Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 4, 1995

.1535

[Translation]

The Chairman: If you agree, we will begin, and Mr. Assad can join us when he arrives.

I wish to welcome Mr. Pierre Brien, member for Témiscamingue. Mr. Brien, you have the floor.

Mr. Pierre Brien (MP for Témiscamingue): First of all, I'd like to say that it's a strange feeling to come here as a witness before a committee. You will understand that my political objective is not to ensure the continuation of my federal riding as it exists, but we do have a responsibility to prepare for all eventualities, and that's why I'm here. Quebeckers will make a choice that we will respect.

The suggestion to include Cadillac in the Témiscamingue riding seems correct to me. Indeed, since this municipality was the only one that was not part of the three RCMs of the riding, the change that is being suggested will allow us to more closely match the Quebec government structures.

However, I disagree with the new name of the riding. There are three RCMs that are named respectively RCM of Témiscamingue, RCM of Rouyn-Noranda and RCM of Abitibi-Ouest. The RCMs of Rouyn-Noranda and Abitibi-Ouest are part of what is known as Abitibi. By calling the riding Rouyn-Noranda - Témiscamingue, Rouyn-Noranda is included, but Abitibi-Ouest is excluded.

Therefore, since this sector is already quite isolated in the region, its inhabitants will not be terribly pleased to hear that the name of the riding is being changed in favour of Rouyn-Noranda but not of their own sector. On the other hand, one musn't exaggerate. We can't call the riding Abitibi-Ouest - Rouyn-Noranda - Témiscamingue! There are limits to the length of riding names! Témiscamingue, which is the current name, respects a number of regional realities, such as the history of the region which began with Témiscamingue, with lac Témiscamingue and the region itself, which is called Abitibi-Témiscamingue. There are therefore good reasons to keep that name.

Moreover, most people are familiar with Abitibi, but very few know Témiscamingue. If we drown the word ``Témiscamingue'' in part of Abitibi, I don't think we'll be helping the people of Témiscamingue promote their identity, their history, etc. Essentially, those are the reasons why I wish that the riding would continue to be called Témiscamingue.

I'm not asking for any major change. I really don't have further explanations to give you. If there are questions, I will be pleased to answer them. The change that I'm proposing is easy to implement and people are hoping that if Quebeckers choose the current political system, their riding will continue to be called Témiscamingue.

Mr. Leroux (Richmond - Wolfe): You alluded to the RCMs and you said that these boundaries were acceptable to you because they resulted in a ratio of approximately 89,000 or 90,000, I think.

Mr. Brien: Perhaps a little under 89,000.

Mr. Leroux: So, approxmately 89,000. And the boundaries are acceptable to you in terms of RCMs and communities of interest.

Mr. Brien: Yes. The other RCMs, the RCM of Vallée-de-l'Or and that of Abitibi are all within the Abitibi riding. Cadillac is currently part of the Rouyn-Noranda RCM. Therefore by annexing it to my riding, there would no longer be any overlap in RCMs.

I have something else to add regarding the name of my riding. In Quebec, there are three counties in this region: There's Abiti-Est, Abiti-Ouest and Rouyn-Noranda Témiscamingue. If my riding was named Rouyn-Noranda Témiscamingue, the provincial county and the federal riding would have the same name, although the latter is larger and includes part of Abitibi.

.1540

If the same name was given to the county and the riding, it would certainly be confusing although their geographic limits are different.

The Chairman: That's quite clear.

Mr. Brien: I hope you will follow up on these recommendations as they have the support of people in the riding. Thank you.

The Chairman: Our next witness is Mr. Langlois. Which tab number, Mr. Langlois?

Mr. Francois Langlois (MP for Bellechasse): The clerk, Ms Carrière, will no doubt be more helpful than I am in finding it. I thing I was at tab 3, Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Leroux: That won't cause any procedural problems?

The Clerk of the Committee: No.

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a few notes about my notice of objection. I would like to say at the outset that for Quebec, the commission was very parsimonious in using its power to deviate from the provincial quota by 25%.

In my opinion, that creates a very serious problem for rural ridings. There is one notorious exception however, and that's Saguenay - Lac-Saint-Jean, where the quota is clearly lower. The riding I have the honour to represent is roughly within the provincial average with some 91,600 inhabitants.

If it could help solve the problem of the Lower St. Lawrence, which seems even more serious, I might agree with this position. But I have one objection for the Lower St. Lawrence. Except for Bonaventure - Iles-de-la-Madeleine, which currently has 50,000 voters, I think that the special circumstances clause should have been invoked for the ridings of the Lower St. Lawrence.

What we're proposing is an access. Mr. Gagnon will probably be much more precise. He hasn't appeared yet.

The Chairman: Tomorrow.

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Canuel can explain why the Matane - Carleton access that's being proposed doesn't make sense.

On the map, we can see that there are four ridings attributed to the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé. This boundary map will have to be redesigned. You can put your questions to the witnesses who will come tomorrow.

Even though the population is low and the territory is large, the problems are immense when you try to have an office in a riding where the social fabric is more fragile and where there is a high level of migration of the population, high unemployment, etc.

It seems to me that the special circumstances clause could have been invoked to keep the four ridings of Gaspé and the Lower St. Lawrence together.

There remains the case of the Madeleine Islands. Should they become a single electoral riding as they were until 1968? The special circumstances clause would have to be invoked and I think it should be. I maintain this before the Procedures and Affairs Committee when we examined Bill C-69. I haven't changed my mind about the fact that a population which is sealocked - rather than landlocked - should not be deprived of a full-time representative.

Many years ago, Quebec adopted legislation that recognized the distinctive character of the Magdalen Islands and ensured that they would have representation in the National Assembly even though there was an enormous difference in the ratio.

I can just imagine the job of an MP who has to represent both Bonaventure and the Islands and who must travel from one place to another with air links that are not exactly the same as Pearson to Ottawa! The air connections are very difficult. But we will have an opportunity to discuss this again with our colleagues from Eastern Quebec tomorrow.

.1545

Now let's talk about Bellechasse. I would express that same caveat that Mr. Brien did. I'm not defending a political project, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Leroux; I think that I'm fulfilling the mandate for which I was elected, which is to defend the interests of the voters of Quebec who are currently part of Canada. Regardless of what happens, I think they have the right to expect that their members of Parliament will do their jobs.

Although I don't want to be partisan about this issue, I don't really like being criticized for coming before this Committee, which has legal powers to hear representations by members of Parliament, for doing my job as a member and being able to tell voters in my riding that I represented them under all circumstances. They will be free to make the decision they wish in the very near future.

My main objection to the new riding of Bellechasse... Mr. Chairman, allow me to say at the outset that if I had to go through an election campaign right now, the Bellechasse riding that the commission has proposed would suit me perfectly. It's the best I could hope for. However, this new riding of Bellechasse has been established in a rather bizarre way.

I would much prefer that we stick to the commission's original project - and this is what I say in my notice of objection - that is the project that had been tabled and that appeared in the supplement to the Canada Gazette on February 5, 1994. What was being proposed for Bellechasse at that time? I will send a copy to Ms Carrière, unless you already have the original projects in hand, Mr. Bertrand.

There's one thing I don't understand, and that's riding number 8 in the original projects.

I'm using the text that was tabled in 1994 and that was distributed. You don't have a copy? I will read it to you and give Ms Carrière the original. It's very brief.

For Bellechasse, the commission proposed the towns of L'Islet, Lac-Etchemin, Montmagny and Saint-Pamphile. I don't know why they were set apart, because these towns are already part of a regional county municipality. The text then mentions the regional county municipalities of Bellechasse, les Etchemins, L'Islet and Montmagny, four complete RCMs since the towns are already part of them. This was therefore a homogeneous territory which included the entire RCMs.

Right now, the riding of Bellechasse that I represent does not include, within the RCM of L'Islet, the parishes of Saint-Roch-des-Aulnaies and the neighbouring parish of Sainte-Louise, which are in the riding represented by Mr. Crête, namely Kamouraska-Témiscouata. All the other municipalities of the RCM of L'Islet are part of Bellechasse. We can therefore see the logic in grouping all the municipalities of a single RCM in the same federal electoral riding whenever possible. I agree with that. I have nothing to say about that.

The entire RCM of Montmagny is already in the federal Bellechasse riding, and nothing has been changed about that. That's fine.

The same is true for the entire RCM of Bellechasse which is currently in the riding of Bellechasse. No problem there.

Now with regard to the RCM of des Etchemins, certain parishes are included and others are not. Those that are not are Saint-Cyprien, Saint-Louis, Sainte-Rose, Saint-Prosper, Sainte-Aurélie, Saint-Zacharie and Saint-Benjamin, which are currently part of the riding of Beauce. The initial project brought together all these parishes, therefore the entire RCM of des Etchemins, because certain parishes of that RCM are already part of the riding of Bellechasse. These would include Saint-Magloire, Sainte-Sabine, Saint-Camille, Sainte-Justine, Sainte-Germaine, Lac-Etchemin and Saint-Luc which are a part of the RCM of des Etchemins. Therefore the entire RCM of des Etchemins was brought into the riding of Bellechasse and was no longer part of the riding of Beauce.

Why did these four parishes of the RCM of des Etchemins disappear in the final report: Sainte-Aurélie, Saint-Zacharie, Saint-Prosper and Saint-Benjamin?

.1550

On page 54 of the report on Quebec, under reasons, the commissioners say that the municipalities of Saint-Benjamin, Saint-Prosper, Saint-Zacharie and Sainte-Aurélie are included in the riding of both rather than that of Bellechasse because of the close socio-economic links they have with southern Beauce.

I submit to you that this reasoning does not withstand analysis. The riding that I represent is obviously torn between two major poles, including Beauce, but the entire Beauce area. If this is true for Saint-Aurélie, Saint-Zacharie, Saint-Prosper and Saint-Benjamin, it's also true for my own municipality of Sainte-Claire de Dorchester, which is a few minutes from Sainte-Marie-de-Beauce, and it's also true for the parishes along route 277 which border on the Beauce.

I think that for the homogeneity of the riding, the RCM of Etchemins should be within the Bellechasse riding, as provided for in the first project.

Removing four municipalities from the RCM of Etchemins was perverse. It was a demographic shortfall somewhere and in order to remedy it and put it in the final project, they went and got the parish of Saint-Henri-de-Lévis, which a few minutes from the town of Lévis, on the St. Lawrence river. You're familiar with the region. This Parrish was part of the RCM of Desjardins.

Therefore, we're setting aside four parishes of the RCM of des Etchemins - the only four that are not included in Bellechasse - and to balance the numbers, we go and pluck out Saint-Henri-de-Lévis. It's removed from Lévis, which is right next door - it's a dormitory for Lévis although there is some industry - and we tell these people: You have to deal with one more RCM, etc. I think there's something really strange about this line of reasoning.

I would suggest that we get back to the initial report, although I find that this a very heavy rural riding with a suggested population of 91,748. That's the provincial quota and we were within it. I would still prefer a homogeneous Bellechasse riding. It would be easier to work with four RCMs, four prefects and the municipalities rather than having to work with a fifth RCM because of a single parrish, Saint-Henri-de-Lévis.

The current riding of Lévis, with 25% variation of the permitted quota, could encompass Saint-Henri-de-Lévis which, under the current plan, would be part of Bellechasse. The people of Saint-Henri-de Lévis obviously feel much closer to Lévis than to Montmagny, Saint-Pamphile or Eastern Quebec. To detach that town is really counter to the history of the region. I would submit that we should simply get back to the map as it was drawn up and tabled in February 1994.

As was the case for Mr. Brien, the name of the riding presents a serious problem.

On page 3, you will see that the name ``Bellechasse'' has several meanings in the current territorial division.

It represents the federal riding of Bellechasse, of course. It also represents the provincial county of Bellechasse which is much smaller since the same territory also covers the provincial riding of Montmagny - L'Islet.

The people of Saint-Pamphile, L'Islet or Montmagny do not really recognize themselves in the name Bellechasse since they are rather used to the provincial county name or the RCM name.

Bellechasse also refers to the RCM of Bellechasse, which is only one of four RCMs that make up the federal riding of Bellechasse, which also includes the land registration district of Bellechasse, namely the land registry office, which is even smaller. Lastly, this includes - I didn't indicate it, but I would like to add it because at the time I was not certain - the Bellechasse School Board.

The name of Bellechasse is long. It has been stretched out and I don't think it describes the social and demographic reality that the new riding would cover.

.1555

As parliamentarians working in the field, we all know that we have to continually watch out for hurt feelings. I therefore suggest that the name of the riding encompass the names of the four RCMs that make it up. Why favour one over another? There's no reason to do that. Why call it the riding of Etchemins, for example, which is a very pretty name but which would offend the people of the RCMs of Bellechasse, Islet and Montmagny, who would wonder why one particular name is being favoured?

I would point out that the name of one Ontario riding is made up of four names, though this is not frequent. The riding bears the names of four counties, namely Dufferin - Peel - Wellington - Grey. If it can be done for that riding, I think it can be done in Quebec also. We should allow the people of each RCM to maintain their own identity, while recognizing that they are a part of a much larger electoral district.

In Quebec, there has been a tendency to forging an identity in the past few years. We protect the sense of belonging by mentioning the name of the RCM and also by protecting the description of the federal electoral riding.

The name Dorchester, which is particularly close to my heart since I was born in what was one of the first ridings, has just disappeared. When the Constitutional Act of 1791 was edicted during the first legislative assembly, the county of Dorchester existed. Since the former riding of Dorchester is divided between Beauce, Bellechasse and Les Etchemins, it would be difficult for me to claim to represent all of Dorchester whereas it is clearly split into two or three parts. I will not dwell on that. I simply wish to express my regret that the name has disappeared and has not been recovered in some other way.

The Chairman: I wasn't watching the time. We usually give 15 minutes, seven for the presentation and seven for questions.

Mr. Leroux: First of all, I have a comment on the initial remarks you made about Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands. Yesterday, at the end of our discussion, we talked a bit about the direction of the final report and we brought up the immense territory of some of these ridings. We should pursue this and invoke the special circumstances clause.

Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that there was agreement yesterday, we did ask some questions about this and it is rather important that we invoke this special circumstances clause in the report.

Does the new distribution not reduce the ratios of the four RCMs? The new riding of Bellechasse falls to 87,00 instead of 91,000, if I understand this correctly.

Mr. Langlois: Yes. According to the final version, it would go from 91,00 to 85,000 or 87,000.

Mr. Leroux, I feel that it would be better to keep 91,000 by maintaining the entire RCMs rather than dividing them again. They have their county towns and they would have their federal member of Parliament and their provincial MNA in that town.

Mr. Leroux: Among the people who came to present their report, many alluded to the structures and communities of interest represented by the RCMs, the CRDs and the school boards. It's a very clear reality. What strikes us is the difference between the 75 federal ridings and the 125 provincial counties. We know that Quebec is divided into regions, RCMs, etc. This new distribution always breaks up one of these entities somehow. There's always a pie being divided up or a slice of pie that disappears.

Regardless, it is important to take this viewpoint into account. If Lévis got back what you describe, what would its ratio be?

Mr. Langlois: Lévis is at 108,000. It would go up to 110,000 and would remain within the 125% limit without having to invoke the special circumstances clause. We don't have to redesign the whole map. It's just one municipality.

Mr. Leroux: I wanted to know what the effect of this would be on Lévis in terms of numbers.

The Chairman: You're proposing the name Bellechasse - Etchemins - L'Islet - Montmagny?

Mr. Leroux: The name would be Les Etchemins - Bellechasse - Montmagny - L'Islet, as it appears on page 3 of the...

The Chairman: We'll have to make the paper bigger.

Mr. Langlois: Not really. I'm thinking of certain Western ridings such as Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt. It's long when you dashes between two names.

The Chairman: Did you look at mine?

Mr. Langlois: Yes. Pontiac - Gatineau - Labelle. Excuse me it's even longer. Mr. Assad is from Gatineau - La Lièvre.

.1600

You don't have too many problems with that? I think it's something one gets used to. It's not worse than having a riding name that doesn't mean much to people. The riding name Pontiac is very well known in Quebec. In describing the map of Quebec, the nuns used to tell us that we could see the Indian head at the Ontario border. I always remembered that.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Langlois: On the map, the shape of Pontiac resembled an Indian head.

Mr. Leroux: That's what we were taught.

Mr. Langlois: That's what we were taught. I remembered the riding right away like my own. There was an Indian involved.

As far as the length of the name goes, we need it to reflect the identity of the various communities. If we use just one term, the other regional county municipalities feel frustrated. I see no reason to do this. Even though it might take a little more ink to print, this is a solution to the problem.

In addition, Mr. Bertrand, and I will stress this aspect more, I think the name creates a false impression. The current riding of Bellechasse in no way resembles the riding of Bellechasse before 1968, when the area I represent had four members of Parliament in the House of Commons. I pat myself on the back because I am worth four MPs.

I know that's not the case, but I do have to travel a lot to get around the whole riding. And sometimes I catch the flu as I go along. This is what happens in regions with widely scattered population. These people feel vulnerable, because they do not have the demographic weight they would like. So let's give them their identity, rather than submerging them in a single name which actually conveys nothing for them and certainly does not reflect their identity.

Ms Monique Guay (MP for Laurentides): Good afternoon. I'd like to thank you for allowing me to appear before you this afternoon to express my views on the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission.

When I read this report and the proposals regarding the riding of Laurentides, I noticed some problems. My first remarks go to the members of the commission who, in my view, have stupidly carved up the riding of Laurentides to achieve the objective of an electoral quota of approximately 25%.

I think it is clear that they did not take into account other factors which are important for us such as community of interests, cultural identity and the historical development of our region. The riding of Laurentides coincides with the central part of the Laurentian administrative region, which extends from Sainte-Thérèse to Mont-Laurier, and passes through Saint-Jérôme, Saint-Sauveur, Sainte-Adèle, Sainte-Agathe, Saint-Jovite, Labelle and L'Annonciation.

Since you're in the neighbouring riding, Mr. Chairman, I believe you know my riding very well. You know that we should not be splitting up a riding in which tourism is so important.

I must point out that the main artery through this region is the Laurentian autoroute and highway 117 in the south up to Sainte-Agathe. Highway 117 extends northwards and in fact runs through your riding.

The Laurentians have developed around this artery. The north was colonized by a parish priest, Labelle, along this route with the establishment of highway 117 and a number of villages. The cities and towns north of Sainte-Agathe still have highway 117 going right through the middle.

Let's think about the ``petit train du Nord'' which followed the same route and which, from Saint-Jérôme to Mont-Laurier, went through the riding of Laurentides. This train line created certain traffic patterns in all areas among residents and established strong links between these cities, towns and municipalities along it.

Given that this is an administrative region, all government and other services have been established here. So the residents are very attached to them. The Tourism Association of the Laurentians, the Laurentian Development Corporation and the Laurentian Regional Health and Social Services Board, for example, all provide services to the people who live along the autoroute, number 15 and highway 117.

.1605

Given the closely woven social fabric of this region, I'm sure you will understand my vigorous opposition to the change proposed by the commission, which would remove the municipalities of Saint-Faustin, Saint-Jovite, Mont-Tremblant, La Conception, Labelle and La Minerve from the riding of Laurentides. This is the north-eastern part of my riding, which is directly linked to highway 117.

The proposal is to transfer these cities and towns to the riding of Argenteuil - Papineau. People in the current riding of Laurentides have no sense of belonging, nor do they have any road, economic or social links to the riding of Argenteuil - Papineau.

Lachute is the main city in Argenteuil-Papineau. The people who live in the communities I mentioned a moment ago tend to travel toward Saint-Jérôme and Montreal, not toward Lachute. And that is because of the road system: they use the 15-117 artery to do their shopping, to go to work, to go to school and to get their health-care services.

They also use this route to get the services of their member of Parliament. For example, people living in Labelle, which is part of the riding of Laurentides, expect to get services from their member of Parliament in their own region. The commission is suggesting that these people should get their services from a member of Parliament who is located outside the region, off the highway and certainly not familiar with regional problems.

The part of the RCM that the commission wants to remove from the riding of Laurentides depends mainly on the forestry and tourism industries. All of the people involved in these activities in the region have always worked together consequently, development plans apply to the entire Laurentian region.

Organizations and other groups involved work with all the municipalities and the municipalities do the same. Let me give you the example of Mont-Tremblant, the largest ski resort in the East. It is part of the Laurentian ski resort network. What is the logic for removing this resort from the network and putting it into the Argenteuil - Papineau riding which, as far as I know, has no ski resorts at all?

The Laurentian ski resort network deals with regional organizations and the member of Parliament for Laurentides. I am convinced that people in the Laurentian region want a member of Parliament who is directly tied into the regional network of organizations. Saint-Jérôme is the hub of the network, the place where people come to get all their services, including the services of their member of Parliament.

Thus I would like to make the following suggestions. The only proposal of the commission that I support is the one that would remove the following municipalities from the riding: Entrelacs, Lac-Paré, Notre-Dame-de-la-Merci, Saint-Donat and Chertsev. By removing these 6,803 people, the total population for the riding of Laurentides would be 108,864. This would comply with the electoral quota of approximately 25%.

This part of my riding could very well be part of the Berthier - Montcalm riding. This is a homogeneous subregion in which the main road is highway 125.

Many people came from Saint-Faustin, Saint-Jovite, Labelle and Mont-Tremblant to oppose the new boundaries, because they did not identify at all with the riding of Argenteuil - Papineau. They want to stay within the Laurentian tourist network.

Mr. Assad (Gatineau - La Lièvre): I am familiar with this area, of course, Ms Guay. Provincially, the riding went almost as far as Saint-Jovite. If you keep Saint-Jovite, Saint-Faustin, Labelle, Mont-Tremblant, and so on, the population would increase from 107,000 to...

Ms Guay: The population at the moment is about 115,700, and the proposal is to take away these municipalities to reduce the population. If they were given back to me, but the other communities I mentioned were taken away, the figure would be 108,864. This would comply with the 25% deviation.

Mr. Assad: And where would the other communities go?

Ms Guay: To the riding of Berthier - Montcalm.

Mr. Assad: Do they identify with Joliette and Berthier?

Ms Guay: Precisely. Take Saint-Donat, for example. That community is really outside of my region. It is a tourist area, but it deals with Joliette, not the Laurentian area, because Joliette is closer. This practice developed many years ago.

.1610

The community deals with us when it comes time to make applications under section 25, but it deals with Joliette much more. As a result, we transfer the files to Joliette, but Saint-Donat is located within my riding.

Mr. Assad: The last time the map was changed was in 1988, was it not?

The Chairman: The map was changed in 1986-1987.

Mr. Assad: Yes, I remember.

The Chairman: I was too young.

Mr. Assad: Were the municipalities that you want to include in Berthier-Montcalm part of the riding of Laurentides before 1986-1987?

Ms Guay: I can't tell you, I didn't notice where they were before. Actually, it was the riding of Terrebonne. It was similar, but these communities were not added subsequently. There's a provincial riding that was changed in my area.

Mr. Assad: So you are suggesting that these communities, which have more affinity with Joliette than Berthier, be transferred...

Ms Guay: Yes.

Mr. Assad: And that the communities of Saint-Jovite, Saint-Faustin and the others along highway 117 be brought back into your riding.

Ms Guay: That is correct. I would like to see all the communities located along the 117 be part of a homogeneous riding, which is accustomed to working together. Conversely, all the communities along highway 125 that are included in my riding should be put into the neighbouring riding. That would give us a total of 108,000, which would meet the 25% deviation.

Removing the communities from Saint-Faustin to La Minerve would be very harmful to the tourism network we've established over the years. Mont-Tremblant would be very upset, because it uses this tourist network to attract visitors.

Mr. Assad: That's reasonable.

Ms Guay: You see!

The Chairman: Do you have any questions, Mr. Leroux?

Mr. Leroux: No, the presentation's very clear.

Ms Guay: You are familiar with my riding, are you not, Gaston?

Mr. Leroux: You did a very fine job.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Guay.

Ms Guay: Thank you.

The Chairman: I will now call on Antoine Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (MP for Lévis): Good afternoon. I've come to support a claim from a community in my riding by the name of Saint-Henri-de-Lévis. Under the proposal, this community would be removed from the riding of Lévis and included in Bellechasse.

Because of deadline problems, I was unable to make a similar claim for the municipality of Saint-Lambert. Legally, you may not be able to accept its objection, but I nevertheless wrote a letter to say that Saint-Lambert was also displeased about changing ridings.

I will start by talking about Saint-Henri, which is part of the Desjardins regional county municipality or RCM. It in turn is part of the provincial riding of Lévis, which, for about ten years now has developed affinities with Lévis, the regional centre.

I won't go into too many details about this background. Perhaps my colleague, the member of Parliament for Bellechasse, spoke about this in his presentation. The community of Saint-Henri, in addition to feeling a strong attachment to the riding of Lévis, has unfortunately had a rivalry with the neighbouring communities of Bellechasse, particularly as regards schools. For several years, there was an attempt to have Saint-Henri come under the Bellechasse school board, and relations were extremely difficult.

.1615

Recently, Saint-Henri was taken out of the Bellechasse school board and was returned to the Lévis school board.

I mention this example to explain the importance of regional affinities. I'm obviously in favour of what you say about federal representation on page 12 of the French version:

I would therefore like to point out the somewhat exceptional situation of my riding. Moreover, I would like to discuss a matter that involves demographic development only. Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the document in question.

The population of Saint-Henri is not growing, it is declining. In 1981, the population of Saint-Henri was 3,908, whereas now it is 3,886. That's only a slight reduction, but it is a reduction nonetheless. This is common in a rural community, in Quebec and elsewhere, but it may be less important in this case than in others because of the proximity of Saint-Henri to Lévis. I know people who've studied the problem to have taken population change into account in that, since the electoral boundaries are changed about every eight years, the situation could be somewhat anticipated. So we just point out that the population of the community in question is not increasing, but rather declining.

The RCM of Desjardins, as a whole is growing, but it is growing much more slowly than the Chutes-de-la Chaudière RCM, which is also part of the federal riding of Lévis, but which has grown more quickly. In 1981 the population of the Desjardins RCM was 44,689. It is now 49,076. However, forecasts show that in 2011, the population of the RCM will have dropped by 2,494. So in this part of the riding of Lévis, the population of the Desjardins RCM will no longer be growing, but rather declining, according to the experts. I intend to table this information.

In addition, I know where of I speak in commenting on the riding, because I have witnessed its historical development. I have seen the quarrels that have happened and the strong sense of belonging to the Desjardins RCM. I think these claims should be taken into account. Although I'm a member of Parliament from the Bloc Québécois who believes that Quebec will become sovereign, this may not happen. If that is the case, I must represent my constituents properly.

I cannot make the same comments regarding population in the case of Saint-Lambert, because it is clear that the population of the Chutes-de-la-Chaudière RCM is growing quickly. This is probably one of the two or three fastest-growing RCMs. I would point out that Saint-Lambert would like to remain within the federal riding of Lévis, because it is the closest location to the south.

.1620

However, I have to admit that, someday, part of the riding of Lévis will have to be removed since the population is growing so quickly and it would be reasonable to begin there. If this would happen, Saint-Lambert would like to be part of the riding of Beauce rather than Lotbinière.

Why? For historical reasons, once again. Those familiar with the link to the Beauce region know that Saint-Lambert is located along highway 73 and that people in Beauce take this route daily to get to the Quebec bridge.

I'm rather sad to say that some day we might have to remove Saint-Lambert from the riding of Lévis. However, at least I'm representing its municipal council in telling you that it would prefer to be part of the riding of Beauce rather than Lotbinière.

Unless there are any questions, those are the main points I wanted to make. My intent is to represent those municipalities which made proper written representations to your committee.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Dubé: I would like to discuss a final general point regarding Quebec as a whole. One of my friends, Pierre Bérubé, wrote a book based on his doctoral thesis which he defended in Aix-en-Provence in France. He says that we must be very cautious about changing electoral boundaries, either provincially or federally. Every time we do so, we touch on the community's sense of belonging. I know we have to live with the act, but as I said at the beginning of my remarks, people can use the act in exceptional circumstances. Generally, I favour a change, but not in this case, because these people don't like things being changed too often, because ties are established over time. In my view, we must respect something very important in Quebec, namely the areas covered by these two RCMs.

There is another municipality that I almost forgot to mention. It is Saint-Narcisse-de-Beau-Rivage, which is located in a different RCM and a different provincial riding. I didn't mention it, but it is part of the riding at the moment, and I defend the interests of these constituents just a vigourously as I defend those of other communities. However, in this case, I think that history, population and even politics would lead us to conclude that this community would be better off in the riding of Beauce or Lotbinière, because it is really a border community.

The Chairman: For your information, Mr. Dubé, we did receive a letter from the municipality of Saint-Lambert...

Mr. Dubé: ...which confirms my comments.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Dubé: Thank you. If that's all, I wish you well on your work. It is a sensitive task.

The Chairman: Just a moment, don't leave yet.

Mr. Leroux: Let us see what the member for Bellechasse thinks about the proposal regarding the electoral quota. Is Bellechasse proposing to bring back into the riding of Lévis...

Mr. Langlois: Saint-Henri.

Mr. Dubé: Yes.

Mr. Langlois: That was the point of my question, because at some point you have to make a choice. Both Saint-Henri and St-Lambert cannot be part of Lévis, unless we use the exceptional circumstances provision. It would be hard to justify. This is a bit of a brutal question, but if you had to chose, which community should stay within Lévis, Saint-Lambert or Saint-Henri.

Mr. Dubé: I filed an objection signed by ten members of Parliament as required in order to keep Saint-Henri in the federal riding of Lévis. I simply suggested that Saint-Lambert be included in another riding, namely Beauce, in keeping with its second choice.

Mr. Leroux: So there's apparently already an agreement.

Mr. Dubé: We may not have spoken to each other, but since we often think alike...

Mr. Langlois: We may not have spoken to each other, but we live about 20 minutes apart. We're both on the extreme edges of our ridings. If I understand correctly, Saint-Henri-de-Lévis, which is part of the Desjardins RCM, is the only community in the RCM that would be part of Bellechasse. All of the others would be included in Lévis.

Mr. Dubé: Yes, and I'm opposed to that.

Mr. Langlois: I am too, and for the same reasons. It makes no sense to include a community in Bellechasse that does not share the same history, as you mentioned.

Mr. Dubé: I won't get into other reasons, because this might raise some nasty quarrels from the past.

.1625

Some hon. members: Oh! oh!

Mr. Langlois: I understand what you mean.

The Chairman: Would you like to add anything?

Mr. Dubé: I wish you well with the rest of your work. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Our final witness is Mr. Paradis.

An hon. member: Mr. Ménard is not present?

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Leroux: Mr. Ménard is in the House at the moment debating...

The Chairman: You have seven minutes for your presentation, Mr. Paradis, and then there will be a seven-minute question.

Mr. Denis Paradis (MP for Brome - Missisquoi): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will start by describing the current boundaries of the riding of Brome - Missisquoi, which are shown on the map I distributed. The proposal is to remove from the riding of Brome - Missisquoi all the cities and communities shown in yellow, including Bromont.

So the proposal is to take Bromont out of Brome - Missisquoi and put it into Shefford, and remove Henriville, Clarenville, Saint-Sébastien, Noyan, Saint-Thomas and Venise-en-Québec, from the riding and include them in the riding of Saint-Jean. This whole area, which is close to the middle of the Baie Missisquoi, on the left of the map, is to be included in Saint-Jean, according to the proposal.

I objected to this redistribution for the follwoing reasons. Let's begin with Bromont, in the north. At the moment, Bromont is part of the provincial riding of Brome - Missisquoi. Bromont is separated from Shefford and Granby, the main city, by the Eastern Township autoroute. This road is the natural boundary between the Granby side and this side, which has links to Cowansville. The two major centres are Granby and Cowansville.

This means that Bromont is linked to the institutions in Brome - Missisquoi, to all institutions located in Cowansville. The Brome - Missisquoi - Perkins hospital in Cowansville serves the people of Bromont. Their schoolboard is the Davignon Schoolbard in Cowansville. The Cowansville Courthouse serves the people of Bromont as well. In short, all the facilities and services mean that Bromont is part of Brome - Missisquoi, and is an integral part of Cowansville and Brome - Missisquoi.

The Chairman: What is the population of Cowansville?

Mr. Paradis: About 4,000. At the moment, my riding has a population of approximately 80,000. If this area were to be removed, the population would be reduced to 70,000, whereas the objective is around 90,000. The population of my riding is already less than that of the desired average, and if this area is removed, the population would be reduced by 10,000.

Mr. Leroux: Actually, it would drop to 71,000.

.1630

Mr. Paradis: Let me reiterate that people from Bromont and all the people who live on this side of the Eastern Townships highway generally conduct business with Cowansville.

We are not very far from Granby on the other side, but the provincial riding and the institutions are such that Bromont is linked to the Brome - Missisquoi riding. I have tried to understand why the redistribution has been done this way. The only explanation is that with respect to the RCMs, Bromont has just been incorporated into the Shefford RCM. That is the only explanation for the line having been drawn as it was for Bromont.

We must also bear in mind that the Bromont city limits are quite close to Cowansville. We did not mark the lower limit in yellow, but about two inches bellow Bromont, you can see the city limits mark in yellow. I must point out that that sector is quite close to Cowansville. Children go to school in Cowansville, people go to the Comansville Hospital, people use the Cowansville Courthouse, the registry office, etc. They conduct all of their business in Cowansville. I do not see the logic behind taking Bromont out of Brome - Missisquoi. That covers Bromont.

Venise-en-Québec, Clarenceville, Noyan, Henryville and Saint-Sébastien are located in the southwest corner of the riding. The people who drew up the map used the boundaries of the RCM, but I must point out that the municipalities of Venise-en-Québec, Clarenceville, Noyan, etc, deal with Bedford as well. We can see where the municipality of Bedford is located. The Bedford local community health centre serves these people, as does the Bedford registry office. The Société d'agriculture de Missisquoi organizes the agricultural fair which is held in Bedford each year. At the institutional level, it is linked to Bedford and for other puprposes, it is joined to Cowansville; the judicial district for this sector is in Cowansville. Cowansville has a French school and an English school, as well as the Protestant School Board, District of Bedford. This sector deals with Cowansville with respect to schools.

I also pointed out in my objection that there is an important national lake in this area; Lake Champlain. When possible, I think it will better for the federal member of Parliament to represent all of the municipalities located around the lake. I will give you a very specific example of a problem that I'm in the process of settling with the united States, in the Missiquoi Bay area. A few years ago, the Americans built an embankment and there is a bridge about as long as this room. The water flow is cut off between Canada and the United States, because the only place the water flows in under the bridge. The waterway is not very wide.

The winds blow in phosphorus and it all stays on the Canadian side of Lake Champlain. The water is green on the Canadian side of Lake Champlain. We are presently negotiating with the State of Vermont and people in Washington. They are repairing the bridge at a cost of $5 million. Vermont does not have much more than $5 million to repair the bridge on the American side. Removing the embankment and restoring the lake to its initial state would cost some $20 million. We will have to knock on some doors in Washington. Representations must be made, and I am making them along with the mayors of the municipalities which are located around Lake Champlain and which share this interest.

I have also been told that with respect to urban planning, it is very important not to divide up an area comprising an international lake bordering on both countries.

.1635

So Clarenceville, Noyan and Venise-en-Québec, in particular, are municipalities that deal to a greater extent with Cowansville and Bedford. This is perhaps not so much the case for Henryville and Saint-Sébastien, but there is a water main system linked to Lake Champlain. The villages of Henryville, Saint-Sébastien and Venise-en-Québec have a common water main system and water supply. Everything is linked.

In the past, this sector was joined to Bedford and to Cowansville, except for the part that was joined to the RCM in the direction of Saint-Jean. Apart from that, everything in the Brome-Missisquoi riding is linked to Bedford and Cowansville.

These are the points I wanted to argue so that these municipalities would remain within the Brome Missisquoi boundaries as they are at present. May I remind you that the projected average is 90,000 and that we have still not reached that in our area. We are at roughly 80,000 and the proposed changes will bring us down to 70,000.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. In other words, you're requesting the status quo.

Mr. Paradis: That is correct.

The Chairman: We will now move on to questions.

Mr. Assad: Has Bromont always been part of the federal Brome - Missisquoi riding? Have Cowansville and Bromont always been together?

Mr. Paradis: Yes, always.

Mr. Assad: And the other municipalities?

Mr. Paradis: The same.

Mr. Assad: So if we maintain the status quo, the population will increase a little.

Mr. Paradis: We are at roughly 80,000 now as the projected average, according to the document, is 90,000. We're at 80,000 and that will drop to 70,000.

An hon. member: To roughly 71,600.

An hon. member: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Paradis: I didn't catch that.

Mr. Assad: Is Bromont being put into Shefford because there are not enough people in that area?

Mr. Paradis: I don't have the total for Shefford.

Mr. Leroux: I think the hypothesis is the same as the one we discussed yesterday. In reality, there is a community of interest and a sense of belonging, as the member pointed out. I know the area as well, and that is the way things are. There is a clear break, and it's the Eastern Townships highway. Areas naturally belong to county towns like Cowansville and Bedford. But the line has to be drawn at some point. They start to play with the quota and say: We need 90,000 and 25% deviation. So, Bedford and the other place needed a quota, and the line was drawn.

Mr. Paradis: I do not know what the population of Shefford would be if Bromont were added to the riding.

Mr. Assad: Ninety-three thousand.

Mr. Paradis: So Shefford would be above the 90,000 average and Brome-Missisquoi, which is already below average, would end up with 70,000.

Mr. Leroux: What is the population of greater Bromont?

Mr. Paradis: Roughly 4,000.

Mr. Leroux: That means that Shefford would be 90,000. Subtract the 4000 from Bromont...

Mr. Assad: It drops to 70,000!

Mr. Paradis: Yes, that's correct... But the key factor is the same for everyone. There are factors concerning the real sense of belonging that must be taken into account, and they are very clearly described in the document. They are everywhere. With respect to the quota, the argument is very simple.

Mr. Assad: Yes. We will recommend that the issue of belonging to an area be examined and, if it doesn't throw the numbers off, that maintaining these lengths prevail.

Mr. Leroux: There will always be a hitch, because provincially, there are 125 ridings, whereas federally, there are 75. There are 94 or 95 RCMs. So obviously, each time a line is drawn soemwhere, there will be municipalities in an RCM which will be affected as to where they belong. I do not know how we will succeed in...

Mr. Paradis: As you say, we may never reach that. In my riding - and I imagine it's the same in yours - the eastern boundary in Magog is in the provincial riding of Orford, in the middle, it's Brome - Missisquoi and here, it is Iberville.

.1640

Mr. Assad: I think the status quo is possible for the simple reason that Shefford has more than enough voters. So as far as numbers go, it wouldn't be a problem for Shefford.

Mr. Leroux: Right.

Mr. Assad: It's not what Henryville and the other municipalities... Do we know what their population is?

Mr. Leroux: It is 92,800 in St. Jean.

Mr. Assad: So there's no problem there either.

Mr. Leroux: So it's 92,800. Earlier on, you asked why Bromont had been joined to Shefford. It's a mystery.

Mr. Assad: The status quo.

The Chairman: As far as I can see, the only place we'll have problems is in Montreal.

Mr. Leroux: There's one in the east as well. The Gaspé peninsula is a problem that we'll have to discuss. There is a problem there. As for the Brome - Missisquoi riding, it is clear to me that there is a break. You asked the question at the outset: Why?

In both cases, they're sticking to the quotas. And instead of getting closer to 90,000, they're getting farther from it. This is not a vote of non confidence, but the fact remains that in that respect, some observations must be made. That is clear.

The Chairman: I have noted your comments, Mr. Paradis. Thank you very much.

Mr. Paradis: Thank you!

The Chairman: Is that it for today?

Mr. Leroux: Mr. Ménard must be speaking in the House.

The Chairman: Will Mr. Ménard be available to appear tomorrow?

Mr. Leroux: Here's what we're going to do for Mr. Ménard; earlier, we agreed on two possibilities. I'm going to ask him to submit his observations to Mr. Langlois and me. He will not appear, but we will defend his arguments.

The Chairman: That's fine. Thank you.

Is there anything else?

Mr. Leroux: Yes. We just have to check out the comment that the Clerk made earlier. Mr. Gagliano has completely abandonned his representations, has he not?

The Chairman: I will check because I do not want to mislead you.

Mr. Leroux: So Mr. Gagnon will be the only one to appear tomorrow?

The Chairman: Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Leroux: No, not Mr. Ménard, just Mr. Gagnon.

An hon. member: But if you're going to appear on behalf of Mr. Ménard...

Mr. Leroux: We are going to argue Mr. Ménard's points. As for me, I won't be here tomorrow. We're sitting in the morning, aren't we, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: No, tomorrow afternoon, at 3:30 in room 112-N. Is there anything else?

Mr. Langlois: I wasn't here at the beginning, and I'd like to thank Mr. Leroux for having replaced me. I would like to know if the research staff will have prepared a draft report for tomorrow.

The Chairman: We will probably give them some guidance tomorrow and they will give us something after the break.

Mr. Leroux: The deadline has been extended slightly...

Mr. Langlois: The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has extended the deadline to the 23rd. So tomorrow we will discuss the direction of the first draft of the report. Okay, I'll be there.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.

;