[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 3, 1995
.1742 
[English]
The Chair: It appears that we have a quorum, so we'll begin. It's 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 would like to welcome the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Goodale. Please proceed.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am pleased to have the opportunity to underscore the issues I raised in the materials that I filed with your committee about the proposed redistribution of federal constituency boundaries in Saskatchewan, especially those in and around the city of Regina.
First let me state what I believe to be a pretty commonly held view in Saskatchewan. This redistribution insofar as Saskatchewan is concerned is really quite unecessary.
Unlike other parts of this country where population shifts have been very large, the population statistics in Saskatchewan have remained fairly flat and static over a long period of time. Our total of 14 federal constituencies is not to be changed, and that is quite appropriate. But in my view, and I suspect also in the view of many Saskatchewanians, the redrawing of boundaries within that total is not needed at this time. As anyone who has run for public office knows, voters do not appreciate and do not want to be shifted back and forth by changing boundaries for no good and compelling reason.
The existing boundaries in Saskatchewan are reasonable with respect to population numbers and they are quite generally reflective of the realities of Saskatchewan. There is no good and compelling reason for change.
Second, with the greatest of respect, I believe the commission in Saskatchewan has applied the average population formula far too mechanically without giving sufficient weight to other relevant considerations such as geography, distance, continuity and community of interest. The result is a rather illogical configuration: constituencies that in some cases just don't fit - not for the electors in those constituencies, and not for the candidates who may seek office.
.1745
In the materials I filed with your committee I cited some of the legal rationales that require a redistribution commission to depart from strict arithmetic in order to achieve the ``primary goal of effective representation''. I suggest and believe strongly that consistency and continuity are an important part of effective representation. Change for the sake of change can defeat the objective of effective representation, and that I submit would be the outcome of the Saskatchewan commission's report.
Third, I argue that the fragmentation of the city of Regina into four rural-urban constituencies is unfair and inappropriate. Regina's population is less than 200,000. Its current division into three ridings is realistic and effective, but carving the city into four just doesn't make any sense. To do so flies in the face of community history and community of interest considerations. Such fragmentation is inconsistent with the primary goal of effective representation.
Furthermore, this fragmentation is not only harmful from Regina's perspective, it is also unhelpful for rural residents in Saskatchewan. Because of the proposed four-way split in Regina and a similar four-way split in Saskatoon, two largely rural ridings in Saskatchewan disappear, and other rural ridings so increase in size as to become virtually unmanageable.
This amounts to a devaluation of rural Saskatchewan. I am sure that was not intended by the Saskatchewan commission, but that is in fact the result. The commission's report speaks about the importance of rural Saskatchewan, but the elimination of two rural seats and the unrealistic enlargement of the remaining ridings is inconsistent with the primary goal of effective representation.
Finally, one particular constituency in the new proposals combines virtually all of the defects to which I have just referred - Palliser. It includes about one-quarter of the fragmented city of Regina, 45 miles of rural area to the west, the entire city of Moose Jaw, more rural territory further west, and then south by another 50 miles or so.
I have discussed this proposed riding with people in Regina, Moose Jaw and the various affected rural areas. Opinion is unanimous that this proposed riding is ridiculous. It is clearly inconsistent with the primary goal of effective representation.
Voters in Regina see their interests being diluted. Voters in Moose Jaw see themselves being lumped in with Regina and their interests being obscured. Rural voters see themselves getting the short end of the stick. Some of them are nearly 100 miles southwest of Regina, in defiance of geography, distance and all community connections and logic.
My advice is quite simple - leave well enough alone, or at the very least maintain Regina's three-way configuration as it is now, and retain the historic rural-urban constituency known as Moose Jaw, with it's convenient and logical connections to the appropriate rural area surrounding it.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Solomon.
Mr. Solomon (Regina - Lumsden): I have some comments.
Mr. Goodale and I go back a few years on the provincial scene. From time to time we do agree on issues, and this is one time when I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Goodale's position with respect to what is happening in Saskatchewan.
The people I have spoken to, including organizations, individuals, Regina city councillors and farmers, are puzzled as to why the boundaries were drawn as proposed. The bottom line is that these people are very supportive of retaining the ridings with either the same or similar boundaries in which they exist.
.1750
So I want to go on record as saying that I oppose the elimination of the two rural boundaries or constituencies that the proposed boundaries map has put forward. Secondly, I agree with Mr. Goodale in his request to this committee and to the commission.
Mr. Goodale: Thank you, Mr. Solomon.
The Chair: Mr. White.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I have just one question, Mr. Goodale. What size is the most northern riding in comparison to what it was before?
Mr. Goodale: The new riding?
Mr. White: Yes.
Mr. Goodale: In square mileage, Mr. White, it would not be hugely different. The difference, I believe, is in the treatment of the city of Prince Albert in relation to the northern riding.
On the map that's behind us here, if you compare the green lines with the purple lines, the northern riding gets slightly smaller in terms of sheer geography. But the difference would be where the population is located in that constituency, along the Saskatchewan River and right around the city of Prince Albert. That's where the major change would take place.
Mr. White: The comments from Saskatchewan MPs in particular are all quite similar to yours. It boggles one's mind to understand why the commission would come up with such a strange reallocation of the boundaries.
Mr. Goodale: I think all of us have much the same feeling, Mr. White. It almost appears as if the commission took a grid of the latest census numbers and almost by computer adjusted constituency boundaries to come up with the, quote, right arithmetic. That's what I meant by saying it appeared to be quite mechanical on an arithmetic base, not taking into account some of these other factors.
In the area I'm most familiar with, when I was previously in Parliament I had the distinct honour and pleasure and privilege of representing the people of the Assiniboia constituency. The newly proposed constituency of Palliser would in fact include a chunk of what used to be the old Assiniboia constituency. It was certainly my impression from those previous constituents 20 years ago that they would not take kindly to being lumped in with a portion of the city of Regina. I have no reason to believe that they have since changed their minds.
If the situation were left as it is, respecting the existing boundaries in Saskatchewan, I think that would resolve most of the concerns this committee has heard. At the very least, with respect to this area I've referred to, the maintenance of a rural constituency west and south of Regina but separate from the city of Regina would have the impact of giving people in that general Moose Jaw area their own distinctive constituency as they have historically had for many years.
It would also have the advantage of reducing the geography problem for the area to be known as Cypress Hills - Grasslands to the southwest and the area to be known as Souris - Moose Mountain to the southeast. Mr. Collins would know that the proposed map dramatically increases the size of Souris - Moose Mountain.
.1755
If there were a rural riding using Moose Jaw as the centre and including rural area basically in a circle around the city of Moose Jaw, that would have a logical linkage in terms of rural people feeling connected to the city of Moose Jaw, as they do in that territory and as I know from my previous representation 20 years ago, or so. But it would also mean that the constituency Mr. Collins now represents would not have that increase in geography, which could be difficult from the point of view of future MPs from the southeastern part of Saskatchewan, and the proposed riding in the southwest would not have to get as big as it would otherwise get by eliminating that rural area as a constituency in itself around Moose Jaw.
The Chair: Mr. Collins is next, and then we'll go to Mr. Solomon, time providing.
Mr. Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Minister, where you take your Regina - Wascana, what's been the reaction of the rural community both from the aspect of your riding and the changes that will impact on it and the people of Regina - Wascana?
Also, have you had a chance to talk to those folks around the Moose Jaw area? They're going to be decimated in this rout.
I certainly think, in summary, what you have said represents by and large the feeling of all of the MPs of Saskatchewan in terms of what has happened to the distortion of the map as it's unfolded in this process.
Mr. Goodale: Mr. Collins, in talking to rural residents who are presently in Regina - Wascana, the reaction has not been particularly vigorous because, as you can see from the map, comparing the green lines to the purple lines, the existing Regina - Wascana, in terms of its rural component, doesn't change very much. It is that area basically south and east of the city of Regina.
Where the real change occurs is south and west, and there I have had the opportunity to speak with a number of people who would be affected by this adjustment. Between Regina and Moose Jaw, and beyond Moose Jaw north and west, then south of Moose Jaw virtually down to almost the edge of the town of Assiniboia, certainly once you get to the Moose Jaw area and south, people in that rural area have said to me that they don't feel a particular connection to the southwest quarter of the city of Regina. They do feel a community of interest with the city of Moose Jaw. But it's pretty hard to tell somebody in Mossbank or Ardill that they're going to be in the same constituency with one-quarter of the city of Regina. It just does not compute.
The Chair: Mr. Solomon.
Mr. Solomon: I have a quick comment with respect to the map that's drawn.
The NDP members of Parliament from Saskatchewan were all puzzled as a result of the proposals. My sense is that they would support your proposal as well, your recommendation to leave the boundaries as they are.
I think there's one riding that may be at 20% variance and may be adjusted a few polls to balance off with another constituency. I think that would be fair. But to do what they've done.... It looks as though they were mischievous when they drew the lines.
Mr. Goodale: It really is hard to say what the particular motivation might have been, Mr. Solomon, and I guess we ought not to comment on that. But it may have been a situation where the commission was being faced with an automatic national requirement to redistribute boundaries. So even if there weren't a compelling argument to do that in the case of any particular province, they might have felt obliged to do it simply because that was the mechanical process they were called upon to follow.
But I think in the case of the province of Saskatchewan the result is highly undesirable. I quite frankly have not heard, Madam Chair, an argument from any quarter in defence of the proposed boundaries.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and thank you for your presentation.
We will call on our next witness.
.1800
Mr. Goodale: Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members.
The Chair: Mr. Iftody.
Mr. David Iftody, MP (Provencher): Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable colleagues. I won't take up too much of the committee's time. I have testified at a previous committee that worked on the government bill in some detail, and I have made a presentation there.
I'm here primarily to voice concerns my constituents have passed on to my office and to advise the chair and committee members that, as we speak, representatives from the northern part of the riding of Provencher are undertaking a letter-writing campaign to the Canadian Senate to urge the senators to pass the government bill because it is their express desire and written wish, on record now, not to be moved out of the current federal boundaries.
Having said that, I'm here of course to register my opposition to the proposed changes. My reasons for doing this are categorized basically into two areas: the subjective and objective evaluations of the respected commissioners who came to these conclusions. I believe the subjective evaluations brought into this undertaking were erroneous, based on inaccurate information or lack of information.
I must draw to the attention of members, and the chair as well, the concerns I expressed at the other committee. The Manitoba commissioners - I know one in particular, Dr. Paul Thomas, as I was his teaching assistant in my masters program, and I respect him genuinely - I believe, all being urban people, born and raised in the urban areas, do not have the kind of sensitivity and understanding of the rural areas in Manitoba from which they could derive more informed decisions.
My other objection, of course, is in terms of the methodology that was used. The attempt to categorize the province in terms of the rural municipalities was, for purposes of the commissioners, I think, easy and simple. At the same time, it is very harsh and unforgiving, and I believe it violates community standards and historical pathways of interaction that are indeed, Madam Chair, not reflected at all in that particular proposal.
I want to draw the attention of the members and the chair to the map I have provided of Manitoba under the existing boundaries. I want to make a couple of points here that I think the commissioners have omitted and that I think are important to register.
The Provencher riding rests on the Ontario side of the border and is couched by the U.S. and Ontario borders. The pathways and waterways of this particular riding are well known. Through this area in the 1500s and 1600s the French coureurs des bois made their way from the Saint Maurice Valley, pressing forward through the west along that particular waterway. The Ojibway people of Manitoba are congregated in the lower parts of the province, and in particular, areas around these natural geographic lines of waterways. Traditionally, of course, for fur trapping and for expediency of moving goods throughout that region, they gathered and remained in that area.
In fact, Madam Chair, the distribution throughout Manitoba even today is a reflection of those historical patterns that date back thousands of years. They demonstrate that the Ojibway communities are located primarily in the southern part of the riding, while in the northern part are the Cree. These are natural boundaries that have existed for centuries. In the 1920s and 1930s, consistent with that waterway development, Manitoba and Winnipeg Hydro began their power dam development along the Winnipeg River and along those natural pathways. A number of dams of pulp and paper companies emerged in the 1950s. Indeed, there are as many as six or seven in a 100-mile area.
.1805
The families that moved into that area back at the turn of the century, first in the area of Point du Bois in early 1900s and then in Lac du Bonnet, St-George, Powerview and Pine Falls - those French or mixed communities were there because of that development and the economic spin-offs and development provided by it. So the commissioners' attempt to cut that area in half in the northern part of the riding violates not only those historical patterns going back hundreds of years, but those of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
The commissioners' proposal is to merge the northern part of the riding, which reaches deep into the southern part of the province, almost to the American border, and it tries to extrapolate it and graft it into the larger northern part of the province. It becomes quite absurd. The former NDP member, Rod Murphy, resided in Churchill. You can imagine travelling 1,200 kilometres to the constituents who reside there on the Winnipeg River. The impossibilities that raises and the lack of representation for those people should be obvious.
On the face of things and given the evidence of historical patterns and the wishes of the community, it does seem to violate existing patterns. In terms of community relationships, school division boundaries, clubs, family relationships and business relationships, there is nothing to compel any reasonable person to suggest that this portion of the riding should be pulled up this way at all. It violates that quite clearly.
Finally, the people of the area have made many representations to my office. For my part, the commissioners' proposal to give me an additional 10 or 15 polls around Winnipeg...their arguments are valid. Communities contiguous to larger urban centres in Canada are growing at a considerable rate, and we're seeing that in all of the cities. I would accept the polls they are giving me in the communities of Dugald and Oakbank. I would be more than pleased to be their MP or representative. But I think the views of the people of Pine Falls, Powerview, St-George and around the Lac du Bonnet area must be registered. I believe their arguments are valid and I think they feel the division is confusing and largely misunderstood in the community. Through their representative, they wish to make those facts known.
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): If there was to be some movement from the south and north, would there be a more appropriate line for that to happen?
Mr. Iftody: My family moved into the Lac du Bonnet area of this riding - and my town of Lac du Bonnet would stay in Provencher - in the 1950s. My father was a bush pilot for Natural Resources and flew most of these northern communities. They flew, of course, because there is no road access here at all. The proposals we have now are that it would cost about $1 million to get even a basic road in to connect some of these basically Cree communities on the eastern side of the province with this area here.
.1810
I can't see how that would work in terms of that sort of linear approach. If there is some necessary reconstruction work around the area, it could take place within and around the boundaries of the city.
The riding itself in Provencher, while growing, particularly around the urban areas, does not in any way now, and certainly not under the government's proposed bill, come anywhere near a variation of 15% or 25%. There is considerable room for growth indeed. I think that could be easily accommodated over the next 10 or 15 years around those current boundaries.
Granted, recently there were some changes made in the more southwesterly part of the riding, where for about 75 years Altona and a number of those smaller Mennonite communities around that area had been associated with Lisgar - Marquette. I believe that prior to the 1988 election, Beausejour and some other communities were moved out into Selkirk - Interlake. Altona and a number of those communities were moved from Lisgar - Marquette this way into this community.
So there have been some changes around this boundary. It's proposed as part of the equation in terms of fitting in Provencher. But quite frankly - and again, with respect to the commissioners - I believe the proposed changes here are not to make accommodating changes for the people in Provencher to try to provide them with better representation, or least of all sensitivity to the member of Parliament who has to service the area because it's getting too large or whatever they think. I think it's really the difficulties the commissioners experienced using their methodology when they reviewed the rest of the province, particularly when they concluded that based on that methodology, they must reduce one of the rural ridings in the province.
If there can be some change, I would suggest for purposes of growth and so on that they look more closely at the 50-mile radius around Winnipeg and study the data that would have been available to them more closely in terms of community changes.
The Chair: Mr. Iftody, we are running very short of time.
If there aren't any questions from this side, we do have a couple of minutes. Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins: You were here when the minister spoke. What are your thoughts on taking the city of Winnipeg and, as you were saying, doing a circumference or distance type of thing and then using that as a rural-urban split, rather than getting off into the arrangements they have now?
Mr. Iftody: One thing that's been excluded in the analysis of this is the kind of communities that are being created on the outskirts of the urban centres. In one of my communities only 25 kilometres south of Winnipeg, the average age of the residents is 29 years old.
They are moving from Winnipeg out into these areas, and the obvious question is what sort of community relations and where they belong.... Where do these young families belong in terms of their social and other value and belief systems, things that are important to them in terms of their community choices? Obviously if they've moved out of Winnipeg and are going to these areas because they want to raise their families in a more rural setting, then those kinds of sensitivities ought to have been considered in these evaluations. I think they should be now.
I think the minister made some important observations about connecting one-quarter of Regina with a large sweep in a rural area. I don't think that's appropriate.
The Chair: Mr. McKinnon, do you have a brief question?
Mr. McKinnon: Creating one fewer rural seat in Manitoba isn't going to have some dislocating effect right across the landscape, rurally speaking. Already, I would suggest, there are ridings where there is absolutely no relationship between, say, Lisgar and Marquette, between a Minnedosa and an Altona. They're just 250 miles apart.
.1815
Mr. Iftody: If I can just comment on that, I think if you review Canadian history over the last 50 years since the Second World War and look at the technological and capitalist dynamic you'll notice a drain, certainly, from all the rural areas, from farming communities into the city.
I think as parliamentarians we have to ask ourselves the question: notwithstanding the logic of that dynamic, how long are we prepared to allow this to go on whereby we have such an imbalance of representation for the rural areas and for those in the urban centres?
I do have, and have expressed, Madam Chair, a concern about that and the political voice of rural Canadians in Canada 25 years from now.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Iftody, for your presentation. We'll move on.
Mr. Iftody: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mrs. Sheridan.
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan, MP (Saskatoon - Humboldt): Thank you, Madam Chairman and committee members, for giving me this opportunity to voice my opposition to the proposed redistribution. I do not intend to file a written submission. Much of what I'm going to say will be a repetition of what you've already heard from the other Saskatchewan members. I have the privilege of being the last speaker, and I will keep my promise to be brief.
I would like to echo the comments of the minister that the commonly held view of the people of our province is that redistribution is simply unnecessary. Mr. White pointed out that he had heard similar comments from all of the Saskatchewan members. I'm not going to disappoint him, because my comments are going to be pretty much a repetition of theirs.
I would say, first of all, that my own constituents in the riding of Saskatoon - Humboldt have not raised with me at any time, either during the election or since, the need for new boundaries. The few comments I have had in relation to redistribution have been profoundly negative in that it would be a waste of money. As well, as the minister said, constituents do not appreciate boundary changes unless there is some compelling reason.
In our province of Saskatchewan we have just come through a changing of the boundaries for provincial constituencies. In that case, at least the argument could be made it was for the purposes of reducing the number of seats. In the federal situation, of course, the number of seats will be preserved at 14, so it's simply a matter of drawing new lines for the 14 existing members. The question is, why do the redistribution?
My position is that there is no compelling reason to do so. I would again underscore the comments made by my colleague Morris Bodnar and by Minister Goodale on the arbitrary nature, or apparently arbitrary nature, of the new boundaries.
If you look at the map, it would appear that whatever minds were put to this problem said to themselves, well, let's create one large riding in the top and then we will put into the computer the lower half of the province and hope it can spin out some boundaries that will accommodate the remaining 14.
I'm being a bit facetious, Madam Chair, but I think if you actually look at the ridings that have been created in the lower half you wouldn't want to dismiss this approach out of hand.
One of the overriding factors in this case is that there is no population shift in Saskatchewan, unlike some of our ridings in Ontario, for instance. That gets us to the point that perhaps these boundaries are being changed simply for the sake of change. That, as we know, is a huge waste of money.
I will get to the point of my own particular riding of Saskatoon - Humboldt. I would call your attention to the map for a moment. My riding is currently bounded on the western side by the South Saskatchewan River. It includes essentially a circular area around the city of Saskatoon, plus a triangle that is on the west side of the river.
Under the proposed changes, I lose this rural triangle and pick up this rural square. It's important for the committee to note that the rural square is the width of the riding again, away from the city of Saskatoon. That is the main factor upon which I wish to focus.
.1820
The other point I would like to make before commenting on the community of interest aspect is that the three current Saskatoon ridings are a bit unusual in that Saskatoon - Clark's Crossing and Saskatoon - Dundurn, the ridings represented by my colleagues, are essentially a 90-10 urban-to-rural split. I think it was Mr. Bodnar who described the areas around the city as bedroom communities. In my case it's a bit unusual; it's a 60-40 urban-to-rural split.
The logic of that is something for another day. But the proposed boundaries, which would in fact create four urban-rural splits, end up exacerbating the problem as opposed to correcting any problem that may currently exist with a rather unusual boundary situation. So I guess my argument there would be that four wrongs don't make a right.
To get down to the specifics of my riding, under the current situation, as I said, although it is 40% rural, the rural area tends to be in a circular area surrounding the city. I've identified the areas as Rosthern, Wakaw, Birch Hills, which comes up to the edge of Melfort and Humboldt. Those rural areas would be the four larger centres. The people have some reason to come to Saskatoon, either for business, physicians, dentists, the university and so on.
I currently receive...not complaints, but concerns expressed by the people in the rural portion of my riding. They would like to see constituency offices in those centres. The difficult I have is that although I can certainly afford the rent, I cannot afford to staff those four offices as well as the one I currently maintain in the city of Saskatoon.
Under the new boundaries, that problem would be even more hopeless. People in the far-east portion who are currently in Mackenzie would have very little reason to be coming into Saskatoon. That would in fact bring us the result of my being even less able to provide personal service to these people or to have any way of meeting with them, except to go trundling out to those far-flung areas of the new riding.
I think the point has been made here quite eloquently that there is already a feeling in the rural portions of our ridings that they are, because of geography, excluded from the same kind of service that their urban counterparts receive. That's simply true. If the riding office is located in Saskatoon, it's much easier to walk down the street or take a bus or zoom over in your car. For the people who have to come in from the rural areas, it's a significant undertaking.
So, Madam Chair, I would simply like to thank you for the opportunity to make my opposition to the redistribution known. I thank the members of the committee for listening so carefully. I put on the record that I am absolutely opposed to this.
Mr. Solomon: I was in conversation by telephone this afternoon with Svend Robinson, member of Parliament for Burnaby - Kingsway. He's unable to appear before the committee. He's written a submission to us making a request to change the name of the constituency that is proposed in British Columbia that is called, I believe, Burnaby North. He's asked me to ensure that this is brought to the attention of the committee.
I might just make a couple of points. He has requested that the constituency proposed as Burnaby North in British Columbia have the name changed to Burnaby - Douglas. The rationale for this is that there is a provincial riding called Burnaby North, and it's confusing.
.1825
Second, the fact that a great chunk of South Burnaby is in the federal riding of Burnaby North is confusing to people, which is probably quite important.
Third, a major road that has been in the constituency since the turn of the century is called Douglas Road.
He has also indicated that he has the support of the community of Burnaby, the mayor of Burnaby and the councillors from the Burnaby city council. They are in support of the name change. With respect to the boundaries, he has no recommendations, but with respect to the name he's requesting that it be changed from Burnaby North to Burnaby - Douglas.
The Chair: I also had a call from Svend Robinson this afternoon. He indicated the message that you have brought to this committee. He brought it to my attention as well. I would like it on the record that I had that conversation with him.
Is there any other business? We had decided to meet on Thursday at 3:30 p.m. Then I believe we do have some extra time. We could again meet on Monday, after we come back. Is that possible? The deadline has been extended.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Chair, is it the purpose of the meeting on Thursday at 3:30 p.m. to draft the report?
The Chair: It is. I believe it is to take a look at the draft report.
Ms Laura Snowball (Committee Researcher): Yes, and to elect whether or not to make recommendations, comments, etc., as part of the report.
Mr. Solomon: I changed my schedule to be here this evening and to be here Wednesday and Thursday until about 2:30 p.m. I have to catch a 3:25 p.m. plane back to Saskatchewan, so I'm going to be unavailable for Thursday.
Is it possible, Madam Chair, to do this either before or, if we have to meet on Monday, following the resumption of the House? Is it possible to do it at that point?
This is mainly because I want to ensure that the proposals put forward by the Saskatchewan members are considered by the committee, in particular since I'm from Saskatchewan, and secondly, I do have some association and understanding of the Manitoba boundaries. I would like to make sure that recommendations are made with respect to particular requests members made for changes.
Whether I can do that in advance to the drafter of the reports.... That would be one way of getting around not being here. Or perhaps we could change the meeting time to a Thursday morning. Would that be possible, early in the morning?
The Chair: Thursday morning?
Mr. McKinnon: I'm free all day.
The Chair: I will have to check my own agenda. We'll anticipate that the meeting will be Thursday and we'll have a notice sent out.
Mr. Solomon: That would be great.
Mr. White: Providing we're all available, I trust.
Mr. Solomon: Even if it's early in the morning.
The Chair: How is 8 a.m. for you, Mr. White?
Mr. White: I don't think it's good, but I don't have my calendar with me.
The Chair: We'll look at Thursday morning and we'll get back to you.
Mr. Solomon: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Is there any other business we need to cover at this meeting?
Ms Snowball: The only other thing was that a draft was prepared from yesterday. I think I circulated it to everyone who was here this morning. I don't think Mr. Solomon was here, so I should hand one over.
Mr. White: You previously set an agenda for Thursday afternoon, did you not?
The Chair: Yes, we had indicated that we would be here for Thursday afternoon. However, we should check if we can accommodate Mr. Solomon.
Mr. Solomon: Is it possible for me to have one of these binders? I know it's after the fact, but I didn't receive one, and I need to have some of the arguments here for my involvement on the final report.
.1830
The Chair: I would think so.
Mr. Solomon: When will I have one?
The Chair: Tomorrow morning.
Mr. Solomon: Tomorrow morning would be great. Thank you.
The Chair: With that, if there isn't any other business, the meeting is adjourned.