[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 5, 1995
.0810 
[English]
The Acting Chair (Mr. McKinnon): 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 is now in session.
Gentlemen, we are going to review the concerns expressed. My suggestion is that we start at the easterly province of Manitoba and work our way west. Is there any objection to that kind of consideration...unless, Randy, you feel we should jump over to B.C.
Mr. Solomon (Regina - Lumsden): Agreed.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Chairman, I did express concern the other day about changing the time of this meeting.
The Acting Chair (Mr. McKinnon): Yes.
Mr. White: The clerk checked with our office and I am scheduled to be at another meeting at 8:30 a.m. I think the arrangement was made that before I left for that meeting I could at least express my....
An hon. member: Let's go to the west, then.
The Acting Chair (Mr. McKinnon): Let's start with British Columbia and work our way to the east.
How many submissions did we have in British Columbia?
The Clerk of the Committee: Four.
.0815
The Acting Chair (Mr. McKinnon): The uniqueness of British Columbia would appear to be that the growth areas are still very extreme in certain areas of the province, and that this should be factored into any consideration that may come forward.
Mr. White, would you like to make any recommendations or comments?
Mr. White: I would, Mr. Chairman, but first I would like to know from our research staff what two areas are the problem ridings. I know mine is, but there is another riding; the objections are a result of two specific areas, I think.
Ms Laura Snowball (Committee Researcher): I don't know that answer offhand.
Mr. White: You don't know the ridings that currently have a population of a couple hundred thousand?
Ms Snowball: The largest populations? No, I don't.
The Acting Chair (Mr. McKinnon): Mr. White's would be one of them.
Mr. White: Then I'll make the assumption that it's possible that Victoria is one of the problem areas, but I actually thought it was Surrey - White Rock - South Langley. It's one of those two.
The difficulty in Fraser Valley West, where we have 200,000 people, is that the commission is attempting to smooth out throughout the province a problem that exists in basically two ridings of extreme growth. It would be more appropriate if you took a riding like Fraser Valley West, which is a reasonably large riding geographically and which has two distinct communities, and just split it, rather than starting to work from east to west in the province and distributing the population on an electoral quotient basis.
So my recommendation would be to look at those two ridings that are the real problems and deal with them and leave the other ridings as they were.
The Acting Chair (Mr. McKinnon): Mr. Solomon, do you have any comment?
Mr. Solomon: No.
The Acting Chair (Mr. McKinnon): The chair has no comment, but I would sense that this would alleviate and address the problem of having, in Mr. White's case, double the electoral quotient, and would reduce it down to a size of similar status.
Mr. White: Yes. That would make a change in Fraser Valley West and split the riding, but that would be quite acceptable to Fraser Valley West.
The Acting Chair (Mr. McKinnon): Mr. Solomon, would you agree to that recommendation?
Mr. Solomon: Sure.
The Acting Chair (Mr. McKinnon): As your alternate and substitute chair, I'm asking your permission to leave the chair and allow Mrs. Cowling to resume.
Mr. Solomon: Permission granted. You did a super job.
The Chair: Thank you, Glen.
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): You're welcome.
Madam Chair, we started out west.
The Chair: Mr. White, do you have another proposal?
Mr. White: No.
Mr. McKinnon: The proposal was that we generally leave the boundaries as they were and take high-growth areas and divide them in an appropriate fashion so that we get it down to the electoral quotient of the high-growth areas.
.0820
Mr. White's riding is at approximately 200,000. By dividing it in two, he would get it down to 100,000. Then leave the boundaries of the rest of the province pretty much as they were.
There is one other growth area we're not sure of. Mr. White feels that it's in Victoria and that the general mechanism should be put in place for the island as well.
Mr. White: So it's Victoria or Surrey - White Rock - South Langley, one or the other. Those are the ridings that are creating the problems as they are geographically large ridings. So the commission should have looked at those ridings and split them, because there are two cities now in Fraser Valley West.
Mr. McKinnon: This would mean that we'd take the concerns of Mr. Cummins and go back to the old boundaries he was recommending, and the same with Mr. Hart.
Mr. White: It would be the same with Mr. Hart, which would leave Fraser Valley East as it is. The city of Hope, which Mr. Hart was talking about, is in Fraser Valley East, and there would be no problem.
Mr. McKinnon: Okay. That's all we discussed, Madam Chair.
The Chair: I would assume that everyone agrees with that particular proposal. Do you have any other proposals?
Mr. White: I do, but as long as I stay, I'll follow my colleagues here.
Mr. McKinnon: The suggestion was to go from British Columbia to another province.
Mr. Solomon: For British Columbia, I was going to move that the committee recommend that the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of British Columbia should consider the name change of Burnaby North to Burnaby - Douglas.
The Chair: Thank you. Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Is there anything else with respect to British Columbia? If not, then I would suggest we move on to the presentation that I made on behalf of Dauphin - Swan River for Manitoba.
It has been suggested that I should leave the room for this one so that I'm not part of the discussion. The floor is open for discussion. I'll stay in the chair, but I won't conduct this discussion.
Mr. Solomon: Are we now reviewing the proposal put forward by Laura Snowball with respect to Dauphin - Swan River? Is that what we're now considering?
Ms Snowball: It's on page 10, which is the summary of the discussion. It's the presentation that was made, yes.
Mr. McKinnon: Madam Chair, if you'd like, I could commence the discussion.
I believe the thrust of the argument was that we have not really addressed the problem of the ever-growing size of rural ridings. This makes them very difficult to represent. We have some geographical impediments that prevent travel throughout certain ridings, with roadways and what not not being accessible.
.0825
If I understand the real thrust of the argument, it would really go back to the 1993 boundaries we had and leave them place. We would still be within the 25% allowance for boundary populations.
A concern some Manitobans may have, of course, is that the population shift is happening. As Mr. White indicated, many urban ridings are going from those conditions of pre-1993 to having more and more people in the growth areas on the prairies.
The other consideration, which Mrs. McLellan presented, was that as much as possible we should be trying to have boundaries without an urban-rural mix; if it's urban, leave it as urban. Therefore I would suggest we have a bit of a discussion on that general philosophy. I would like the comments of our colleagues here to see how they feel about it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. Solomon.
Mr. Solomon: About urban-rural...I'm straying from the Dauphin proposal now, Ms Cowling's proposal. If you wish me to comment on that, I do have a comment about urban-rural ridings. In the example of Saskatchewan there is a tendency to go urban-rural, with some mixture, because the cities in Saskatchewan, the major cities of Saskatoon and Regina, tend to have a trading area from outside. There are several suburban communities and rural communities where people commute to the city and their major trading area is either Saskatoon or Regina. But it's limited in the sense that the existing boundaries are rather fair, because the rural areas don't go very far out.
In some cases they go 60 or 70 miles out. That's not so bad. But the proposed boundaries go beyond that. They go 100 to 150 miles out of the city. So you have a bit of urban Regina, a bit of urban Saskatoon, going 100 miles or more out to the rural area, which I find very peculiar. It also diminishes the number of rural seats.
About the proposal of the MP for Dauphin - Swan River, I think it has merit. I've been through Minnedosa and Dauphin and those places a number of times. There's a good highway system into Neepawa and Minnedosa. But certainly if it's in the interests of adjusting to the other members of Parliament who have made representations from Manitoba and it would meet their interests and criteria for a change in the boundaries, I personally have no problem with the recommendations Mrs. Cowling has made.
Mr. White: My concern in listening to all of these presentations, Madam Chairman, is that in many cases there doesn't seem to be a particular logic to the changes that were made. Nor have I seen anywhere a justification of that logic...as to how it came about in these recommended changes.
Coming from a rural-urban riding, and from the point of view of politics, I think a member of Parliament is able to manage a mixed rural-urban or rural or urban. But I don't believe in change just for the sake of change.
In the case of Manitoba and this particular submission we're looking at, I agree with the recommendations. In particular I note that the equalization of electoral districts based on quotients is not necessarily preferable to geographical management units, if you see what I mean. It's not just numbers you have to consider when developing ridings. It has to be whether or not you can get from point A to point B. It's what is practical.
.0830
So I not only agree with the recommendations, I think there should be no changes in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan unless there is some more rational reason for those changes. But I have not seen them.
Mr. McKinnon: I would endorse the recommendations for Dauphin - Swan River.
The Chair: Is there any more discussion with respect to this particular submission?
It's my understanding that you would like to leave right away, Mr. White. Is there anything else you would like to contribute to the meeting?
Mr. White: What I said last applies to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I think the people who made the presentations here were absolutely right on. There is really no justifiable need to make those changes. I agree with their recommendation.
The Chair: Thank you for being part of this meeting.
Are there any specific recommendations that the committee would like to make with respect to B.C.? There's been an overall recommendation.
Mr. McKinnon: Say we go with what we kind of recommended with Mr. White being present, which was to look at the current boundaries and use them as much as possible.
In the growth areas, we could simply address them in two ways. One thing would be to split where appropriate, or to moderately reshuffle to bring the low ones up to a higher level. The other thing, of course, is that the growth areas are on the mainland and also on Vancouver Island. We certainly shouldn't be trying to fix one by changing the other. That is not appropriate. We have to treat Vancouver Island as an entity and the rest of the province as an entity. That would be my comment.
Mr. Solomon: I have no specific recommendations, other than the name change for Mr. Robinson's riding. His recommendation was with respect to Burnaby North being changed to Burnaby - Douglas, to which we already agreed.
British Columbia is in a different situation from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have had no change in the numbers of constituencies, whereas British Columbia has. So they're in a different situation.
I would defer to the committee members who were here receiving submissions from the British Columbia members with respect to what they believe is appropriate. But certainly in the rural districts, where the populations have not shifted in any large fashion, boundaries should be changed moderately just to accommodate any shifts in population, if that's the wish of the committee.
The Chair: Is that agreed, Mr. McKinnon?
Mr. McKinnon: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Do we have any other business? Saskatchewan?
Mr. Solomon: Yes, and Alberta.
.0835
With respect to Saskatchewan, four witnesses who appeared before our committee made recommendations on the basis that the proposed boundaries are confusing and puzzling, and there's no reason or rhyme to have them.
Considering Saskatchewan's 14 constituencies have no variance beyond 20% as they stand, the recommendations have been to leave the boundaries as they are. It would save a great deal of confusion among residents. It would save a great deal of money in terms of producing new poll and constituency maps. As well, I think the ridings that are there right now represent fairly accurately the communities of Saskatchewan.
I would move that the boundaries in Saskatchewan as per the recommendations of the four witnesses that appeared before us remain status quo as opposed to accepting the recommendations of the boundaries commission.
The Chair: Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. McKinnon: I might add a short comment that the new boundaries seem to be very much skewed in terms of the rural/urban mix.
The Chair: Absolutely. With respect to Saskatchewan, I believe I heard over and over again that it would be in fact a waste of money to the taxpayers if the changes were made. Do you agree with that as well?
Mr. Solomon: Yes.
The Chair: Is there any more discussion with respect to Saskatchewan? If not, we can move on.
Ms Snowball: Saskatchewan was the end of this bundle. Perhaps we should go back to page 1 and deal with Edmonton.
Mr. McKinnon: Madam Chair, I'd simply say that Minister McLellan's proposal was well researched, with some compelling information about her city. I guess I'm sensing that we really didn't get a very full picture of the entire province in any way, so we have to make certain assumptions. That is, the rest of the province either wasn't changed that much, which I doubt very much was the case, or they're happy with the new boundaries.
For instance, I think I would have to ask a couple of questions about how much change went on in Calgary, if any, and how that has an impact in terms of rural-urban.
The Chair: All right. Perhaps we can have the researcher help us on this one.
.0840
Ms Snowball: I have a map here of Calgary, which perhaps the committee members would like to have a look at. The green lines indicate the existing ridings and the violet lines are the proposed ridings.
The Chair: Okay, Ms McLellan?
Ms Snowball: She's from Edmonton.
The Chair: Okay, let's have a look at Edmonton.
Mr. Solomon: The purple lines are the units.
Ms Snowball: Yes, they become kind of black when one is superimposed over the other.
Mr. Solomon: Is she proposing that this area be excluded or included?
Ms Snowball: As I recall, the particular concern of the minister was the communities here along the river.
Mr. Solomon: I have her proposal right here.
Ms Snowball: Yes, I think she wanted to leave it down in Edmonton Southwest. She has acquired this entire area that's marked between Stoney Plain Road and Whitemud. But a portion of the community down by the river that Minister McLellan has acquired is actually tied to a portion of the community that remains in Edmonton Southwest.
The Chair: So it's changing historic patterns.
Mr. Solomon: She's proposing that the line come down here, to send some territory back to the southwest rather than to the northwest.
So there hasn't been a major change in Edmonton at all, just some minor lines. That's actually not a bad map. I commend the boundaries commission for not torturing the riding like it did in Saskatchewan.
Ms Snowball: The principal change here is in Edmonton - Strathcona. It has shifted now out toward the east, but these ridings don't look like the ridings that are around Saskatoon and Regina.
Mr. McKinnon: It's still urban.
Ms Snowball: Yes.
Mr. Solomon: These are all urban. It respected the urban boundaries totally.
The Chair: Are we ready to proceed with some suggestions as to the changes that should be - -
Mr. McKinnon: I would really like my colleague to make his comments following my point, if he has any.
The Chair: Are you ready, Mr. Solomon, to make some comments?
Mr. Solomon: We've heard the minister's submission, and it was fairly comprehensive with respect to information the committee required to make its decisions. Her arguments seem to be supported by the member of Parliament from Edmonton Southwest, whose territory is affected. He has no recommendations other than to say that the proposal was acceptable to him and to the community, which is important. The community that's affected is the one we're now talking about, which the minister made recommendations on. So I have no problems with the recommendations of the minister with respect to the suggested minor alteration of the boundary.
The Chair: It has been great. We'll follow through with the minister's proposal.
Shall we move on to Mr. Hill?
Ms Snowball: We've essentially done British Columbia. I think we have to return to Manitoba for the three remaining objections.
The Chair: Back to Manitoba, then. That's on page 12.
.0845
Mr. Solomon: Madam Chair, as I recall, we haven't made any concrete recommendations with respect to the proposals of Mr. Cummins and Mr. Hart.
The Chair: Yes, that's right.
Mr. Solomon: There is also Dr. Martin.
The Chair: That's right.
Ms Snowball: For Mr. Cummins, turn to page 3.
The Chair: Mr. Cummins.
Mr. McKinnon: Madam Chair, it is my position that indirectly we have made recommendations, because we were saying we'd go back to the original boundary of 1993.
Mr. Solomon: Do you mean in British Columbia or just the rural?
Mr. McKinnon: In British Columbia.
Mr. Solomon: Not the urban area.
Mr. McKinnon: Well, Mr. Hart was objecting to an east-west expansion rather than the geographical lines of north-south. Therefore, if you return to the 1993 boundaries, you would address Mr. Hart's concerns.
Likewise, Mr. Cummins was concerned about - and he used the word ``ripping'' - a chunk that was traditionally part of the Delta riding. It was being placed in the adjacent riding. In other words, it had been included up to the 1993 election. So philosophically I felt this had been addressed. We would go back to the boundaries except for those areas where there was high growth and we would simply subdivide those into appropriate sizes of electoral quotient.
But we haven't specifically named those ridings, as Mr. Solomon indicated.
The Chair: Do you have any comments, Mr. Solomon?
Mr. Solomon: I'm not clear on the recommendations, because there are two more ridings being added. I'm not sure how we can stay on the old boundaries and add two ridings. Could you explain that to me, please?
Mr. McKinnon: Look at the growth area of Mr. White's riding. Where there was one there would now be two.
Mr. Solomon: Okay.
Mr. McKinnon: If we look at the growth area on Vancouver Island and take the highest growth area - which Mr. White is not sure of - we subdivide to form two. Therefore you would get one additional riding on the mainland and one on Vancouver Island. And if I remember Mr. Martin's comments, I believe that's what he was intimating.
Mr. Solomon: Where does that fit with Mr. Robinson's recommendation that the proposed boundary of Burnaby North be changed to Burnaby - Douglas? Does that mean that this proposed new boundary would not be Burnaby North or Burnaby - Douglas, but would remain Burnaby - Kingsway as always, to Vancouver - Kingsway and Burnaby North and Vancouver East sort of splitting up the riding?
Mr. McKinnon: I don't know. I don't know my geography in downtown Vancouver.
Mr. Solomon: I have the map here. I was under the assumption that those amendments and boundaries made with respect to ridings bordering Burnaby North - the proposed Burnaby North that we recommended be called Burnaby - Douglas - would be as proposed. So I'm in a bit of a quandary with respect to the name change, because Mr. Robinson had no problem with the recommendations with respect to the ridings in, around and adjacent to his. I need some direction from the chair on this.
Ms Snowball: If your endorsement of Mr. Robinson's objection that the name of the new riding be changed is contingent on the new riding being put in place, I think you alleviate the problem. If the committee's recommendation as a whole is that all of the boundaries except the subdivision of the two high-growth areas be left as they are, then you don't have a change to Mr. Robinson's riding, and therefore you don't need a name change.
.0850
Mr. McKinnon: I think the proviso should be put in that if there are some shifts in Vancouver along the lines of Mr. Robinson's and Mr. Solomon's concerns, that name change be respected, if appropriate.
The Chair: Do you agree with that, Mr. Solomon?
Mr. Solomon: If the riding is to be called Burnaby North, then we have to agree it has to be called Burnaby - Douglas. I can't give you Mr. Robinson's comments with respect to the status quo in dividing the two ridings. I don't know what his feeling is on that. So I would have to abstain from any vote with respect to British Columbia, but there are two others here who can vote.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. McKinnon: In the interests of fairness...I really can't comment. I'm simply going along with Mr. White's views, that the population changes are going on in the areas peripheral to Vancouver. Mr. White's Fraser Valley is the east, I believe.
Ms Snowball: Fraser Valley West.
Mr. McKinnon: West. He has over 200,000 people there.
You're right, Mr. Solomon, when you say there are two more ridings we have to put into place, representing population.
The Chair: We need to come to a conclusion and a specific recommendation.
Mr. McKinnon: I guess we look to the wisdom of the chair.
The Chair: And I'm going to look at the researcher.
Ms Snowball: As I attempted to state before, Mr. Robinson's proposal is that this new riding is acceptable and should be named Burnaby North. So his name change proposal is contingent on the boundaries commission going ahead with what it has proposed.
Mr. Solomon: Agreed.
Ms Snowball: So if the boundaries commission were to seriously redraw everything consequent on this subcommittee's proposals, then since we wouldn't know how the boundaries would turn out, we wouldn't know whether Mr. Robinson's proposed name change, or re-change, is tied into that.
Mr. Solomon: My sense is that Mr. Robinson would like to see his riding either called Burnaby - Douglas or at worst remain the same, but to redivide the boundaries creates another problem, which means we have to go through a whole series of hearings again.
So with respect to British Columbia, I will extract myself from further debate at this point.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. McKinnon: I would certainly go along with Mr. Robinson's request. It seems logical, on the assumption that there's a boundary shift.
The Chair: Okay. It's my understanding, then, that we will go along with Mr. Robinson's suggestion. That appears to be agreed by the group.
Mr. McKinnon: Right.
The Chair: Okay. Then we should move on.
Mr. McKinnon: There is Dr. Gerrard's submission as well. Have we dealt with that one in Manitoba?
Ms Snowball: No. We've dealt with Mrs. Cowling's submissions with respect to Manitoba. We have the three remaining in Manitoba -
Mr. McKinnon: Right. Iftody...
Ms Snowball: - and we kind of shifted back to British Columbia to see if there were particular comments with respect to particular ridings.
.0855
The Chair: That's right.
Is British Columbia complete at this point? Are there any more suggestions for British Columbia?
Mr. McKinnon: Not here, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Solomon?
Mr. Solomon: None, thank you.
The Chair: Then we'll move on. We should go back to Manitoba. I believe it's at 12, Mr. Duhamel.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Chair, I would move that we accept Mr. Duhamel's recommendations as stated.
Mr. McKinnon: That fits in with Mr. Iftody's concerns to some degree, in that he was picking up some of the territory, I believe. If I may speak on Mr. Iftody's comments, he was concerned about the north-south shift taking his territory of Pine Falls and including it with Mr. Harper's riding of Churchill. There were stronger ties south than there were to the north, in his view.
The Chair: Correct.
Mr. McKinnon: He was also picking up some of Mr. Duhamel's territory as he came around the boundary of the city, in Provencher.
Ms Snowball: From the map it appears the piece of St. Boniface that was removed from Mr. Duhamel's riding has been placed down in a riding called Winnipeg South.
Mr. McKinnon: Is that Mr...?
Ms Snowball: I don't believe we heard from anyone from Winnipeg South.
The Chair: No, we didn't.
Ms Snowball: The boundaries between St. Boniface and Winnipeg South do not seem to have altered where they share the boundary with Provencher. No.
Mr. McKinnon: I stand corrected.
The Chair: The big change for David Iftody, I believe, was in the north end of the riding.
Ms Snowball: He also acquired territory on the west, I believe.
Mr. McKinnon: I think he picked up Winkler and Morden. Or did he? Jon Gerrard did that. I'm in error. He didn't. Portage - Lisgar picked it up.
Ms Snowball: Yes, not on the west, but Provencher acquired territory from the riding of Selkirk - Red River.
.0900
Mr. McKinnon: Is Manitoba map number 1 congruent with that one?
Ms Snowball: Your map in the report is the same as the purple lines.
Mr. McKinnon: What about the Interlake?
Ms Snowball: It would be the chunk of territory that was part of Selkirk - Red River, which is more urban in nature, to which I think Mr. Iftody referred.
Mr. McKinnon: Yes.
What about Mr. Alcock's riding, Winnipeg South?
The Chair: Mr. Alcock didn't make a presentation.
Mr. McKinnon: But how much change was there? He's picking up part of St. Boniface, is he not?
Ms Snowball: Yes.
Mr. McKinnon: Was Mr. Duhamel not asking for some of that purple stuff to be put back into St. Boniface? Am I correct on that?
Ms Snowball: Yes. Mr. Duhamel wants a chunk that he says historically is part of St. Boniface - the community of Riel - to be returned.
Mr. McKinnon: Is the purple boundary the new one?
Ms Snowball: Yes, this is the new boundary.
Mr. McKinnon: Where's the old one?
Ms Snowball: The old one runs quite a bit further south.
Mr. McKinnon: So he has lost that yellow stuff.
Ms Snowball: Yes.
The Chair: I believe Riel's grave is here. There's a historical portion to this riding.
Mr. McKinnon: Okay. But if we go with Mr. Duhamel, then we'll be changing Winnipeg South Centre - right?
BOMs Snowball: Yes. It appears as if you've got a quite substantial shift here. You had a boundary splitting Winnipeg St. James and Winnipeg South. We now have a riding on the west that's called Charleswood - Assiniboine, which seems to take chunks out of these two ridings.
Winnipeg South has been taken from being west and has been rotated so that it is really south.
Mr. Solomon: This is the area we're talking about -
Mr. McKinnon: That's right.
Mr. Solomon: - from this line, River Road and north. No, this will remain in South. Mr. Duhamel wants this back.
I didn't ask him this question, but Bishop Grandin Boulevard is a major thoroughfare and is a natural dividing line anywhere in the city. He obviously recognizes that but still thinks this is important enough to keep it in this district. I'll leave it to the Manitoba members to decide.
Mr. McKinnon: So really all he's wanting is that little area up there, that neck at the top, back in St. Boniface?
Mr. Solomon: Yes.
Mr. McKinnon: Oh. I thought he wanted the whole thing.
Ms Snowball: No, that's the entirety of the territory.
Mr. McKinnon: Right on. Thank you. Not having heard his presentation, I'm more confused.
I suggest that the commission should endorse Mr. Duhamel's recommendation for a minor shift.
Mr. Solomon: Agreed.
The Chair: Is there anything else that should be discussed with respect to Mr. Duhamel?
Mr. McKinnon: Did we decide on Mr. Iftody's -
The Chair: No.
The next one is that of Dr. Gerrard, which is at page 14.
Mr. McKinnon: I didn't hear this one, either.
.0905
The Chair: I did hear the presentation, and I would suggest that we go with the recommendations of Dr. Gerrard. He was extremely concerned about splitting up his community into the French-speaking and the Métis and also about the 25% variance. I would recommend we approve his recommendations.
Mr. Solomon: For clarification, Madam Chair, have we not agreed to recommend that the Manitoba rural boundaries remain status quo and the urban ones as we've changed them? Is there a need to do individual recommendations?
Ms Snowball: I suppose it's an issue of whether the committee wishes to make an overarching recommendation where there are common threads within a province, or whether there are particular aspects of the presentations that the committee wishes to place greater emphasis on. If there's something that seems to be particularly compelling, the committee may want to remark on that as well.
Mr. Solomon: Well, if we make the recommendation to leave the boundaries status quo, we'll give our reasons for that, which would be Gerrard's reasons, Cowling's reasons and others. We may be duplicating the decision.
Mr. McKinnon: Dr. Gerrard's comments and our concerns about his comments would be therefore addressed, if we go with what Mr. Solomon is suggesting.
The Chair: Agreed?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Ms Snowball: This brings us to Mr. Iftody, who is also from Manitoba.
Mr. McKinnon: My comment is that in a very practical way, Mr. Iftody is far more able to represent that shifted area than Mr. Harper would be if it were to go north, because Mr. Harper is now representing two-thirds of the province geographically. Therefore I sense Mr. Iftody is right for that area that's put in with the northern riding of Churchill. Also, there's the fact that there are more common ties towards the south than there are towards the north; it's getting more and more remote.
I would recommend that we go along with Mr. Iftody.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms Snowball: I have enough to put together a draft of the recommendations, and those will be circulated to the members, hopefully during the break. I think you are going to need a meeting at the beginning of the week, when the House comes back, to approve or direct changes to the draft report as needed.
The Chair: You will receive a copy of the recommendations. I would recommend that the next meeting be at the call of the chair so we can arrange for a time and space. Is that agreed?
Mr. Solomon: I would recommend, Madam Chair, that if it's possible we have a meeting sometime on the Tuesday we return, because I'll be here Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of that week, and then I'm not here for the rest of the week.
Mr. McKinnon: That would be fine.
Mr. Solomon: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.