EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, October 2, 1995

.1517

[English]

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we do have a quorum. We won't wait for the third member of the committee to arrive.

Orders of the day are that pursuant to the orders of reference from the committee of Tuesday, September 19, 1995 and Tuesday, September 26, 1995, consideration of the objections filed on the proposed electoral boundaries for the eastern provinces will be heard. Under the decided rules here today we will take fifteen minutes to hear each witness. That includes your opening statement and then questions from the members of the committee.

The first member of Parliament to present before us today is Mr. Guy Arseneault, member of Parliament for Restigouche - Chaleur. Please proceed.

Mr. Guy Arseneault, MP (Restigouche - Chaleur): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and may I say thank you again for agreeing to move the meeting slightly ahead of schedule because of my other commitments. I have to be out of here on parliamentary duties outside the country, so I appreciate that.

You have copies of my objections. I must say from the outset that the objections were tabled with the committee because of a number of telephone calls I received at my office, contacts I received from municipal representation, contacts I received on the street expressing dissatisfaction with the majority report that was presented to the Speaker.

I want to make a number of points to the committee. After that I can be open to questions.

First of all, when the hearings were held in New Brunswick, as you are no doubt aware, we at the federal level had introduced Bill C-69. That created a lot of confusion in the province of New Brunswick and I gather in other provinces.

I would like to single out that the confusion was not as a result of the commission members. They had nothing to do with that confusion. They went about their task in the way they felt they should, and this is without prejudice towards them. I guess if there was some confusion, it was caused by us, those who are sitting around this table.

As a result, in my area many of the presenters, or many of the possible presenters, decided not to present. They felt to put a lot of time into a presentation knowing the commission would probably not come to fruition, or would not table the report...and that was the impression that was being left in the province at that time.

So there was some confusion, and the first point I want to make is that a lot of the would-be presenters did not present. So I don't think the majority report was a fair reflection of what you would have heard, at least from my riding.

I'm here to speak more about my riding and the two ridings next door to me, Acadie - Bathurst on one side and Madawaska - Victoria on the other, because whatever happens in mine would affect those too. Historically, there was a change going back to 1914 where the Restigouche and Madawaska were combined, rather as the new proposal would have it. This existed until 1966, at which time a new electoral boundaries commission reviewed the situation and decided to split that riding into what it is today. This new commission has decided to reunite it, so it's an historical cycle. The reasoning they're using again is the population, but population can come from one side or the other. In this case the commission decided to go to the west rather than to the east to get the population. The last time it went to the east, it took the eastern section out of my riding and put it into the next riding. So it had to take from the west. That's what has basically been happening.

.1520

Historically it has been proven that this has not worked. That's why it's come back to a split riding: Restigouche - Chaleur and Madawaska - Victoria. There are a number of reasons for that. The borders of my riding are between Madawaska and Restigouche. The counties butt each other, but in that area there's a forest of around 200 kilometres, which is uninhabited for all purposes here. So there's quite a gap, and it's not only physical; it's cultural and economic as well.

In the Madawaska region, a lot of economic activities are based on the Saint John River, the Upper Saint John River Valley, and that north-south axis. The Restigouche - Chaleur part of my riding is based around the Bay of Chaleur and economic activity that flows east-west from Saint Quentin to Campbellton and Campbellton to Bathurst. We have that connection.

We found in the past that economically and for government purposes most of the activity in Restigouche - Chaleur has been east-west and there has been no connection with the Madawaska region.

We also find a lack of government services in northern New Brunswick. I know that urban members who have large populations in their ridings complain that the populations are too great. But the other side, which perhaps they don't understand, is that they have access to a lot of government services that the rural areas don't. The illiteracy rate in my riding is somewhere around 33%. So the constituents expect certain on-site services from their member of Parliament. Geographically, we would find this riding very difficult to serve on a one-to-one basis, or with a down-home approach, where you can see your MP on a regular basis. It's very difficult to do, although it would have to be done, I suppose, if the riding stayed the same.

There is a linguistic consideration. As you know, the province of New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada, and as such we have a tendency to look at linguistic issues in a different light. There have been complaints by the SAANB and other francophone groups that the new electoral map would certainly not favour the francophone communities. In other words, they would lose a francophone riding because of the elimination of a riding in northern New Brunswick.

The same thing could be said from an English point of view, where some English minorities that exist in northern New Brunswick would maybe feel swamped with the new addition of other francophone communities. The Madawaska region is basically a francophone community; Restigouche - Chaleur is about 60-40. So if you add the total Madawaska francophone community to that, you decrease the percentage of anglophones in the community.

We've already seen a backlash of that in the provincial electoral boundaries commission in my riding with regard to Belledune being placed in one riding as opposed to another. Right now they're considering challenging some of those things under linguistic issues in Bill C-88.

I want to say to you today that I object to the new proposal on behalf of my constituents. I would also say that when you look at Madawaska and the number of communities, each one of those communities has a municipal government. I know MP Wayne, as a former mayor, would know the role of those municipal governments as a mayor, but the MP is expected to interface with each one of those municipalities. The new type of riding they're proposing would make that very difficult because you're tripling the number of incorporated communities, and that means tripling the amount of contacts and work that has to be done to really serve the people in a really good way.

.1525

I reviewed the document and the comments I've received from my constituents, and the minority report that was presented would be acceptable to the majority of my people. That's the feeling I have received from them. It would be acceptable to me. It should also -

The Chair: Excuse me for interrupting, but you only have about six or seven minutes left.

Mr. Arseneault: Yes. I'm wrapping up now. Thanks, Madam Chair.

The point I would also like to make with regard to the report is that New Brunswick has the only minority report right across Canada. Five out of ten MPs have lodged objections, and others might have if they had the time.

I should also say to you that the number of seats in the province of New Brunswick is not going to change. It's ten and it will always be ten, as far as I know. Only minor changes were necessary because no great number of people was asking for changes. Minor changes here and there would have been sufficient rather than upsetting the whole apple cart.

My riding is probably the least populated of the ridings. Its population is in the 54,000 bracket and would shoot up to over 70,000. One of the new ridings formed would still be in the 50,000 range of population, and another riding would be formed with a population near the upper limit.

I think the committee should recommend that the commission review its findings. I certainly want to clarify, as a member of Parliament for Restigouche - Chaleur, that I'm proud to serve Restigouche - Chaleur. If the commission should decide to include the new boundaries, I would be very proud to serve Madawaska - Victoria as well as Restigouche - Chaleur.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

Mr. Cummins (Delta): I was just wondering if there was a map available showing the new ridings. I don't seem to have that here.

The Chair: There are two maps in your book. One shows the existing boundaries and one shows the proposed boundaries. It means you have to skip back and forth.

Mrs. Wayne (Saint John): At the present time, what is the population of the area you represent?

Mr. Arseneault: It's around 54,000.

Mrs. Wayne: What will it be with the new...?

Mr. Arseneault: The new one would be 73,473.

Mrs. Wayne: I was looking at some statistics, and from what I've been able to find, under the Constitution each riding should come as close to that 70,000 or 73,000 as possible, and we should do this in a fair and just way right across the board. If each riding, Madam Chair, were between 70,000 and 73,000, where our population is in the range of 750,000, it would make it fair for everyone.

My understanding is that according to the Constitution it is supposed to reflect population, Guy. That is why the changes came about. You say in number four of your motion that it could have easily made minor changes. Could you just elaborate on what changes you felt they could make in another direction, other than what they did make?

Mr. Arseneault: I think you understand and you know New Brunswick very well. In fact, you've been in my region a number of times speaking at graduations and events of that nature.

.1530

If you will look at Bathurst, they've taken the lower end of my riding and placed it into Acadie - Bathurst. Presently, my riding has an MLA for Nepisiguit - Chaleur, which represents the area around Bathurst. If they had given me the provincial riding that skirts Bathurst, then that would have been enough to give me a proper population.

It's rather like your idea of Saint John and the outskirts: the surrounding area goes to an MP and the other area... That is a suggestion that could have been made and looked at in a reasonable way.

The other thing I should point out is that one of the new ridings - and I don't want to start comparing one against the other - would have a population of 57,000, which is not much more than mine. If you can't find another 4,000 or 5,000 for me, why upset all of the apple carts just in order to make new ridings?

It's not really necessary. There was not real upheaval to change the electoral map.

Mrs. Wayne: [Inaudible - Editor]

Mr. Arseneault: Carleton - Charlotte would be 57,994.

Mrs. Wayne: The lower part.

Mr. Arseneault: Yes.

Mrs. Wayne: In the south.

Mr. Arseneault: We're at 54,000. It could very easily have been added to.

Mr. McGuire (Egmont): I wonder if the witness could tell us if there was very much reaction from the Madawaska part about joining Restigouche, or vice versa. Was very much comment made by the people affected, about where they are going or where they might be going?

Mr. Arseneault: People in both regions would like to remain the way they are and as much as possible, adding to their ridings. For instance, Madawaska - Victoria is within the population limit and would like to stay as much as possible, with some minor changes, if it's necessary, maybe at the southern end. I'm sure that the MP for that area, who has lodged an objection, could speak better to that issue.

For the Restigouche - Chaleur end, the understanding that I have from my constituents is that they would prefer to leave the riding as it is and add somewhat to it. The Chaleur end of the riding wanted to stay together as an economic group, so they prefer to stay in one riding or the other, but as a group. Certainly, the municipalities I've heard from are against the new majority proposals.

As you know, New Brunswick has a minority report as well. A minority report seemed to be more acceptable to the majority of the people in my area.

Mr. McGuire: Are there complete provincial ridings in your present riding, as compared to the proposed changes? Are there overlapping provincial boundaries?

Mr. Arseneault: There is an overlap down in the Chaleur end, and that's what I was explaining to Mrs. Wayne. If it's overlapping provincially, then if they overlapped it federally and gave the whole riding, rather than splitting it half and half, that might give enough population to handle Restigouche - Chaleur and make it go up to an equitable number.

Certainly, with the new riding, the number of provincial MLAs would at least double.

Mr. Cummins: The area you wanted to add to was the Chaleur end. You said that it approximated the provincial boundaries.

Mr. Arseneault: If they wanted to add, then I would say that this should be done at the Chaleur end. This is because on the western end there's quite a gap in population. It's a former portage road. They call it the Old Stewart Highway. Really, there's no linkage there between those two counties. As such, there's more of a linkage between the other end of the riding and east-west rather than north-south.

The Chair: Our 15-minute allocation has expired. I will take two minutes for wrapping up, for questions, or for concluding statements. It's open to the members of the committee.

Mrs. Wayne: With the Constitution as it reads today - and I believe it started back in Wilfrid Laurier's time when he brought in the system that said we should deal with it by population - I don't have a problem if the boundaries are to move a little bit this way or a little bit that way. That doesn't bother me. But it is important we do that, because we could have very small areas with an MP whereas other MPs are trying to cover a large area and a large population. The system we have in place seems to be a very non-partisan, good system, and there's not a problem if we move it one way or another as long as we cover what the Constitution really is pointing to, that it be done according to population.

.1535

Mr. Arseneault: Maybe I could just sum up, then. I agree with that, but that can be used in any way, shape, or form. There are ten ridings in New Brunswick and we'd say the province of New Brunswick is represented by ten members of Parliament. All the population of New Brunswick has ten MPs, and that's what it's staying as, ten. For instance, if you take an MP who's representing Saint John, that's a large population, but in relation to a few ridings in Toronto it's considered small. Does that mean the people of Toronto don't have proper representation in comparison with Saint John? I say, knowing the present MP, they have good representation at this time.

What I'm saying is as long as each person is represented by an MP and they have service and they have the ability to get to that MP, and the MP has the ability to serve them.... Where there are great numbers of people, such as in the Toronto ridings and a few other ridings in the west, I say extra resources should be given to that member of Parliament to be able to serve that riding better - maybe extra budgetary expenses for personnel. Maybe that's an answer.

But I would say the Constitution is there to make sure every citizen was served by an MP. If there's an area that doesn't have an MP and has no service from their member of Parliament, then it's against the Constitution. But population-wise, technically, as long as you're represented, I say we fall within the Constitution.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Arseneault.

Mr. Cummins: Could I ask two quick questions? Are you saying, Guy, first, the changes are more dramatic than need be? The second question would be along the same line. Are you satisfied the balance between rural and urban in population and distance to travel and all that is satisfactory in the new map, or do you think overall it's flawed?

Mr. Arseneault: I know my area better than any of the others. I would say at this point it's very flawed in my area, and that's the area it's most flawed in. I don't know the area down around the Charlotte area or how easy or how difficult it is to travel by car in that area, but in my area it is flawed.

The premise you mentioned to begin with is that yes, minor changes would have been sufficient for the province of New Brunswick, because the number of seats is not changing. As soon as you make dramatic changes, people get apprehensive and nervous. We have already gone through a provincial boundary change, and there were a lot of problems with that one.

The Chair: I read somewhere that the particular riding of Restigouche - Chaleur has a decreasing population. Is that something that's been happening for a decade or longer, or is this something that's more recent?

Mr. Arseneault: We have an overall decrease, a minor decrease. But the area that would increase has been taken out of the riding and put into another riding. The Chaleur end has had a positive increase in population, and a lot of the economic development that has been generated in Restigouche - Chaleur is coming from the Chaleur end and the lower Restigouche end.

Again, that's a good point you've raised, because by taking the Chaleur end out of it you're increasing the possibilities of a population decrease. Again, if that's where the new population is going to come from, it might be best to leave it in the lower-populated riding so the population could eventually increase. But the other riding is getting up there near the maximum limit, and you're giving it a section that has historically increased in population.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Arseneault. Have a safe and good trip.

Our next witness is Mr. Andy Scott, from the current riding of Fredericton - York - Sunbury.

.1540

Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. It's a pleasure to be here -

The Chair: Excuse me just a moment, Andy.

Mr. Cummins: When Mr. Arseneault was making his presentation I didn't have the old map and the new map. I had only the one that's in the book.

The Chair: They're both in the book. Following page 22 is a New Brunswick electoral boundaries map. That is the old map. After page 8 is the proposed new map. You constantly flip back and forth. I asked the clerk earlier if another time they could put a transparency over the map. It would certainly have been beneficial to us.

Mr. Cummins: That would be helpful.

The Chair: But not having it today, we have to do the flipping through the back.

Mr. Cummins: Good.

The Chair: Please begin.

Mr. Scott: For purposes of clarification, I may just refer to the maps as the ``good map'' and the ``bad map''.

I'd like to speak a little to questions of process. My first objection is one of process. The people in my own constituency were shocked when they saw what was proposed when the hearings took place. I appeared when the hearings were in Fredericton. I guess it's hard to understand just how dramatic the change is if you are not familiar with the geography of the localities here. We're really talking about taking a small piece of Madawaska County in northwestern New Brunswick and combining it somehow with St. Mary's parish, which is in the most southern part of my constituency. There's no other way I can describe this than to say it's absurd.

Consequently, when the diagrams were first put in the paper as advertisements to invite people to present their feelings, nobody showed up because nobody took it seriously...that this can't possibly happen. It was considered that bizarre.

I think the member for Saint John would understand what I'm saying. When you're talking about Saint-André and Madawaska County being in the same riding as Penniac in your county, it is just absolutely absurd.

Consequently there wasn't very much reaction, because they figured eventually we were going to figure this out and it couldn't possibly happen.

By way of process, the problem with the way it was presented was the redistribution committee did its work and presented everything after the fact. They looked at the numbers. They were driven by the desire to fix the numbers. Most people who were making representations realized it was going to be very difficult to affect the outcomes because of the domino affect: okay, you can't do this to my riding, so.... We all realize it means it's going to change everything. So ultimately there was a strong sense that there's really no purpose in trying to make minor changes that late in the game, after a lot of the work had been done.

I would suggest, and I think people in the constituency I've discussed this with would suggest, that in fact the starting place in hearings should be the old list, not the revised list they go out to do the hearings with. Let people comment on the old map. The map that is in here as the existing map should be the map used for the hearings and we should go from there. It would certainly have had a better result in participation in my constituency, and it would have to have a better result in outcome, because I can't imagine having a worse result.

I also want to bring up a couple of points I think need to be considered in this exercise. I'd like to put them on the record.

One is that there's an enormous amount of concern on the part of governments of all stripes and so on about questions of inclusion in the political process. The population is becoming very cynical. The population is not as respectful of the process as perhaps they've been in the past, and I think we have to do everything in our power as parliamentarians and as people involved in this kind of exercise to make participation in the political process as simple, as easy, and as attractive as possible.

.1545

The kinds of shifts that this represents don't do that. Quite the contrary. There will be all kinds of people who are involved in the political process now who will have nothing to do with the political process if this comes into play, because they're just not going to feel any sense of cohesion between the two remote ends of this Tobic - Mactaquac riding that will be encroaching upon the rural part of my constituency.

That brings up another objection I would like to raise, and that is that the practical result in my constituency is that I've lost most of the rural part of Fredericton - York - Sunbury. My new constituency will be made up primarily of the municipalities of Fredericton, Oromocto, and New Maryland, with probably a handful of rural holds.

I think I or whoever succeeds me won't be as good a member of Parliament if we lose the rural part of the constituency that allows me to participate in a broader context in terms of public debate. I think it's important that we all be exposed to a wide range of perspectives. I would be a little fearful that something would be lost in the number of issues that I would have to attend to as a member. The politics of it might suggest otherwise, but I really think this would be a bad thing for me as a member of Parliament.

Finally, Madam Chair, I'd just like to make the point that I've spent quite a bit of time reading the judgments and so on. I think the first case was in British Columbia and there was a case in Alberta.

I was involved in the redistribution exercise in the province of New Brunswick before I began this job. One point that I think should be made is that all of the emphasis is placed on numbers relative to voting. I think the Canadian public demands more of the system than the opportunity to vote. When you reduce the whole exercise to math, I really think you're not considering how important my interaction is with my constituents now, today, between elections. That isn't just a function of numbers; that's also a function of geography.

When you read the judgments and the way that courts have interpreted this, I really think it's based on the notion that the real, large issue... I don't deny that relative equality of numbers is important, but I don't think it adequately considers the importance of what members of Parliament do other than at election time and it doesn't adequately consider just how much the Canadian public want into the political process apart from elections, in terms of interacting with their members between elections and having something to say about public policy all the time.

With that, I would like to add my objections to those of the previous speaker. I've spoken mostly to the process, but I can't overstate my objection to the outcome. It has more to do with the people who are in my constituency now who will, after redistribution if this were to go through, end up in another constituency; they will be very, very upset, to say the least. I just cannot imagine who's thinking about this that caused this to be drawn in this way.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Cummins, we'll begin with you.

Mr. Cummins: Again, I have the same question we asked the previous presenter. The changes here again seem dramatic. In a sense they've lopped off the top end of your existing constituency. Yet if you just look at the maps it's hard to determine a rationale. Have you been able to figure one out?

.1550

Mr. Scott: Not that I would care to... I have no idea. In the middle of the night, when your mind's racing around, you can think of all kinds of things.

Mr. Cummins: Does it follow any provincial boundaries?

Mr. Scott: No. Actually, I think basically the Saint John River Valley has three or four constituencies, five including the member from Saint John. If you come down the Saint John River Valley, in fact this has actually gone from the first constituency, which would have been the constituency of Madawaska - Victoria, that of the former minister, Mr. Valcourt... It has taken a piece of that and gone all the way through the next constituency, into Fredericton - York - Sunbury. I really can't understand. We've jumped right over Carleton - Charlotte, or some part of Carleton - Charlotte, in order to put this together.

I can appreciate that this might not be very clear unless you really know the geography we're talking about. But I trust that the member for Saint John is going to understand that we're talking about a part of Madawaska County in the same constituency touching on Sunbury County. The outcome is that my constituency went from 82,000 votes to 72,000 votes. It's not as if something dramatic is going to happen in my constituency to warrant that kind of action.

Mr. McGuire: What you're saying there is that you get higher numbers under the old system than somebody such as Mr. Arseneault, who might be representing more resources or more geography. Do you think they balance out when you consider the numbers plus geography?

Mr. Scott: I have to assume that the numbers of the ten seats are probably mathematically closer now than they were going in. I assume that because I assume that this is the rationale behind this. But the improvement - let's call it the mathematical improvement - in no way substitutes for the political reconfiguration that's involved here. There's going to be a member of Parliament representing Penniac and Saint-André. Good luck - because I can't imagine anybody in either of those communities who would know anybody in the other one. It's quite absurd.

Mr. McGuire: Is that a linguistic thing?

Mr. Scott: There is a language question there as well. When I started mentioning to people in the part of my constituency that's leaving the communities that they would be with, they had never even heard of these communities. And New Brunswick is not a big place.

Mrs. Wayne: Andy, I think the most important thing here is that, when it comes to a review every ten years, we have a system that's non-political. No matter who is in power, that has to be.

I want to ask you a question. From what I've been reading - and we got this only on the weekend, so we didn't have much time to read it all - the system that has been used is supposed to be an independent one with an independent commission that takes a look at this in a non-partisan way and breaks it down in the way that they feel is best for each province so that the MPs can represent equally and be fair so that everybody feels that they are fairly represented by their MPs. So the system now is by population.

Do you have any other suggestions as to how this system should work? If we do it in the other way, I know it's very difficult for those in the northern part of the province, because the Acadian Peninsula will lose one member. We will pick up another, but that's because the majority of the population is in the southern end of the region. The larger cities and everything are there. That's why I see them dividing that up. Can you see another type of formula that you feel would still be non-partisan, non-political, but could work and do the job?

Mr. Scott: Ultimately, I look at this from a political context, and I can tell you that my political interests will be served by this change. So I'm not driven by political considerations here at all.

Mrs. Wayne: I'm not saying that. That can happen and -

.1555

Mr. Scott: I appreciate that, and I know both you and I love it. But the fact of the matter is that the ultimate gauge in this exercise has to be whether what's being proposed is better than what we had, and this fails that test miserably, in my opinion.

Granted, mathematically it's closer.

Mrs. Wayne: It's closer.

Mr. Scott: But I don't think the numbers were so outrageous going in. There are things that might have been done to improve those, and there are things that people in my constituency would have very easily been able to identify and that could have reduced my constituency by anywhere from 10,000 to maybe 5,000 voters, to get closer to a provincial average, if that was the outcome. It would not have been like this. I don't want to presume on the debate in my constituency in the event that this is brought to a halt and we go back to the constituency and do it right, but I can think of all kinds of ways this could be done to reduce the number in my constituency, and they would make an awful lot more sense than this, if that's the objective.

Mrs. Wayne: I just think all of us, Andy...it doesn't matter what it is in life, we don't like change.

I guess one of the concerns is New Maryland. That is part and parcel of the city, is it not?

Mr. Scott: No. New Maryland is still in the constituency.

Mrs. Wayne: Oh, it is still there. Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. Scott: Last time I looked.

Mrs. Wayne: It may not be.

The Chair: Mr. McGuire, do you have questions of Mr. Scott?

Mr. McGuire: I'll just quote J. Angus MacLean, who was a member of Parliament from Prince Edward Island for 25 years and then became premier of Prince Edward Island subsequent to that. When they were changing provincial boundaries in Prince Edward Island, where Charlottetown was demanding more representation, it was his claim that there's more to the division of seats or the division of representative units than population; for example, Charlottetown doesn't have a fishery, or Charlottetown doesn't have agriculture, and the members in those rural areas have to represent those industries, which is quite different from a more urban area. He always contended that when you're dividing boundaries you should also consider the geography, the resources, of the province, not just population. Population is very important, but there are other things to be considered when you're putting in political boundaries.

I tend to agree with him. Even though you're in the capital city of Fredericton, I don't think there's a fishery there. You don't have any fisheries problems you represent. There are all kinds of problems people on the Acadian peninsula would represent but you don't, and probably some you represent and they don't.

I wonder if that could be a way of looking at it, not just on the basis of population but on geographic or resource-base reasons also.

Mr. Scott: Personally, it appears to me we've already established in Canada the notion that there are some grounds for something larger than whatever the variance is; 25% or whatever is the figure. I think we've already recognized there are some reasons to have a variance greater than that.

My thinking would be that one of the considerations would be that unless the variance is significant, there's some advantage to continuity. I really don't believe there was an overwhelming problem...going into this exercise in our part of the country. We're protected by the Constitution on the number of members of Parliament we get. That's the basis of our numbers of members of Parliament, not population. Consequently it occurs to me that there was really no reason.

I think we could take a crack at it. We could go to the public with the old map and say, here are the variances in New Brunswick. They're greater than what we would consider to be an appropriate amount. We could see what happened. But ultimately, if we just come up with something that answers a pure mathematical objective and nothing else...and everybody looks at this and says, this isn't better than what we had. It's no wonder the public is having difficulty with what governments do. These things have to bear up to some kind of common sense, and this just doesn't hold up to that kind of scrutiny.

.1600

Mr. Cummins: In support of what you're saying, the commission says in the terms of reference:

the commission shall consider the following in determining reasonable electoral district boundaries:

(i) the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, and

(ii) a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province.

So both of these things should have been taken into consideration.

Essentially what we're hearing from you and what we heard from the previous presenter is this community of interest and the historical pattern of the electoral district weren't taken into consideration. Is that a fair comment?

Mr. Scott: It's certainly the case.

Perhaps because New Brunswick is smaller, the distances don't jump out at you as much as they would in a larger place, but with what New Brunswickers are familiar with, again, they'll look at this and won't know what happened. They'll just wonder where we were the day someone drew this.

The Chair: I'll make a final comment before I let you close.

With numbers as the magic formula - population base - we're seeing, not only here in Canada but right throughout the world, population movements to urban centres. So we in Canada will have the majority of seats in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. Our rural areas become much less represented. In a geographically large country like Canada, it is a problem to spread yourself far enough to cover a large geographical area.

I think maybe the bigger question in reviewing this is how do we get fair representation for rural Canada rather than having this country represented by the urban population? As I say, there is a shift, not only here but throughout the world, to urban centres.

Do you have a final comment?

Mr. Scott: If it happens that the process is done over, perhaps it would be better to take to the public the original maps and have them be the basis of the ultimate exercise.

Mrs. Wayne: Madam Chairman, when the commission completed the process, wasn't everything put in the paper at that time? They were supposed to advertise.

The Chair: Yes, it was.

Mr. Scott: It was advertised, but with the new maps.

Mrs. Wayne: Oh, I see.

Mr. Scott: They came to do the hearings with the new maps.

Mrs. Wayne: But they didn't put the old map beside it and change it. Is that what you mean?

Mr. Scott: I think they should start interacting with the public on the basis of the problem, not on the basis of their proposed solutions, because essentially everybody knows that once you have this trickle effect in place, it's very difficult to make amendments.

If I say this part of my constituency should stay, then that means the next constituency is affected, which means the next constituency is affected. Everybody recognizes that once the maps are drawn in terms of the numbers, it's very difficult to change them.

Mrs. Wayne: I don't want to shock you, but you mentioned New Maryland, and the new map doesn't put that in your riding, Andy. I just want you to know that's not there, dear. Your boundary goes from Lincoln to Oromocto, Burton, Sheffield, Minto, Northfield and Maugerville.

Mr. Scott: New Maryland is here.

Mrs. Wayne: Where's yours? Over here? That's in Charlotte County with your new boundaries. Okay, dear?

Mr. Scott: New Maryland is that little bump. Can you see it?

Mrs. Wayne: Well, here's where I got it, Andy.

Mr. Scott: That's the parish; this is the village.

Mrs. Wayne: Oh, okay.

The Chair: I think the researcher has made it clear that New Maryland would still be within Mr. Scott's proposed new boundaries.

Mr. Scott: That's what's happened. I've lost most of the rural part of my riding.

The Chair: You have the municipality of Fredericton and it would be renamed Fredericton.

Mr. Scott: Yes. The municipalities of New Maryland, Oromocto and Fredericton are essentially what I have.

The Chair: It would be called Fredericton.

Mr. Scott: Yes.

.1605

Mr. Cummins: If we were to change it, what would you end up with? What would you suggest would be a reasonable boundary at this point?

Mr. Scott: First, someone would have to convince me that for the level of variation it would be worth changing. That's the first issue.

The second is that I would take the original maps into the constituency. I don't want to speak for them, but I think there are communities who would see themselves lined up with other constituencies, probably as many as 5,000 voters. The point is that if we went into the area and said we were trying to reduce this by 5,000, then you would find some communities that would prefer not to be in an urban riding of Fredericton - York - Sunbury. That's not reflected in this.

Forgive my politicalness, but I would rather not say which parts of my constituency shouldn't be there, just in case they will stay.

Mr. McGuire: How do they vote?

Mrs. Wayne: There has to be a reason why the commission saw the need for change. If everything was working great, then they wouldn't have recommended any change at all. So there has to be a reason why they said to change, Andy - other than population.

Mr. Scott: That's what it was. It was driven by the courts, I think. Personally, I don't think it was driven by New Brunswick. I think it was driven by problems across the country, and the legislation has a trigger mechanism that puts everybody in play as soon as those numbers are exceeded or as soon as we do a census. I think it was driven simply by the fact that there are parts of the country where there is a significant problem.

The precedent to take provinces inside of the Dominion and deal with them separately is already established. Under the Constitution, we are protected with the number of seats we have. Consequently, New Brunswick is seen as a political entity inside of Canada. So it can easily be separated out and told that there's no problem here. Certainly there's not a problem large enough to go through this.

If there are problems in other parts of the country, then we should fix them in other parts of the country.

Mrs. Wayne: P.E.I. had no problems at all with theirs. They haven't objected to anything, have they?

Mr. McGuire: Under the constitutional amendment of 1950, our numbers of members of Parliament will never exceed or be less than the numbers of senators. There were no boundary changes at all in P.E.I. They are basically balanced population-wise.

Mrs. Wayne: Population-wise.

The Chair: The researchers have clarified that what motivates this is the census -

Mrs. Wayne: That's right.

The Chair: - of 1991. This was the outcome, and under the Constitution it must be reviewed every ten years following a census. This is why numbers are the driving formula.

Mr. McGuire: Not necessarily changed. It must be reviewed.

The Chair: Reviewed following a census.

Mr. Scott: Was any consideration given to making ten different decisions rather than one? In other words, if the census has a mechanism that triggers a response by the government to a variance that is larger than 25%, and that exists in some parts of the country but not in others, is there any provision that you don't have to go through this in a jurisdiction that doesn't have those kinds of variances?

Mr. McGuire mentioned.... I don't think in P.E.I. -

Mr. McGuire: They struck their committee and got their chairman and had a look at the boundaries and advertised, but nobody proposed any changes. So they said ``Thank you very much'' and left it as it was.

Mr. Scott: Since it already exists that the elections process recognizes provincial boundaries inside of federal electoral law, my suggestion is that it wouldn't necessarily trigger this exercise having to take place in all of Canada.

The Chair: The response to that -

Mr. Scott: Maybe I'm wrong.

The Chair: - and I stand to be corrected - is that it would take legislation that we limit the number of seats in this country or that we go through some process whereby we don't review that. There are members who are having as many as 225,000. You will appreciate the variance of some serving 45,000 and some serving large numbers like that. So we're trying to establish a mean here that somehow -

.1610

Mr. Scott: But neither of those examples you just gave exist in New Brunswick. That's my point. There's nobody with 200,000 and there's nobody with 45,000. My point is that we should be excluded from the exercise, because it's generally speaking.

That's a question. I recognize that it would require a change in legislation.

The Chair: I think the House would have to address that through legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: Thank you.

The Chair: The bells are ringing. Do we have to address those bells?

Mr. McGuire: They've stopped.

The Chair: Okay.

Our next witness is the member from St. John's West, Newfoundland, Mrs. Jean Payne.

Mrs. Jean Payne, MP (St. John's West): Thank you, Madam Chair.

The argument that was used by my colleague just before me is one that I also would have to refer to. It seems to me that when the changes were being made for the ridings of St. John's West, St. John's East, and Bonavista - Trinity - Conception, it was purely a numbers game that was being looked at.

The riding of St. John's West, which is the one I represent, had absolutely no reason to change. There was no good reason for changing this riding. I might add that when I was a returning officer, there was a request for changes at that point and the changes that took place in St. John's West were very insignificant and occurred only in the urban area.

What has happened this time, in fact, is that a very significant rural area has now been changed, and while it's not significant in terms of population or geography, it's significant in terms of historical boundary. One of the things that has been mentioned is that the commission was supposed to consider the natural dividing lines and any historic reasons. The area that it has considered annexing from St. John's West is in fact an area that has been considered to be compatible with the St. John's area under the NCARP program because the fishing areas are different from even those of other parts of the Avalon Peninsula.

I think that in suggesting the changes for St. John's West, no consideration at all was given to that historical area by the commission. In fact, Madam Chair, if you will go back to 1976, which is the earliest map I have here - and I don't know how far beyond that it goes - the riding has remained the same up to the present time. That was not because this hadn't been looked at or examined before. It was because it was looked at and examined very closely and the decision was made that for historic reasons it would not be changed. It was not in the best interests of the voters to change it. It still is not in the best interests of the voters to change it.

As I said earlier, while it is an insignificant area in terms of the geographic size and the size of the population involved, the significance in terms of its historic practices, going back to fishery and other things, would in my mind be reason enough in itself not to change that, not to take it out of the present riding and put it into another one.

I would not want to suggest any changes. I realize that St. John's East does have an overpopulation, but I think there is a much easier way to do that than to take that particular area. When I say that particular area, I'm talking about the isthmus area. If I can look at the exact description here, I'll probably give you a better indication.

.1615

If we look at the new description here, it would be the area that goes from.... The best way I can describe it is it's the area that contains the communities of Come-by-Chance, Whitbourne, Markland, and Arnold's Cove. It's hard to define it in the geographic description that's there.

The Chair: Mrs. Payne, I'm just not sure myself. Can you tell us exactly where the isthmus is here?

Mrs. Payne: Are you looking at the most recent map here, the whole of the province?

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Payne: All right. If you look at the dividing line, you will see that the eastern channel...on the north you'll see Trinity Bay and the eastern channel.

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Payne: The dividing line previously was the one that would be the most significant one, which ran along the Trans-Canada Highway. That is the way it has been since, as I said, 1976. It now goes south of the Trans-Canada Highway. There's the section of the isthmus that starts where you see the number ``1'', and if you follow east as far as Whitbourne, that's the area that's changed.

The Chair: And that is currently in your riding?

Mrs. Payne: That is currently in the riding.

The Chair: I think with this booklet they haven't given us the current map of your riding. Newfoundland has not been correctly presented, so we can't see your existing riding. That's where I'm having difficulty, so I wanted to clarify that.

Mrs. Payne: That's correct. I don't have the existing one either. I'm sorry. I do have one from 1987. It may give you a better idea.

The Chair: Our researcher here has a map with it marked. She will hold it up so the other members of the committee can be shown, because this is a significant change across the isthmus there.

Mrs. Payne: In the past and at present, the area that's north - and I call this north of the Trans-Canada Highway - was in the Trinity-Conception Bay riding. Then the southern part, here, was in St. John's West.

Mr. McGuire: Trinity has the whole isthmus now?

Mrs. Payne: Under the new boundaries it would, but as it stands at the moment the Trans-Canada Highway is the dividing line.

The Chair: It comes about the middle of it, so each of you share some of the land base.

Mrs. Payne: That's correct. But as I say, on the northern side, which is Trinity Bay, the type of fishery that goes on is different from the type of fishery that goes on on the southern side of that boundary.

The Chair: What are those two fisheries?

Mrs. Payne: A significant crab fishery goes on in the Trinity Bay area and Conception Bay, whereas down on the southern part of it...in fact, at this point there's virtually no fishery.

The Chair: It's a cod fishery.

Mrs. Payne: It has been the northern cod fishery.

Mrs. Wayne: Who represents the Bonavista area?

Mrs. Payne: Mr. Fred Mifflin.

The Chair: Have you completed your statement?

Mrs. Payne: I have, Madam Chair. As I said, that's the only comment I have to make. In talking with the constituents out there in that area...they are very upset that is being changed, because historically, for the last goodly number of years, they have been in the riding of St. John's West.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Payne.

We'll begin with Mr. Cummins, please.

Mr. Cummins: Your population needed to be reduced to create some more balance, or a better balance?

Mrs. Payne: No, in fact they have increased the population. In the new changes the population increases. Right now the population is in the vicinity of 93,000 or 94,000.

Mr. Cummins: With this change, what's it going to be?

Mrs. Payne: With the change it would be 101,000.

Mr. McGuire: And you've lost territory?

Mrs. Payne: I've lost territory and I've increased the population. What happened was they took.... St. John's East needed to be reduced because of the population figures. So what they did was they took some of St. John's East and put it into St. John's West, and then they took St. John's West and moved it into Bonavista - Trinity - Conception. It wasn't a logical thing to do at all.

.1620

Mr. McGuire: Is it a bigger chunk of the city?

Mrs. Payne: Yes, it's a bigger chunk in terms of population. I probably end up with two or three apartment buildings.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Wayne: Jean, page 4 of this map shows that your area and St. John's East are both about 24.5% larger population-wise than they should be.

That is still much higher than it probably should be, but is that area they have taken from you the high economic area or is it a fishing area or is it a rural area? What have they taken from you?

Mrs. Payne: It's a rural fishing area. The difference between it and the other part of the rural area on the northern side is the type of fishery, or non-fishery as it is right now. However, there is a significant source for the economy in terms of a fish plant owned by Fishery Products International Limited, which is a goodly source of income to the area and to my riding in general. The natural lines of communication are in that direction.

Mrs. Wayne: Bonavista is about 17% of the population rate it should be, but it must have been substantially lower before they got that little piece from what was in your riding.

Mrs. Payne: I'm not sure, Mrs. Wayne, what the population for Bonavista - Trinity - Conception was before that. I don't think the population of that particular area is very significant. I don't know at this point what the population is.

Mrs. Wayne: My last question is what harm do you see for that area by changing these boundaries? How can it affect them negatively because of the move of the boundary line?

Mrs. Payne: For some reason, when you move boundary lines it tends to change the economic pattern. Since 1976 this matter has been discussed and re-discussed. It always comes back to the original boundary for the same reasons. That is because of the type of fishery that goes on in that area versus the northern part, and because of the economic impact that would probably result in terms of the employment at the fish plant there, and perhaps for other reasons. There's also a fish inspection operation there.

Mrs. Wayne: Thank you.

Mr. McGuire: If the boundary remained the same you would keep the fisheries problem separated. Right now we're complicating the northeast with the southeast, with the different types of fisheries. Bonavista - Trinity - Conception would have a double problem with fisheries. They would have to look at the southern fishery, the southern shore of Newfoundland, plus the -

Mrs. Payne: The northern area as well; that's correct.

Mr. McGuire: You don't think this is broken. Do you have any suggestions? Was it broken? Is there anything you would have changed?

Mrs. Payne: I don't understand why three ridings change. It seems to me that it was necessary to change only two ridings, St. John's East and Bonavista - Trinity - Conception. I see no reason to change the boundaries in St. John's West.

.1625

The other thing I might mention, Madam Chair - and I'm not sure if you have that information there - is that St. John's West is what's considered to be a scheduled riding. I am not quite certain of the total impact of that, but my understanding is that because it is called a scheduled riding, in the past it qualified for isolation pay and that sort of thing. Certain parts are considered to be isolated.

The Chair: Jean, we currently use the TransCanada Highway as the dividing line betweenSt. John's West and St. John's East and Bonavista - Trinity cutting across -

Mrs. Payne: The TransCanada Highway is the dividing line between Bonavista - Trinity - Conception and St. John's West.

The Chair: Yes. So in the proposal we're moving, I guess, in a more westerly direction, away from the highway.

Mrs. Payne: In the current proposal the boundary would go off into the water south of there.

The Chair: If you will look at that map, I want to ask approximately how much population base would be picked up if we left the TransCanada at point number one, as still the new proposed boundary, and came down across Whitborn, but cut across as part of St. John's East and gave that little bay in there. Would much population be based in there if that reverted to Bonavista - Trinity - Conception? Would it pick up enough to -

Mrs. Payne: You're looking at the eastern line of Conception -

The Chair: The inner point of Conception Bay, yes.

Mrs. Payne: There would be a fairly significant population there. If you look at St. John's East, it is a very small geographical area, and it's because it has the dense population of St. John's there. Included in St. John's East is an area known as Conception Bay South, which also has a fairly dense population, which for the most part runs along the shoreline. I don't want to make suggestions as to how these boundaries should go, because these other two members need to speak for themselves. If you were to move the Conception boundary a little way south of where it is, then it would probably take in the population that would be needed to correct the overpopulation in St. John's East and the underpopulation in Bonavista - Trinity - Conception.

The Chair: Are there further questions of this member? No?

If you wish to make a closing statement, you may.

Mrs. Payne: The historic boundaries that have existed for a goodly number of years and the areas that we're talking about, the significant difference in those two areas, should be kept in mind. The boundary in at least that particular area should be left in place. When I say ``that particular area'', I'm talking about the isthmus.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Jean.

On behalf of our committee, I apologize for our not having a sufficient number of maps for Newfoundland to show both the old ridings and the proposed riding changes.

Mrs. Payne: If it is the wish of the committee that I produce a map of the boundaries, then I can certainly arrange to do that. I am sure that you have that service at your disposal as well.

The Chair: Perhaps it would be beneficial, but I'm not sure that it is your responsibility. Maybe it's the responsibility on this end. We're the ones who have been negligent in not providing adequate information. It probably will be beneficial, so we'll try to make sure that will happen.

Mrs. Payne: Thank you very much.

The Chair: That is the end of our witnesses for this afternoon. We will commence hearings at9 a.m. tomorrow, in Room 112-N, Centre Block.

.1630

We will remain a few minutes, committee members, to review this afternoon. We will move in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]