[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 3, 1995
.1110 
[Translation]
The Chairman: I would like to welcome everyone to this first meeting of the sub-committee on the consideration of the objections filed on the proposed electoral boundaries.
.1115
Our first witness is Mr. Paul Crête. Good morning, Mr. Crête. We're sorry for the delay. If you are ready you can start right away.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): I was told I had about 20 minutes.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Crête: I would like to thank the members of the sub-committee for hearing me.
First, I'd like to make one thing perfectly clear. The representations I'm making here as member of Parliament don't mean in any way that I think the federal electoral map will be used again. Right now, I'm putting all my energy into making the yes a winner in the referendum so this map will never be used again. However, we were elected to defend the interests of Quebec and in defending those interests, in a democracy, one must foresee all possibilities. If ever the map were to be used again in the future, so be it. Based on my hypothesis, after a yes, I think the federal government would want to call an election for whatever reason and ensure that Quebeckers' interests are better represented.
I have two objections. One has to do with the substance and the other is rather technical in nature.
As for the first, the recommendations of the electoral commission mean one of the five present eastern Quebec ridings will disappear. To my mind, it's an aberration to only consider the demographic aspects when drawing up riding boundaries. The effect will be to increase the under-development of those areas because we'll go from five representatives to four. There will be less weight in the caucus and less weight in Parliament as a whole for areas which, in the past, suffered a population decline because of government policies.
If we want to counter such effects, we shouldn't decrease representation, because that would increase their rate but instead we should maintain the present number of members to represent in the House not only those people who elect them but also the area as a whole. I think demography is being shown inordinate importance in the present redrawing of boundaries.
Some members representing 100,000 people or so certainly have a lot of work. However, in a rural riding like mine in Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup, with 55 municipalities, adding an MRC like Témiscouata, as planned, means I'd be working in cooperation with 70 or 75 municipalities. That would make my job absolutely impossible and would be fundamentally detrimental to my representational work.
Demography alone is the standard. In outlying areas, issues like forestry and agriculture take up your time not because of the number of people involved but because of their importance in economic development.
This point is valid not only for regional development but also over the long term to allow more balanced development and avoid having more and more population concentrated in cities and the development of slums. If we decrease representation, that's the risk we run.
I would like to look at another aspect. In eastern Quebec, the Îles-de-la-Madeleine area, for example, does enjoy an exception. Quebec's electoral legislation recognizes Iles-de-la-Madeleine as a riding. We made representations on that to the electoral commission and also in the House during the debates in second and third readings. It was not agreed to. I'm not saying that this morning to have it agreed to, but if we decrease the number of ridings from five to four, we'll be even further decreasing the relative weight of the Magdalene Islanders. They are now part of the Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine riding whereas in the new subdivision, that riding would be increased further and the Îles-de-la-Madeleine people who are in a special situation, would have less weight.
It seems to me that's an additional reason to change the decision so we can keep five ridings in the east.
.1120
There is one distinguishing characteristic for my riding. The Témiscouata MRC is being added. However, the people living in the MRC were never asked what riding they wanted to be in. It would be appropriate to try to find out what the Témiscouata MRC people think before sticking them into the Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup riding or leaving them in the present riding of Rimouski - Témiscouata.
It will remain an MRC whether it's added to one or the other of those two ridings and, if I'm not mistaken, both fall within the standards for minimum or maximum population.
As with the new map the wish was to partially respect MRC boundaries, when deciding to include one or the other in the riding, MRC authorities should be asked in which of the two ridings they'd like to be.
I was asked how Quebec's 75 ridings could be maintained. We're not asking to have more than 75 ridings in Quebec. We're simply asking that in drawing the boundaries of the present 75 ridings, the five ridings in the east of Quebec be maintained and that the question be settled by balancing out the other ridings especially in urban areas like Montreal where you could use the clause of the present act allowing a variance greater than 25% of the provincial quotient.
Right now, in some circumstances, you can exceed the variance for the median population. I think that provision could be applied in this case without prejudice to the representation for larger urban centres where reality is different.
There's a more technical aspect. If ever my representations and those of others were not agreed to - which I don't wish - I would like the riding to bear the name of the four MRCs involved which are Kamouraska, Rivière-du-Loup, Témiscouata and Les Basques.
If the Témiscouata MRC were to remain in the Rimouski - Témiscouata riding, I'd like the riding to bear the name Rimouski - Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup - Les Basques. Presently, the riding bears the name of two MRCs. The third, the MRC of Les Basques, is not given recognition in the name of the riding. That's an error of history that should be corrected. My area, the Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup - Témiscouata - Les Basques area, is known as the KRTB area and people would consider the identification of the four MRCs in the name of the riding as a sign of respect.
Broadly speaking, those are my representions. I must admit I'm starting to think that a lot of energy was put into it. First, I met the electoral committee when it visited my region. There was all kinds of confusion surrounding the legislation as to whether it would apply or not. There were the second and third reading debates where we made the same representations. To date, they have not been recognized. I think this is the last chance I have to do anything and I would hope that my wishes will be granted.
In wrapping up, I'd like to add one last thing. Quebeckers were deeply marked by the fact that the House of Commons refused to grant them the 25% variance threshold across the board for the House of Commons and I think that will be part of the reasons they'll say yes to the referendum.
I'm ready to answer your questions.
The Chairman: Are there any questions?
Mr. Assad (Gatineau - La Lièvre): Does what you suggest falls below the 25% of voters?
Mr. Crête: With the suggestions I've made, either all ridings would be just below the 25% or a given riding could be allowed a greater variance so the others could meet the 25% requirement.
.1125
Mr. Assad: In the riding with fewer voters, will it be far from the 25%?
Mr. Crête: No, it won't be very far from the 25%. It might be at 30%. We think that if the five ridings are maintained, then next time it won't create as big a difference for the 25%. It doesn't meet the 25% requirement, but it wouldn't lead to a major variance.
The Chairman: In the document, you also suggest getting the opinion of the Témiscouata MRC. I suppose you talked about that to the prefect.
Mr. Crête: The first time I raised my objection, I was told to write to the chairman. So I wrote the chairman and sent a copy of the letter to the Témiscouata MRC. I didn't want to get involved in that by saying the MRC had decided it would be Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup. On the other hand, I didn't want to give the impression I had taken... I still think they're the ones who should give an opinion. If they decide in favour of one or the other, then you can decide based on that.
The Chairman: I'm sure you should have spoken about this to some elected officials of the... It didn't have to be an official recommendation, but, in your opinion, do those people...
Mr. Crête: I can't give you any opinion on that because in that MRC, you have important sub-regions like Cabano and Lac des Aigles, which is closer to Rimouski. I think we should get the MRC's opinion and it hasn't said anything to date. No one has asked them officially.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: What are the time frames and the next stages?
The Chairman: If my memory serves me right, the sub-committee is to table a report with the standing committee.
Mr. Crête: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Mr. Bélisle.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): I'm before the sub-committee to make a representation. With these new boundaries, the Montérégie, the region on the south shore of Montreal, will have 11 ridings instead of 10.
My present riding of La Prairie would then be divided into two new ridings. In the west you'd have the riding of Brossard - La Prairie and, in the east, the riding of Saint-Lambert.
I'll spare you the details, but you can look at them for yourself later. On page 3, with the support of the member for Longueuil, Mr. Nick Leblanc, and another ten or so MPs, I've mentioned that of the 11 new ridings in the Montérégie area, 10 will have a population of between 90,000 to 100,000.
The population of the new Saint-Lambert riding will be roughly 83,363, which is significantly less than in the other proposed ridings.
.1130
Today I'd like to show quickly not only that this riding's population will be significantly lower than the others in the same area with populations from 90,000 to 100,000, but also that it's in strong decline even though its population is 83,363.
If you go to the table provided in the annex, you'll see in columns A to G the commission's present proposal. The new riding of Saint-Lambert will be made up of the city of Saint-Lambert. In column E, you'll see that the population of the city has increased 4.7% between 1981 and 1991. The city has completely built up and is therefore stable.
As for the other towns in this new riding, Greenfield Park has gone down by 3.5% and Lemoyne by 3.9% As for the city of Longueuil, its population has increased 3.5% All of the growth of Longueuil will be in the new Longueuil riding while all the areas whose population was decreasing between 1981 and 1991 will be located in the new riding of Saint-Lambert. And there is nothing yet to indicate that the trend is reversing itself.
Longueuil's census areas 883, 882, 872 and 873 will make up the new riding of Saint-Lambert. In column E, the population is decreasing in all those areas: less 6.8% for area 883, less 5.3% for 882, less 0.6% for 872 and less 3.2% for 873.
I'd like to show that the Saint-Lambert riding already has a population lower by far than the other ridings in the area and that, moreover, the areas it includes have a decreasing population except for the city of Saint-Lambert which will be stable in the future.
As for the growth areas in Longueuil, as you can see on line 20 of the last table, areas 876.03, 876.02, 877 and 886 have had an increase in population of 6.1%, 23.4%, 17.7% and 107.7% respectively. The first two areas, 875 and 876.01, have had a decrease of 11.3% and 11.8% respectively.
We must be realistic and consistant. A area like 886 that had an increase of 107.7% will not enjoy such a great increase over the next five or ten years because the area's land is becoming more and more built up.
In the new riding of Saint-Lambert, there are no more areas left to develop and normally this is a riding with a decreasing population.
As for the Longueuil riding, there is still a lot of wooded land and areas to be developed.
Go to the last page of the document. The member for Longueuil is in agreement with me. To avoid having to redo the Saint-Lambert riding sooner than necessary, we recommend that census areas 880, 881.01 and 881.02 be put into the new riding of Saint-Lambert. As I was saying, Saint-Lambert has a lower population than the other ridings and is also on the decrease.
Adding those three census areas to the new riding of Saint-Lambert rather than Longueuil would have a marked effect.
In 1991, Longueuil had 90,000 inhabitants. The new Longueuil riding would have 90,526 and Saint-Lambert 83,363. I mention that in the explanatory notes. According to the Quebec Official Gazette the population of Longueuil is increasing by 1,500 a year. The Quebec Official Gazette says Longueuil's population is between 129,000 and 137,000 in 1995. So if we draw the boundaries like that for the new Longueuil riding, we'd already be going from 90,000 to 97,786.
As for the new Saint-Lambert riding, I was very conservative but I tried to be as objective as possible. As I had no figures, I used the same as for Longueuil. We were very conservative in our approach. The transfer of the three census areas in Longueuil and Saint-Lambert affect 12,108 people. I take it away from one side and add it to the other. The new Longueuil riding would then have 85,678 people while there would be 95,471 in Saint-Lambert.
.1135
In comparison with the electoral quotient for Quebec which is roughly 92,000 - you can see that there is a variance - , I would like to point out that for the last 10 years or so, the population has been increasing by some 1,500 to 1,700 people on a yearly basis, and the numbers continue to rise in this area today. I've indicated that the riding of Longueuil has decreased by 500. That is based on the historical trend.
Obviously, the decrease is less and less over time. As the generations and the population are replaced, it decreases less and less. So the 500 figure is considerably lower than the historical trend, but there again, we have to be as objective and as conservative as possible.
These two electoral districts seem to have a variance of almost 10,000. At the present rate, by 1997-98, the population of the Longueuil riding will be back at 90,000 and the population in Saint-Lambert, with yearly decreases of 500, 600 or 700 people, would probably be close to 92,000, which is very close to the electoral quotient for Quebec.
My objective is to balance out the population of Saint-Lambert in relation to the population of Longueuil which is on the rise, and the other surrounding ridings which are relatively stable. I'm ready to answer your questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Bélisle. Your presentation was very clear. Do you have any questions Mr. Assad?
Mr. Assad: Do the numbers you have given us represent the number of voters or the population?
Mr. Bélisle: The population, because it is based on the electoral quotient for Quebec which is 91,946. It is the population of Quebec, 6,800,000, divided by 75. At present, the Longueuil riding has between 75,000 and 77,000 voters for a population of 111,000. The ridings in the region, that is Saint-Hubert, Laprairie and Longueuil, have populations of 110,000, 111,000 and 112,000 respectively. They will all be brought to roughly 91,000.
Mr. Assad: Are you proposing to leave things as they are?
Mr. Bélisle: No. My proposal is to adopt the new plan and add three new census areas in the Saint-Lambert riding. All of the ridings in the region have a population between 90,000 and 100,000. The population of these ridings is either stable, or on the rise. The new Saint-Lambert riding lags well behind the 10 other ridings in the region with a population of only 83,000, and the census areas that Saint-Lambert has received are on the decline.
If this continues, in a few years, even with 83,000 in 1995 - and I'm being conservative - , the population of Saint-Lambert will fall to 82,000, 81,000 or even 79,000. The riding will have to be readjusted in the next few years, while other ridings, such as Longueuil, are expanding. They're being set at 90,000, but they will reach 100,000 very quickly.
Mr. Assad: Are the three areas you recommend annexing to Saint-Lambert located in the municipality of Longueuil?
Mr. Bélisle: They're in the municipality of Longueuil, because there is a principle in the Act that says that cities must not be divided along rivers or railway lines. There is some logic to that. I didn't outline it completely, but I have shown that the Longueil riding is here and that the proposed Saint-Lambert riding is here and that in geographical terms, this addition would be very harmonious.
The new Saint-Lambert riding already has a population of roughly 40,000 and instead of 40,000, it would be 52,000. It's a natural addition; it is not a redistribution. The new Saint-Lambert riding would be made up of Saint-Lambert, Greenfield Park, Lemoyne and part of Longueuil. We would have a slightly larger part than Longueuil.
The Chairman: Do you agree with creating two ridings?
Mr. Bélisle: I agree entirely with all these changes regarding my current riding, which would become Brossard - La Prairie. I also agree fully with Longueuil and Saint-Lambert.
.1140
Its population is roughly 10% lower than that of the other ridings, and everywhere, except in one area, it is on the decline. In a few years, it will be 15 or 16% less populated than the other ridings which are all more or less the same. So why not increase the population now to bring it into the same range as the other ridings? At best, over the years, it will stabilize, whereas Longueuil, in the east, is growing rapidly. There are already 7,000 or 8,000 more people in the city of Longueuil.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond - Wolfe): You said that Saint-Lambert is completely saturated between Queen and Ste-Hélène boulevards. Is it really saturated or is there still room for development?
Mr. Bélisle: Oh, no! Everywhere, everywhere!
Mr. Leroux: It's saturated, even if that area were to be added.
Mr. Bélisle: Even if it were added, there's no room for expansion, because everywhere -
Mr. Leroux: Between Queen and Ste-Hélène.
Mr. Bélisle: Lemoyne est saturated, as is Saint-Lambert and that part of Longueuil.
Mr. Leroux: Basically, the purpose of your objection is to bring the population to roughly 90,000.
Mr. Bélisle: It is to bring it closer to 91,000 or 92,000, because, in any case, even the proposed riding of 95,000 will decline. The population is decreasing in these areas. There may perhaps be a very small area in Greenfield Park where there's room to build, but it is very very small.
The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau.
Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Good morming. How is everyone today?
The Chairman: Fine, and you?
Mr. Sauvageau: Very well. Are you ready?
The Chairman: The floor is yours.
Mr. Sauvageau: I do not know if this is on your sheets, but I have three proposed amendements. The first one deals with the redistribution of the Blainville - Terrebonne riding and the cities that will make up the new riding. The second deals with the new Repentigny riding and the municipalities it comprises. Thirdly, in the event that the first two proposals are not acceptable, I recommend that, out of respect for history, we call the new riding Blainville - Terrebonne or Terrebonne - Blainville. Let me explain.
Mr. Leroux: We have a third proposal in the document, but not the other two.
Mr. Sauvageau: You have a problem.
Mr. G. Lafrenière (committee researcher): I have a memo from the sub-committee which explains a speech Mr. Sauvageau made in the House of Commons on his proposed changes.
Mr. Sauvageau: The first deals with the municipalities which will make up the new Blainville - Terrebonne riding, the second with the new Repentigny riding and the third with the name of the new Blainville - Terrebonne riding.
Mr. Assad: It would be better to look at the first two.
Mr. Sauvageau: Yes, since the last one is just a small technical detail.
As for the first one, the committee did come into the riding and we saw the proposal for the new Blainville - Terrebonne riding. The riding would be made up of the cities of Blainville, Bois-des-Filion, Lorraine, Rosemère, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines and Terrebonne.
Mr. Assad: What would the population be?
Mr. Sauvageau: It would be roughly 91,946. For the first municipalities mentioned, this new redistribution makes sense, except that the municipality of Terrebonne, which would be the most populated municipality in the new riding with 39,670 inhabitants, has nothing at all in common with the other cities mentioned.
.1145
Everything is different: the administrative regions, the MRCs, the schoolboards, the economic development boards, the Quebec manpower development boards, the federal employment centres and the local community health centres. In other words, everything the Act defines as being a community of interest has been disregarded.
Mr. Assad: What is the name of the city with 39,000 inhabitants?
Mr. Sauvageau: Terrebonne.
Mr. Assad: At the provincial level, is the Terrebonne riding...
Mr. Sauvageau: Are the questions to be asked during or after the presentation?
The Chairman: I was just about to comment on that. We could perhaps listen to him first, Mark, and then ask questions.
Mr. Sauvageau: I don't mind, but I would like that to be taken into account in the time that I'm alloted.
So, the municipality of Terrebonne is part of the current riding of the same name. However, it is not part of the same MRC as the municipalities of Blainville, Bois-des-Filion, and Rosemère, etc, which are different socially and economically. In other words, this is an attempt to put together two incompatible groups. In addition, this is not consistent with the Electoral Boundaries Re-adjustment Act as regards the historical aspect and the communities of interest.
Therefore, I recommend - it is all very well to say that things are not right, but suggestions must be made - that the new riding be called Terrebonne and that the cities in this riding include Lachenaie, Mascouche, Terrebone and La Plaine. According to the 1991 decennial census, the population of these four municipalities would be 91,156, which is roughly 1% less than the proposed 91,946. This is consistent with the Act to within 800 people.
In addition to being a community of interest, these four cities are already part of the same administrative region, and the same regional county municipality; they have the same schoolboard, the same economic development board, the same employment centre, the same Quebec manpower development board and even the same local community health centre.
The number and the Act are respected, and it makes sense. This is what I propose for Blainville - Terrebonne, but it would be called Terrebone.
Now, let's move on to Repentigny. People in the MRC and I are very happy that this historical oversight is being remedied.
Repentigny was founded on April 16th, 1647, and there has never been a riding with that name. The first criteria in the Act, which is historical recognition, is thereby respected. But as for the community of interest criteria, it's a whole new ball game. The municipalities to be included in the Repentigny riding under proposal are Charlemagne, Lachenaie, Mascouche, Repentigny and La Plaine. There is no link between them. Their MRCs, employment centres, economic development boards, etc are different. Once again, it is an attempt to put two imcompatible groups together.
Again, this means administraive overlap. You all know that it is much easier to work with the same administrative entity. And I think that is the purpose of the readjustments.
Consequently, I propose that the new Repentigny riding encompass the cities of Charlemagne, L'Assomption, L'Épiphanie, Le Gardeur and Repentigny as well as a part of the regional county municipality of L'Assomption which includes the parrishes of L'Épiphanie, Saint-Gérard-de-Magella and Saint-Sulpice.
But regarding the population, is the Statistics Act being complied with? According to the 1991 decennial census, the population of the proposed new riding would be 91,946 instead of 91,537, the diffence being less than 300 people. As a percentage, the difference is very small.
This new riding would comprise one administrative region, one MRC, one schoolboard, one economic development board, one employment centre and one community of interest. Thus, the criteria concerning the number, the community of interest and the historical characteristics set out in the Act would be complied with. There are two ridings: Repentigny and Terrebonne.
.1150
When the committee held a hearing in our area, the wardens of the RCMs and the mayors of the municipalities tabled a brief. I am speaking on their behalf.
Earlier, a reporter asked me if my position had political connotations. I responded humbly that the Bloc québécois had won in each of the 360 polling stations in the Terrebonne riding.
So, removing one municipality or another from the riding would not change anything. We've got solid roots in this area and we're going to keep it that way! I think it is very important for the people who live there to have a community of interests, socially, economically, geographically and otherwise.
If my two proposals are not accepted, out of respect for the people of Terrebonne and out of respect for the historical criterias set out in the act, I would like the riding to be called Terrebonne-Blainville rather than Blainville-Terrebonne. That may seem trivial to you, but it is very important for people who have been living in the Terrebonne riding since 1867.
My three recommendations are the following: the Terrebonne riding as amended, the Repentigny riding as amended and if not, the suggested. I'm ready to answer your questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Assad: It is very clear.
Mr. Sauvageau: When will the changes be made?
Mr. Leroux: The report will be prepared Thursday, if we stick to our schedule, and then it will be tabled.
Mr. Sauvageau: Do you have a copy of the document?
Mr. Leroux: No.
The Chairman: I received this in my office.
Mr. Sauvageau: Yes, I sent it out as the clerk requested.
Mr. Leroux: To whom?
Mr. Sauvageau: To the resource person for the committee.
The Chairman: Mr. Assad, please proceed.
Mr. Mark Assad, MP (Gatineau-La Lièvre): I will be very brief.
The population of the Gatineau-La Lièvre riding has shot up because of growth in the city of Gatineau; that's why the electoral map must be modified.
The only change I would like to recommend goes along the same lines as a point made by the previous member, that is the importance of the community of interests, the homogeneity, the centres of attraction, the RCMs, etc. Consequently, in the interest of the communities involved and because of their sense of belonging, I propose that the following municipalities remain in the Gatineau-La Lièvre riding: the city of Gatineau, Masson, Angers et Buckingham. I would add L'Ange-Gardien, Mayo and Mulgrave and Derry, because they're three sparcely populated rural municipalities which would not significantly increase the number of inhabitants in the riding. In fact, the population of Mulgrave and Derry and L'Ange-Gardien is no more than 6,000 inhabitants, which is very little with respect to the 136,000 inhabitants in the riding.
.1155
The municipalities of Mayo, L'Ange-Gardien and Mulgrave and Derry completely surround the city of Buckingham. Whether you come from the east, the west or the north, you go through the municipality of L'Ange-Gardien. The city of Buckingham is the centre of activity for people living in L'Ange-Gardien. Their employment centre, hospitals, etc., are all there.
As for the rural addresses, they would remain virtually unchanged, except for R.R.1, R.R.3 and R.R.4.
Consequently, it is only normal for the people of L'Ange-Gardien, Mayo and Mulgrave and Derry to be in the Gatineau-La Lièvre riding, because commercially and socially they have belonged to the city of Buckingham for a long time.
The Chairman: Is that it?
Mr. Assad: Yes.
The Chairman: Do you have any questions?
Mr. Leroux: No. I understand, very well. The community of interests concerns the RCM as well as the administrative regions. It's very clear.
The Chairman: I have a couple of questions myself. How many municipalities are there at present?
Mr. Assad: Nine.
The Chairman: Nine, and with the new redistribution, there would be seven?
Mr. Assad: Five.
The Chairman: Five. And the other four would end up in my riding.
Mr. Assad: Exactly.
Mr. Leroux: Do you want me to take the chair?
The Chairman: No, no.
Mr. Leroux: Your ridings are contiguous.
Mr. Assad: I believe that the municipalities of Val-des-Monts, Notre-Dame-du-Laus, Val-des-Bois, Bowman, Notre-Dame-de-la-Salette and Thurso would end up in your riding.
The Chairman: Thurso too?
Mr. Assad: Yes, Thurso as well.
Mr. Leroux: That's Argenteuil-Papineau.
Mr. Assad: Excuse me, I forgot that.
The Chairman: Do you have enough?
Mr. Leroux: Do you want to appear, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: No, I did not file an objection.
What would that bring the population to?
Mr. Assad: Roughly 130,000, even with L'Ange-Gardien, Mayo and Mulgrave and Derry.
The Chairman: Are all of these municipalities part of the Les Collines-de-l'Outaouais RCM?
Mr. Assad: No.
The Chairman: So all of the Les Collines-de-l'Outaouais RCM would be part of my riding?
Mr. Assad: I don't know, I do not know that area well enough.
The Chairman: The six municipalities in the Les Collines-de-l'Outaouais RCM would be part of my riding. That includes Val-des-Monts, which is now in your riding.
Mr. Assad: Yes.
The Chairman: I can't remember the other municipalities.
Mark, it's the name of the riding that causes a lot of confusion. Even the Speaker of the House makes a mistake when he recognizes the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle or Gatineau-La Lièvre. Has anyone thought of changing the name of the riding?
Mr. Assad: It was changed in 1987. Prior to that, it was the Gatineau riding. But since it now includes the Gatineau and La Lièvre valleys, the name was changed to be more reflective of the geographic reality.
The Chairman: That's all I wanted to know, dear member for Gatineau-La Lièvre.
Mr. Assad: Thank you.
The Chairman: We will take a five-minute break.
.1200
PAUSE
.1205
[English]
The Chairman: We're listening to you, Warren.
Mr. Warren Allmand, MP (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): To begin with, I'll tell you exactly what the proposal is. It's to put together the traditional and historical constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and to add to it the total city of Lachine. I'm objecting to this, but not because it would be any great burden on me or another member of Parliament. It would be some inconvenience and additional work. That's not the main reason for my objection.
My main objection to this is that it would not really be in the best interests of these communities, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Lachine, or the people who live there. I'll tell you why.
Lachine is one of the oldest and most historic communities in Quebec. It was the launching place for the fur trade. Les voyageurs left from Lachine. They still have the historic site from where les voyagers went to the west in the 17th century. They went down the Great Lakes and the Mississippi. Lachine was quite a distance until recent history, until maybe 50 or 60 years ago. It was out in the country, quite a distance from Montreal.
So in Lachine they have a very proud and historic past. Basically, it's the beginning of the lakeshore community in Montreal. That's why previous ridings have been called Lachine - Lakeshore. It's always been mixed in with the lakeshore area of Montreal on Lac Saint-Louis.
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has historically been a quartier of the city of Montréal. It's a district of the city of Montréal. If it were to be joined with neighbouring communities, it might have more in common with Snowdon or Côte des Neiges or Côte Saint-Luc and Hampstead but not so much with Lachine.
The difficulty I see is - and by the way, this was proposed in the past and the mayor of Lachine objected to it. I mention in my submission that the communities, of course, were not consulted. If they had consulted with the city councillors or the people in NDG, there would have been objections.
There would have certainly been objections if they consulted with the mayor of Lachine and the Conseil municipal of Lachine. What they would see in this is a riding that's basically Notre-Dame-de-Grâce being extended to take in all of Lachine, which is a city of about 50,000 people, I guess. They would feel their distinctness and identify are being lumped in with Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
As you know, I don't know how I would handle that if I was still a deputy. I would like to have two constituency offices, but with the budget we have it's very difficult to have two constituency offices. I have one person in my constituency. I can only afford one person, one office. But the people of Lachine would feel in second place if I kept the office in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and they would feel that the riding was more Notre-Dame-de-Grâce than it was Lachine.
These are the grounds on which I object. I object because I think that when they form new constituencies, these boundary commissions should consider the community of interest and the history of those communities so that when somebody comes here representing Trois-Rivières,
[Translation]
he is actually from Trois-Rivières and when one member of Parliament represents Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, he is actually from that community. The person cannot be from three or four different ridings. I know that sometimes, in rural ridings, a number of villages or small towns have to be included in a single riding. However, in my view, it's not correct to lump together into a single riding two communities with no community of interest.
[English]
That's my ideal approach to these things and historically that's what Parliament was. You represented a town or a community or a county, where there was a community of interest, where people for other reasons came together, either municipally or county-wide.
.1210
Now all of a sudden for many reasons, especially economic ones, people draw population lines and cut communities in two. I don't think this is a good thing. I think communities are more important than that. Communities are the base of our society and we should try to respect those communities, not lump these two things together. If we have to do it we'll do it, but we could do it in a much better way and unfortunately it hasn't been done.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Warren.
Mr. Leroux: In your second comment, you say that the commission did not consult the communities. Does that mean that there were no hearings in your area, even given the fuss that was made about this bill?
Mr. Allmand: If there were hearings, I was not informed of them.
Mr. Leroux: In other words, you're saying that the commission did not hold hearings in your area. Is that correct?
Mr. Allmand: The hearings were held in downtown Montreal.
Mr. Leroux: And you did not make any comments at those hearings?
I come now to my second question, Mr. Allmand. What would the new boundaries mean in terms of population?
Mr. Allmand: I have the figures here somewhere. I looked at the proposal, and it would make the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine one of the largest in Montreal, populationwise.
Mr. Leroux: But what population are you referring to? Are we talking about 90,000, 100,000, or 125,000?
Mr. Allmand: Over 100,000.
Mr. Leroux: I see.
Mr. Allmand: For the time being, the population of my riding is around 70,000, but it will increase significantly because, even though I'm losing Westmount, I would be gaining the whole city of Lachine!
Mr. Leroux: Right. So your basic arguments have to do with historic and linguistic communities of interest.
Mr. Allmand: Exactly.
Mr. Leroux: And also with community of interests with respect to the Island of Montreal, because Lachine did not have the same historical background. Did I understand you correctly?
Mr. Allmand: Yes. Lachine is part of the same riding as Dorval and Pointe-Claire. These are three independent cities located on lac Saint-Louis. When I was young and attending college in Montreal, we would go out to Dorval and Lachine by train. It was still countryside at the time.
In the 1950's, there was a major population explosion, and the situation changed somewhat. However, the people of Lachine, including the mayor and the municipal coucillors, will tell you that they do not consider themselves Montrealers.
Mr. Leroux: So the new riding proposed in the bill does not take community of interests into account.
Mr. Allmand: Not in my view.
Mr. Leroux: Thank you.
The Chairman: Do you have any questions, Mr. Assad?
Mr. Assad: What was the population of the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce before the proposed changes?
Mr. Allmand: Between 70,000 and 80,000.
Mr. Assad: And it will now increase to over 100,000.
Mr. Allmand: Yes. The figures are contained in a binder that I forgot to bring along. I could go and get it if you like, but I don't want to delay you. Oh, here it is! The figure is 101,519.
Mr. Assad: Pardon?
Mr. Allmand: It's on page 13 of the proposal...
Mr. Lafrenière: In 1991, the population of the existing riding was 78,000.
Mr. Leroux: So you are going from 78,000 to 101,000.
.1215
Mr. Allmand: But that's not the most important. I can understand sometimes it is necessary to increase the population of a riding. But if we were to merge the communities of Lachine and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, where would I come as the member of Parliament, establish the centre of my riding? Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is closer to downtown Montreal, while Lachine is on the river and has a different historical background. It's not impossible to overcome this obstacle, but it would have been preferable to take tradition, history and community of interest into account when the new electoral boundaries were being drawn.
The Chairman: Is Notre-Dame-de-Grâce a municipality, Warren?
Mr. Allmand: Notre-Dame-de-Grâce was an independent municipality until the First World War. It is now an integral part of the City of Montreal.
The riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce includes two small municipalities called Montreal West and Ville de Saint-Pierre, each of which has a population between 5,000 and 6,000.
The Chairman: So Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is a district. I don't have any other questions. Mark?
Mr. Assad: No, thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand: I wish you well in your work.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Yvan Bernier, MP (Gaspé): I should start by saying that this is not an issue that I find very exciting these days, and I must confess that I hope I will not have to use this particular electoral map again.
I wanted to review the file this morning, but it wasn't till around 11:45 a.m. that I came across another document. This was the initial document used at the commission hearings.
In April 1994, there was reference to a riding of Gaspé - Matane, and this summer, a friend of mine gave me a document in which there's mention of a riding called Gaspé - Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Which one are you working with at the moment, and why did this change occur?
.1220
The Chairman: The first hearings were held...
Mr. Bernier: In May, 1994.
The Chairman: There's a reference to the riding of Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine in a document dated February 5, 1994. In the new document we have, the riding is called Gaspé - Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
Mr. Bernier: That's what I have. You say that was in February, 1994?
The Chairman: February 5, 1994: «Proposals for the province of Quebec».
Mr. Bernier: That was in the first little booklets we received. I found that rather funny this morning. At the beginning, they were talking about Gaspé - Matane, then it became Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and in a document dated July 17, it became Gaspé - Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. In any case...
Were people consulted? During the consultations in my riding, I believe it was in May - May 2 in Percé and May 5 in Rimouski, to be more specific - the discussion was about the original proposal for a riding called Gaspé - Matane. The other one came out later on. Were there any other consultations in our region on the last proposal?
The Chairman: I would assume that it was following the consultations that the new riding was proposed.
Mr. Bernier: One would assume.
The Chairman: I am not an expert.
Mr. Bernier: I would like an answer on the record of your sub-committee, perhaps not today, because I understand that we all learn about this at the same time. However, I would like to hear about the initial consultation and who attended the hearings in Percé and Rimouski. Were further consultations held once the new map was drawn up? That's the first thing I would like to know.
I would like to add a second point. Even if we change the boundaries and have a riding called Gaspé - Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I don't know what would happen to the Denis-Riverin sector of my present riding. By reading between lines, I gather that it is going to become part of Matane. However, the ultimate objective of the first proposal was to eliminate one riding in Eastern Quebec. At the moment, we have Matapédia - Matane, Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Gaspé. I don't have...
The Chairman: Which municipality did you mention?
Mr. Bernier: I mentioned the Denis-Riverin regional county municipality, in which the city with the largest population is Sainte-Anne-des-Monts. I did not get that document.
The Chairman: The Denis-Riverin regional county municipality would be part of Matapédia - Matane.
Mr. Bernier: Matapédia - Matane. So that means that Denis-Riverin and Sainte-Anne-des-Monts and smaller villages such as Tourelle would be added to the riding that includes the Avignon sector.
The Chairman: That is correct.
Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put forward the same arguments that I presented at the time of the initial proposal, which would have cut Gaspé in two. This other proposed boundary leads me to wonder about the social and economic links between the municipalities in the Denis-Riverin regional county municipality and their ties to Avignon. I did not have time to consult people about the latest boundary proposal. I would like to hear from the wardens of the RCM and perhaps some municipal representatives.
The Chairman: We are here this morning to hear your grievances. I assume the commission has already travelled to the regions and that the wardens made a presentation at that time.
.1225
Mr. Bernier: We are both assuming, Mr. Chairman. That's why I said earlier that it would be good to have that on record and to make sure that these things were done. I am still the member of Parliament, and I heard about this by chance, which is rather strange. I admitted that I was not terribly interested in this issue, but I can tell you that the RCM wardens I met with again this summer did not raise the matter, although they did raise it last spring when the first electoral map came out. At the time, people told me they wanted to maintain the social-economic link they had at the time.
I insist that these people be consulted again. I'm convinced - and history has proven this as well - that federal political parties have changed tremendoulsy in recent years. There's been a move from the Grits to the Tories, and from the Tories to the Bloc. Political personalities have changed as well, but the people themselves and their social-economic ties have remained the same.
A riding such as Gaspé - Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine or Gaspé - Matane is far from the decision-making centres and always will be. There will always be a feeling of belonging to a particular social-economic group. I'm surprised that the main people affected by this change have not been informed of it or are not saying more about it. That may be because people are more pro-sovereignty than federalists in that region, as the latest poles in my riding show. However, be that as it may... Why is it that no one reacted to this proposal?
Those are the questions I wanted to raise. When I saw a reference to this reform this summer, along with my colleague, François Langlois, member of Parliament for Bellechasse, I thought people could appear again before a subcommittee. I said that if changes were to be made, I would hope that RCM wardens or municipal officials would be heard from again. I wanted existing social-economic ties to be maintained, because people are already criticizing their current member of Parliament for not being in these parts of the riding often enough. Although the riding is large, there are people scattered throughout it, and they like to see their member of Parliament.
Whether the MP is from the Bloc or the Liberal party - and you could ask my colleague Patrick Gagnon the same question - people must have a way of making their complaints heard. Everyone will loose if the riding is expanded as proposed and there are no natural lines of communications.
That's all I wanted to say this morning.
The Chairman: I will ask my questions later.
Mr. Leroux: If I understand the arguments and objections that are already on file, my colleague, Paul Crête, referred to two factors. I would like to ask some questions about the first of these, namely, the disappearance of a riding in this part of the province. We are well aware of the major administrative decentralization that exists in the regions of Quebec through the RCMs, the administrative territories, the CRDs (Regional Development Boards), and so on. In your remarks, you said there would be a negative impact on regional development if people in that region have more trouble making their views known. Do you see the elimination of a riding as harming representation and the ability to represent the regional point of view? Is that tied into the elimination of a riding?
Mr. Bernier: Yes. As I was saying earlier, at the moment, there are three RCMs that have joined forces to make up what I could describe as the nose of the Gaspé Peninsula. The Gaspé Coast has become the central RCM around which the other two regions gravitate. But what is the physical link between the Denis-Riverin RCM and the Avignon RCM? Do people generally travel together by car? The answer is no.
So how will they join forces around certain issues if they have never had anything to do which each other? This would be a problem, and leads me to think of the old saying: «Divide and conquer». I think people are going to have trouble agreeing on this.
.1230
Perhaps I am a poor judge and I am one of those who think politicians are losing their credibility. That is why my second argument was that people should be consulted if they are directly affected by the changes.
Mr. Leroux: So there are two fundamental reasons. The first is the power to represent people. A loss would be incurred. Then there is the issue of common interest, and the fact that you are naturally part of the regional county municipality territory, etc. Those are two important factors that had not been taken into account in this warding.
Mr. Bernier: Yes.
Mr. Leroux: Thank you.
Mr. Assad: I know it is a huge territory. What was the population of the Gaspé riding before these proposed changes?
Mr. Bernier: I'm not very good with numbers. Some documents say it was about 60,000. For the purposes of my electoral budget in 1993, it was about 54,000.
We realize that it is not a highly populated area. However, you have to look at the size of the territory. There are three airports, two municipal and one federal, as well as three employment centers. There are three of everything. People tried to work together. There is a network director for Employment and Immigration in Gaspé, but what ties will there be now between Avignon and Denis-Riverin?
Mr. Assad: What will the population be now with Gaspé - Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine?
Mr. Bernier: According to the latest map I received this morning, it would be 76,455.
Mr. Assad: That is an increase of approximately 20,000.
Mr. Bernier: And that is a big problem for us.
Mr. Leroux: If I understand correctly, the problem is not really a demographic one, but one of inhabited territory.
The Chairman: I have a few questions. How many federal ridings are there right now in that area? Are there two or three?
Mr. Bernier: Gaspé currently has three; Matapédia - Matane, Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine...
The Chairman: The member for Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine is Patrick.
Mr. Bernier: Yes, and Mr. Canuel is the member for Matapédia - Matane whereas I am the member for Gaspé.
The Chairman: Now there would be only two.
Mr. Bernier: According to your proposal there would be only two.
The Chairman: Let us say we kept just two ridings. I don't know if you have the map of the two new proposed ridings.
Mr. Bernier: Based on what Mr. Leroux's showed me, I have a good idea of what they are.
The Chairman: Is Avignon a regional county municipality?
Mr. Bernier: Yes.
The Chairman: Do you think it would be better to include it in the new riding of Gaspé - Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine?
Mr. Bernier: Look at the context of the regional county municipality of Avignon. The grey area is salt water. My first argument is the fisheries. Fishing is what first brought the people together, but fishing is not Avignon's main attribute. So there is already a segment of the population that does not have any ties whatsoever. And you can see the length of coast line to cover any way.
Why were people happy with the previous fishing zones? Because they are the first inhabitants on that coast. The coastal fishing areas are more toward the nose of the Gaspé. Fishing in Baie des Chaleurs is really quite different in terms of the catch, the methods and season.
Was the Avignon region in Matapédia - Matane before? I do not have the other maps. There is somewhat more forestry in that area, which brings the people a little closer.
I agree there is also forest in the nose of the Gaspé, but it is a much rougher relief. So the harvesting methods are not the same. So what is left when we need to defend a common interest? There must be some solidarity and we must join forces. When that element is no longer there, everything becomes anonymous.
.1235
I do not know what it is like in urban ridings. I mentioned earlier that I have three in my riding, but I also know that some of my colleagues from urban ridings need walk only two blocks to cover the width of their riding, whereas I have to drive seven hours do to the same. Besides that, I have to be very clear on what I'm doing so that people know exactly what is going on.
People identify themselves with their representative. We are a lobbyist who defends his interests here, but there must be some solidarity. If there isn't, people will not feel they belong and everything becomes anonymous.
Nevertheless, my main conviction remains unchanged. I am concentrating on the 30th of October.
The Chairman: So just to make sure I understood correctly, you are hoping we keep three ridings.
Mr. Bernier: It is the lesser of two evils. I would there to be three ridings.
The Chairman: Instead of two.
Mr. Bernier: Instead of two.
The Chairman: As was suggested by the commission.
Mr. Bernier: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
This meeting is adjourned until 3:30 p.m.