SELE Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 8, 2003

0940

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

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

0945

0950

The Chair

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

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

0955

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

1000

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance)

1005

1010

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

1015

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Rick Borotsik

1020

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Scott Reid

1025

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. André Cyr

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. John Reynolds

1030

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Rick Borotsik

1035

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. John Reynolds

1040

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Reynolds

1045

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance)

1050

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1055

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Mr. André Cyr

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

1100

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Darrel Stinson

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Darrel Stinson

The Chair

Mr. Darrel Stinson

The Chair

Mr. Darrel Stinson

The Chair

1105

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Darrel Stinson

The Chair

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

CANADA

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

NUMBER 008

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 8, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0940)

[English]

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

We are the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and we're very pleased to have with us this morning my friend, Kevin Sorenson.

Mr. Sorenson, you have some concerns about the riding.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Yes, thanks, Paddy, or Madam Chair, I should say. Thank you for the privilege of being able to come before the standing committee and note my appeal and my presentation to it.

First of all, I want to thank those who have been involved in this process for allowing members of Parliament to be able to come forward and speak on behalf of their constituents. I did make a very small presentation on a different issue in Drumheller, when the initial proposals came out. I want to thank you for some of the changes that at that point were made subsequent to the appeals throughout the constituency. I want to appear before you today to again speak of a number of concerns that have come out from the revised proposals from the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

The basis of my presentation today is to ask that the county of Flagstaff be put back into the constituency of Crowfoot. Flagstaff County identifies closely with the city of Camrose, which is to remain within the federal district of Crowfoot. I'm in full support of Flagstaff County's objection to being removed from Crowfoot.

You can see on the map here that initially Camrose had been included in the constituency of Wetaskiwin. Crowfoot, as it stands today, includes Camrose County across to Wainwright, and comes up this line here. When the initial proposal came out, Camrose had been moved into the Wetaskiwin riding. The problem the city of Camrose had was that they maintained they had nothing in common with Wetaskiwin. The people of Wetaskiwin, which is a fairly major centre, would never come and shop in Camrose. Wetaskiwin is about the same size as Camrose. There are probably 20 to 30 miles between Camrose and Wetaskiwin.

The other thing that doesn't show up on this map is where Camrose is located, right in here, Edmonton is right here, 40 minutes away. Now, you can see that individuals from Wetaskiwin would not come to Camrose to do their shopping. If they couldn't do it in Wetaskiwin, they would go to Edmonton. Federal businesses would not be in Camrose, they'd be in Edmonton. Federal agencies would not be in Camrose, they'd be in Edmonton. So there was never a movement of market, a movement of trade, a movement of anything from Wetaskiwin to Camrose.

However, Camrose, because they were taken out of Crowfoot, made an application to be put back in Crowfoot because their market share, their trade, their everything, is to the east. And when I say to the east, I mean all the way from Camrose to the border. There is no other major centre from Camrose to the border.

Provost, down here, has a population of roughly 2,000 to 3,000. There's nothing between Camrose and Saskatoon, which is 300 miles away.

I'm a farmer, and I live in Flagstaff, and I think it's important you understand that--although not to make reference to whether it should be a deciding factor. I live within Flagstaff County. Whether it be after a rain, or whether it be any day, when you come to Camrose you find people from Flagstaff County. Flagstaff doesn't show up here, but it's right there. Flagstaff just joins up with the county of Camrose and then Paintearth here to the south.

What I am saying is that this Highway 13 takes all the traffic to the trading centre of Camrose. Never do people go to the east. Never do people from Flagstaff County shop in Lloydminster, Vegreville, or Wainwright. It just doesn't happen.

We have a very close identity with Camrose. Anything that is going to happen in terms of business is in Camrose. Anything that happens culturally...it takes them, on their trip, through Camrose up to Edmonton. So we identify very closely, and Camrose with us; that's why they made an application to do this.

¿ (0945)

Just quickly, since I know I have a short period of time here, when Flagstaff County was placed in the northern constituency of Vegreville--Wainwright, they decided not to appeal because they did not want to go to Wetaskiwin. They have nothing in common with Ponoka and down that far. But they did voice concerns to me at that time.

I'm not sure what else I can really tell you, except this. I was approached first of all by the reeve. The reeve asked, why would we be put in a constituency with Lloydminster? No one in Flagstaff County ever has anything with Lloydminster. No one travels to Vegreville. No one from Killam, Daysland, Strome, Sedgewick, or Lougheed would shop in Wainwright.

I feel very disappointed that Wainwright and Provost are taken out of it, but there is commonality between Wainwright and Lloydminster. There are things that Provost...when they do some shopping they may go to Lloydminster. So there are some with those two counties, but Flagstaff Country, again, just closely identifies with Camrose.

I thought of a couple of questions that might be asked of me today. First of all, would this affect my ability to win in the next election--i.e., “Kevin, are you standing before this committee because this may affect whether you're going to win or not?”

Really, I don't believe it will. I won every poll in my constituency, in the south, in the north--every poll--and I had close to 71% of the vote. I'm not arguing this so that I will have a few local polls that will help me win a little more.

What does it do to the overall population of the constituency of Crowfoot? Well, Crowfoot as it stands now is roughly 100,000 people, from 99,000 to 100,000 people. The proposed boundary changes take Crowfoot to 113,000.

No, I'm sorry, let me back up. The proposals as they stand now take Crowfoot to 104,000. By adding Flagstaff County back into Crowfoot, it will take the population to roughly 113,000. But what it will do to the north is take Vegreville--Wainwright from 107,000 to roughly 99,000.

Now, Lloydminster, which is in the riding to the north, I believe has the ability over the next few years to see some growth. With the upgrade and a number of other things happening with the gas and oil in Lloydminster, we could see growth in the north. Also in Wainwright, the federal government has pledged a great deal of money for the Wainwright army base, and together with Gagetown will be a centre for some of the training, so we'll see population growth there.

So I believe the potential to go above the 100,000 for the north can happen within a very short period, within three or four years. I think both these constituencies are still well within the margin for population.

I just want to close by saying that every councillor signed the letter I have submitted. Every councillor in the county of Flagstaff has asked to be included with Camrose in the riding of Crowfoot. It was after they approached me that I said I would make the appeal and I would voice their concerns before this committee. And that's what I'm doing here today.

I therefore move and support the proposal that the Electoral Boundaries Commission do an amendment to include Flagstaff County within the federal electoral district of Crowfoot.

Thank you very much.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

Just before I turn to colleagues for questions, I wonder if Mr. Cyr could tell us if Flagstaff is moved.... Right now Vegreville is over by 1.44, and Crowfoot is under by 2.06. What would the variance be on those two if Flagstaff went into the one?

Does anyone else have any questions?

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): One of the things that has become apparent from our questioning of witnesses so far is that counties are very different in nature, in terms of political status, in different provinces. I'm just wondering, is Flagstaff County actually...? What does “county” mean in an Alberta context?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I guess the picture isn't there, but the county has a great deal of commonality with the county of Camrose--rich farmland, good farming community, a gas and oil industry.

The Chair: But in terms of government.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: In terms of government, there are no real provincial or federal agencies within Flagstaff County. Those are in Camrose. Farm Credit and a number of others can be found in Camrose and also in Edmonton.

Mr. Scott Reid: I guess I'm not phrasing the question right.

In New Brunswick, I discovered, much to my surprise, because this could never happen in Ontario, they have municipalities that are half in one county, half in another. You don't have anything like that, do you?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: No, no.

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay. That's really what I was trying to get at.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Our municipal districts and counties are very similar. For example, Wainwright is not the county of Wainwright, it's the municipal district of Wainwright. It comes up against Beaver to the north and Provost to the south. The county of Flagstaff is a county unto its own. The council sits in Sedgewick, which is the centre of the riding.

Again, Flagstaff, Camrose, and Stettler County have a lot more in common together than we do with Lloydminster to the north. I mean, nobody from Flagstaff does any shopping or trade or anything there. There's just no travel in that direction.

The Chair: Mr. Cyr.

Mr. André Cyr (Project Manager, Electoral Geography Division, Register and Geography Directorate, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Vegreville--Wainwright would be at minus 7% and Crowfoot would be at plus 6%.

On the screen, the highlighted area in yellow is the county we're talking about; the blue area is Crowfoot; and the darker area to the north is Vegreville--Wainwright.

The Chair: Okay. So it's still within what their variance....

Mr. André Cyr: Respectively 6% and 7%.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I want to be careful that I don't say anything against my constituency, but I will say that it is a predominantly agricultural riding. The average age of the farmer in Alberta--and Rick and some others on the committee know that we have a problem here--is up to 58 years old, I think, or close to it. I think all projections in my riding are that we may see diminished agricultural population over the years. I hope not, I hope people come, but farms are getting larger, colonies are expanding, corporate farms are expanding, and the family farm is diminishing.

I think there is a chance that we may see reduction in some rural ridings, rural areas of Flagstaff. I believe the constituency to the north, which has been changed to come in close to Edmonton, has a high potential for growth--Lloydminster, Wainwright, and just outside Edmonton.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Can you touch on that a bit more? You had indicated that in the last census there was a decrease in the population. I believe I read in your document there was a decrease of about 5% or 6% or 7% in the Flagstaff area, from the last census.

Did the last census show an increase in the Lloydminster and Vegreville area, do you recall?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I don't recall, but I think not--as the riding is now. With the new proposals abutting up against Edmonton, and Edmonton moving out, I think there will be a great deal of potential for growth. I believe also with Lloydminster and some of the oil and gas and other things going on, there are projections for growth there.

As I mentioned before, the federal government has pledged that Wainwright and Gagetown would receive major federal dollars to improve Camp Wainwright, and with it a training facility, with a lot of dollars. I think there's going to be growth in Wainwright. Although we can't look that far into the future, I think there is potential for growth in the north riding.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: One other question. What is the major population node in Flagstaff itself? You mentioned that the council sits in a certain area; what was the name of that area?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Sedgewick, but that isn't the largest area. The largest community in the county of Flagstaff is a town of 1,000, Killam

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But most of the services provided are in Camrose.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: That's correct.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: All right, thank you.

The Chair: Could someone argue that the riding of Crowfoot would be too large to service if you added Flagstaff?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: [Inaudible—Editor]...and I would like to see him use that argument.

The Chair: Sorry...?

Because I notice in the current square kilometres you're at 43,000 and change, almost 44,000, and Vegreville is at 30,000. Does it make any harder to service?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I don't think so. The density of population, I think, is.... Wainwright constituency will now have Vegreville, Lloydminster, Wainwright, and coming up against Edmonton.... Yes, it's less square miles, but I don't think that's a major problem.

The Chair: Okay.

Does anybody else have any other questions?

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I had the same question you had, on the percentage.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I've also spoken with members of Parliament whose ridings would be affected by this--Mr. Benoit, Dale Johnston, and some of the others around. They all signed the paper. They understand what I am appealing today and are supportive of my efforts to make the change.

The Chair: Lastly, if there was a choice, and they wanted to lop off anything at the bottom to make it more equitable, is there a natural community, Strathmore or anything else, that they should--

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I hesitate, as a member of Parliament, to ask that anything be removed from a constituency, because certainly, whatever constituency I choose to run in, I will be requesting their support. But the one that may not have a lot of commonality with the rest of the constituency is Strathmore. It is a bedroom community to Calgary, and a lot of workers from Strathmore run into Calgary.

Mr. Scott Reid: Do you have any idea what the population of Strathmore is? I ask this because I noticed it in...it's under by 8%, yes.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I believe it's about 8,000.

The Chair: Mr. Cyr, do you see Strathmore down there?

Mr. Scott Reid: Just to keep going on that, focusing on Strathmore, where would their natural links tend to be?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: With Calgary. It's very similar--I guess I could draw pictures of Alberta--to Edmonton and Sherwood Park, or Edmonton and St. Albert. It's Calgary and Strathmore.

Mr. Scott Reid: Because on the map Strathmore looks actually quite far away, but I guess it's not really where the dot is on the map but the part that abuts against Calgary.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Who has the pointer? Where are we here?

Okay, that's Calgary. Strathmore isn't presently in Crowfoot, I should say. It's currently in Wild Rose. It is an addition.

The Chair: It's in Wild Rose? It's not in Macleod?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: No. Strathmore is currently in the Wild Rose constituency.

The other thing I should say...and again, this is not gospel. The distance from one major centre to another major centre, that being Camrose to Strathmore, is a large area. Camrose is 45 or 50 minutes out of Edmonton. Strathmore is just east of Calgary. I mean, the proposal makes it a long constituency here, less population here...population bases in the north and the south.

À (1000)

The Chair: Mr. Cyr, have you included Strathmore in there?

Mr. André Cyr: Right now I've included Chestermere, the area immediately east of Calgary.

The Chair: But I would go the other way and drop down into Macleod, since Macleod is the one that needs the population base. I'd be going horizontally, not vertically.

Mr. Scott Reid: Wild Rose is actually 4.5 under. I realize that Macleod is 8.6 under, but they're both under a bit.

An hon. member: The proposal.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: She just asked if there was some area that--

The Chair: If they were looking to change the population.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: You know, Strathmore is new to me. Strathmore is more a bedroom community to Calgary. It perhaps doesn't have the same things in common with any of the other parts of the riding.

An hon. member: But it's trading Wild Rose for...so it's immaterial to Strathmore....

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes, Wild Rose now becomes Banff--Cochrane, so they're going to have enough population to the west of Calgary regardless.

Now, with Strathmore, if there is a switch to Macleod, I don't know how the map would look, but the difference between Strathmore and Okotoks.... Strathmore and High River would be more of a fit.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Cyr.

Mr. André Cyr: If we include the areas of Chestermere and Strathmore, which are east of Calgary--the yellow area up on the screen--that's almost 25,000 people.

The Chair: So Crowfoot would become extremely small and Macleod would get very big.

Mr. André Cyr: Correct.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: And Rick brings out a good point. Initially the Drumheller constituency was a proposal. I did not speak on the name, but I'll tell you, I'm pleased they decided to recognize the historical importance of Crowfoot in that area, and I appreciate that the proposal came back as being the riding of Crowfoot. I think it is recognized as a constituency. It has been for I'm not sure how many years--forever--but I appreciate the commission listening to the many people who were frustrated at seeing the loss of the name.

The Chair: No other questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Sorenson.

Now we'll have Mr. Grewal from Surrey Central, and then we have Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Stinson, unless you want to do some horse-trading amongst yourselves.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Good morning, and thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for this opportunity to make this very important presentation on behalf of my constituents.

I have come before you not only with a problem but with a solution as well. I have been honoured to represent Surrey Central for two terms. It includes the communities of Cloverdale, Newton, Clayton, Port Kells, Fleetwood, Panorama, and Gilford.

In the redistribution of electoral boundaries, the community of Cloverdale is being excluded from the new proposed riding of Fleetwood--Port Kells of Surrey and is instead included in the proposed riding of White Rock--South Surrey.

Madam Chair, I have been contacted by a large number of the residents with overwhelming support for keeping Cloverdale in Fleetwood--Port Kells and not putting it with the proposed riding of White Rock--South Surrey.

I have attached to my proposal four very strong supporting letters from prominent and influential individuals and organizations. They are included in the package, which I have given to you. They are from: Ms. Patsy Bourassa, chief executive officer of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Gerry Spielmacher, president of the Cloverdale Rodeo and Exhibition Association; Mr. Bill Reid, electoral reform chairman and the government relations chairman of the Cloverdale and District Chamber of Commerce; and Mr. Dave Hayer, the MLA for Surrey--Tynehead.

Due to time constraints, I have not yet received additional supporting letters, including one letter from the mayor of the city of Surrey, but later on I will send them to the committee as well as to the commission.

Madam Chair, Cloverdale is distinct. It is one of the oldest and most historic communities in Surrey and attracts many filmmakers. Yesterday the member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley admitted before your committee that Cloverdale is a distinct community. She's absolutely right in saying that.

For the last 50 years, Cloverdale has featured the second-largest rodeo in Canada, and its annual fair dates back to 1888. Cloverdale is a rural community that caters to greenhouse projects, milk-cow operations, horse riding, horse stables, and training acreages.

On the other hand, Port Kells has Surrey's largest industrial park, and the Fleetwood area provides additional commercial activities for the Cloverdale community. The natural flow of business activities and community activities such as schools and shopping and entertainment in this natural rural valley should remain intact. This valley has an active tourist industry, and this region should remain united to capitalize on and further promote tourism in this area. Cloverdale is very much part of Surrey.

The natural boundaries, topography, the average age and income, and other demographics of White Rock blend with Panorama Ridge rather than with Cloverdale.

White Rock--South Surrey is a very different community. It is comprised primarily of retirees and affluent residents who do not perceive themselves to be citizens of Surrey. They have a different municipality, in fact.

The community of Cloverdale...the areas east of Newton, Fleetwood, Clayton, and Port Kells, where it has natural synergy. Nothing that occurs on a daily basis relates to the communities of White Rock and South Surrey. Even the telephone directory, which I have brought with me--I've left some photocopies with your packages--includes Cloverdale with the above-mentioned communities, but not with White Rock.

Road maps, which are also included in your package, show and respect these natural boundaries. Even the major community newspapers are published and circulated in a distinct way for Surrey, Cloverdale, Langley, or Cloverdale and North Delta. They are separate from the White Rock community.

There are no direct public transportation links from White Rock to Cloverdale. If you look at the map, you see two freeways. I have a different map, actually, which I can circulate if you want. This map shows that the community of White Rock has freeways going toward Panorama Ridge, whereas Cloverdale, which is on the extreme other end, has absolutely no communication link by roads or by public transportation.

À (1005)

King George Highway and Highway 99, that I'm referring to, connects White Rock and South Surrey to Panorama as well as to Newton, not to Cloverdale.

To compensate for the population exchange with Cloverdale, if Cloverdale is included where it was before, Panorama and some portion of southern Newton can be included in the proposed riding of White Rock--South Surrey.

As recommended in all of these letters--if you read them carefully, you will find strong support from the community members--the new riding, including Cloverdale, Fleetwood, Port Kells, Clayton, and parts of Newton and Gilford, should be called Surrey--Cloverdale, our proposed change of name. In addition to being convenient and logical, both ridings will be compatible, and compact as well geographically. There will be no domino effect on other neighbouring ridings in the solution I've brought forward.

The map I propose, which is also included in the package I have given to you, has a small effect on Newton--North Delta, and absolutely no effect on Surrey North riding. In fact, all the Surrey ridings, as proposed in my map, are within 4,000 in population of each other. So the population of the riding will be very much within the range. In fact, White Rock--South Surrey would have 102,138, Surrey--Cloverdale about 104,000, Newton--North Delta about 105,000, and Surrey North, as it was, 106,000.

So in conclusion, Madam Chair, I believe the opinion of the citizens should be taken into consideration when deciding the new electoral boundaries. Simply put, Cloverdale is not part of the same community as White Rock and South Surrey. They are two distinct communities, two distinct areas, with different needs and different population demographics. The two communities do not identify with one another and should not be grouped together, especially when there are other easily managed options. I believe the committee will consider these facts.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Questions, beginning with Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid: Am I right that this map here is the map of what you're actually proposing?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: That's right.

Mr. Scott Reid: So the dark lines that are drawn on here are actually the lines that would be followed under your proposal?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Absolutely.

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay. And you explained all this, but I just want to make sure I've got it right.

Surrey--Cloverdale is essentially the name that would replace Fleetwood--Port Kells?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: That's right.

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay, thanks.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Your proposal here doesn't touch Newton--North Delta at all, does it.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: It does a little bit, not too much; the population still remains the same.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, but we just had another presentation with the member from that area, and I want to make sure yours doesn't impact on what currently is being proposed with regard to Newton--North Delta.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: If I understand the way it was presented by the other member, the incumbent doesn't want North Delta to be included in Surrey, but since the commission has proposed it this way...so Newton and North Delta are included. My proposal is recommending little minor changes to the Newton component of that riding.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Did you make a presentation to the commission?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes, I did.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And you knew at that point in time that Cloverdale was part of the process?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: No, I didn't.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: When you appeared before the commission, you didn't know that this was going to be a proposal?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: No, the commission didn't have that proposal at the time. The commission was at that time debating on all the presentations made, that the city of Surrey should be kept separate from the city of Langley. At that time, the new riding was called Surrey--Langley, and the boundary was not 196th Street; rather, it was a major component of the city of Langley included with Surrey.

So all the emphasis by every presenter at that time was to distinguish them further, but Cloverdale was not at all an issue at that time. It was assumed at that time by all the presenters that Cloverdale would naturally be included in the new riding, with the name I had proposed, Surrey--Cloverdale. Everyone just assumed it was going to be that way. So when the commission came up with a new proposal, it was very surprising to everyone.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: When you made this proposal here, did you speak to the members around your riding to see how they felt about it?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes, in fact I had wide consultation, not only with the members but also with the provincial members, with the City of Surrey, and with the chambers of commerce. You have two letters from two chambers of commerce from this area, the Surrey Chamber of Commerce and the Cloverdale and District Chamber of Commerce. In addition, I have spoken to other prominent community organizations like the Cloverdale Rodeo and Exhibition Association. They have quite a bit of influence in that area.

So there was wide consultation, not only with the neighbouring members but also with other members of the community. All are supportive of this proposal.

À (1015)

Mr. Yvon Godin: Okay, thank you.

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

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I will be living out of the riding for which I'm lobbying now...and that's not an issue. That's my personal...I think if I have to move, I will move. If I want to stay there, I will stay. I'm living at the moment in Newton, and next month I will be living in Panorama Ridge, where I have purchased a new home.

If I may, Madam Chair, my residence has absolutely no influence on this proposal--

The Chair: No, no, I just wondered.

You're proposing some changes. Where would likely be the offices for the MPs for those areas?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Most likely it would be in Cloverdale. That would be the most logical place. If I decide to run there, then I will have my office in Cloverdale, but I don't know who will be the member there. I think logically it would be the preferred choice to have the member's office in Cloverdale.

The Chair: And all the transportation links are there.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes, absolutely.

Within this particular component of the riding, transportation links are very effective and efficient, whereas with White Rock there is absolutely no transportation link. If someone has to go from White Rock to Cloverdale, as shown on the map, they have to go through Newton first and then Cloverdale. These two freeways are going just to Panorama Ridge. I agree it would be a logical inclusion, into South Surrey, White Rock, Langley...[Inaudible—Editor]. These two communities are very compatible...[Inaudible—Editor]...and with the way the mountains are laid out, this riding is completely isolated.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can you confirm the population numbers that have been identified in the presentation? I'm a little confused. White Rock--South Surrey right now is substantially lower than what's identified when they've made the changes with Cloverdale. Can you give me what the numbers would be?

The Chair: Does Mr. Cyr have a copy of what's there?

Mr. André Cyr: Yes.

The current or the proposed White Rock--South Surrey?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The proposed White Rock--South Surrey. Well, actually, let's go back, Mr. Cyr. If Cloverdale was to be taken out of White Rock--South Surrey, nothing has been added to it, so what would the population be as per Mr. Grewal's proposal?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Perhaps I can quickly point out something while he is looking into it.

I have also done population research on that. The population of the Newton area and the Panorama area is quite concentrated. This is in fact the fastest-growing area in the country. So I'm confident a component...less by geography and more by population so that the population exactly steps in with the average of the province as well as the urban ridings.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I just wanted to be sure of your numbers. If you numbers are right, then it makes some sense.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Sure, absolutely.

Mr. Scott Reid: I was just doing the numbers, actually, basing it on your numbers and then the numbers in the final report of the boundaries commission. If your numbers are right, Surrey North doesn't change. The other ones all move closer by 1% or 2%, and 3% in one case, to the provincial electoral quotient.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: [Inaudible—Editor]...better than the commission's proposal, in a way. You're absolutely right in pointing it out.

Mr. André Cyr: If we remove the Cloverdale area from White Rock--South Surrey, that represents 27,000 persons, for a percentage of minus 9%.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But then how do you explain Mr. Grewal's numbers?

À (1020)

Mr. André Cyr: He's moving further up into the Newton area.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, I got you. All right.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: It might take some time before the actual numbers are done, but I have...spent lots of time on the numbers. We'll be standing by any scrutiny.

The Chair: Sorry, I don't quite understand. If you put Newton back with Delta....

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Actually, Newton is a highly concentrated community population-wise.

The Chair: Of 65,000.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: It's divided into three, actually. Some component of it is included with the Delta component, another one with the Fleetwood--Port Kells riding, as it is, another component with Surrey North. Southern Newton will be included with the White Rock--South Surrey area.

The Chair: You referenced the presentation of Ms. Meredith, but did you solve the presentation of Mr. Cummins?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I didn't have exact communication with Mr. Cummins, because in Mr. Cummins' proposal he is not prepared to accept that Delta should be merged with Surrey. From my point of view--I'm speaking on my own behalf--there is no logical proposal that can be put into place to keep Surrey and Delta separate, because North Delta is also quite distinct from the rest of the riding--geographically, topographically, and so on.

I heard Mr. Cummins when he made a presentation to the commission, but it seems the commission preferred that possibility, but it was not practically possible. That's what I hear at the moment, that practically it was not possible.

So since Newton has to be included in Delta, it doesn't matter whether there's one inch more on the map or less. But Mr. Cummins was having a different proposal, so there was no natural reason for me to have a discussion with him when his proposal was altogether different.

The Chair: So basically you've eliminated what is currently the Newton--North Delta riding.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: No. On the mainland these ridings will be still intact. What we are doing is only swapping one community with the other.

Mr. Scott Reid: Yes, but not all the names are the same. With Fleetwood--Port Kells, the name of that riding changes.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: That's right. That riding will be called Surrey--Cloverdale, as recommended.

Mr. Scott Reid: Right. The unit of three stays the same.

The Chair: Oh, I see. So above Nordel Way, you've....

No, it's already in.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: He's taken the southern part of Newton--North Delta and put it into White Rock--South Surrey.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: That's right. You've got it.

The Chair: And that adds up to the difference?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes. And the numbers work--

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: In other words, Madam Chair, there is less of a domino effect on any of the ridings. So I think for the commission it will be very practical to accept this recommendation.

The Chair: That was part of our challenge with Mr. Cummins' proposal, because he left this community of 60,000 just hanging.

Does anyone else have any other questions for Mr. Grewal?

Great. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you very much for your time. You have been very kind today.

The Chair: Thanks for bringing us solutions. It's always easier.

We next have on the list Mr. Reynolds or Mr. Stinson.

Do you two want to duke it out?

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): I'll just put my map up there.

Mr. Scott Reid: Can I ask Mr. Cyr a question while we're waiting for Mr. Reynolds to get going?

À (1025)

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Scott Reid: I did notice one slight variation between a number in Mr. Grewal's presentation and the numbers given by the electoral commission. It's very small. Surrey North, which he hasn't changed, he has down as being 106,448, and it's down as 106,904 in the commission's numbers.

I can see from his maps that he's used the 2001 census numbers. In the maps used by the commission, are they using different numbers from those in the 2001 census?

Mr. André Cyr: No, we're using the 2001 census. I don't know how he did his map. Maybe he forgot one census block or dissemination area, ergo the slight discrepancy.

The Chair: Maybe it was just a typo. But it actually says, “same as commission's report”.

Mr. Scott Reid: Yes, that's the most probable explanation, a typo.

The Chair: Mr. Reynolds, we're ready for you. You're Vancouver--Sunshine.

Mr. John Reynolds: Actually, “West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast--Sea-to-Sky Country” if the name of the riding ever gets through the Senate.

The Chair: Would that be part of your request?

Mr. John Reynolds: Just give me a second to get the map up.

The Chair: Is this where the Olympics are going to be held?

Mr. John Reynolds: Yes.

Mr. André Cyr: I don't know if you prefer this map or this other version.

Mr. John Reynolds: That's probably a better one right there.

What I'm really going to be talking about is in the area about here, which is now in my riding. This area here is in the riding, and they've added a piece to the riding down here from North Vancouver. This has drastically changed from the initial recommendations they made. My main concern was that Pemberton, which has now been taken out and put into Chilliwack, is really a serious part of what's going on in Whistler. It's the bedroom community for that area, a service community, and they're very upset that they will be represented by somebody who is going to be probably living in Chilliwack.

I put three options in the letter I sent to you. The first option is that the entire area containing the communities of Pemberton and Lillooet I have now stay in the riding. That would bring the population up to 129,000, and I think it's very close to the ball park.

The second option would be basically the same as the above, but would relinquish the part of North Vancouver they've given me and put it back into North Vancouver. North Vancouver right now is at 120,000, which is fewer than in my riding. That would bring my riding to about 119,000.

The third option would leave my riding as is for North Vancouver, but sever Whistler and Pemberton, so that the Chilliwack riding would then have a population centre at its northern end. Right now, if you leave Pemberton and Chilliwack, those people may never be part of what's going on in their riding, it's just too far. They have a hard enough time doing it in my riding right now, because it's a long way up and down the corridor. So at least if Pemberton and Whistler are together, you've got a major population centre. On weekends it's over 50,000 people, it's a very busy area. They work together, they do things together. There could be an argument that Squamish to the south is a centre, but it isn't. It's already a mill town, it's going to be a service centre for Whistler, but it is a separate entity and far enough away.

Those are my three recommendations. The third one is probably the option that would work best for the people living in the area, as much as I hate to give up Whistler, because they're getting the Olympics, I hope--but I'll be too old by then, and I'll probably want to watch it on television. Giving up that part of it would still leave me with 119,000, with North Vancouver at 120,000, Ted White can have one office and drive to any part of his riding within half an hour from a centre point. This riding at 119,000 without Whistler is still a five-and-a-half-hour drive, from West Vancouver up to Powell River, with two ferries. You can fly it in 20 minutes, by the way, and I use a fair bit of my budget flying when I go to various functions. In fact, I fly to Whistler, Powell River sometimes. Remembrance Day and Canada Day parades are all a lot of fun, because it's such a divided area.

I would like either to get Pemberton back or to put Whistler with Pemberton. I think it makes the most sense, because if you look at the map of the Chilliwack riding, it's long and ungodly, and by the next redistribution it will obviously be two ridings. We should have got one more now, that would have solved the problem in British Columbia. They all would have been well within the 15% range, but they didn't see fit to do that. It makes it difficult. So at least in that way there's a big population base on the north side of Chilliwack--whatever they call the riding--and it still leaves me with 119,000, which is well above the average, but still manageable.

À (1030)

The Chair: Does Mr. Reynolds have a copy of the book we've got? With the piece of North Vancouver on that map, in our book we've got something between the red line and the dark brown. So that little community that says West Vancouver is the part that could go in option two.

Mr. John Reynolds: This is all West Vancouver here.

The Chair: So that could join up.

Mr. John Reynolds: The Sunshine Coast is up here. There's very little population in the middle here. It's all on the water.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Are you suggesting, Mr. Reynolds, taking Whistler and putting it in Chilliwack?

Mr. John Reynolds: Take Whistler and put into this riding here, Chilliwack riding. That way he has a full population centre in this area to deal with, lots of people. Right now that riding has 103,000 people, and Whistler's less than 10,000, it's probably 7,000. As I say, you never know what it is; there are 30,000 every weekend and just about every day of the year now, with tourism, but there are probably about 7,000 or 8,000 voters in it. So it would only make it 111,000, still smaller than mine.

The Chair: Your proposal number two would be to take that little bit just beside in that map number 15, right?

Mr. John Reynolds: Yes. If you leave Pemberton in my riding, but take out the North Vancouver thing and put it back in North Vancouver, it leaves it at 119,000 also. That pushes North Vancouver up to 130,000, but you know....

The Chair: But it's easier, because it's downtown.

Mr. John Reynolds: It's a lot easier to serve. He has one newspaper to advertise in, I have seven. That's one thing we probably have to look at when this is all done, how you are going to fund ridings like mine and others in the country, where you need to have more than one office, you have to use airplanes to travel, as opposed to the guy in the city. The argument is, oh well, they pay a lot more for rent. I have West Vancouver, with the highest rent in Canada. So I have both problems.

The Chair: Where is your office now?

Mr. John Reynolds: I have an office in West Vancouver, one in Sechelt, and one in Powell River, but they are both part-time offices in real estate offices. I pay them 50 bucks a week to have somebody in that office one day a week. I have two staff people, one who does West Vancouver, where the office is open four days a week; the other one is open two days. I could do a lot more, but I haven't got the budget.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): What percentage of your population now is in West Vancouver?

Mr. John Reynolds: About one-third. Everybody thinks it's half and half, but it's not. You've got 40,000 in West Vancouver, 20,000 on the Sunshine Coast, 20,000 in Powell River, 20,000 in Squamish, 10,000 in Whistler, 5,000 in Pemberton. If I kept the North Vancouver bit, I'd be up to 50,000.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Of the three options, Mr. Reynolds, what would be your preference?

Mr. John Reynolds: For the good of the voters, number three, because it gives the riding a balance on either end. I have a board of directors on the Sunshine Coast that meets separately from my main board, and they get together every two months. This way, he could do the same thing, have a board of directors in Whistler-Pemberton, and probably go to Chilliwack one time and the other place every two or three months.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The Whistler population you say is about 7,000 permanent. It's a huge recreational area, a lot of people go to Whistler. Would there be mostly Vancouver people travelling up to Whistler, mostly Americans?

À (1035)

Mr. John Reynolds: Mostly Americans, Europeans. Whistler is a tourist town, as busy in the summer, by the way, as it is in the winter now, because of the five top-notch golf courses up there.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm thinking of community of interest now. The permanent residents of Whistler would have a community of interest probably more with Vancouver than with Chilliwack.

Mr. John Reynolds: Yes, although Pemberton tends to be more Chilliwack than Whistler. Whistler is an entity unto itself. The people who live there are environmentally conscious. They'll have the first hydrogen gas station there probably next year, and a lot of other things go on there.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What's the interest of putting in Pemberton?

Mr. John Reynolds: Pemberton is a service community. The former mayor of Whistler just bought a property in Pemberton. Most of them are starting to live in the Pemberton area. It's a 20-minute drive. I used to be the provincial MLA there and had a new highway put in between Pemberton and Whistler to encourage the bedroom community.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Normally, you don't give three options for the solution, you give one, but your best one is option three. Did you have a chance to speak with the members of Parliament affected by it?

Mr. John Reynolds: Chuck Strahl looks at the whole thing right now and says, my God, it's a big place to cover. I haven't talked to him specifically about this proposal, but I don't think he'd have any objection to it, because I think it would be beneficial to him. He'll have a base I have now in the Whistler area, a very good base of support.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Then he's the only member affected by any change?

Mr. John Reynolds: The only one, yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Reynolds, did you appear before the commission?

Mr. John Reynolds: I did not, my leg was in a cast at the time, but I did have my president there. In my riding the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and my party, all the presidents met. Initially, they were going to take half of West Vancouver out of my riding and put it in North Vancouver. West Vancouver didn't want that, so now they put that back in place and gave me 10,000 in North Vancouver. They had all these other problems throughout the lower mainland. So West Vancouver is happy, because they've got one continuous part within my riding, and that was the original recommendation we made, to basically leave it the way it is. Obviously, with the numbers the way they are, I ended up with 124,500, which is the largest in the province. If they left Pemberton, I'd be 130,000. That would be the preferable one, but since that won't work, I think the other one is the best option. Option three is the one I'd recommend as having the best chance of going through.

Mr. Scott Reid: I'm just trying to follow this on the map, but I'm having difficulty. Recommendation one involves moving a very large, but lightly populated area called Squamish-Lillooet into West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast.

Mr. John Reynolds: Which is where it is now.

Mr. Scott Reid: Option 2 continues to do that, but takes a chunk of North Vancouver. Which chunk does it take?

Mr. John Reynolds: See this part here? This is a part of North Vancouver I don't have right now, but that's what they will put in.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Excuse me, but the area you're showing us is indicated as the entire riding of North Vancouver, isn't it?

Mr. John Reynolds: This is the entire riding right here. That's the way it is now.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: But that's not the way recommended in the last report.

Mr. John Reynolds: The last report takes out a chunk of North Vancouver, which adds up to about 10,000 population.

À (1040)

Mr. Scott Reid: Could you just put up the map that's on page 41?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: If you look at map 6, on page 48, for North Vancouver and West Vancouver, it's larger and clearer.

Mr. Scott Reid: It's really frustrating, because it's very hard to follow.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The little piece you were showing us as being part of North Vancouver is actually the suggested North Vancouver now.

Mr. John Reynolds: Let me see if I can show it on here.

Mr. Scott Reid: I'll use the other map.

Mr. John Reynolds: What's confusing to me here is that they don't show the Capilano River, but in the book, page 48--

Mr. Scott Reid: It's the boundary between the two.

Mr. John Reynolds: If you look on page 48 and go to Capilano Lake, follow down that orange line, and when you come to the river, if you were to put a line through that river, that's the boundary now. I stop at the Capilano River, everything west of that is West Vancouver, and everything east of the Capilano River to the orange line is North Vancouver. There's a little bit on the bottom here, a native reserve, that is considered West Vancouver, but is in North Vancouver now. They've given me this whole section.

Mr. Scott Reid: Now I get it. So you want to keep that and give up Whistler.

Mr. John Reynolds: It makes more sense, from my standpoint, where there's a population it's a little easier to operate out of. It gives the other riding populations at both ends, a northern population centre and a southern population centre.

The Chair: Do we have any representation from the people of Whistler on this?

Mr. John Reynolds: No.

The Chair: Did they make any representation at the hearings?

Mr. John Reynolds: None that I know of.

The Chair: Hopefully, we can find somebody to confirm that. If they said, no, we really want to be a part of West Vancouver, we need to know that. If they didn't say anything, that's fine too.

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid: In all fairness, the way the boundaries were drawn in the first set of proposals, I'm not sure they would have, because Pemberton and Whistler were together in that set.

Mr. John Reynolds: This is totally different from what they were all appearing before the commission for. The only beef was, keep West Vancouver together, West Vancouver's got to be one entity. West Vancouver is the only place that has its own bus system in British Columbia, called the Blue Buses. It's a unique community.

Mr. Scott Reid: The reason I asked those questions was that I was working up to the third option you've got down. In each option you keep what you had in the prior option and add something, is that correct? So option three retains what you had in option two and what you had in option one, and then adds something else. Can you explain to me option three again on the map, exactly what would shift? I found that a bit hard to follow.

Mr. John Reynolds: Option three would leave this part all the same. This is nothing up here; you're talking 100 people who live in mountains and you never see them. What it would do is go down this road and include Whistler. So you take that chunk off, and that's the only change there would be in option three. Take Whistler off and leave it with Pemberton. Everything else stays the same.

À (1045)

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That's why it brings it down to 119,000.

Mr. Scott Reid: So the Squamish-Lillooet district--

Mr. John Reynolds: The Squamish regional district includes everything from Squamish up to Pemberton and around that area.

Mr. Scott Reid: I got confused because “Squamish-Lillooet” crops up in five separate spots in here.

Mr. John Reynolds: It's called the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, and it's on the map that way. It is confusing.

The riding right now goes to D'Arcy and just about to Lillooet, if you take the Duffey Lake Road. It's a back road that's open in the winter, but you've got to be pretty brave to travel it. The riding ends just before you get to Lillooet.

Mr. Scott Reid: I finally understand.

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

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Madam Chair, do we have the confirmation that the figure would be down to 119,000 if Whistler goes to Chilliwack?

Mr. André Cyr: There are almost 9,000 in Whistler, and in West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast we had 125,000.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: So it would bring it down to about 115,000. What happens to Chilliwack?

Mr. John Reynolds: They're about 103,000 now, so they'd go up to about 112,000. It still leaves us in the ball park.

Mr. Scott Reid: West Vancopuver--Sunshine Coast is usually off the average.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Now we have Mr. Stinson.

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): The only change was to be a name change to the riding, to North Okanagan--Shuswap. Since that, though, they have come back with a change to what's called area E. To the people of area E and to myself this makes no sense at all. It will require approximately 3,000 residents--that's all we're talking about here--of Sicamous and the vicinity to drive over 458 kilometres if they have a problem their member of Parliament should address. That 458 kilometres may sound simple down here, but we're talking three different mountain ranges. In the winter time it is not uncommon for that highway to be closed two to five times, sometimes for a matter of hours, sometimes for a matter of days. There's a heavy snowfall, and it's probably one of the worst highways in Canada for the number of deaths.

We're talking about a population that is made up mainly of elderly, retired people. It's going to be impossible. There are no airports for them to go to. They have nothing at all in common with the Kootenay Valley. All medical and dental services are handled in the Vernon-Salmon Arm area, which is just a matter of minutes away for them. They do absolutely no trade up in that area at all; everything is handled down in the Shuswap, which is the Salmon Arm and the Vernon area.

It's highway 97B that comes down from Vernon, where my office is, and it's only a matter of minutes for me to get in there. That road actually squares off the constituency. Why they would take that and try to move it up into the Kootenay area absolutely boggles everybody's mind. They did not have a chance to present their arguments before the committee, because it was not on the radar scope at all when this was brought forward to us. I had an opportunity to talk to the people last weekend in the Sicamous area, and I don't want to tell you what they told me, because it's not really polite. It is one of the major reasons, I think, why people are starting to wonder what the government is all about. We have absolutely no concern at all about adding Chase into the constituency, as that also could help square it off, because of the highway situations there, but this I think the committee should look at very carefully, because it'll make absolutely no sense to anybody. We had a meeting last week, all the major parties had representatives there, and nobody could see the sense in this, including the electoral officer of the riding. It was also attended by a deputy returning officer and officers in charge of special ballots. They could make absolutely no sense out of why they would remove area E, although they did say it made some sense to add Chase to the constituency.

I don't think I have to go into a long explanation. I think it's fairly simple if you just look at the map and understand that we're not talking here about a four-lane highway, although it is the Trans-Canada up as far as Revelstoke. That highway is shut down many times during the year, it is a very dangerous section of the highway. From Revelstoke to the Kootenays you would be going over a number of other passes, and it's almost impassable for a good driver in bad winter, so for elderly people it would be impossible. It also would make it almost impossible for the member of Parliament to service that area.

Not only that, Sicamous is on the headwaters of the Shuswap Lake. Sicamous is noted for houseboats on the Shuswap.

À (1050)

The Chair: Okay.

Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: You were talking about the route one would have to take to certain places in the riding if the proposed changes are made. But suppose we keep the status quo. How does the MP currently get to these parts of the riding? Is this area easily accessible?

À (1055)

[English]

Mr. Darrel Stinson: It's very accessible from my area. For the member from the Kootenays it wouldn't be. Vernon is right in here, and highway 97B goes right through to it. If they have to travel from here, they come all the way up to Revelstoke, and then they have to come all the way up through these valleys here. So they'd be crossing major heights of land, with massive snow. I know it's hard to check the records on this, but it's closed down at least twice a year, possibly five times a year. This year was not that bad; I think it was only shut down four times. We have massive slides in that area, and it is noted as probably one of the most dangerous sections of the Trans-Canada. Even the people who live 10 miles out of Revelstoke really don't go into Revelstoke to shop. They would sooner go down the other way, because of the road conditions.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: If we brought this area back where it belongs, what difference would that make as a percentage?

Mr. André Cyr: The area has a little over 4,000 people. Thus, I would put these people back in Shuswap.

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The part that's been removed is the only major change from the original recommendation in 2002?

Mr. Darrel Stinson: They have now recommended that Chase also be added, which is no problem with us. It makes sense too.

Mr. André Cyr: Okanagon--Shuswap would be at plus 1%, and Kootenay--Columbia would be at minus 18%.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't see the minus 18% as a problem at all. This is reminiscent of the Churchill riding Bev Desjarlais has. This is a huge riding, Kootenay--Columbia, with almost impossible access. If anybody's ever been through those valleys, I'll tell you, getting from one area to the other over a mountain range is almost impossible. So the minus 18% is very justified for that particular area.

Did the commission ever suggest that this change with Sicamous was coming up? It looks like bureaucracy run amok to take that little piece out of there and put it into Kootenay because of a population change. It just doesn't make any sense.

Second, is there an MP's office in Revelstoke? Does the sitting MP for Kootenay--Columbia have an office in Revelstoke that could service Sicamous as well?

Mr. Darrel Stinson: As to the latter, not to my knowledge. I think he has an office down there maybe one day a week, but I'm not even sure about that. Most people come to our office.

This came right out of the blue, after the meeting, after everybody put forward their arguments in regard to the boundaries. I thought everything had been settled, it was our understanding everything had been settled, and then this came right out of the blue at us.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: If I could just make a statement, Madam Chairman, after seeing any number of presentations to this committee, this is possibly the worst example I have ever seen of a boundary change simply for the sake of making a boundary change.

An hon. member: It's computer-driven.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The computer doesn't give any consideration at all to people or travel modes.

The Chair: Just to be clear, on page 6 they talk about their reasoning.

Á (1100)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I understand.

Mr. Scott Reid: What is the reasoning?

The next set of challenges involved the Kootenays and indeed almost the entire southeastern quadrant of the province. Population densities are low there...and our initial Proposals sought to remedy population deficiencies by moving the Kaslo and Slocan valleys to the eastern of the two electoral districts but then adding the City of Penticton to the western one.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Simply for a population, though, Madam Chair. I don't care what the rationalization is. This, in real life, in practice, is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: If I may interject here, the people of Sicamous don't live by a map. This is everyday life we're talking about for them. They have a tough time understanding governments at the best of times and some of the decisions that are made, and this would probably be a major issue in all areas out there if it were to go through.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik, before you go, Mr. Reid has one question that could solve part of the problem.

Mr. Scott Reid: Betty Hinton from Kamloops, which will become Kamloops--Thompson, suggested moving Valemount out of her riding and into Prince George--Peace River. It occurs to me that Valemount must be in the same valley as Kootenay--Columbia, so it may make sense to move it--and I think it has a population of 4,000--into Kootenay--Columbia as a compensating population for the area that's being moved out of the current riding of Okanagan--Shuswap. What I don't know, because I have never been there, is whether there is some kind of road link, or whether Valemount is in a similar situation of being unable to get into the Kootenay--Columbia riding.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Valemount may look like it's in the same valley, but it's not. It's in a different valley altogether, as the crow flies across the mountains, at least a good 100 miles away. It's probably closer to being serviced out of the Edmonton area.

Mr. Scott Reid: It looks from the map here as if it's on the headwaters of the Columbia, but I guess I'm seeing that wrong. It's actually the headwaters of the Fraser, which goes north, while the Columbia curves around and does a U-turn.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Yes, and there'd be no connecting highway through there. You'd be going through major ice fields. That becomes a problem with that whole section of British Columbia, massive mountain ranges, ice fields, and no airports.

Mr. Scott Reid: They talk about a well-supported representation, about a riding based on highway 3. I assume that's the riding that is now called Kootenay--Boundary--Similkameen.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Yes.

Mr. Scott Reid: In doing that, they took a big chunk out of Kootenay--Columbia, and now they're hunting around for population to prop it back up.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: The major problem with this proposal is that it's not even the worst of the best, it's probably the worst of the worst. There's absolutely no way they could be looked after, particularly in the winter. Not only that, the town of Sicamous is one of the main towns on the Shuswap Lake, which is known around the world. Everything that pertains to Sicamous is generated pretty well off that lake, and to say they're not part of the Shuswap would be.... I'm not even sure how much of a problem you would have with the native population out there, the Indian population, if this came about.

The Chair: Who is the current member of Parliament for Kootenay--Columbia?

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Jim Abbott.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Stinson. We wish you a good day and a good weekend.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: I wish you all a good weekend. I don't envy you your job.

The Chair: And if I can just say so, it is a very beautiful part of the country.

Á (1105)

Mr. Scott Reid: Can I just add one more thing here? Given that the whole problem stems from the shift relating to the riding of Kootenay--Boundary--Similkameen, I'm just wondering--and this may not work--whether there is anything that could be moved into Kootenay--Columbia as compensation. I bring this up because it's pretty clear to me that the boundaries commission is very focused on the numbers, and if we don't have something for them, they may be less likely to take a recommendation.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: I think what the committee should understand here is that these are not small ridings, including my own, which is probably the smallest of the three we're mentioning here. You just don't travel across these in an hour or two. These are large areas, and in many places there are very small communities. In my own constituency we have something like 17 communities outside our major centres.

The Chair: Kootenay--Columbia is 65,000 square kilometres, North Okanagan-Shuswap is right now at 12,600 square kilometres.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: To add into them other areas would make them that much more massive.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's why there's a 25% variation. When you're counting ridings like Kootenay--Columbia, minus 18% in population is okay. It's like taking all of Nunuvut and saying, there's not a sufficient population in Nunuvut, let's add the Northwest Territories to it. That's why we have variations in population. So the 18% shouldn't be a hang-up here, and you shouldn't have to take a piece of the pie out to try to

Mr. Scott Reid: I concur with that as a principal point. You're quite right. My point is that we're going to make a recommendation, and if you make a recommendation the boundaries commission, in its wisdom, chooses to throw out, you haven't done anything for the folks out there.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't think we say, it's the stupidest thing you've ever done, we simply say the reason there is a 25% variation is this very issue. Kootenay--Columbia should have a minus 18%, because of the area it's trying to serve.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: It should be our role to show them that it's not only a population number-driven exercise. This is what they've been doing all over. They've got the computers now.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: What this would do is probably add another two or two and a half hours to the constituency.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So here's the deal. If Sicamous is taken out and put in Kootenay--Columbia, Sicamous is still going to be in the Shuswap for services, for its member of Parliament too, I'll guarantee you. I get people at the south end of Inky Mark's riding, because it's closer to me than it is to Dauphin, and that's a reality.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much. We've beaten that horse to death.

Colleagues, we will see you next Thursday in the morning. There are two meetings next Thursday, and then book off on your calendars the first Monday and Tuesday we are back, because we have all the Ontario and Quebec ones.

Mr. Scott Reid: If possible, not Monday evening.

The Chair: Thank you.