[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, October 2, 1995
.1520 
[English]
The Chair: We have a quorum. We'll begin because we are running under a tight time constraint. This is the Sub-Committee on the Consideration of the Objections Filed on the Proposed Electoral Boundaries for the Western Provinces of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I have copies of unofficial documents put together by our research person. If you would like them, I can circulate them.
Ms Laura Snowball (Committee Researcher): They are not in French. They are in English only because they're my unofficial notes.
The Chair: We can have them circulated with your approval.
I would like to introduce our first witness, the Hon. Jon Gerrard, from Portage - Interlake. You have seven minutes, Jon. Then we have eight minutes for questions from the group.
Hon. Jon Gerrard, M.P. (Portage - Interlake): I'd like to place on the record some comments about Portage - Interlake and considerations I believe should be looked at in terms of redistribution.
In looking at what has been proposed for Manitoba under the proposed redistribution, the relative nature of rural and urban ridings and the relative nature of representation and consistency were not taken into account.
The principle of up to a 25% variance for huge northern ridings is an important one that should be respected and continued, and therefore did not mandate a change in the requirement for a shift in the boundaries for Churchill.
.1525
I believe there are also historical traditions within Canada and there are reasons for this in terms of adequately serving the population. This is a basis for continuing some differences in the size and in the number of people represented in rural versus urban constituencies.
Let me point out that the shift in population in Portage - Interlake is growing in parallel with what's happened in the rest of the province. There is nothing driving a redistribution of Portage - Interlake based on a change in population. In other words, the boundaries could stay where they are now and the population would be very close to the mean of the province.
Therefore, population is not a reason for making the proposed changes to Portage - Interlake. There are other reasons. In essence, the proposal for Portage - Interlake is that the riding would be divided roughly in half, with a northern half, the Interlake region combined with the community of Selkirk, and the southern half, which would be combined and extended to the U.S. border.
My concern about this type of change in a rural area is that there is an important underlying principle of democracy. As an elected member of Parliament, at the next election you should report back to those people who have elected you. They should have an opportunity to say you've done a good job and re-elect you or to say you've done a poor job and throw you out. This is how democracy works. When you have such huge changes in ridings like this, this principle is not going to operate very well.
Indeed, shortly after this map was presented I found myself in an interesting circumstance. One individual said to me: ``Well, naturally you're going to run in the northern half of this region, and what you should do between now and the next election - and remember, this was initially announced some three years ago - is to forget about the southern half of Portage - Interlake and just spend all your time in the northern half and in Selkirk, which you would be representing in the next election''.
Interestingly, just 24 hours after that, I had another individual come to me and say: ``Well, obviously you should be running in the southern part, in the part that includes Portage la Prairie, and what you should do is spend all your time in Portage la Prairie and the region down to the border, which will now be part of your constituency''. The individual said I should forget totally about representing the region of the Interlake because it's irrelevant to my future as an elected politician.
I was elected by the people of the whole region of Portage - Interlake and I will continue to represent them. However, this sort of pressure to have a distorted representation creates the sort of situation that is not the optimum for democracy.
In the size of the rural riding I deal with, let me point out that if I were in the northern part of the Interlake and focusing there, I would be quite a considerable distance away from Portage. If I were going down into the region all the way to the Manitoba border, I could be 400 or 500 kilometres away from the people in the northern part of the Interlake.
It is very important that all Canadians are represented. Obviously you're not going to be able to maintain a rural riding precisely as it is. There should be a principle of trying to maintain the core area of a riding without this sort of dramatic change so democracy can occur. Then the people who elected you have a say as to whether you have performed in an appropriate fashion.
The Chair: Thank you. You did very well in about five minutes. We'll open the floor to questions and comments.
Mr. Bonin.
Mr. Bonin (Nickel Belt): I am not a regular member of this committee, but this issue affects all of us.
.1530
I would like an idea of your riding - the distance presently and the population that you have.
Mr. Gerrard: At the moment, the population is a little bit over 70,000. The size of the riding, from the north boundary to the south boundary, at the moment is approximately 400 kilometres, and the greatest extent from east to west is approximately 200 kilometres.
Mr. Bonin: I will ask you for your reaction to my comment, because I have a similar situation, and as a result of having few people in my riding, I spend much time in going to them. I find that to increase the area means I will have to work with a cellular phone. I resisted that until last week.
We hear horror stories about members of Parliament who are spending too much time in their cars and working while they're driving.
There has to be a relationship between the numbers of people in the area, because the argument - and we don't want to open this argument up here - is that if you're in downtown Toronto and you have 200,000 people, yes, you have more people who come to you, but you're working with the people all the time. You're not driving.
The problem I am having in my area - and maybe you can respond to this - is that people are asking, ``Are you making changes, because there's a bill back there that says the date has come for changes?'' I have yet to meet someone who is not happy with the riding the way it is.
As members of Parliament, we are asked to decide on very important laws, and here is a law that I feel the majority.... I'd like an idea of the west to see if the majority there feels this way. We're quite satisfied with our ridings the way they are. Is that the sense that you're getting in your area? Can you draw a parallel for me?
Mr. Gerrard: I think the concern you raise about the amount of time that people in rural areas have to spend in cars in going from one event to another is very real. In my experience, it takes an extraordinary amount of time to travel. I have some 90 different communities in the area of Portage - Interlake. People in rural areas want to see their M.P. at first hand and to feel as if they are in touch. It is a real challenge to do this, and not to realize that there are considerable differences in handling, in dealing with, in solving and sorting out problems in a constituency of this size is not to recognize the real nature of this country. Clearly, there has to be some recognition of the changing demographics.
It's my view that the recognition can be handled with less change to existing ridings. Surely, one of the reasons why we mandate change about every ten years should be that one can make those changes more slowly rather than have huge changes.
One of the things about Portage - Interlake is that it has been whipped back and forth from one form to another and this just has not allowed the sort of consistency of representation that I think is optimum for this sort of community.
Mr. Solomon (Regina - Lumsden): Perhaps you answered my question, Mr. Gerrard, but for how long have the boundaries that you now represent in the district of Portage - Interlake existed? It is eight years?
Mr. Gerrard: The boundaries were in effect for the first time in the election of 1988. Before that, there was a riding that had a different configuration, and ten years before that it was a different configuration.
The dynamics of the area mean that you don't have a stable core riding, in a sense, and that the people of the area are not getting the kind of consistent representation that people in a rural area need.
.1535
There are reasons for the riding to remain in its present form, and one is common interest. For example, in what would become the new southern riding of Portage, there is a common interest with the people in the adjacent areas of the Interlake. So you're separating people with common interests.
It is my sense that given the fact that this particular riding falls within what is quite clearly an acceptable average for population, there isn't the necessity to slice in two and make dramatically different ridings.
Mr. Solomon: One of the problems we have in Canada, nationally and provincially, is that we tend to be very fair in terms of redistributing boundaries at regular intervals to reflect population trends. In doing so we neglect, as a federal government in this instance, through our various boundary commissions, to integrate the common interests of community, whether it's parish boundaries, agricultural boundaries or municipal boundaries.
I'm not sure if that's a result of the terms of reference we give the drawers of our boundaries, but I think we've seen, in a number of provinces in Canada under the proposals, that they seem to want to become new artists. They want to draw all these new things and leave some sort of legacy; I'm not sure for what or for whom. But I've always believed very strongly that we have to have some sense of community. If you can change the boundaries nominally to accommodate the percentage, that would be the preference, as opposed to drawing new boundaries. So that's my preamble.
I think my question is quite pertinent. Has there been time for organizations, communities or special interest groups, such as municipal or cultural groups, to make representations to you as the member of Parliament, to say that if these boundaries as proposed go ahead it will affect their sense of community and they will not be represented fairly in the House of Commons as a result of the changes?
Mr. Gerrard: Since these boundaries were put, many people have come to talk to me about different issues related to the boundaries. Let me give you an illustration. In the community in which I live, St. François Xavier, we have a telephone calling area that extends into part of one side of the new proposed riding as well as part of one side of the other proposed riding. So I have supporters on both sides, within the same calling area as I am, who are being split right down the middle.
There are many who are concerned that I would choose to represent the other half. Cutting through the middle of this community, which keeps in touch by telephone in a rural area and thinks of itself as a community, would not provide optimum representation.
The Chair: Our time is up. I want to thank you for your presentation. We will move on.
The next witness is Mr. Duhamel.
.1540
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel, M.P. (St. Boniface): I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this subcommittee concerning the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. As you know, I appear with respect to a motion concerning the community and the interests of
[Translation]
the federal riding of St. Boniface.
[English]
You should have in front of you a map, entitled map 1, which shows my riding as it was proposed in the first phase of the readjustment process. As you can see by looking at this map, the community of Riel, which includes Louis Riel House, was included.
I should also make rapid mention of the institution called Foyer Valade, which is a seniors home primarily for the care of French-speaking Canadians living in Manitoba.
If you will look at map 2, when the commission redrafted the ridings to make the allowance for projected population growth and to equalize populations within the quotas, a portion of the community of Riel and, by extension, Louis Riel House, as well as Foyer Valade, were removed from the riding of St. Boniface to Winnipeg South. This occurrence, particularly with respect to Louis Riel House, is quite significant.
The community of Riel has a natural affinity to the communities of St. Boniface and St. Vital, but it was divided in two.
Second, the commission failed to acknowledge the historical significance of Louis Riel House, which is a national historic site of particular importance to the Métis and French-Canadian populations of St. Boniface.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Is this the map to which you're referring?
The Chair: Yes, it is.
Mr. Duhamel: Louis Riel, as you well know, is recognized as the founder of Manitoba, and he happens to be buried in St. Boniface in the cemetery next to the cathedral. It only stands to reason that the home and place of his upbringing would remain in the riding as well.
Louis Riel House is an important part of the community of St. Boniface. It is a bilingual institution and it is one of the few ridings in western Canada with a fairly large number of French-speaking citizens.
This site represents a great deal to the people of St. Boniface. It is far more than an historic site. It is part of what identifies the riding and the people of St. Boniface.
To give you an indication, let me quote from correspondence I've received from la Société franco-manitobaine. I will read the quote in French.
[Translation]
- The historical and symbolic significance of Louis Riel for French-speaking Manitobans
should not be underestimated. Louis Riel is an integral part of the history of St. Boniface, so it
would be unfortunate to have Louis Riel House included in another riding.
[English]
So that's really my whole presentation. Perhaps I could make one point. It's not necessarily for this committee, but perhaps for another group to consider. I believe this riding probably has limited growth potential in terms of new housing. The adjacent riding has significant potential for growth. I know we look for natural boundaries and other boundaries, such as cultural affinities, community relationships and what have you, but we might want to see whether or not other ridings might have significant growth potential over the 10 years, thereby permitting one to be somewhat larger than the other and still remain within the numbers.
Mr. White: Mr. Duhamel, have you discussed the change in these riding boundaries with any of the M.P.s in the area? What is their opposition?
Mr. Duhamel: Yes, I have. There's no opposition from my colleague.
Mr. White: Other than the association with Riel House in that riding, would there be any effect other than the association with St. Boniface?
A voice: It's going to be represented by somebody along the line.
Mr. Duhamel: Yes. Of course, that argument could be made for any riding from that particular perspective, but two points were raised.
The community of Riel, by virtue of what has occurred, has in fact been split in two. So a community that sort of stood by itself is now split in two from the federal perspective.
Of course, the main point I was making is to the French-speaking community and the Métis community that have been part of the riding. Remember that in the first draft of the Electoral Boundaries Commission it was there, but in the second draft it's no longer there. Why not? Is it simply from a numbers perspective? I've argued that numbers have to be fluid anyway; that's my bias.
Mr. Solomon: Just a brief question, Mr. Duhamel. What is the population of the area in question?
Mr. Duhamel: It's roughly 100,000.
Mr. Solomon: No, the Riel district you're talking about.
Mr. Duhamel: I think it's roughly 6,000.
Ms Cathy Rudick (Executive Assistant to Mr. Duhamel): The additional amount is approximately 5,000.
Mr. Solomon: That's 5,000 persons and not voters.
Ms Rudick: That's persons. There are approximately 1,200 homes.
Mr. Solomon: I think boundaries commissions have to consider constituencies that have growth potential and those that are in declining population status. I know St. Boniface quite well. I was educated in St. Boniface, so I can appreciate Mr. Duhamel's comments. I think the arguments he makes are very amenable and acceptable.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Bonin.
[Translation]
Mr. Bonin: What I am interested in is the community of interest. We have been told that consultations have taken place. I am also in the situation of being a francophone in a minority area. We are constantly being told about the extensive consultations that have taken place. Yet, in our capacity as community leaders, we know very few people who have indeed been consulted.
Was your community, particularly the francophone community, consulted in this case?
Mr. Duhamel: Honestly, my dear friend, I cannot tell you how many consultations have taken place, but I know that there is a member of the commission who is very well known and who is very knowledgeable.
However, without wanting to lay blame on anyone, I think that the consultation process could have been more extensive. No one came to see me to ask for my opinion, and I believe the same goes for others, such as my friend Neil Gaudry, at the provincial level. I would be surprised to find that he was consulted.
With respect to the Historical Society, or the Société franco-manitobaine, I don't think that's the case, but I think that the point you raise is an important one.
Mr. Bonin: The commission is supposed to be concerned with maintaining common interests, but in this case, its proposal would tend to fragment those interests, would you not agree?
Mr. Duhamel: Yes, to a certain extent. You are quite right, but I think that what concerns people at this time is that this is now included in the riding.
Mr. Bonin: Yes.
Mr. Duhamel: The first proposal was outlined in the initial draft.
.1550
Is it just because of the numbers that they are taking it away? It seems to us that it should be possible to reorganize everything and to keep the boundaries as they are, without having to go beyond the established criterias.
Mr. Bonin: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Mr. Solomon: Can we change the numbers for him now?
The Chair: Well....
Mr. Solomon: I'm just asking if we can change the boundaries now and look after it. We have heard very sensible arguments.
That's a good question that you've put forward to the other members as well.
The Chair: We'll suspend the sitting for about ten minutes.
.1551
PAUSE
.1605
The Chair: I'm going to appoint Mr. Bonin as the temporary chair, with approval of the people around the table. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Chair (Mr. Bonin): Please, proceed. You know the rules.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling, M.P. (Dauphin - Swan River): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to make a presentation on the proposed changes to the electoral boundaries of the constituency of Dauphin - Swan River and to register my objections to the proposed changes.
My foremost concern is that the riding of Dauphin - Swan River remains at a geographical size that is reasonable to represent at the federal level.
The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act stipulates that the commission shall consider the following in determining reasonable electoral district boundaries: first, the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province; second, a manageable geographical size for this sparsely populated rural and northern region of the province.
I hold the members of the electoral boundaries commission from Manitoba in the highest regard. However, I believe their focus was on equalizing electoral quotas throughout the province rather than on determining what constitutes a manageable geographical size or the community of interest.
I believe that these principles are of greater weight to the redistribution of electoral boundaries and that people and communities are more important than achieving mathematical equality.
The commission has not provided compelling reasons for departing from these principles. Given that no rationale has been provided for the proposed redistribution, it is not possible to know how that proposed distribution was arrived at or on what principles these decisions were based.
It's already difficult for rural members of Parliament to spend a great deal of time in their ridings, given the length of time needed to travel to and from Ottawa. While in the riding, the distance between communities means it is difficult to keep in touch and effectively represent rural ridings.
The riding of Dauphin - Swan River is already one of the largest geographic ridings in Canada. There are 300 kilometres between the northern and southern boundaries of the Dauphin - Swan River riding. However, due to the geographical barriers such as the Riding Mountain National Park, Lake Dauphin, the Duck and the Porcupine Mountains, it would take me some 10 hours to travel from the southeast corner of my riding to the northwest tip.
.1610
Being a rural member does not mean travelling on only paved roads. Many small communities can be reached only by gravel roads, which are considerably slower to travel on. This summer it took four weeks of 18-hour days of driving for me to visit the towns and first nations communities in my riding.
At almost every meeting I had with rural municipal and town councils, band councils, and Métis community councils this summer, the issue of electoral boundaries was raised. Without exception, the consensus was that the riding should not be enlarged.
I've made it a practice to meet with all local councils to discuss the concerns of their area. Both the councils and I are concerned that this will not be possible under new boundaries as a result of the additional distance to be travelled and the number of new communities to be visited. By expanding the boundaries of Dauphin - Swan River, the commission is making it increasingly difficult for me to visit all areas of my riding and meet with my constituents in their home communities.
The new communities to be included within the new boundaries will find it difficult to meet with me or staff in my office not only because of the distance and geographical barriers but also because the area north of Riding Mountain National Park is not part of the historical pattern of commerce, transportation, or communication for these new communities. When changes are to be made to boundaries, the historical, social, cultural, and economic ties must be maintained and other commonalities of interest must be respected.
The natural links for communities such as Minnedosa and Neepawa are the larger centres of Portage la Prairie and Brandon, rather than Dauphin or Swan River. The proposed readjustments will sever common trade routes, government services, and local support.
It's crucial that communities should not feel isolated from their member of Parliament or the political process. Yet it is my contention that this is what will happen if the proposed new boundaries are accepted.
The act allows for a variance of up to 25% in population between ridings within a province to ensure that people of all areas are represented effectively. The provincial quotient for Manitoba is 77,996, and the proposed population for the new boundaries of Dauphin - Swan River riding would be 76,568, a difference of only 1,428, or less than 2%.
This variance shows little consideration for the barriers inherent in representing such a large and geographically diverse area.
I believe that it was incumbent upon the commission to give due consideration to the manageable geographic size of the riding of Dauphin - Swan River and that the actual variance for Dauphin - Swan River should be increased to the allowable 25% limit, to the benefit of the people whom I serve.
Finally, the commission must achieve a redistribution that provides some consistency in representation. It is fundamental to the principles of democracy that elected officials should be responsible to the people who elect them. This means that the electorate will be able to hold their representative accountable in subsequent elections by voting them in or out of office.
In order for this principle to be effective, there must be an effort to retain the core area of each electoral district with minimal change to the overall area represented. This is not the case in this redistribution, as the riding of Lisgar - Marquette will no longer exist but instead is apportioned to the surrounding ridings, including Dauphin - Swan River.
Furthermore, it is important that Manitoba should not lose a rural seat. Rural Manitobans deserve and are entitled to fair representation in the House of Commons. The interests of democracy will be served if the boundaries are left unchanged. We owe this to the people of Dauphin - Swan River.
I appreciate your patience and I look forward to your questions.
The Acting Chair (Mr. Bonin): Thank you.
Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): Mrs. Cowling's riding is immediately to the north of mine, and what we're really talking about is some modification of her lines, coming further south, and mine, going further east.
.1615
Mrs. Cowling, could you comment on the number of square miles you currently represent, and what will this do in terms of trying to get your old car around every community in your riding?
Mrs. Cowling: I don't know the total square miles off the top of my head. However, because of the geography of my riding, with Riding Mountain National Park, Duck Mountain, the Porcupines and Dauphin Lake, if I want to go from one corner of the riding to the other it takes me approximately 10 hours. So I spend a great deal of my time driving in my car. If that riding is made larger, it's going to mean a lot more time spent in a vehicle instead of serving the needs of my constituents on a personal basis, meeting them face to face.
Mr. White: Mrs. Cowling, you want the boundaries to essentially remain the same. How long have they been the same?
Mrs. Cowling: They were changed at least five or six years ago. For the record, I'm not certain, but they have been changed.
Mr. White: Would you advocate that they should stay the same for a long time? Surely, at some point there would be an adjustment of the boundaries. Is there an acceptable adjustment, or are you suggesting that all M.P.s in the province would prefer that they stay the same?
Mrs. Cowling: I would say that because of the geography of Dauphin - Swan River, it is one of the largest ridings in Canada. It's important in my mind that it stay the same so the people of Dauphin - Swan River can be served effectively by their parliamentarian.
Mr. White: So if your riding stayed the same, would you advocate that the others should stay the same as a result, or should they be adjusted?
Mrs. Cowling: The reason I'm proposing changes for mine, of course, is because of the geography. I just don't think it's fair to the people of that riding to make it any larger. That's what I heard from people in all of the RM and town council meetings, in the first nations communities and in the Métis communities.
Mr. Solomon: Where does the traffic flow in terms of marketplace in Minnedosa and Neepawa? You indicated they're not part of the Dauphin - Swan River proposed boundaries. Do you know where the flow goes?
Mrs. Cowling: Yes. The flow is more toward Brandon or Winnipeg, so it would reverse the flow.
Mr. Solomon: Where would you propose that the area they've added be allocated?
Mrs. Cowling: I would hope we would not lose the one rural riding that is in Manitoba.
Mr. Solomon: Where would Minnedosa and Neepawa be allocated in that area?
Mrs. Cowling: They would stay where they are right now and we wouldn't lose the one rural riding.
Mr. Solomon: What rural riding would you lose?
Mrs. Cowling: It would be Lisgar - Marquette.
Mr. White: I apologize. I have to be in the House in a few minutes so I have to go. Will that create a problem at all?
The Chair: We have a quorum.
An hon. member: I'll stay.
.1620
The Chair: We have Mr. Bonin, and Mr. McKinnon is staying, and Mr. Solomon. Does that meet with the...?
The Clerk of the Committee: Three is fine.
The Chair: We have a quorum?
The Clerk: Three is the quorum, yes.
The Chair: Okay.
We should start.
I'd like to welcome Mr. Collins from Souris - Moose Mountain.
You may proceed. You have seven minutes, Mr. Collins, and then we have eight minutes for questions.
Mr. Bernie Collins, M.P. (Souris - Moose Mountain): I'll try to be as quick as I can, Madam Chair.
I'll skip the first part of the presentation, which you received in document form.
The commission failed to respect the community of interest in dozens of smaller towns and villages in the rural and more remote areas of the province.
The commission failed to take note of the relatively small change in population and the small variation in the number of electors in each riding in Saskatchewan, which obviated the need to change the boundaries whatsoever.
I feel the commission failed to respect the needs of constituents for adequate representation by their member of Parliament.
The geographic size of the current constituency of Souris - Moose Mountain is so large as to make access to the M.P. and to services provided by the M.P. very difficult. The proposed increase in the size combined with the fact that it is relatively well populated for its size has not been respected by the commission.
In sum, the commission erred in using electoral quota as the sole factor in determining electoral districts.
Some years ago I used to have a pilot's licence, and for me to travel around, that's almost what I'd have to do - re-enact my pilot's licence.
My riding is approximately 300 miles across. If you take a look, it takes in the Qu'Appelle River. You can go past Rocanville down to the Qu'Appelle River and then over to Minton, which is at the southwest corner. If you could travel directly across, it may be 300 miles.
Since the election, I have put on my car, just in travelling, close to 150,000 kilometres. In order to do that and at the same time get to those constituents, I could have two people driving all the time. So in order for me to visualize the movement of my riding out to.... I suppose it's projected to the area that's in yellow on your map.
That trading area used to be part of the riding called Assiniboia - Gravelbourg and used to come up to about the boundary of Estevan - Bienfait. But the majority of that riding always was known as Qu'Appelle - Moose Mountain. Now they're taking some of what's added in yellow, which would take in the Assiniboia area, and where the trading and patterns of movement are to the west, we're going to expect that for voting purposes it would be collectively included in the east of my riding.
I find the changes proposed at this time are not appropriate in terms of the geographic map, and I'm speaking purely for my riding of Souris - Moose Mountain. The people who sat down certainly never had an opportunity to serve that riding as an M.P., and that's where you get the true test of what a riding size is and who you serve.
.1625
In summary, for the reasons I've stated and in what I've added now, I find it very difficult to support the proposed changes.
Mr. McKinnon: How do your numbers, Mr. Collins, compare to the desired population? In other words, are you quite a bit lower than, say, your provincial colleagues in terms of numbers of people?
Mr. Collins: I'm not sure just what they were using as a population base, so I'd be a little hesitant about making any observation about that.
I have to be honest. I'm taking a look at it right now in terms of a geographic size that is physically manageable by any individual, and to add to that task an additional number of communities is just not comprehensible.
Mr. McKinnon: How about geographical barriers? For instance, there's been a lot of construction on dams and what not in your riding. Will that cut certain people off in terms of population flow?
Mr. Collins: The changes to the Rafferty-Alameda and the Shand power station and the developments that took place did divide farms, but by and large the people who go to those trading centres still have access.
For example, the largest two centres in my riding are Estevan and Weyburn. On the north along the number 1 highway would be Moosomin. Those populations are basically served along number 1 by places such as Moosomin, Grenfell, Whitewood and Broadview.
In the middle you have places like Carlyle, Redvers, Arcola, Stoughton and then Weyburn. Then down on the bottom you have Estevan as you go to Torquay, Outram and those along the bottom line.
Through my riding I have highways number 18, 47, 39, 1 and 6. So I have a tremendous number of major arterials in there plus the distance, which includes, I might add, part of Moose Mountain, which is geographically a problem in itself.
Mr. Solomon: I don't have a copy of your existing boundaries. I see they're on the map there. Do they include Indian Head right now? Is that in your riding?
Mr. Collins: No. The boundary of mine is just at the doorstep of Wolseley on the east, and then directly north of that to the Qu'Appelle River, and everything to the east to the Manitoba border is mine. Then it goes down along that line to around Osage, then cuts across from Osage over to between Milestone and Lang, to just about four miles outside of Milestone. Then it goes south from Milestone over to Pangman, Parry and Dummer, and then all the way down on that number 6 to the U.S. border at Minton.
Mr. Solomon: I agree with Mr. Collins' contention that the area around Willow Bunch Lake in the proposed boundaries does feed into Assiniboia for the most part, perhaps even to Regina, but the trading area is not part of it.
It's very difficult to have some consistency when you divide a community, whether it's a trading community or a rural municipality. It's just more difficult to serve. It's not impossible, but it is difficult.
The Chair: Are there any more questions?
Thank you, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins: Thank you.
.1630
The Chair: When we met as a committee, we decided we would meet on Monday afternoons and Tuesday mornings, but because not all of our witnesses were able to come on those particular days I'm going to need your approval to extend our Tuesday meeting to 5:30 p.m. in the same room...and that we have an additional meeting on Wednesday, I believe, at 5:30 p.m.
Do you have a copy of the agenda for the witnesses, Mr. Solomon?
Mr. Solomon: Yes.
The Chair: So we would be extending it to accommodate, I believe, Ms Sheridan at 5:30 p.m. and the minister, Mr. Goodale, and David Iftody for Tuesday.
Mr. Bonin: I think you should extend it to 10 p.m.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Chair, I have a problem with Tuesday nights. Something has arisen. I have to return to my riding tomorrow night. So I won't be able to be here for tomorrow or Wednesday. It is tentative as of two hours ago. I have to confirm that later tonight and I'll know tomorrow. It doesn't matter to me if the committee wishes to do that, but I may not be able to be here.
The Chair: Is there a possibility of having someone in your place?
Mr. Solomon: There is a possibility. I'll try to find somebody if I can't make it, yes.
The Chair: Is it fine with the other committee members?
.1635
Mr. McKinnon: I have a meeting at 5:30 p.m. sharp tomorrow, but until that time, it's fine.
The Chair: Just for clarification, on Tuesday we'll start at 9:30 a.m. and should end at about11 a.m. Then we'll come back to the same room at 5:30 p.m. and 5:45 p.m.
Mr. Solomon: Is it possible to reorganize Mr. Goodale's time so I can be here when he will be making his presentation?
The Chair: This is the only time when he can appear, so you might want to have someone come in your place.
Mr. Solomon: Okay.
The Chair: Now we should set a point for deliberations. I'm suggesting that we do that on Thursday. Is that all right with everyone?
Mr. Solomon: Again, I won't be here.
The Chair: Could you have a substitute?
Mr. Solomon: I will try. I can't guarantee it.
Mr. McKinnon: At what time?
The Chair: We can firm that date up right now, if you'd like to do so.
Because of the very tight time restraints on our committee work, it has been suggested that we'll circulate a copy of the first draft to the members at the beginning of the week, because we will have next week off and will be back in our ridings.
I suggest that we should complete this discussion after we shall have heard from the minister.
Hon. Anne McLellan, M.P. (Edmonton Northwest): With this package of material, there are appendices outlined, and they follow in order, including my speaking notes and the background to the motion that was filed originally and some maps to which I'll be referring.
The Chair: The format of the meeting, Madam Minister, is that we have seven minutes for presentation and then eight minutes are open for questions.
Ms McLellan: I have a horrible feeling that my comments will take longer than seven minutes, so just tell me when you want me to stop.
The Chair: We will. Are you ready to begin?
.1640
Ms McLellan: Yes.
First, I want to commend the commission for the work it did in Alberta in redrawing the electoral boundaries. In reviewing the report submitted by the commission, it's clear they have been diligent and forthright in their work.
I particularly endorse their decision to respect the city limits of Edmonton and Calgary. The overwhelming opinion of Albertans is that we should not be in the business of creating these part-rural and part-urban ridings, whatever they're called - ``rurban'' ridings or whatever. Albertans seem unanimous in their view that it is not an acceptable solution to increases in urban population.
Once the commission decided to respect the corporate limits of the two large cities and not to increase the number of Edmonton ridings, the challenge was to create electoral districts that would not vary greatly from the established provincial standards and that would still allow for growth during the next decade.
The approach taken by the commission was to create three large ridings with more than 110,000 people and three substantially smaller ridings. In theory, the three large ridings would have stable populations and experience only limited growth. Their percentage of variance from the provincial standard of plus or minus 25% would be static, according to the commission.
I concur with the general approach taken by the commission. It is reasonable to assume that ridings with less potential for population growth would have higher initial populations than those that are growing faster.
At issue is the strong potential for population growth within the new district of Edmonton West, or my riding, which is known now as Edmonton Northwest.
I want to address that issue of potential population growth and one other that deals with community of interest, as defined in subparagraph 15.1(b)(i) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
Before doing so, however, I want to mention one additional complaint, albeit small. The commission has described its proposed boundary changes in Edmonton as minor, and indeed many of them are housekeeping matters, such as an adjustment to the line between Edmonton East and the new Edmonton West, which will now follow 109 Street instead of the railway line, which has been taken up and has disappeared.
However, some are not minor. By moving the boundary between Edmonton Southwest and Edmonton West further south, the commission has moved more than 20,000 people into a different riding and destroyed their historic and established community of interest and identity. Despite its impact on 20,000 people, this change did not warrant a single mention in the commission's report.
Let me deal briefly with communities of interest. I want to talk about the separation of two well-established neighbourhoods from others with which they have strong economic, social and historical ties.
The two areas removed from their communities of interest are Crestwood and Jasper Place. If you look at the map of Edmonton Northwest in the materials, you will see that the two communities of which I speak are that area between what one would call the fuchsia line and the purple line on this map, between 170 Street and the river valley and the ravine. It's that block or chunk surrounded by the fuchsia and purple lines.
Crestwood is a community of about 2,000 people, established approximately 50 years ago. It shares many community institutions and socio-economic characteristics with its neighbouring communities, Parkview and Laurier Heights, both of which will stay in the riding of Edmonton Southwest. These three neighbourhoods have also traditionally been in the same electoral district for federal, provincial and municipal elections.
You may want to look at the community leagues map, which is appendix 3 - I'm afraid we didn't have time to number these, but it's the excerpt from the map of Edmonton community leagues - to get a picture of just where these three neighbourhoods are. You will see marked on the map Crestwood, West Jasper Place and Sherwood Park.
The communities in question, those which have been moved from Edmonton Southwest to the new riding of Edmonton West, are Crestwood and Jasper Place. A look at the information provided by the residents of Crestwood during the last census shows great similarities to Laurier Heights and Parkview. The education levels, average family income and home values are very comparable.
.1645
So I'm suggesting that Crestwood, like its two neighbours, Parkview and Laurier Heights, stay in Edmonton Southwest. This is the same argument as was made by members of the Loyola Society when the commission sat in Edmonton. That's a group of Catholic community leaders who have an interest in education.
By moving the boundary north to Stony Plain Road, which is the present boundary of the riding Edmonton Northwest, it would also follow the natural geographic division created by MacKinnon Ravine.
The second long-established community that has been affected by the boundary change is Jasper Place. Jasper Place was a town separate from Edmonton until 1961. It was made up of neighbourhoods west of 149th Street and north of the river valley. Its main business street was Stony Plain Road, which for decades divided the older and newer areas of the town.
I'm not suggesting here today that it is possible to keep all the neighbourhoods of the old town of Jasper Place together. But if Jasper Place must be divided, it should be along the traditional Stony Plain Road.
Stony Plain Road continues to be a very significant geographic feature, one of the most significant in the entire city. There's no Edmontonian who does not know Stony Plain Road. Today it is the major east-west arterial for that part of the city, with tens of thousands of vehicles using the road every day. So its physical characteristics alone make it an obvious choice as an electoral boundary, and of course it is the electoral boundary of my existing riding of Edmonton Northwest.
It has the added advantage of keeping both the Jasper Park and the West Jasper Sherwood community leagues together in the same riding. You see those outlined for you on the map of Edmonton community leagues.
In addition, if you accepted the changes I propose, we will not bisect either the West Jasper Sherwood Community League or the Meadowlark Community League catchment areas. That's what we're doing now with these new boundaries. We're dividing community leagues. Let me tell you a little about them and their importance in Edmonton.
In Edmonton, community leagues are the smallest units in which neighbourhoods are organized. Many cities in Canada don't have them. They provide educational programs and social and recreational activities. In many areas they are very involved in representing their members' views at the three levels of government. For example, when I meet with people to talk about safe streets, safe homes, I meet with community leagues. For example, when the new federal prison for women was looking for a site in Edmonton, community leagues were actively involved in representing the interests and concerns of their members. So it is very important that our boundaries, wherever possible, respect community league boundaries.
I will very quickly move from communities of interest to population concerns.
As I said earlier, I do support the general approach the commission has taken in anticipation of future growth in Edmonton. The problem with their approach, however, is that the new district of Edmonton West includes high-growth areas on the western edge of the city and in the downtown core. So its population is not stable, it's growing.
Unlike the other two large ridings, Edmonton East and Strathcona, the new riding of Edmonton West does have significant space still available for development. If you look at the materials I've filed from the city you will see those areas are being developed. It also contains several neighbourhoods that at this point are not fully developed. Therefore the potential growth for population is significant.
In addition to the west end, downtown Edmonton West is home to significant residential growth as the old CN rail yards are redeveloped. The City of Edmonton planning services report that more than 365 new residences are being added to the community of Oliver in Edmonton West, which is where the old CN lands used to be.
The combined impact of the rapid growth in the west end and downtown redevelopment is that Edmonton West has the potential for significant population growth in the next decade. It is not unreasonable to assume its population will exceed the 25% variance shortly after the year 2000.
The City of Edmonton predicts that its total population will increase by 0.9% each year from 1993 to 2000. This is a conservative growth factor we chose. There are others that increase that quite substantially. But this conservative growth factor, if it's applied to the population of Edmonton West, would mean by the year 2000 it would have at least 120,000 people, an increase of almost 7,000 in 5 years.
.1650
I think the census figures from 1991 are clearly out of date, and in some areas badly out of date. The western edge of Edmonton is one of those areas where the speed of recent development has made the census numbers clearly unhelpful. A comparison of 1991 census data with the federal enumeration done two years later shows how much growth has occurred.
For example, the subdivision of Lewis Estates was being built in the area of Lewis Farm during the 1991 census and then had only 152 residents. By the 1993 enumeration, it had 595 voters as opposed to residents, and therefore a population obviously much greater than 152. Today, the population of that area of Lewis Estates is in the thousands.
What this means for drawing boundaries is that the commission must make an educated guess about what these high-growth areas will be like in a decade. It only makes sense that ridings that have high growth areas would have sufficient margins for growth to keep them from approaching and exceeding the provincial maximum. The commission has set large margins for growth in three small ridings, but the margin for Edmonton West is simply insufficient.
On pages 8 and 9 I have outlined the suggested changes. I think they're very straightforward. I won't reiterate them at this point.
You may have some questions for me.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Solomon.
Mr. Solomon: Thanks for a very comprehensive report.
Ms McLellan: Sorry it was so rushed.
Mr. Solomon: That's okay.
I just have one observation. You're the second or third witness to say today that you commend the commission on their boundaries report and then to ask for changes to it that are not that minor.
Ms McLellan: I commend the general orientation on big issues of principle, like the urban-rural split. I think they got that right.
Mr. Solomon: Okay. Historically, through my experience, Madam Minister, when you commend the boundaries commission they disregard your recommendations for changes. I've done that three times myself and they say thanks, we appreciate the compliments, but I guess we're not going to make your changes.
Ms McLellan: All right. So the message is not to be polite?
Mr. Solomon: You can be polite by not saying they did a good job and then rip them to pieces for doing a bad job.
Ms McLellan: Yes, you're right.
Mr. Solomon: I think in many cases there are good reasons for them to make some changes. I raise that as a concern I have: if members come before our committee requesting changes, let's be blunt about it. Let's not say they did a good job and then oh, by the way, how about some changes. I don't want to belabour that point.
Ms McLellan: Can I redraft this?
Mr. Solomon: I don't think this is going to go to the commission, is it?
My question, Minister, is what is the communication line you've had with other members bordering your boundary? Have you talked to anybody else about whether they think this is a good idea or not, whether they would support it? Have you talked to any other members of Parliament who are adjacent to your riding?
Ms McLellan: The only member of Parliament who would be involved at all is Ian McClelland from Edmonton Southwest. I haven't talked to Ian, but in fact what I would be doing here is giving back to Ian some area of Edmonton Southwest that he had and obviously knows quite well from the 1993 election. That is the only change.
In fact, we have talked to people in the community leagues of Crestwood and Jasper Place and others. Community leaders make the point that what's important to them is that wherever possible you keep their natural community identity together. In Edmonton a key part of that is the community league structure.
The principal and primary identifying factor for Edmontonians is their community league area, and if you split it up the way these proposals do and then if you split areas like Crestwood from others that have a lengthy history in terms of education and social activities and things like that, you start to bifurcate communities in ways that we want to avoid, not encourage.
Mr. Solomon: I have a final comment. I mentioned this earlier to other witnesses and I relay it for the minister. I do support boundaries that are consistent and contingent with communities as opposed to dividing them, and that argument is a very good one. Thank you.
Ms McLellan: Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Mr. McKinnon: MacKinnon Ravine seems to be a very important piece of geography there.
Ms McLellan: Yes, Glen. Is it named after you?
.1655
If you will look at the map of the riding, McKinnon Ravine is this line farther north that has the fuchsia and blue. The Mackenzie Ravine is directly below, and the commission is suggesting that it could become the new boundary. I'm saying no. McKinnon Ravine, which flows directly into Stoney Plain Road and which is the existing boundary and the historical boundary, should continue to be the boundary out to 170th Street.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
If not, then I thank the minister for her presentation.
Would you like this to go as an exhibit before the commission?
Ms McLellan: The entire package?
The Chair: Just the appendices.
Ms McLellan: If you were to send the speaking notes, then I would follow up on the suggestion, take it back, and stop being polite to the commission.
The Chair: No, it's just the appendices.
Ms McLellan: Yes, I think that should go to them, as well as the background to the motion, I guess.
The Chair: Could we have someone from the subcommittee move a motion that the appendices go before the commission as an exhibit?
Mr. Solomon: I so move.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. The committee is adjourned.