find that people don't usually travel across that river into Sherwood Park? Is it more of a natural boundary, so that the population in the area west of the river would normally be an Edmonton East kind of constituent?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Absolutely.

That river, of course, carries straight through to the downtown portion, and meets with 97th Street. So that river has always been the eastern boundary of the riding. And, definitely, it is by bridge that people have access.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Are there many bridge access points from that area over to Sherwood Park?

Mr. Peter Goldring: There are. There is also an industrial area along the river, which helps to separate the communities too.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is the industrial area in Sherwood Park--in other words, still in the area?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So the industrial area is across the river in Sherwood Park.

Mr. Peter Goldring: That's right.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is the portion of Edmonton North you want included in Edmonton Sherwood Park contiguous? Would its boundaries be contiguous with the existing boundaries of the proposed Edmonton Sherwood Park riding?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Until now, the boundary for the northern portion of the Edmonton Centre-East riding was 137th Avenue. Of course, I am just wanting to maintain that, as a matter of a common point.

¹ (1555)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I appreciate that, but the area of Edmonton North that you want to incorporate into Edmonton Sherwood Park is contiguous. The boundaries would match with those of Edmonton Sherwood Park, so there is no problem with that.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Absolutely, that's right.

The Chair: André is going to tell us what the population is.

Mr. André Cyr (Project Manager, Electoral Geography Division, Register and Geography Directorate, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): The numbers are pretty well what Mr. Goldring said they are. As you can see on the map, the highlighted yellow area for Edmonton North is 43,600 persons.

Mr. Peter Goldring: My figure was 43,737.

The Chair: So it's roughly 44,000?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, roughly 44,000.

The Chair: And the other block you want to exchange it for is...?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Slightly over 31,000.

The Chair: So the result would be that the riding would be smaller than currently proposed.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It would 106,667. As I said, it allows for some growth.

The Chair: It's on the target for provincial expectations—but it's an urban seat versus a rural seat. It would pretty well be urban.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Is Edmonton Sherwood Park more rural or suburban, or what?

Mr. Peter Goldring: It's a little bit of both.

The Chair: It depends on how fast the developers get there.

Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Peter, I just have a short question.

Are there any comments by the presumptive affected member? Was Ken Epp from from Elk Island? Is he going to have any comments on this?

Mr. Peter Goldring: They're very open to it. The reason is very simple: it's either a matter of taking part of the traditional Edmonton East riding, or taking part of the traditional Edmonton North riding. So it makes no difference to them.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Are there any comments by the municipal or city council?

Mr. Peter Goldring: We have not had any comments from them.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: So is it a very localized or neighbourhood issue that doesn't affect a third riding?

Mr. Peter Goldring: No, it doesn't.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It's strictly two ridings.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: If I may, I have one other question.

I just noticed the railroad tracks in that section of Edmonton East.

By the way, Peter, I think you have a fairly rational argument, particularly on the river boundary. You presented to the commission, who incorporated 75% of your recommendations. But I'm trying to understand what the commission's rationale was for not wanting to put that back into Edmonton East. Was it the railroad tracks? What was their rationale?

Mr. Peter Goldring: We weren't given a reason, which is why I am bringing this forward here. It is actually one of the questions I wanted to ask.

Certainly if there was a reason, then—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The portion of Edmonton North going back into Sherwood Park is not a problem, because that's a whole new riding anyway. Edmonton North has been broken up, so it goes into the different areas.

Mr. Peter Goldring: That's right.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: All right, thank you.

The Chair: I just have one last question.

When they consulted on it, they called the riding Edmonton North, and then they changed it to Edmonton East. The change that you are proposing would obviously make it more Edmonton East than Edmonton North, would it?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Absolutely.

The Chair: They seemed to have tried for some simplification of the boundaries from what they originally consulted on.

Can you again clarify, are you asking for everything between Manning Drive and the CN line?

Mr. Peter Goldring: It's just from where the division was before, from the CN line up to 153rd Avenue and over toward Meridian.

º (1600)

The Chair: Okay.

So you don't want this extra bit between Manning Drive and the CN line?

Mr. Peter Goldring: It would not make a difference. For the sake of simplicity, I had thought so, but if it were felt that would better balance the numbers...it might be logical.

The Chair: We'll look at that.

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid: While we are on the subject of the rail line versus Manning Drive, is the rail line crossed by many cross-streets? I see two, but are those essentially it? Is the rail line a barrier to movement back and forth?

Mr. Peter Goldring: It is a barrier, but it has crossings.

You're right that the crossings are a considerable space apart, but they are normal railroad crossings spacings.

The Chair: At the very bottom of page 14 of this document it says that

The proposed Edmonton North electoral district will be renamed Edmonton East. ... This has the effect of putting most of the communities of McCauley and Boyle Street and all of Riverdale in Edmonton East. ... The community of Lago Lindo moves from Edmonton East and becomes part of Edmonton–Sherwood Park.

So that did include some—but was that not necessarily enough?

Mr. Peter Goldring: The main point is that Edmonton East has been a traditional riding for some 85 years, and the main areas of it were from the Boyle-McCauley and Riverdale areas to 118th Avenue, and through to the Beverley communities. These other areas of Victoria Trail, which I'm talking about now, are just the northern extension of that—and have been for the past 12 to 15 years. I would like to keep the continuity of it a little bit more, rather than trading it with Edmonton North, unless there is a particular reason.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, let me point out that I'm not exactly sure why the commission decided to hack and slash away at my constituency, which was a nice, well-contained constituency with a number of communities of interest.

We have the francophone communities of interest, St. Albert, Morinville, and Legal. They were originally settled by Father Albert Lacombe, who developed the city of St. Albert back in 1861. St. Albert, Morinville, and Legal became the centre of the religious and educational community and in essence the white community.

The elections readjustments people are required to take these communities of interest into consideration. Yet they cut the francophone community in half, taking those in the city of St. Albert and putting them in with Edmonton; and those in Morinville and Legal with Westlock, St. Paul, Bonneyville, Lac La Biche, and everyone else—thus watering down that issue, Madam Chair.

We also have the city of St. Albert, a large suburban city in close proximity to, but not part of, Edmonton, with its own clearly defined identity. The southern part of my current riding was originally settled by Germans and Austrians—again with a strong cultural flavour from that part of the world. And of course it is largely agricultural.

So that is the background of the riding as it is today. It's about 110,000 people, which is just right on the number that a constituency should be.

So my first question was why did they not just tinker around the edges, but instead cut it into three parts, in fact? I made a written and oral submission to the Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission last October. I had conducted a write-in survey of the riding, and 99% of the approximately 175 respondents opposed the proposals of the commission.

Since then, of course, I filed an objection with your committee. I also talked to the official languages committee, which decided to hold full hearings on this particular issue. It called two witnesses from St. Albert to specifically address the issue of community of interest. The two people who came down from my constituency were Mr. Jack O'Neill, the former deputy minister of culture and multiculturalism for the Government of Alberta, and Mr. Ernest Chauvet, who is the president of the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta. These two witnesses presented their opinions to the committee. The committee issued a report, which called on the Electoral Boundaries Commission to take this francophone community of interest into consideration. I have also made a written complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages. Now, of course, I'm also speaking to you here this afternoon.

Section 41 of the Official Languages Act clearly states that

The Government of Canada is committed to (a) enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and(b) fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

Paragraph 15(1)(b) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act stipulates that the Electoral Boundaries Commission must take “the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district” into account when redrawing the boundaries. I contend, Madam Chair, that the commission ignored that specific directive in paragraph 15(1)(b) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

The Official Languages Commissioner also dealt with a concern with the riding of Acadie--Bathurst in New Brunswick. On page 1 of her report on the situation in New Brunswick in the riding of Acadie--Bathurst, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Ms. Dyane Adam, states that the Electoral Boundaries Commission must comply with section 41 of the Official Languages Act to respect the development and vitality of the official languages minority. I also note that in the same investigation, Ms. Adam states on page 4 that part 7 of the Official Languages Act also obliges the Electoral Boundaries Commission to assess how the changes to electoral boundaries will affect this development and vitality.

º (1605)

The report, Madam Chair, is silent on its rationale, with one exception: the rationale for changes.

I'd like to draw your attention to the report of the Alberta Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission. On page 3, the commission states that its rationale was to restore the historical equality of representation between Edmonton and Calgary, and that this overrode other issues, such as community of interest and, by inference, section 41 of the Official Languages Act and paragraph 15(1)(b) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

They were given specific instructions to look at and take into consideration communities of interest and communities of identity. The commission specifically stated in its report that it believed that the recommended changes would not only meet the representational needs of Calgary and the Edmonton region, but also restore the historical equality of representation between the two.

Who gave them the mandate to restore the equality between Edmonton and Calgary, which are evolving in two different ways, one with a large number of suburban communities and one without? They decided to take it upon themselves as to what the rationale of their mandate would be, and to ignore the mandate given to them in legislation. This, Madam Chair, I do not believe should be allowed to stand.

The fifth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, tabled on April 9, 2003, says:

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages wishes to express its profound dissatisfaction that these two provincial commissions failed to give sufficient consideration to take the concept of community of interest in terms of official language into consideration. The Committee considers that the commissions ignored their responsibilities in the matter of official languages in basing their decision on a mathematical principle of electoral quota only.

I would ask, Madam Chair, that this committee set the commission right on what its mandate is, as contained in the legislation.

The committee also recommended that the growth and development of official language minorities communities be taken into account. In their proposals, the electoral boundaries commission has completely thrown the concept of communities of interest out the window in favour of restoring some nebulous former equality of representation between Edmonton and Calgary, which has never been defined.

As I mentioned at the beginning, several communities of interest exist in the riding as it is currently drawn, including a francophone community of interest in the the St. Albert, Morinville, and Legal corridor, and a German and Austrian community of interest in the Stony Plains, Spruce Grove, and Parkland County corridor. These two corridors form a largely agricultural community of interest together in one riding. Yet these communities of interest have been thrown out completely by placing the Stony Plains, Spruce Grove, Parkland community in with a wealthy section of the city of Edmonton—which is not in itself a community of interest.

The city of St. Albert has been completely separated from its traditional community of interest and trading area of Morinville, Legal, and Sturgeon County, and placed with a part of the city of Edmonton it has little in common with.

Finally, the communities of Morinville and Legal have been placed in the proposed constituency of Westlock--St. Paul, which they also have nothing in common with. It will stretch from the city of St. Albert's limits all the way to the Alberta-Saskatchewan border.

To respond to the observations and reports of other commissions, Madam Chair, one said in response to what they were hearing at the public hearing, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.”

The City of Edmonton opposed what was being proposed. When you look at the city of Edmonton, by and large you will see what I call the hub-and-spoke concept of constituencies. They radiate out, with most of them taking in a chunk of the countryside as well—rather than the city of Edmonton having its own MPs and the suburban area having its own MPs.

The population of the city of Edmonton is 660,000 people. The average constituency size in Alberta should be 110,000 people. Simple math tells you that's exactly six ridings. The St. Albert constituency is currently configured with 110,000 people, which is right on the number. I can't imagine why they decided not to listen at the public hearing, when all of the people, including us, said “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.”

º (1610)

They responded by saying:

In the Commission's view, this approach ignores the Commission's constitutional and statutory mandate to reconsider electoral districts based on current census data. This data shows that there is a large urban population in the Edmonton region that should be represented.

I say whoopee, Madam Chair, because of course they are going to be represented. The question is how are we going to draw the boundaries? They have ignored the legal responsibility, and have made the nebulous decision that it is important to have eight ridings with Edmonton-slash-something, because Calgary is going to have eight. Who ever gave them that responsibility?

Now, it was pointed out at the public hearing that the urban and suburban areas have different priorities. Well, they pointed out that we do share a sewage system. To me, sharing a sewage system is not a community of interests, Madam Chair. There is more to it than that.

An hon. member: That's at one level.

Mr. John Williams: There may be some debate and some humour on that point, Madam Speaker, but on the more intellectual aspect of the issue, I would say there is no community of interest there.

It's a well-recognized principle. While the commission may be correct in the narrowest sense to state that Edmonton is solely urban, and the surrounding municipalities are solely suburban, in the commission's view this is quite inappropriate. The commission is in complete disagreement with the elected representatives for the city of Edmonton, St. Albert, Leduc, Strathcona County, and others, as well as all the members of Parliament and individuals who attended the public meetings who represented that the issues that are important to suburban residents may not just be different, but may be the opposite of those of the city of Edmonton's residents. The City of St. Albert has fought annexation to maintain its independence on a couple of occasions. It fought it vociferously and won. Now they're going to be Edmonton--St. Albert.

There are different identities and values between Edmonton and the surrounding communities that require representation. I agree with the commission that the boundaries should not be drawn to reflect ethnicity or class, which they said we shouldn't do. However, I believe the commission should draw the boundaries to reflect market and trading areas, or multiples thereof. Citizens who live in a single market area have much more in common through their work, living, shopping, and socializing.

The commission has given no credence to the commonality of citizens within a common market or trading area when drawing the proposed constituency boundaries in the Edmonton metropolitan area. The surrounding communities are connected not only with Edmonton, but also with neighbouring rural areas. While the commission may believe the suburban areas are more closely linked with the centre than with the agricultural area beyond--that's in page 13 of their report--this does not suggest the interests of suburban communities are the same as the urban core. They're just not.

The commission states on page 4 that they believe the recommended changes would not only meet the representational needs of Calgary and the Edmonton region, but would restore the historical equality of the two. I've addressed my strong and complete objection to that point in their report.

It appears this equality has been the overriding criterion for the commission's recommendations supported by Dr. Roger Gibbins from Calgary over the expressed wishes of virtually every elected official in the Edmonton metropolitan area and a number of individuals and organizations, including the better part of 200 objections from my own riding.

Edmonton and Calgary will continue to evolve differently--Edmonton with suburbs, Calgary largely without. Any claim to historical equality cannot take precedence over the needs and aspirations of the residents and the legislation.

A final point is related to the proposed name change in Bill C-300, Madam Chair, which is currently in the Senate. It was proposed to change the name of St. Albert to St. Albert--Parkland--Sturgeon, because in the current riding, Spruce Grove, Stony Plain, and all the way down to the river is the southern half of the riding. There's the Glory Hills in the middle, which are a small range of hills--hills might be a bit of an exaggeration, but a little rise in the countryside--and south of that are the German-Austrian settlements of Stony Plain, Spruce Grove, and all the farming areas predominantly of that culture.

On the north side are St. Albert, Morinville, Legal, Villeneuve, and Rivière Qui Barre, which are primarily francophone in origin, and all the farmers in that area are francophone primarily. They're all just being hacked and slashed so the commission can get its own rationale in here.

So I propose St. Albert--Parkland--Sturgeon as the name for the riding. Should my proposal to keep the riding as is...because I didn't see any reason whatsoever to change it, then I would humbly suggest it be called St. Albert--Parkland--Sturgeon.

Madam Chairman, that is my submission. I am extremely upset that the commission would ignore every elected official--bar two, I believe--and come out with these rationales that are taken from I know not where. They've come down with this and broken up communities of interest--the francophone community of interest and the German-Austrian community of interest are now in with the people of Edmonton. St. Albert, which has fought Edmonton on annexation, is now lumped in with a piece of Edmonton.

º (1615)

It is a mess.

The Chair: Mr. Williams, just to clarify, where is the riding on this map now?

Mr. John Williams: I'm colour blind. What colour is it?

The Chair: Is it that prune colour?

Mr. John Williams: It's the brown area. Do you see Athabasca Island? Okay. Here is the point, okay. Here is the boundary right now. It's a rectangle. This is the Edmonton city limits, North Saskatchewan River, and then straight up there.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John Williams: It's 50 miles north to south and 25 miles east to west--and there it is. The new one, St. Albert, is this one right here. There is the city of St. Albert and this is the city of Edmonton. There's a portion of the city of Edmonton, basically north of the CN tracks and west of Castledowns Road. That's by and large what it is, just a piece of Edmonton having no affinity within themselves, other than the fact that they are residential subdivisions.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: What percentage of the total population of the existing riding, the one you now represent, is contained within the city of St. Albert?

Mr. John Williams: It's approximately 50%. About 57,000 come from the city of St. Albert, with 110,000 in the whole constituency. The way it is currently configured, it's 50% St. Albert and 50% basically from a piece of Edmonton, which also means that the MP would have to have a split personality when the city of Edmonton and St. Albert get going on some issues they don't agree on. What is the MP going to do with a 50% and 50%?

An hon. member: Stay in Ottawa.

º (1620)

The Chair: Get longer....

Mr. St. Denis and then Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I think John partly answered my question. I wanted to get an idea of what the population in St. Albert was in relation to the totals, so it's quite significant.

Mr. John Williams: That's right.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Right to the point, John, how would you solve the problem? How many ridings are impacted to solve it?

Mr. John Williams: The funny thing is that Edmonton and surrounding area has eight ridings today. When all of this is finished up we are going to have eight ridings.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes, it will go back to where it was, more or less.

Mr. John Williams: And it seems rather strange to me that a sitting MP in Edmonton North finds her riding has completely disappeared, and a vacant one, this Edmonton--Spruce Grove, shows up here that wouldn't have a sitting MP, and yet a sitting MP has been done out of her riding, even though there has been no reduction. You know, the whole thing is totally strange, mind-boggling to me, and my proposal would be to ask why they even decided to do anything. We told them, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And they said no, no, no, we have a constitutional mandate to mess around anyway we want, so we will just do that.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: In summary, then, if the commission had basically left well enough alone, they could have met the population ranges and made relatively minor changes to the Edmonton and surrounding ridings.

Mr. John Williams: Absolutely, absolutely.

The Chair: Can I just pick up on that? So you are telling me that Yellowhead without the addition of that little piece of your current riding met the numbers, and Athabasca without the addition of--

Mr. John Williams: This little piece of Yellowhead has been put back in. You see a large number of residential acreages up here. They have now moved it down to the county line; that's why it was brought down here. This used to be at the Meridian Road here, so they moved it over to the county line.

There was a segment they brought back into the metropolitan area because they wanted to follow the county line and put that in Yellowhead, except it had a large number of residential acreages and people working in the city who were not farmers and who had nothing to do with the people in Jasper and Yellowhead and Whitecourt and anywhere else.

They had admitted at the public hearing here last October that they made a mistake for that area and they would fix it, which they have done. But as you see, Madam Chair, they have just taken the riding and split it right in half--in fact, in three pieces--the city of St. Albert, the northern half, and the southern half.

The Chair: Just to clarify again, because I'm not sure I really have the answer, in the current seats--and maybe Mr. Cyr can confirm this more easily--the surrounding seats, assuming that you left St. Albert the way it is, did they meet the population targets, maybe with a little jigging on the one side?

Mr. John Williams: Okay. I'll show you on the map here.

The Chair: And what about today's ridings with the new population?

Mr. John Williams: With the growth of the population in the city of Edmonton, Madam Chair, you can quite easily bring the suburban ridings closer to town and have them represent the suburban areas, and leave the city of Edmonton, with 660,000 people, six ridings, totally contained within the boundaries, so they can deal with Edmonton city council on issues pertaining to Edmonton.

The suburban people, such as St. Albert on the west and Sherwood Park, a community on the east with about 50,000 people, together with Fort Saskatchewan and other areas, could make up a riding on the east and you can bring in a piece on the south. It all depends on how you configure the communities.

I argued in my report to the commission that they should have what I called the “doughnut concept”--six MPs for Edmonton, with suburban MPs around the city. Depending on how far out you go, that would be two or three MPs.

The Chair: Just a second.

So, Mr. Cyr, each commission has written its document differently. In New Brunswick, we actually had current ridings with new numbers. The page 21 table is what they're proposing, right? Do you have in your calculations--

º (1625)

Mr. André Cyr: For Yellowhead, within the current riding limits, the population is 96,000, or roughly minus 10%. For St. Albert, it is 118,000, at plus 11%.

The Chair: So that little piece they moved on the county line would probably bring those back roughly intact. Roughly, the numbers would be within 10% then. They'd still be within 10%, if you give them even a percentage point.

So we're not worried about numbers in this particular redistribution, the way we were in new Brunswick.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: There was some confusion. That area from Yellowhead, which has now been taken out of the St. Albert riding, do you have any difficulty with it staying in Yellowhead?

Mr. John Williams: I've taken the position that it's not for me to draw the lines specifically. I appreciate the commission. I've been arguing the principle of why change something that ain't broke, and they said it doesn't matter if it's broken; if it's not broken, we'll fix it anyway.

I would have loved to have seen the riding stay as is, because, as I say, basically it represents a specific--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It had simplicity. That portion had to provide--

Mr. John Williams: Do we have it up on the map here? Is that it right there?

Mr. André Cyr: Roughly 2,000 people in that area have been moved from your riding to Yellowhead.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And that's not your constituency?

Mr. John Williams: This is bushland up here and there's some agricultural land down here. You have to draw the line through the agricultural land in some sense. This is following the county line rather than the meridian line, so I can go along with that.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have three questions, very quickly. St. Albert has been split in half. Half of it's going to go into Westlock--I believe that's the name of the new riding--and the other half goes into Edmonton. Am I correct on that?

Mr. John Williams: It's been split into three different ridings.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, but they've actually split it. Currently, St. Albert is encompassed in one riding, correct?

Mr. John Williams: Yes. Can we get the--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So they've split it. They've effectively split St. Albert into two different areas.

Mr. John Williams: No, they've split it in three. They've taken 50,000 from the city of St. Albert and put it in with Edmonton, and geographically they've split the north half and gone in one way and the south half another way.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: All right, I just wanted clarification of that. Really, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to split it. St. Albert is a community unto itself. It's 57,000 people.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It isn't just a town; it's the city of St. Albert.

The Chair: He's talking about the city and not the riding.

Mr. John Williams: The city of St. Albert remains within one electoral boundary.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It remains within the Edmonton--St. Albert riding.

The Chair: According to the document--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, so it hasn't split the city of St. Albert.

Mr. John Williams: No. They have not split the city of St. Albert. They've moved it in with a piece of Edmonton rather than the country.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, but St. Albert stays the same.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: St. Albert stays the same.

Mr. John Williams: See, there's the city--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I see that.

Mr. John Williams: --and here's the boundary, right here. You see, all the city of St. Albert--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Will be in that one riding.

Mr. John Williams: --will be in that one riding.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is there a buffer between Edmonton and St. Albert?

Mr. John Williams: There's a half a mile of green zone, yes. It is a buffer owned by the Province of Alberta.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, and it's a half a mile green zone buffer that will not have any development.

Mr. John Williams: That's correct.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, that was my second question.

My third question is that you've talked about amalgamation and annexation. This plan supposedly is a long-term plan; it isn't something for tomorrow or the next day. Is there, in your opinion, a possibility of an amalgamation, an incorporation, an annexation of St. Albert into the greater Edmonton area?

Mr. John Williams: The current mayor of Edmonton does express expansionary ideas, but that's anathema to the city of St. Albert.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I understand that, but what did---

Mr. John Williams: They have fought it aggressively in the past, and the city of St. Albert has won.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But in your opinion it would never happen?

Mr. John Williams: The greenbelt will never be filled in because back twenty years ago, in the Lougheed days, they actually wanted to buy a complete greenbelt all the way around the city of Edmonton, and they ran out of cash trying to do it.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I lied, I have one other question. Where do you live right now as a sitting member?

Mr. John Williams: I live just up hereabouts.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: More of a--

Mr. John Williams: Right about there.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So you then would run in the Westlock--St. Paul riding?

Mr. John Williams: I have not made any announcement as to--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, I understand that, but those would be the choices. Obviously that would be your---

Mr. John Williams: It would be Westlock--St. Paul, or Edmonton--Spruce Grove, or Edmonton--St. Albert.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I see.

There are no other sitting members in those three areas?

Mr. John Williams: This is a brand-spanking-new riding. Dave Chatters lives up here. I don't know what his intentions are. And Deborah Grey, as you know, has announced her retirement. This takes in a portion of Anne McLellan's riding, and a portion of Deborah Grey's riding, and of course the city of St. Albert.

The Chair: Thank you.

Does anybody have any questions for Mr. WIlliams? Mr. Reid?

Mr. Scott Reid: Going back to the original reason you made this presentation, the point you emphasized to the greatest extent was the community of interest argument, and particularly community of interest as it relates to the francophone community in St. Albert, Legal, and Morinville.

º (1630)

Mr. John Williams: Which is along the Highway 2 corridor, which is the main north-south road in the province of Alberta. Highway 2 runs right up there.

Mr. Scott Reid: Legal's just north of Morinville.

In Westlock--St. Paul,, the new riding they're talking about creating, aren't there some francophone communities there? Isn't Bonnyville French-Canadian as well?

Mr. John Williams: But they're about 200 miles away. They're right on the edge of the Saskatchewan border.

Mr. Scott Reid: I'm trying to find out about language, though. Bonnyville is also francophone. I'm wondering if you've had any feedback from folks there about their feelings.

Mr. John Williams: No, I've had no feedback at all. I have not communicated, and they have not communicated with me. As I said, it's about a couple of hundred miles away. It's 170 miles.

There's the city of Edmonton. Morinville and Legal are right here. Bonnyville is right over here somewhere.

Mr. Scott Reid: Yes. I think it's near the two lakes up to your left.

Mr. John Williams: Up here?

Mr. Scott Reid: No. Yes, you're getting closer. Warmer. No, you're colder now.

Mr. John Williams: Anyway, it's along the Saskatchewan border. And Morinville and Legal make up a small percentage of the population. In the 1991 census, in the constituency of St. Albert--which is the one that's currently configured--St. Albert was a bilingual community, given the fact that the francophone community was 3.1% of the community. I would imagine it's dropped below 3.1% now because the influx of the suburban dwellers. But it does show a very real and significant francophone presence. In fact, if you go to the town of Legal, you will likely hear more French on the street than you will English. And they're only 20 miles from Edmonton.

Morinville has a very large francophone community that speaks French, and they have their own cultural associations. The same with Legal, and St. Albert also. In fact, if you go to Legal and Morinville, the street names are en français.

Just in the last weekend in the city of St. Albert, for the citizen of the year volunteer appreciation night, Marcel Tailleur, who is one of the leading lights of the francophone cultural association, was up there as one of the nominees for the citizen of the year because of the strong francophone association and volunteerism in the city of St. Albert. This is a suburban community of 56,000 people, yet the francophone community is alive and well and thriving, and now you're going to cut that in two.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What would be the largest population centre in the riding of Westlock--St. Paul?

Mr. John Williams: In Westlock--St. Paul, maybe Westlock would be one of the larger ones. I don't think Barrhead is in it. Is Barrhead in it? I don't think so. And there's Lloydminster over on the west side.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Sure, it would be the biggest.

Mr. Scott Reid: It's not in there; it's in Vegreville--Wainright.

Mr. John Williams: The airforce base of Cold Lake is perhaps one of the major centres. Bonnyville, St. Paul.... There are about three or four towns within close proximity right out on the Saskatchewan border right here. Cold Lake, Bonnyville, and St. Paul I think are the three communities, and they're about five miles apart.

There might be 15,000 people there, I'll just guess. I don't know; I've never been there.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: There are 96,000 people, and I don't know of any major population note....

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to come before you today. As I said, I was quite incensed that the commission decided to ignore their legal mandate and determine one of their own.

The Chair: Thank you, and thank you for drawing to our attention several of their comments on page 13 and others.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much. I'll get my pointer in case I need it.

The Chair: According to the rules, you should ask the staff, chair, or the clerk.

Mr. Bob Mills: That's right. I may use it.

Anyway, my major argument is that the west part of my riding--Rocky Mountain House, Caroline, to the B.C. border--has been replaced by going farther east and including some new areas there. My main concern is the fact that all traffic goes east and west. There is no basic north and south traffic in our west country.

In Rocky Mountain House the college and high schools are building a combined school unit there right now. The hospital unit, the whole hospital area, is centred around Red Deer. All of the provincial government services are in Red Deer. All of the shopping, professional services, cultural services, and recreational facilities are shared with Red Deer.

Basically, that population feels very in tune with the Red Deer scene. They do not in fact feel any association with Wetaskiwin, with Banff, Cochrane, with places like Drumheller. So as a result, many of those people are split now in three directions. Instead of the normal east-west, we now have expanded to a north, south, and east direction.

If you'll take a look at this, I have enclosed letters from all of the councils that are in the area. All of the elected officials, 100% of them, have voted that they believe they should be part of the Red Deer constituency and not divided. The other argument, of course, is that Wild Rose, Crowfoot, and Westaskiwin are all rural ridings, and of course there are the distances. Some of the distances are four or five hours away from each centre, whereas from the centre of Red Deer I can be to any of these areas within one hour. While it might be bigger, it certainly is easily serviced from the centre of Red Deer.

Red Deer is right here. This is the current riding. This is the B.C. border over here. What has happened now is they've cut out the west part. This all new east part was formerly Crowfoot, and they have added that portion. In other words, in the riding of Red Deer we have literally taken towns from the east in replacement for the towns in the west who have no way of going north and south in this area, and all of their travel is to Red Deer, to the centre of the riding.

I believe that, yes, Red Deer would be a slightly larger riding, but this is reasonable, considering that the only thing that lives out here are mountain goats and wild animals and there are very few people. While it looks very large, the only town out here is Nordegg, and it's a relatively small former mining town and largely a tourist area now.

My argument is on their behalf. Opinion is, as I say, overwhelming in the area. I was at a trade show in Rocky Mountain House this weekend, and I think every single person who stopped to talk to me said “We sure hope you're successful in keeping us in the Red Deer riding”. The feeling is literally overwhelming. Being a pretty grassroots kind of a person, I feel it's extremely important that I represent them here and place that argument for them.

Basically, it would eliminate a few people from the Wetaskiwin riding, and that's a very big riding. And I have no problem with the additions they've made from the Crowfoot riding, which is already way too large, and of course from the Wild Rose riding, where some of those people now have to travel to Banff, where there is no easy access. Again, I feel that east-west is what's most important. All of their connections are east-west. None of them are north-south.

I don't understand why when the board heard all of the representations--well over 20 of them in Red Deer alone--they would have decided to eliminate the west country. I think the only argument was probably size. The fact that there are that many makes for a large population, but not as large as some of the northern ridings. It makes it 105,000, and I have no problem with it being 115,000, which still brings us within the limits that would be allowed.

For these people over here it makes sense that they're part of the Red Deer riding, because again that's where they do all of their business. But there have been a number of things added to the new riding--this area down here, Bowden, and so on. They've taken away places like Eckville out in this area, and Rocky Mountain House, right over here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Those are the main points. I think they're pretty obvious. I've given you the backup letters from each of the councils, and I can certainly say they feel extremely strongly about this issue.

º (1635)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Mills, before you arrived, we did apologize to the committee members, since they.... No, you were here.

Mr. Bob Mills: I was here, yes.

º (1640)

The Chair: Sorry. There was some distribution problem I just was drawing to your attention.

Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I want to make sure I have this correctly. The towns within Clearwater County--

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes.

Ms. Libby Davies: --have been in Red Deer?

Mr. Bob Mills: They all have been, yes.

Ms. Libby Davies: Under the proposed boundary, all of those towns you've had letters from--Black Falls, Eckville, and so on--basically would be split. So Clearwater County itself would be split into three different ridings--

Mr. Bob Mills: That's correct.

Ms. Libby Davies: --of which you wouldn't have any, then?

Mr. Bob Mills: I would not.

Ms. Libby Davies: And that population is about 10,000? That's what would take you from the 105,000 to the 115,000?

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes.

Ms. Libby Davies: What would the variance be from the Alberta average? Do we know?

Mr. Bob Mills: You see, we also added this area down here, which adds population. A place like Bowden I think is a couple thousand people. And Black Falls of course is right there. Again, you can imagine it's a bedroom community of Red Deer, being that close to it.

Ms. Libby Davies: So it would make sense to add those in. You're not disputing that or---

Mr. Bob Mills: Obviously they have made their representations. They want to be part of Red Deer as well, because it is their centre. It's where they do all their business. It's where everything happens.

I know you have to cut the limit somewhere. My feeling is that it's better to have Red Deer riding slightly larger and have a riding like Crowfoot smaller, because that Member of Parliament has to drive six hours to some of his meetings. I have to drive one hour.

The Chair: Just so all colleagues are apprised, the provincial electoral quota is 106,243.

Ms. Libby Davies: You would then be 115,000.

We've had this discussion on and off in terms of urban-rural. Most people seem to be okay with the idea that urban is higher, because you have a more compact area, and if it fits, it fits, rather than throwing people into these other areas just for population. So you certainly are of that opinion---

Mr. Bob Mills: That's the argument I would use very strongly, and that's the argument all these councils would use.

There is a great working relationship in central Alberta, where the councils all are part of an organization. There are 36 councils belonging to it. They meet monthly. They interact in planning, health services, education, and recreation. There's a great working together.

There is no working together with places like Wetaskiwin, Drumheller, Banff. That's alien to these councils. That's why they feel so strongly about being part of it. I can understand it totally.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik, just to be clear, on page 16 also of this report--I just have to see which report we're looking at--they talk about why they've made some of the changes, and they acknowledge that Rocky Mountain House is not happy, but that they took an idea from Myron Thompson and that this would be a better solution.

º (1645)

Mr. Bob Mills: I've since talked to Myron Thompson about that, and he doesn't feel that Rocky should be part of his riding. It's quite a distance from him as well.

The other argument they used in the document you refer to is that by 2010 there will be a lot of growth in the area and it will be a lot larger. Well, we're not talking about 2010, and a lot of things can happen between now and then. We're talking about 2004. Obviously one person made reference to the fact that this corridor is going to grow. I don't think that's what we're talking about right now. They can worry about that in 2010. We don't need to worry about that now.

The Chair: Ironically, that wasn't an excuse that was acceptable on our part.

Ms. Libby Davies: He doesn't speak to the prime entities.

Mr. Bob Mills: No, he does not.

The Chair: He did not, and he's not requested to appear. However, Mr. Sorenson has requested.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Sorenson has no problem with me taking that portion of his riding to the river because the river becomes a problem for him to service that part. But it's a very small population, so it's not really that critical, although if you add it up, it would be another 3,000 or something.

The river makes some sense with the addition to the east. Originally what they had done was to have taken the city limits of Red Deer. That meant that people who work in Red Deer or drive to Red Deer, myself included--I've worked in Red Deer all my life, and I'm eight minutes from downtown Red Deer--would have been in the Drumheller riding. That was their original proposal.

Obviously they fixed that, because that was certainly a big error. I do believe that the west country have been shut out, if you want, divided up three ways, and really feel alienated from the whole process, because everything they do is centred around central Alberta and Red Deer.

The Chair: Okay. We're going to be hearing from some of the others, and obviously I think all of us are going to have a fair bit of work to do to figure out how we rethink the map of Alberta, if possible.

Mr. Bob Mills: Just give Calgary two more seats and leave all the rest the same. That would be really easy. That would work.

The Chair: Okay. You heard it here first.

Mr. Borotsik and Mr. Reid, very quickly, because we are--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, very quickly.

As I understand it, you are losing Rocky Mountain House to the west but you are retaining Sylvan Lake. Is that correct?

Mr. Bob Mills: That's correct.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Correct, you'd lose Rocky Mountain.

Mr. Bob Mills: Losing Eckville, losing all that country.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You said Bowden, but you already have Bowden.

Mr. Bob Mills: No, I do not have Bowden. That will be added to the riding.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Oh, I thought Bowden was already in yours. You have Innisfail currently.

Mr. Bob Mills: That one is in Wild Rose riding, I believe.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You currently have Innisfail?

Mr. Bob Mills: I have Innisfail.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay.

Mr. Bob Mills: I do not have Bowden. I do not have Delburne. I do not have Elnora.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. That's all new to you.

Mr. Bob Mills: That's all new, yes. Those are all new centres that have been added. You see, I can understand if they said they were making it smaller, but they added a whole bunch.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. That's where I was heading on this one. They do say—I read it here, and you have answered that—that by 2011 Red Deer will be a constituency unto itself.

Mr. Bob Mills: That may be right. I don't know.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And in fairness, part of the criteria used in the commission is to look at the areas of growth, and when you are making your boundary lines you anticipate where the growth areas are, as opposed to the areas that are having depopulation.

In fairness, they answered that question. I suppose Red Deer has shown an extensive amount of growth. Therefore the population perhaps even in the next three to five years could be out of whack a bit. I don't disagree. If Bowden wasn't in yours, why they put it in yours remains a bit of an anomaly.

Mr. Bob Mills: I guess I could understand partly if they were making it smaller, but they didn't really. They just changed east for west. I think that's really a handicap to the people in the west.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: How far east did they go on the change?

Mr. Bob Mills: They went to the Red Deer River, whereas before it was the middle of Pine Lake.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, I know the one.

Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Reid, very briefly.

Mr. Scott Reid: I was just going to ask you, you made reference to Kevin Sorenson in Crowfoot not objecting to moving to the river. Are you saying that is a proposal you are making and he is not objecting to it?

Mr. Bob Mills: No, in the new proposal that is what they have done. They went east and thus added the towns of Delburne and Elnora and Bowden and went to the river and they took away Eckville, Rocky Mountain House, and so on, I guess, to compensate for that swap.

They argued that it was because of growth for 2011 and then chose to ignore that statement and do something different. It just didn't make a lot of sense.

If you ask me, do those people want to be part of the riding of Red Deer, yes, they do.

º (1650)

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mills.

Colleagues, just before we turn to Ms. Hinton, and while André gets B.C. up on the board, everyone received a copy of the New Brunswick report. I want to draw two small issues to your attention. I'll just tell you what they are. They are very small.

On the one issue of Quispamsis and Rothesay, we did acknowledge that joining them and putting them at Saint John would put them at plus 30% because we didn't want the commission to think that we were stupid. The second one is that in item 21 in the second paragraph, there is a reference to Kars, Springfield, and Studholm. With regard to his comments about reflecting the changes, if it goes somewhere else, we recognize that.

Ms. Libby Davies: And we also made some changes to Acadie--Bathurst in there too.

The Chair: Yes, sorry, and that was...?

Ms. Libby Davies: We took some stuff out of all of those items (a), (b), (c), and all of that.

The Chair: And in item 38--thank you for reminding me--at the very last section is this thing about Charlo, because it did come up. Charlo is part of the parish of Colborne. We put in there that--there is a little typo on Colborne in the last sentence--for the sake of consistency that Charlo had come up. It was very brief. We forgot to include it.

This will go tomorrow. Remember, this is still embargoed. This will go tomorrow to the other committee and then it should be tabled in the House, at which point it will be public on Wednesday—oh, and Manitoba as well.

Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: There was one thing. In item 39 I have in my notes that the last sentence—actually, it might have been item 40.... It was one of those paragraphs that didn't get numbered right. The loss of Belledune, Colborne, and Durham would place Miramichi at minus 27% variance. I have a note saying “leave that out”, but it looks like under the new item 38 it's still in there. Remember, we decided not to comment on it.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): I think what had happened was that sentence was originally in a paragraph under--

The Chair: Acadie--Bathurst.

Mr. James Robertson: --Acadie--Bathurst. It was somewhat confusing, and resulted from the fact that Miramichi was before Acadie--Bathurst. By changing them around, we took that sentence--

Ms. Libby Davies: By putting it under Miramichi....

Mr. James Robertson: --and put it under Miramichi. So it is there, but it was designed to deal specifically with that issue.

The Chair: Yes, I recall that we were moving it.

The second one was Manitoba reports here as well. It will go to that committee--again, just keeping in mind that it's confidential, certainly being a New Brunswick one that I'm sure they have been trying to get from all of you. Probably Wednesday it will be in the House.

Now we have Betty Hinton, and then Jim Gouk from Kootenay. Ms. Hinton.

Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

I'll start off on a positive note here. I would like to thank the committee that did the boundary changes for taking into consideration the fact that splitting up the city of Kamloops was not in the best interests of anyone. They did make that change, and I do very much appreciate that.

Geographically, the riding has now doubled in size. In terms of my trying to get around to people, it will be next to impossible, but I'm not here to whine and cry about that. I am here to try to put a logical change in place. Concerning the logical change to which I refer, you have letters, and so on, from the people of Logan Lake, which is the community to the west of Kamloops at this point in time.

º (1655)

The Chair: Mr. Cyr, can you outline what's proposed?

Mr. André Cyr: The orange riding is the actual riding of Kamloops, and Logan Lake is at the bottom corner. The new area added is all of this area. We're removing Logan Lake and part of the eastern area of the riding.

The Chair: And you've added 18 at the top.

Mr. André Cyr: Correct.

The Chair: Valemount.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: You are removing the two communities that are the easiest to get to, which have economic and historical ties to the city of Kamloops.

As I said earlier, I am not here to try to make this commission change its mind entirely. I do want it to look at something logical, though.

I am not here today to ask for Chase back, although I would be more than happy to take it back. Chase is located over in this area, which is now being removed.

The Chair: Okay, so you're not fighting for that one.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: This is the Logan Lake area, as the clerk has pointed out.

Chase is at least in a position where they can get to their member of Parliament without having to travel outrageous distances, and they do have connection to the area into which they have been put, which is Okanagan--Shuswap, so they're not as concerned as the people in Logan Lake.

The people in Logan Lake are currently 45 minutes away from the city of Kamloops. It's where they send their children for any sports activity, baby clinics, or business. It's their connection, historically. The only reason they exist is for the mine. They have an historical background with the city of Kamloops. They're part of that regional district. They're part of all the things a normal community would be a part of.

They are now going to be removed, and instead of being 45 minutes away, they're going to be three hours away. They're going to be geographically completely removed from the rest of the constituency of Okanagan--Coquihalla. It's going to be incredibly difficult for them. The office currently for Okanagan--Coquihalla is in Penticton. They are going to be three hours away from that, versus 45 minutes away from Kamloops.

The Chair: Can we get the numbers?

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Okay, I'll give you those numbers. I have them.

The Chair: No, actually Mr. Cyr can do that.

Mr. André Cyr: The highlighted yellow area is Logan Lake, and at the right of the screen here, the population is 2,200.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: The number that I have is 2,185, so we're in the same ballpark here.

What I am proposing to you today is that you return the Logan Lake area, with the population of 2,185, back into the Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys riding. To compensate for that, remove the Valemount area that was formerly with Prince George. It should remain with Prince George because all of their ties are to Prince George. They belong to the same regional district. It's where their people shop and where their people work. All of the connections are to Prince George and not to Kamloops. They have nothing in common with us. The population for Valemount is 1,195 and the population for Logan Lake is 2,185. It's a split-off here. It makes far more sense for the people, and far more sense for a change in boundary.

If you were in a really open-minded mood and were prepared to put back the original boundary, I'd be delighted. If that's not the case, then I'm going to take on a double geographic size, and whoever follows me somewhere down the road is going to take on double geographic size. It's going to be very difficult, because in some cases you're going to be as far away as three hours in one direction. In winter conditions, that's impossible. We will find a way to remedy it.

Today I'm here to ask you to reconsider and put Logan Lake back into the riding it belongs in with the historical, commercial, and all the other connections. Take Valemount and put it back with Prince George, where it physically belongs. I think you'll find it will work quite nicely.

The Chair: To be clear, we make recommendations. The commissioners ultimately make the decisions. We're hoping they'll be generous to our recommendations.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: If you took Logan Lake out, how would that affect Okanagan--Coquihalla?

The Chair: Okanagan--Coquihalla is under by 6%.

» (1700)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Logan Lake, as I understand it, is now going to Okanagan--Coquihalla.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It is.

If you took the 2,000 people and put it back into yours, you'd take 2,000 away from them. Is that correct?

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Yes.

The Chair: It would be a bit more than minus 6%.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It would be minus 8%.

The Chair: What is the other one called? Is it Cariboo--Prince George?

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Cariboo--Chilcotin was what it used to be called.

The Chair: Yes, I know.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I inherited a large chunk of Cariboo--Chilcotin.

The Chair: But the new riding that they're proposing is called Cariboo--Prince George. Do you want Valemount to go with Prince George--Peace River or Cariboo--Prince George?

Mrs. Betty Hinton: We want it to go with the Prince George area, whichever one the commission feels is the safest way. Wherever it went before would be the smartest place to put it again.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do they know that you don't want them?

Mrs. Betty Hinton: It's not that I don't want them. I'd take them, but it's such a long stretch to get to them.

I'm really concerned that they're going to lose their voice. We're talking about rural areas here. They will lose their voice. It will be physically impossible for me to get there more than once or twice a year.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would suspect that if it went back into Prince George, though, that's the same scenario for them going from Prince George to that area.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: They seem to have worked out some sort of a complementary arrangement, I suppose, because they actually shop in Prince George. When they have to go to Prince George to shop, they go there also to see their member of Parliament, if they have difficulties or need to sign papers.

They are not going to drive from Valemount to Kamloops in that same kind of fashion. They're not going to change their shopping patterns simply because their member of Parliament is located in a different area.

Valemount is not complaining about being part of our riding. I mean, they're not complaining seriously. They're happy wherever they are. This is a numbers game.

The Chair: They're a bunch of happy people.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: If somebody will listen, they're happy.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is that the same with Chase? Chase is currently in your riding.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Chase would love to stay in my riding.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Are they happy going to Shuswap?

The Chair: No, you're not going to get that.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Because they are so close to the headquarters for that riding, they will be okay. They're covered. They also share a lot in common in terms of lifestyle, etc. There's a lot of ranching and a lot of farming. I'd love to have them back. They're all the nicest people you could ever ask for.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So far, the only ones you would really like to see back in is Logan Lake.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I'd like them both back.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I know, I hear you. If you had to choose, Logan Lake's the one.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I'm not trying to be Pacman here.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Logan Lake.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Let's be really honest here, politically. From a political point of view, I would be wise to let Logan Lake go because they're in the process of having a mine shut down in seven years. It's going to be an enormous headache, but you don't cut people loose because they're going to have a problem. They've been a part of this riding for a long time.

You're not supposed to be that honest, are you?

Ms. Libby Davies: We'll take them in Vancouver East.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's a little difficult for you to service them.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: And we're in the midst, Madam Chairman, of having spent the better part of a year putting together something--a viable alternative for them economically--for when this mine shuts down, and that will take the cooperation of the current regional district. If you move them into another riding, they're going to lose all of those connections and this will have been all for naught.

Ms. Libby Davies: So they'd be split in the regional districts as well, would they?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Just for my own curiosity, where do you live in the district?

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I live in Aberdeen, which was originally not going to be a part of my district, but it's now back in my district. It was half the city they took away.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That was Kamloops.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Kamloops, yes.

The Chair: Okay. And just for colleagues...all of them are within 10%. They're actually three and six, so....

Ms. Libby Davies: So all of Kamloops is still in the riding, then?

Mrs. Betty Hinton: It wasn't going to be, but it is now.

The Chair: Does anybody else have a question?

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid: From a population point of view, the net result would be that Okanagan--Coquihalla would drop somewhat in population, and Prince George--Peace River would go up somewhat. It would be basically a break-even for Kamloops and Thompson. Is that correct?

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Basically. Well, it wouldn't be a break-even--I have a whole other section. But under the proposal, it would be a break-even.

Mr. Scott Reid: I just meant if we make the two changes you're suggesting, the result would be that in population you basically would shift a proportion that's roughly similar to the proportion you're putting in.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Yes.

I should also mention to you that when we originally made a proposal in front of the commission, we did something that was unconventional and very unheard of. It wasn't just the Canadian Alliance who stood in front of the board and tried to make the presentation. We had representation from all parties before we even made the presentation. We had Liberal, NDP, Conservative, and Canadian Alliance members sit down at a table together and ask, what's in the best interest of the people we're serving right now, and how can we best continue that?

When that submission was made to the commission it was done on a joint basis, which I understand is unheard of, but we were looking at the interests of the people, not the interests of politics.

» (1705)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you for being so succinct.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Because I'm new to this, could you please give me some idea of how long it will be before we know--

The Chair: I didn't start with B.C. yet. Basically, this committee is going to hear from Alberta and B.C. at the same time to accommodate everybody, and we have to be finished the whole country by the end of June. We're trying to get Alberta and B.C. done. We have quite a few more from B.C. to get through, so we're trying to get that done in the next couple of weeks.

Then we write a report. That will go from this committee to the procedure and house affairs committee, and then it's made public. The commissioners then have time to respond.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: So not until July at the earliest--

The Chair: Maximum.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: --would you even know whether this was successful?

The Chair: You'll know our recommendations by the end of May. You'll know their response by the end of June, or early July.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Wonderful. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Okay.

After a lot of what you went through, mine is relatively simple. I'm here to talk about the name.

The Chair: Excellent.

Mr. Jim Gouk: We had a pretty bizarre proposal originally for our riding.

We did massive consultation with all the affected communities and had everybody onside, and the commission reacted very well to that. They accepted not only the merits of the suggestion, but the unanimity of all the people who were affected.

In 1997 our riding went through a boundary shift. We were previously known as Kootenay West--Revelstoke, which was comprised of basically all the West Kootenays and Revelstoke. It was a pretty appropriate name.

With the shift, they took Revelstoke away. They added all of the Boundary region, and they added two towns: Osoyoos and Oliver in the south Okanagan. They decided to name it West Kootenay--Okanagan, ignoring the fact that the Boundary region was completely in the riding. So we had the name changed, through a joint act with other parties in the House, to Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan.

When this proposal comes in, we in essence keep the same boundaries that we had. We lose a little bit at the top end, up in Arrow Lake, in Nakusp, and some small communities along the lake.

Basically West Kootenay stays in the riding completely--or almost completely. All of the Boundary area is completely unaffected. The Okanagan area is completely unaffected. We've added through as far as East Gate at Manning Park, west of Princeton, which is the area known as the Similkameen.

When we talked to the people over there in Keremeos, the mayor of Keremeos said “Listen, we don't care if you mispronounce our name, we don't care if you spell it wrong, but don't call us Okanagan.”

So when I talked to the board, I said if they go with our proposal--which they did--then, as long as it may sound, the name that fills the regions is Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan--Similkameen, and I told them the little story of the mayor of Keremeos. But when they came out with it, they chose to make it Kootenay--Boundary--Similkameen, skipping right over top of the Okanagan.

So my initial submission to you--I wanted to get it in because I was going to be away--was to put it back to what we had done through consultation.

While that name has been in, I've had further consultations with the mayors--actually 19 mayors and councils in my rural riding that will be in the new area. They all acknowledged that they can live with this long name, but they also point out that it is indeed a very long name, though it's certainly not the longest.

Alternatives have been suggested. We've proposed quite a few. There's a dandy that is a potential one, down the road, but that will be for somebody else at some future time. There's a highway that runs the entire length through there. It's part of the Crowsnest Highway system, and they're talking about having it named the Thousand Peaks Highway. I thought, what a wonderful name--why can't I have that now? But it's not relevant.

So what has been the consensus of opinion from the mayors and councils is either “B.C. Southern Interior” or simply “Southern B.C,” if either of those is acceptable. That is the consensus of the mayors who responded to the surveys. That certainly reflects the region.

Our riding is primarily east-west, relatively shallow in height, but actually hundreds of miles long. It was 27,000 square kilometres. I think it's about the same. It has 19 full councils, and each of those has been consulted.

That's what they have come up with, indicating a preference to be known as the Southern Interior. But concerned that “Southern Interior” doesn't mean a thing standing alone, they would like “B.C.” in it---so either “Southern B.C.,” or the actual one that had the most, “B.C. Southern Interior.” That's what I would ask this committee, then, to do.

» (1710)

The Chair: Does “Boundary” mean the boundary of a community?

Mr. Jim Gouk: Boundary is a region. It's known as the Boundary country, just like the West Kootenay. In the southeastern part of B.C., there are the Kootenays, the East Kootenays and the West Kootenays. They're very different in terms of trade, geography, everything. Then, when you move basically from Christina Lake, which isn't really depicted on there, just west of Castlegar, right through to just east of Osoyoos, that is what is known as the Boundary country.

Historically, it has been a farming and agricultural region, with a bit of mining in there. It's very distinct, because it's basically a huge valley in between two mountain ranges--one that you go over to get to Kamloops in West Kootenay, and one that you go over to get to Osoyoos in the Okanagan. So it's a very distinct region.

The Okanagan, of course, is well known.

The Chair: It has lots of good wine.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Yes.

The Chair: So I've heard; so I've tasted.

Mr. Jim Gouk: That would be my request, then, that it become the B.C. Southern Interior riding.

The Chair: Okay.

Does anyone have any other questions?

Ms. Libby Davies: Could I just ask one quick one?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Libby Davies: Because you do have lots of communities, people who identify themselves as Kootenays or Boundary or Similkameen or Okanagan, basically you're saying that however they look at that locally, they are okay with a more generic version of B.C. South.

Mr. Jim Gouk: It's the Southern Interior.

Yes, they are, and again, that was the consensus. I had a different one that I personally favoured, but I did consult the councils, and that's the name they came up with.

We are known generally in the region--the entire region, which includes the other ridings that you see up there--as the south-central interior.

Ms. Libby Davies: Right.

Mr. Jim Gouk: But we are the most southern part of it. We go right along the southern parts.

Ms. Libby Davies: What's your health district called? Is that south-central interior too?

Mr. Jim Gouk: No, it's Kootenay Boundary.

Ms. Libby Davies: Okay.

Mr. Jim Gouk: We have two basic regional districts, the Regional District of Central Kootenay and the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. Then, when you get over into the Okanagan, we have the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen. So there was the original four-barrelled name, but because it's so long, people said yes, it identifies our region, but so does “B.C. Southern Interior”.

The Chair: And right now there are two other ridings that have the name “Okanagan” in them--

Ms. Libby Davies: Also, there is one Kootenay.

The Chair: --and one Kootenay.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Yes, and there is also another Kootenay.

Ms. Libby Davies: I think there are three Kootenays.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: B.C. Southern Interior? Perfect. Cheers. Sold.

The Chair: There is Kootenay--Columbia, Okanagan--Coquihalla, and North Okanagan--Shuswap. So you can just imagine that it's like alphabet soup out there.

Mr. Jim Gouk: It would probably relate to, when you say “Okanagan”, they ask: oh really, are you in the Shuswap, or are you here, are you there? “B.C. Southern Interior” says it all.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Actually, everybody knows Osoyoos. Why don't we just call it Osoyoos?

Mr. Jim Gouk: I think Castlegar would have something to say about that, and the other 18 communities.

The Chair: Yes, really.

Okay, Mr. Gouk, thank you very much. We appreciate that.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Thanks, Paddy.

The Chair: Next we have Ms. Meredith, from South Surrey--White Rock--Langley.

» (1715)

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): My presentation is very simple, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee.

I want to start off by saying I think the commission in British Columbia has done a reasonable job, a fine job of putting together the parts and picking the areas that have fast growth and what not.

I would like to put on record, though, that I still feel that the whole redistribution across the country is not adequate, is not equitable. There is such a complete discrepancy between one province and the other, between the number of citizens a member of Parliament represents.

I believe that in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario it is still relatively high, well over 100,000 people. In Quebec, I believe it's somewhere around 78,000 or 79,000. In Saskatchewan, I believe it's down to 50,000 or 60,000, and in Prince Edward Island it's down to 38,000 or something.

So I would like it to go on record that I think Canada should seriously look at the principle of one person, one vote, and come to grips with the regional disparities in the representation in the House of Commons.

Having said that, I do feel that under the present situation, the commission did do a fine job in British Columbia in sorting out the various areas. The only comment I have is that to represent properly the breakdown of my riding or the proposed new riding, the name should be changed to South Surrey--White Rock--Cloverdale, the reason being that South Surrey has the bulk of the population, with a small population of I believe 18,000 in White Rock, and some 20,000 in the Cloverdale area.

I don't have my notes in front of me, so I'm really going just--

The Chair: That's okay.

Ms. Val Meredith: I'm trying to get my head around Indian Affairs and housing to boundary distribution.

The Chair: Oh, yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So instead of South Surrey--White Rock--Langley...?

Ms. Val Meredith: It would be South Surrey--White Rock--Cloverdale, because the new boundary takes in the small community in Surrey that is known as Cloverdale.

Ms. Libby Davies: So it wouldn't be Langley?

Ms. Val Meredith: No, Langley will have their own riding. The township of Langley and the city of Langley would constitute a brand-new riding called “Langley”. It has no Surrey in it.

So there would be one new riding to the east of the new South Surrey--White Rock--Cloverdale, Cloverdale being just north of the railway track there, the top northeast corner of the riding. The city of Langley and Langley township would be to the immediate east and would constitute their own riding.

Ms. Libby Davies: How much of Cloverdale is in your new--

Ms. Val Meredith: Most of it.

Ms. Libby Davies: More than half?

Ms. Val Meredith: I would think so, because most of Cloverdale would go--

Ms. Libby Davies: Could you show where Cloverdale is?

Ms. Val Meredith: Cloverdale is right along Highway 10--

Ms. Libby Davies: Do you have the pointer?

Ms. Val Meredith: This is Cloverdale right here. Cloverdale transects highway...this highway here is Highway 99.

Just above the railway track, right about here, is Highway 10. Cloverdale is right around here. Downtown Cloverdale would be somewhat in here. Housing goes all the way up into Surrey. This would be Newton area here--what's referred to as Newton, Panorama Ridge, and Cloverdale in here.

I don't take all of Cloverdale.

Ms. Libby Davies: Does Cloverdale go north of the Fraser Highway?

Ms. Val Meredith: This area right in here would also be Cloverdale, right south of the railway track. South Surrey is mainly this area here--Crescent Beach, this area going out all the way in here. This is largely rural farm area along here, with new housing starting up.

The mayor of Surrey said South Surrey area is the fastest-growing area in the city of Surrey, which is the fastest-growing city in Canada right now. The population is concentrated basically in the South Surrey area, with Cloverdale being a pocket up there.

I don't imagine I would take in all of Cloverdale, but certainly the majority of it.

Ms. Libby Davies: Cloverdale's not a separate municipality; they're part of Surrey. So there's no--

Ms. Val Meredith: It is a community. Surrey is made up of Walley, Guildford, Cloverdale, Newton, and now the new one, with the new riding--I think it's Green Timbers.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So why would you just pick one? What about the other ones?

Ms. Val Meredith: Because only South Surrey represents the other aspect.

Cloverdale's a distinct little community that has its own identity; that's what I'm trying to say. They are considered South Surrey, but it recognizes it's distinct. There's a Cloverdale rodeo, which is recognized as one of the major rodeos in the North American rodeo circuit.

It has its own identity. I just thought it would be appropriate to recognize that. I don't have Langley city any more. I now have the big community of Cloverdale, which is part of the city of Surrey.

Ms. Libby Davies: Is Cloverdale in anybody else's name right now?

Ms. Val Meredith: No.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: How many people would be in Cloverdale?

Ms. Val Meredith: I don't have the stats in front of me, I apologize. I would think probably in the neighbourhood of 60,000.... No, it couldn't be 60,000; that would be South Surrey. I would think in Cloverdale alone, probably 17,000, 20,000.

» (1720)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We're going to find out right now.

The Chair: I just wondered why you still need South Surrey in it.

Ms. Val Meredith: Because South Surrey refers to that area--

The Chair: But it also refers to--

Ms. Val Meredith: What you're seeing there is South Surrey. This little part right here is White Rock. All of this area here is South Surrey.

The Chair: South Surrey is the bigger name, and White Rock is the smaller name.

Ms. Val Meredith: White Rock is the city of White Rock--17,000, 18,000 people in a very confined space built on a hill.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Scott Reid: And all from Manitoba.

Ms. Val Meredith: South Surrey is the main community around it.

The Chair: All I wanted to know is whether Surrey is the biggest city. So South Surrey is a portion of Surrey. Is Cloverdale a portion of South Surrey?

Ms. Val Meredith: It would be referred to as a portion of South Surrey. South Surrey is probably all of that part that would be in the bigger picture.

The Chair: Okay, and is South Surrey in anybody else's riding?

Ms. Val Meredith: No.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Scott Reid: I'm trying to get the attention of the---

The Chair: I'm just trying to get the answer. I've already said yes, you're next. It's Mr. Borotsik you have to negotiate with here.

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay, all right, yes.

The Chair: It was when I thought I had to take a message for you earlier that I was getting concerned.

Okay. Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Cyr has an answer, though, on how many people live in Cloverdale.

Mr. André Cyr: There are around 30,000.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Val Meredith: But it's going north of Cloverdale.

The Chair: It's north of the riding.

Mr. Reid has his turn, Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you.

I get the impression from looking at the map that there are essentially two built-up areas, southwest of the riding and northeast of the riding. I gather the point you're trying to make here is that the people who live in the southwest of the riding, who do not live in White Rock, would regard themselves as South Surrey people, but the people who live in the northeast of the riding, although they are within the city of Surrey, have to travel through rural areas to be with the rest of the South Surrey people. Is that it, essentially?

Ms. Val Meredith: Yes. This map is not completely honest, because the area is growing so quickly. Where you see very little development on the other side of Highway 99, there is now a very large number of communities that are developing. Every time I go home there are probably another 100, 200, 300 homes up.

Some of this area here is under the agricultural land reserve, so it is somewhat protected. You have dairy and berry farms and what not in there. So that does separate Cloverdale from the bulk of the population on the peninsula.

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Val Meredith: So my request is for the name South Surrey--White Rock--Cloverdale.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Meredith.

We have one more person, Mr. Cummins from Delta--South Richmond, which I gather is changing to something else.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. Unlike my colleague, I am not all that pleased with what's happening.

As background, Delta is a smaller community. Not quite 100,000 people live in Delta. As far as electoral boundaries go, it's been an afterthought for much of its history. It was only in 1987 that Delta was put into a constituency of its own, a federal constituency. That was in the 1988 election.

In 1997 it was changed again and became Delta--South Richmond. Actually, at that point I appeared before this committee, in 1995, because the reorganization that was suggested then was going to take a significant chunk out of North Delta and glue it on to a Surrey riding. I objected at that point, and the committee found in favour with my proposal and left Delta whole, but they did glue on a chunk of Richmond, which had been in the original proposal.

If we could just skip back to the map you had on there a second ago, I'd like to point out a couple of things about the riding, because it is a distinct riding. It's a riding that is divided up into a number of parts. Between Ladner and the Tsawwassen area is farmland. Then there's the North Delta area of the riding, where about 50,000 to 55,000 people live. There are about 20,000 in Ladner and 20,000 in Tsawwassen.

All this area here on the map is agricultural land. This big chunk in the middle is Burns Bog. The whole area is on the Pacific flyway for migratory birds. It's an important area for fish coming up into the Fraser River. This area in Boundary Bay is an important ecological area for both birds and fish. So the community itself is centred on agricultural land and sensitive environmental land, most notably Burns Bog.

For those of you who don't know, the community elects one council to serve all of Delta. There is no ward system in the municipality. It looks upon itself as a single community.

The current riding takes in an area of Richmond as well. That area of Richmond essentially is a good fit for Delta. There is still some agricultural land here, but it's similar to the type of agriculture practised in Delta. Of course, the historic fishing village of Steveston can relate very well to the fishing village of Ladner, one of the oldest fishing villages in British Columbia, in this Annieville slough area here. So there's a good fit between this chunk of Richmond and Delta.

It's a demanding riding, because both Richmond and Delta are very busy municipalities and take a lot of an MP's time.

Now if you flip to the current proposal, please, you can see that Delta is being split into two. There's Tsawwassen here and Ladner, and we're taking on now this huge chunk of essentially agricultural land over here in Richmond, bog land largely given over to cranberries and some dairy farming. This area here in Richmond is more urban, but we also retain the Steveston area.

The difficulty here is that half of Delta's population is going to be in this new riding here, Newton--North Delta. The difficulty here, of course, is that you're splitting the municipality of Delta in half. This line here is--

» (1725)

The Chair: Do you mean Highway 91?

Mr. John Cummins: Highway 91. You have the Burns Bog area here and all of the farmland, but 50,000 people who reside in Delta will now be counted with Surrey, the more dominant community.

Delta has a population, as I say, just approaching 100,000 people. Surrey has a population of around 300-and-some-odd thousand, I think. Delta and its interests are essentially dwarfed by Surrey. How does that happen?

Here in Delta you have two major transportation arteries: the Victoria ferry--B.C. Ferries are operating here--and the Deltaport, the largest container port in western Canada and certainly one of the busier ones on the North American coast. It generates huge volumes of traffic through Delta.

As well, you have this federal facility here--the Fraser Surrey Docks. They operate on Anasis Island here, which is in Delta. Most of the cars coming in from Japan and Korea are off-loaded here on Anasis Island. As well, Fraser Surrey Docks has a facility on the south shore of the Fraser here that generates huge traffic through the residential are of North Delta. You also have a container area here where barges are loaded with trucks and what not, which are then routed over to Vancouver Island--all of this generating huge volumes of traffic in the municipality.

The problem then is that Delta is a bit of an afterthought. Point Roberts, as you know, is the American border. Delta is south of the south arm of the Fraser River, sandwiched between there and the American border, and yet all of this traffic generates through.

The difficulty is that our voice is not very loud. If we have one MP representing Delta, then all of the issues, whether they be transportation issues or issues related to the special environmental responsibilities the municipality has with regard to Burns Bog and the estuary, are addressed by the municipality. But if you split us in two, we become a small part of two other ridings and the people of Delta largely lose their voice in Parliament, a voice they've only enjoyed, as I've said, since the election of 1988.

Currently, there are about 130,000 people in the riding. It's manageable with the additional moneys because there's a community of interest here. Essentially, with this reorganization we are going to lose this community of interest. The farming interests are different in East Richmond from what they are in Delta. There's just not a fix in the same way there is with the current riding.

My basic plea to you is to leave Delta whole. That was the finding of the last committee, when I appeared before them at the time the boundary commission was wanting to split Delta in two. The committee agreed with me in 1993, and I would hope this committee would do the same. I don't think it's too much to ask for a community of 100,000 people to have a representative in Parliament.

If you split us in two and we're just an add-on to two other very dominant municipalities, it's going to be very difficult for Delta's voice to be heard, and I think we have a lot of important issues that should be represented by a single MP.

» (1730)

The Chair: Colleagues, can we just agree that we're going to let Ms. Davies leave and we'll continue to have quorum? Is that okay with you?

Ms. Libby Davies: I have to go to the modernization meeting.

So, John, by splitting off North Delta--and I agree with you that this is totally taking a community and cutting it down the middle and separating it from Tsawwassen and Ladner and throwing you in with Richmond--what does that do to the new riding? What would be the population in the new Delta riding? You said 50,000, but that has to be with part of Surrey added in then, right?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes. It's going to be North Delta and Newton, I guess.

Ms. Libby Davies: Have you heard from folks in North Delta?

Mr. John Cummins: Absolutely. I have letters here from the MLA for North Delta supporting the notion that Delta be kept as a single riding. I have a letter as well from the MLA from South Delta in support of the notion that Delta be kept whole as a single riding. As well, I have a letter from Mayor Lois Jackson.

» (1735)

Ms. Libby Davies: What about your Surrey colleagues, though? Who would be taking over that portion of your riding?

Mr. John Cummins: A little bit is Gurmant Grewal's Surrey Central riding, in a way. It's currently part of his riding. It also takes in a small chunk of, I think, Chuck Cadman's riding. Largely, it would be Gurmant's riding, although I think there may be a little bit of Val Meredith's existing riding in this new North Delta riding.

The issue here is that it's Newton--North Delta. We in North Delta are going to lose our voice in Parliament. We're already dominated, as far as local papers go, by the Surrey papers. It's very difficult to have our interests represented.

Ms. Libby Davies: Newton is seen as part of Surrey. When people say Newton, they mean Surrey.

Mr. John Cummins: That's right, because Newton is part of Surrey. Yet North Delta deserves to be independent. Its history since the beginning has been a history of Delta. It's not Surrey.

I think the commission ignored the whole idea of community interest when it made the decision to split Delta.

The Chair: Mr. Reid, Mr. Borotsik, and then myself.

Mr. Scott Reid: In the initial proposals of the boundaries commission, it looks like Delta was kept in one riding. Is that right? Was it in the proposals that were put out last year?

Mr. John Cummins: No. In the initial proposal, they were going to carve North Delta into three chunks. One chunk was going to be part of a North Surrey--New Westminster riding. The middle part was going to be part of a Surrey Central riding. The middle part would have gone from about 72nd Avenue up to Nordel Way, and then south of 72nd Avenue was going to stay glued to the South Delta riding.

Mr. Scott Reid: Maybe I misunderstood where the boundary is. Could you tell me where the northern and eastern boundaries of Delta are?

The Chair: Yes, where is it?

Mr. John Cummins: The eastern boundary of Delta is Scott Road or 120th Street.

Mr. Scott Reid: I see, right.

The Chair: It's 120th Street.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: Between 120th Street, Highway 91, and 72nd Avenue was the only piece that was going into Surrey--Newton. Nordel Way, up to the river, was going into New Westminster--Surrey.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: Are those the two teeny, tiny, little pieces of Delta that were getting carved out?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes. In the first go-around, they were. The bottom, of course, was going to still be part of the existing riding with South Delta. North Delta was going to be split into three. Part of it was going to stay with South Delta, part of it was going into Surrey Central, and part of it was going into this North Delta riding.

The Chair: Between Highway 91 and Highway 99, south of 72nd Avenue, is that Delta or not?

Mr. John Cummins: Highway 91?

The Chair: Highway 91, Highway 99, and 72nd Avenue, down to Mud Bay--is that Delta or not Delta?

Mr. John Cummins: No. Delta is Scott Road. Can you see Scott Road on there, or 120th Street?

The Chair: I see 120th Street.

Mr. John Cummins: That's the border between Surrey and North Delta, from 96th Avenue and straight down, right down to Boundary Bay or Mud Bay.

The Chair: They may have carved it into two instead of three. They at least kept more of it together, I guess, but it's in there.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes. More of it was staying. That one chunk was going to be staying with the old riding. They were going to take the other two chunks of North Delta and put them into other ridings.

I pointed out that it wasn't a good idea. I pointed out to them at the time that the best idea is to keep Delta whole. I think it's only reasonable.

The Chair: Okay. We hear you.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: For clarification, they didn't do that. They split off Delta and incorporated Richmond into the riding that you had.

How would you service Richmond? The river is there.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: How would you, as an individual, service Tsawwassen as incorporated into that area?

Mr. John Cummins: I do now.

» (1740)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You do, you just have a little piece.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, there are probably about 20,000 to 25,000 people in that small chunk of Richmond. I just maintain the one office in Ladner. The people from Richmond visit there or I go to them. The cost of office space is so high that it's really prohibitive to operate two offices in the area.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, but you are getting a larger part of Richmond back into your riding then with this proposal.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, you're getting all of that east end of Richmond, which really is much different. A lot of it is farmland. It's much different from the farmland in Delta, as I say, because it's largely devoted to cranberries and what not, and we're more to field crops.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Scott Reid: I'm just wondering, if we were to recommend to the commission to make the changes you're suggesting, that would involve, I'm assuming, moving all the parts of Delta that are not currently in the riding they're going to call Delta--Richmond East back into it, number one, and taking part of the city of Richmond out of the riding. Is that correct?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, and you see--

Mr. Scott Reid: I have a question relating to this. It's population effects. What would the population of that riding and the surrounding ridings wind up being?

Mr. John Cummins: The Newton or Delta constituency obviously would be lesser by about 45,000 to 50,000 people. That's a given. There is no question.

What I suggested to the commission was in a sense leave things as they are. It's much easier for me as a member to represent 130,000 people in the lower mainland than it is for somebody like Jim Gouk, who was in here before, trying to represent 100,000 people in that huge riding through all that mountainous terrain that he has to cope with. This is one thing that I think the commission failed to recognize.

Mr. Scott Reid: Yes, but what I'm getting at is if they take 45,000 people out of something--which is almost exactly the provincial average at 111,000 now--you'd have something that is at 65,000. It would have to be linked to something else. The question is what you could link it to in order to bring it up closer to the provincial average.

The Chair: Newton Richmond.

Mr. John Cummins: No, I think there are a number of options here. One, if you leave North Delta alone, you could expand the Newton area to include or take in portions of North Surrey, which is a fast-growing area. In the original design North Surrey was also to include New Westminster, which may or may not be an advantage.

Certainly with Delta we can continue, I think, to represent the chunk of Richmond that we do. It makes for a fairly large riding, but there's some identity there now. It's been that way for the last two elections. People are now recognizing what the split is and what the constituency is. This whole new change results in whole new allegiances and it makes it very difficult.

The key problem here, though, is I don't think it's fair to the people of Delta to be split into two and to basically lose their voice in Parliament. I don't think it's fair. I think that if you're a community of almost 100,000 people, which Delta is, you should work from that and either expand Delta into Surrey, as was done in the 1988 and 1993 elections, or expand it into Richmond, as was done in the 1997 and 2000 elections. Take your choice, but I think one or the other is appropriate.

The Chair: Just before Mr. Reid's next question, because it relates to your last answer, other people would argue they'll have two members of Parliament talking about Delta issues, and that in places where there is some diversity of opinion they could actually have people from two different political parties, and they'd have more representation. An issue that was really critical to all pieces of Delta could have two very effective voices and would have more power than one.

In fact in the city of Windsor they used to go nuts when they went down to two, as opposed to three. My riding went the other way.

How do you assume that...? You get a good MP and you have an effective voice when they're all united and they only have one. You get an MP who is maybe not as effective and they don't get anything, whereas if they had two people representing them, they could use the other MP.

» (1745)

Mr. John Cummins: Well, I think it's the issue primarily of community of interests, and in North Delta we look to Ladner. That is where the municipal hall is. We get our services from Ladner. Our cable TV is a local Delta community, our sports teams, those kinds of things.

The Chair: And they will still be in the riding?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: So...?

Mr. John Cummins: We are Delta. We are not Surrey.

If we become part of a Newton--North Delta riding, that North Delta essentially will be the smaller chunk of the Newton--North Delta riding. It's already tough enough to have our issues and our concerns heard, because we are drowned out by Surrey, which is probably almost six times the population of North Delta and--

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, where do you live?

Mr. John Cummins: I live in North Delta.

The Chair: Which is where? On this map where do you live?

Mr. John Cummins: All right, this is highway 91, and I live just about right there. I'm two streets up the top of the hill from the river here.

The Chair: So you would be in the new riding of Newton--North Delta?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: The people of that piece of North Delta that would get separated and would become Newton--North Delta, where would those people in that little triangle go shopping?

Mr. John Cummins: Along Scott Road, essentially.

The Chair: So they'd still be shopping in their local grocery stores?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: So a community of interests is protected?

Mr. John Cummins: Currently? No, it's not, because North Delta is isolated here in a sense from the rest of Delta but we are still part of the community.

Surrey's interests.... Let me just talk to you about transportation for a minute. Surrey has a proposal here and they have already constructed a major artery that approaches the Annieville slough and they want to continue that major transportation route through North Delta to connect up with highway 91 and then eventually over to Highway 90. They want to come right through the major residential area in North Delta. We don't like that in North Delta. We don't think it's a good idea. Yet for Surrey it makes perfect sense.

Part of the issue here then is who is going to speak up on the federal level, and on which side of that issue is a representative from Surrey likely to fall, because it's in Surrey's interests to move the traffic through North Delta. They really don't care.

The Chair: But if the riding included North Delta and Newton--North Delta, then on this particular issue that you raise, if the MP for that area were representing effectively the North Delta constituents as well as the Newton residents, the MP would have to broker a different agreement to protect the North Delta constituents. Right?

Mr. John Cummins: You are going to be sitting on both sides of the fence, aren't you, because what are you going to do--who are you going to represent?

The Chair: We shouldn't be at loggerheads. We should be finding solutions.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, that may be easy to say, but I think we are again going to be the small part from that representative. We are not the dominant part of that union—that Newton--North Delta union—and it's going to be very, very difficult for the people of North Delta to be heard. There is absolutely no question.

The Chair: Okay. I have Mr. Borotsik and then Mr. Reid and then we should be finished.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Newton--North Delta, in my opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, will in fact be a new riding.

» (1750)

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, it will.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: All right. It doesn't have any representation at the present time, any incumbent sitting member of Parliament. This is now effectively a new riding that has been incorporated. Correct?

Mr. John Cummins: Correct.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I appreciate the fact that there have been some changes to boundaries to make Delta fit population-wise by taking in more of Richmond, but it's a new riding.

My other question.... You used an example, John, about the road, the traffic coming through, and who are you going to represent. I have always believed that roadways and traffic are either a provincial or a municipal issue. Regardless of what the boundaries are or are not, you are still going to have those people fighting the battles with a provincial or a municipal road. That's not a federal jurisdiction.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, they are, because the problems here are essentially federal institutions. The port here at the Fraser Surrey Docks is a federally mandated facility. The barge facility is federally mandated, as is Delta Port. That's the issue.

Our community does not want to be split in this way. As another example, in North Delta, the dominant papers are the Surrey papers. They distribute them free into Delta. There is no news of Delta. They don't report Delta council or what is going on in Delta because it's not in their interest. All they want to do is throw the ads into Delta to say come on over to Surrey and spend your money. That's fine, but it doesn't do anything for North Delta to make sure that its interests are heard.

The Chair: Mr. Reid.

Mr. John Cummins: That's what's going to happen if this continues the way it is.

The Chair: Mr. Reid, and then I have one final little question.

Mr. Scott Reid: I'm still struggling with the population. It's my biggest concern.

The Chair: How do you get Richmond?

Mr. Scott Reid: Basically, the problem is that if you take out from the Newton side, from the east, and put all that territory back in, Newton is smaller than the law allows it to be. It simply can't be done without some kind of....

The Chair: (Inaudible--Editor).

Mr. Scott Reid: It's a problem too. It's not as enormous a problem, however, as you have with the Newton riding.

You have to transfer some territory from somewhere else. The commission will not accept a recommendation from us that doesn't deal with the fundamental problem. We have to find a solution. I don't know if you have a solution that's available to us.

The Chair: Maybe you can get it to us.

Mr. John Cummins: I think that the map they've created needs some restructuring. There's no question.

The Chair: You have to make a proposal.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's a problem all the way down.

Mr. John Cummins: It is, absolutely.

The Chair: I have my small question. It sounds as if you've come here today to argue that Newton--North Delta doesn't make sense as a riding, but you don't have a problem with the riding of Delta--Richmond East.

Mr. John Cummins: We're not thrilled. We don't understand why they glued Richmond East onto Delta either, to be quite honest. If they had been going to expand, they actually took a chunk of Richmond that we'd represented. North, if you see Steveston Highway in Richmond, between No. 3 Road and the dike, William is not shown. I believe it to be the jog that you see there in Richmond. They took that chunk away from the riding. This area was in the Delta riding before. Now they've taken it away. It's a fairly heavily populated part of the riding too.

The Chair: It's because they were trying to make the Richmond riding the right size.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, but this area is farmland and peat bog. I don't know why they would bother with the change. I don't know why they didn't leave the chunk in here and add it on over there.

The Chair: The number would have been too far off for Richmond.

Mr. Scott Reid: The number for Richmond and for Delta, as it stands now, seems to be the provincial average.

The Chair: Richmond would have been too small then.

Mr. John Cummins: Why didn't they leave that chunk on and then not add the big chunk that they did?

This is, as I say, a fairly heavily populated area, but the east end of Richmond isn't. Why didn't they leave it the way it was, and leave the east end of Richmond part of the Richmond riding?

The Chair: Because you were talking about farmland, and they were trying to keep, as you identified earlier, the community of farmland together.

Mr. John Cummins: The farmland and the east end of Richmond do not relate to Delta. The east end of Richmond is largely cranberry bog, and we're field crops. There is no connection.

The Chair: At least it's agriculture versus urban.

Mr. John Cummins: It's agriculture, but it's ranching and grain farming.

Mr. André Cyr: There are 14,000 people.

The Chair: It's 14,000 people.

Mr. André Cyr: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It is a heavily populated area.

The Chair: Colleagues, thank you very much.

Mr. Cummins, do you have any particular things you want to suggest?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have one more question. John brought up the 14,000 people that he represents right now. If that could stay, you've skewed the Richmond numbers, and could give back some of east Richmond that you didn't have before. Would that be a compromise...? Not really, because you don't want Delta to go to Surrey.

» (1755)

Mr. John Cummins: We don't want Delta to be split. I have the letter from the MLAs and the mayors. I know that the various political constituency associations in Delta will concur with me that this is not a good thing for Delta.

We don't want to be split. We were split up to 1988. We don't want to go back to that again. That's really what the issue is here.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, can I identify for you what our issue is?

We've been trying to make recommendations that are reasonable to the commission. Unless someone else is going to come here, and propose another solution for the Newton--North Delta group that would solve that piece of the problem, we're going to be stuck with 60,000 people who are not united to anything.

Maybe you already know the area, and you know what the other people are going to propose that will solve the problem. Failing that, it would be helpful if you have some specific recommendations for what to do about Newton. We'd be interested in how to make that a viable riding. If we're going to make recommendations to reply to your comments, we're going to have to solve the other piece of the problem.

Mr. John Cummins: I can--

The Chair: You don't have to do this right this minute, but if your colleagues from that region are not going to solve the problem, then we're stuck. We will have trouble accepting what you say without solving their problem. So give that some thought, and we'll be coming back next week.

Mr. John Cummins: How much variation--

The Chair: Plus or minus 25% in the law, but generally they're trying to get around 10%. So 65,000 will not cut it.

Mr. John Cummins: No, obviously. But I think that in Surrey--

The Chair: It works in New Brunswick, but it won't work in B.C.

Colleagues, this will bring our meeting to a close. We do have to figure out when we're going to have some meeting times, and we're missing a whole bunch of people again. But I will try to find everybody, and maybe just before question period tomorrow we could have a little pow-wow, or maybe after question period.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Does Monday night make sense?

The Chair: Yes. My problem is I might not be in the country on Monday. That's why I was--

Mr. Scott Reid: Monday nights don't make sense ever, actually. Our shadow cabinet meets on Monday nights, and basically we had to push the whole thing off until now in order to accommodate--

The Chair: So why don't I propose that we all get together after question period. Is it before or after question period tomorrow that works better for you guys? Right after?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We have a House leaders meeting right after, so all the whips will be gone.

The Chair: Just for five minutes?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, we can do it from 3 o'clock to 3:30.

The Chair: No, I mean from 3 o'clock to 3:05 can we just all talk about times?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Sure.

Mr. Scott Reid: Find a spot, let's pick a spot.

The Chair: In the front lobby. Where the two statues of the two women are.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Actually--

Mr. Scott Reid: That's at the entrance called purgatory.

The Chair: Purgatory? Then in purgatory. Hopefully it will be our last time there officially.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Tomorrow, just after question period?

The Chair: Right after question period--3:01.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Just walk in the doors of that lobby, right--

The Chair: Where the Speaker passes through.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Got you.

The Chair: Yes. So we're good? All right.

The meeting is adjourned.