The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has the honour to present its

 

FORTY-THIRD REPORT

 

 

1.               Pursuant to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-3, as amended, the Committee has considered the matter of the objections to the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec, 2003.

 

2.               After each decennial census an electoral boundaries commission is established for each province.  The Chief Electoral Officer calculates the number of Members of the House of Commons assigned to each province according to the provisions of section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867.  Following advertisements and representations from interested persons, each commission prepares a report on the division of the province into electoral districts based on population and corresponding as closely as reasonably possible to the quotient of Members per population for that province.

 

3.               In its considerations, each commission is to take into account the community of interest or community of identity or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, as well as what constitutes a manageable geographic size in cases of sparsely populated, rural or northern regions.  The commission may depart by a variance of up to plus or minus 25% of the quotient in order to accommodate such circumstances.

 

4.               Each commission’s report is forwarded to the Chief Electoral Officer, who in turn sends it to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who tables the report in the House.  The report is referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

 

5.               In accordance with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, after each commission report has been tabled in the House of Commons, Members of the House of Commons have 30 calendar days in which to file objections to the proposals contained in each report.  The Act requires that objections must be in the form of a motion, in writing, specify the provisions of the report objected to and the reasons for the objection, and must be signed by not less than 10 Members of the House.

 

6.               If objections are filed, the Committee has 30 sitting days, or such longer period of time as may be approved by the House of Commons, to consider the objections.  Following this, the commission report, the objections, and the minutes of proceedings and evidence are returned to the Speaker, who transmits them to the Chief Electoral Officer.  The Chief Electoral Officer returns the material to the relevant electoral boundaries commission, which has 30 days in which to dispose of the objections.  The commission then finalizes its report.

 

7.               Once all the commission reports have been finalized, the Chief Electoral Officer prepares a draft representation order setting out the boundaries and names of the new electoral districts.  This is sent to the Governor in Council, who must proclaim it within five days.  No changes can be made by the Chief Electoral Officer or the Government.  The representation order comes into effect one year after it is proclaimed, and is in force for any federal general election called after that date.

 

8.               The Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec, 2003 was tabled in the House of Commons on March 28, 2003. By the end of the 30-day period, the Clerk of the Committee had received 31 objections.  The Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was appointed to consider these objections.  This report contains the comments and recommendations of the Subcommittee, as adopted by the Committee, on the proposed changes for the Province of Quebec contained in the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec, 2003.

 

I.       General Comments

 

9.               In reviewing the proposed ridings for the Province of Quebec, it became evident that one of the problems that the Commission faced was the issue of equity between urban and rural voters.  It was also obvious that the Commission placed a high premium on attempting to ensure that the greatest possible number of ridings be within 10% of the electoral quotient.

 

10.           The Commission stated in its report that for effective representation, “the political weight must be granted to individuals: one person — one vote.”  This standard clearly influenced the Commission’s decisions in setting out the proposed electoral boundaries.  In general, this is not an objectionable policy.  However, in our opinion, the Commission should take greater advantage of other factors available to it under the legislation.

 

11.           The Commission is legislatively mandated to depart from the general rule that the population of a riding is to correspond, as closely as reasonably possible, to the provincial quotient.  Specifically, a Commission may depart from this rule “in order to maintain manageable geographic size for ridings in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province.”  Not taking sufficient advantage of this option has resulted in certain proposed ridings where efficient and effective representation becomes more difficult.

 

12.           Of even greater concern to this Committee is the fact that the Commission has failed to take advantage of another legislative option that we view as essential, particularly in the rural areas of Quebec.  The Commission is mandated to form ridings that fall below the provincial quotient by more than 25%, in circumstances that are deemed extraordinary.  Not one of the ridings in Quebec was formed by taking advantage of this option.  We are of the opinion that  this has resulted in ridings that would become impossible to represent effectively, and has ripple effects in surrounding ridings.

 

13.           In our opinion, it is also surprising that the Commission has almost never adopted the status quo by leaving the current electoral ridings as they presently drawn.  Everyone involved in the process of redrawing electoral boundaries quickly becomes aware of how difficult such an undertaking can become and how disruptive it can be for citizens, Members of Parliament, and others.  One would hope that under these circumstances, a Commission would opt for the status quo, particularly in cases where the ridings in a specific area would all fall within 25% of the provincial quotient (and in many cases much closer to this quotient).

 

14.           Quebec, particularly Montreal, offers many opportunities where the status quo can be preserved, without compromising in any way the objectives of the legislation.  Clearly, everyone would agree that such a situation is preferable to proceeding with wholesale changes that are often disruptive and do not ensure better representation.  In fact, we are of the opinion that the proposals made by the Commission would lead to less effective representation in Quebec because of its strict reliance on the provincial quotient.  In addition, many of the proposals lead to boundaries that cross areas where it is clear there iss a community of interest and historical bonds.

 

15.           Our recommendations clearly lead to many changes in Quebec.  For example, we unanimously supported the transfer of a riding from the Laval region to a rural part of Quebec.  Another unanimous recommendation in relation to Manicouagan would have a cascading effect to several ridings, up to and including Portneuf.  We are of the opinion that the options we have set out are in full conformity with the legislative provisions and, more importantly, better permit effective representation.  In addition, our changes allow a much better affinity and are better reflective of the province’s great history.

 

16.           One of the most difficult decisions we faced was where to allocate the new riding that resulted in our changes to the Laval area.  There were two regions to which this riding could be allocated, both very deserving.  Both areas presented compelling arguments for retaining their current ridings.  We note that the current ridings of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area have a population of 288,000 divided among four ridings, meaning an average of just over 70,000 per riding.  In the Lanaudière and Mauricie region, there are currently seven ridings representing 644,000 people, meaning an average of just over 90,000.  Based on these calculations, certain members of the Subcommittee were of the opinion that the argument in relation to the Mauricie region was more compelling.  The Subcommittee was unable, however, to reach unanimity regarding this delicate issue.

 

17.           One of the issues that retained our attention was the Commission’s preferences in choosing names for ridings.  For example, it would appear that the Commission was not willing to accept the combination of more than two names.  In addition, the use of cardinal points such as East, West, etc. appear to not have been permitted.  As the objections and our recommendations will make obvious, while certain general rules are to be preferred, too much reliance on them can create unnecessary problems and give the impression of arbitrariness.  Promoting an affinity and attachment to a riding is one of the crucial elements of this process and it is impeded when changes are made without any proper basis.

 

18.           Some of our comments may be interpreted as critical of the Commission’s work.  This was not our intention, however.  Sometimes strong wording is the only way to convey our opinion that a change is needed.  In addition, we are well aware, having done this for several weeks now, how difficult such a process can be.  We would like to accommodate every concern, but that is not always possible.  Some difficult choices are required, and change is never easily accepted.  The one point we would emphasize, however, is that while this is a process of change, there is nothing wrong with maintaining the status quo, and in fact it is the preferable option when it is available.  Change for the sake of change is not an appropriate justification for having such a disruptive affect on communities.

 

II.         Boundary Readjustments

 

Montreal

 

19.           A factor that cannot be ignored is that all 14 Members of Parliament on the island of Montreal had signed a letter requesting that the status quo be maintained.  While the legislation does not discuss maintaining the status quo, we are of the opinion that this is the preferable option when the circumstances permit it.  The island of Montreal appears to be a perfect candidate for maintaining the status quo.  The objections we received in relation to the island of Montreal are discussed below, followed by our recommendations for the entire area.

 

(a)     Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine

 

20.           Mrs. Marlene Jennings, Member of Parliament for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, appeared before the Subcommittee to object to the removal of part of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce from the proposed riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

 

21.           Mrs. Jennings explained how Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is, in and of itself, a community with an extremely long history.  While it merged with the city of Montreal long ago, it has always maintained its identity and specificity, not only in the riding but also nationally, through the work of its many community organizations.  She argued that based on its long history, it is almost impossible to see how the Commission’s proposed boundaries could be justified in light of the community-of-interest criteria.

 

22.           Mrs. Jennings also explained how the Décarie Expressway forms a natural border to the east of the riding.  She stated that her position is firmly supported by organizations and individuals in the riding, including unanimous support of the city councillors of the Borough of Côte-des-Neiges.

 

23.           Our findings are that there is no doubt that there is a strong community of interest, community affiliation and strong community identification in relation to Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.  The current population of the riding is well within acceptable variations and the transfer of part of such an historic community to another riding is not desirable.  The riding, as it now stands, has a population of approximately 101,000 residents, 5.6% over the provincial quotient.  Finally, as stated by Mrs. Jennings, her position is firmly supported by the community, a fact that should not be ignored.

 

(b)     Ahuntsic

 

24.           Ms. Eleni Bakopanos, Member of Parliament for Ahuntsic, appeared before the Subcommittee to object to the proposed changes to the eastern end of the riding of Ahuntsic.

 

25.           Ms. Bakopanos argued that the Commission was much too restrictive in trying to match the provincial quotient on the island of Montreal.  She noted that the legislation allows for variances of up to 25%, but that the Commission made changes to several ridings on the island even though they were nowhere near this limit.  In the case of Ahuntsic, the variance would be +9.7% if it retained its current boundaries.

 

26.           Ms. Bakopanos explained to the Subcommittee that the objection she raised was firmly supported locally, including the Ahuntsic-Cartierville Borough Council.  She made it very clear that the proposed change would jeopardize the existing community of interest and community of identity that exists in this area.  Many of the voters who would be removed from the riding are served by the same local institutions as those who would remain in the riding.

 

27.           Ms. Bakopanos argued that the changes being made were pointless alterations that produce no public interest and were based purely on mathematics.  She indicated how the current boundaries are dictated by geography, the major road transportation axes and municipal division.

 

28.           Ms. Bakopanos indicated that if any change was absolutely required, it would have been much more logical to remove the section of the riding located in the Saint‑Michel neighbourhood, which does not, at present, have any community of interest with the rest of the riding.

 

(c)         Recommendations for Montreal

 

29.           As stated previously, we cannot ignore a letter that had been signed by all 14 Members of Parliament from the island of Montreal requesting that the status quo be maintained.  We recognize that a review of electoral boundaries generally suggests that changes will be made and that people must be ready to make compromises.  We have heard objections from across the country and know first hand the impossible task of trying to please everyone.  Having stated the obvious, one thing we cannot accept are changes to ridings that are made for the sake of change.

 

30.           All of the current ridings on the island of Montreal are within an acceptable variance from the provincial quotient.  Thus, changes were not legislatively required.  For this region in particular, we are of the opinion that the Commission should take full advantage of the allowable variance to the provincial quotient as set out in the legislation.

 

31.           In addition, the Commission must remain cognizant of the fact that in urban ridings, the territory is much smaller and there is generally more cohesion because the communities are closer together.  Thus, having ridings that are more populous does not generally cause a problem.

 

32.           Significantly, we were told that the Commission, in response to the public consultations held in December 2002, agreed to reinstate the current boundaries and names (in some cases with very minor changes) of several of these ridings.  It seems unusual that the Commission would agree to the status quo in some cases and not in others when the same factors are at play.

 

33.           We would therefore strongly recommend that the current ridings on the island of Montreal remain unchanged.  Even if this is not done, the objections raised in relation to Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Ahuntsic must be addressed.  The Commission should focus more closely on the question of community of interest, and, at the very least, the ridings of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Ahuntsic should be modified to address the Members’ concerns.

 

Laval

 

34.           Two of the Members of Parliament for Laval appeared before the Subcommittee to object to the proposed names for the ridings in this area.  In the context of these discussions and other less formal discussions, we are of the opinion that significant changes are required in relation to the Laval ridings.  The objections are set out below and they are followed by our recommendations for the area.

 

(a)     Île-Jésus

 

35.           Ms. Raymonde Folco, Member of Parliament for Laval West, filed an objection to the proposed electoral district name of “Île-Jésus”.  Ms. Folco suggests that the riding be named “Laval—Les Îles” in order to reflect the two rivers and 48 islands in and along the edges of this riding.

 

36.           According to Ms. Folco, “île Jesus” is the geographical designation for the entire island and could apply to any riding in Laval.  It therefore provides no specific identity or location for the residents of the riding.  When questioned by the Subcommittee on the Commission’s original proposed name of “Chomedy”, Ms. Folco stated that Chomedy was only one part of the riding and that the name was therefore not an accurate or complete description.  It would not indicate to other residents of the riding that they were part of that riding.

 

37.           According to Ms. Folco, the riding is known locally for the many islands and has become something of a tourist destination. The name “Laval—Les Îles” would be recognizable to others locally, as well identifying it as part of Laval to the rest of Quebec and Canada.

 

38.           After further discussions with Ms. Falco and based on our recommendations, the Member of Parliament now favours the name of “Laval West”.  This is a position we strongly support.

 

(b)         François-Berthelot

 

39.           Ms. Carole-Marie Allard, Member of Parliament for Laval East, filed an objection to the proposed new name of “François-Berthelot” for the present riding of Laval East.

 

40.           She argued that the riding should bear the name “Alfred-Pellan”, after a world-renowned painter who had lived in the riding from 1950 onward.  It is interesting to note that it is Ms. Allard who had requested the name “François-Berthelot” when she had objected to the name “Duvernay” that had originally been suggested by the Commission. The Commission had told Ms. Allard that the use of cardinal points such as “East”, “West”, “Centre” would no longer be acceptable.  It is at that point, with very little time to prepare, that she suggested the name “François-Berthelot”.  Having had more time to conduct the necessary research, she now prefers the name “Alfred-Pellan”.

 

41.           Ms. Allard also objects to the proposed name of the adjacent riding, which would be named “Laval”.  She argues that this term represents the whole island of Laval and that it is not appropriate that it be used to designate only a section of the island.  This can only lead to confusion and is historically inappropriate.  The same point was made with respect to the proposed name of “Île-Jesus” for an adjacent riding.  If the name “Laval” could not be used in all ridings, it should not be used for one riding only.  The Commission should adopt more consistency it was argued, for example by referring to historical painters for all four proposed ridings is this area.

 

42.           During questioning it became very clear that Ms. Allard would much have preferred keeping the current name of “Laval East”.  She did not suggest this, however, because the Commission had told her that certain terms would no longer be acceptable.

 

(c)         Recommendations for Laval

 

43.           We see no valid reason for totally eliminating the use of terms such as “East”, “West”, “North”, “South” and “Centre”.  While the Guidelines for the Selection of Federal Electoral District Names identifies some of the difficulties in referring to cardinal points, this option a far from eliminated.  In certain circumstances, the use of such terms makes it much easier for the electorate to situate themselves and to know where the riding is located.  The current proposals use the names “Laval” and “Île-Jesus”, which, for the reasons brought forward by Ms. Allard, are unacceptable when used for only a part of this region.  They are misleading and create inequity in the area.  We are of the opinion that this is precisely the type of area (an island) where cardinal points are ideal and precise.  We would therefore recommend that the names currently used for the island of Laval remain the same, namely “Laval East”, “Laval Centre” and “Laval West”.

 

44.           More importantly, we recommend that the Laval region be constituted of only three electoral ridings.  It is clear that the Commission felt that the growth in this area required adding a new half riding.  We do not agree and note that the fourth proposed riding involved two distinct areas with little in common.  In creating this riding, the criteria of community of interest, community of identity and historical pattern were simply ignored.  This is a solution we cannot accept.

 

 

45.           Our solution is to retain the three current ridings with minor boundary changes in order to better balance the population.  We propose the following boundaries:

 

·              Laval West:  commencing at the Rivière des Prairies northerly along Autoroute des Laurentides to Notre-Dame Boulevard; thence easterly along said boulevard to Curé-Labelle Boulevard; thence northerly along said boulevard to the hydroelectric transmission line lying south of Edith Street; thence easterly along said transmission line to the north-south hydroelectric transmission line; thence northerly along said north-south transmision line to where it intersects the Rivière des Milles Îles.

·              Laval East:  commencing at the Rivière des Prairies northerly along Boulevard des Laurentides to St-Martin Boulevard; thence westerly along said boulevard to the Canadian Pacific Railway; thence northerly along said railway to the east-west hydroelectric transmission line lying north of Papillon Street; thence easterly along said east-west transmission line to René-Laenneck Boulevard; thence northerly along the production of said boulevard (as projected in the development plans of the City of Laval) to Riopelle Street; thence along said street to Boulevard des Laurentides; thence northerly along said boulevard to Papineau Avenue; thence northwesterly along said avenue to Athanase-David Bridge.

 

46.           These boundaries would produce the following population counts and variances from the provincial quotient:

 

·  Laval West:   112,000 and +16.7%

·  Laval Centre:   116,216 and +20.4%

·  Laval East:   114,196 and +18.3%

 

47.           It is important to note that this recommendation allows us to add a new riding elsewhere in Quebec, an option that became extremely important to address the concern of under-representation in rural Quebec.

 

Mauricie

 

48.           Mr. Marcel Gagnon, Member of Parliament for Champlain, appeared before the Subcommittee to object to the proposed riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

 

49.           Mr. Gagnon indicated that the current riding of Champlain, which he said was the seventh largest in the country, was too big for a Member of Parliament to cover effectively and efficiently.  While the size of the riding would not substantially change, he indicated that the proposed changes would result in an increase of approximately 11,000 people.  In such a big riding, he felt that too much focus was put on the provincial quotient.  He argued that all voters had a right to efficient and effective representation.

 

50.           Mr. Gagnon also indicated that the RCM of Les Chenaux has no community of interest with the city of Shawinigan.  Rather, it is associated socially and economically with Trois-Rivières.

 

51.           Mr. Gagnon raised concerns that the proposed changes would mean that the Mauricie region would lose a Member of Parliament, which would result in the loss of one-third of its representation.  This was unacceptable, according to Mr. Gagnon.  He therefore recommended the status quo for the current riding of Champlain.

 

52.           We are of the opinion that Mr. Gagnon has presented compelling arguments that cannot be ignored.  As a result of our changes in the Laval region, there is an electoral district that is effectively “up for grabs” in Quebec.  As stated earlier, certain members of the Subcommittee were of the opinion that the Mauricie region could benefit to a greater extent from this addition.  Others, meanwhile, were of the opinion that the extra riding should be allocate to the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region.

 

53.           It is clear that if the riding is added to the Mauricie area, that will have consequences throughout the region.  We would recommend maintaining the status quo (1997) with only minor modifications if they are absolutely necessary.

 

Quebec City Area and Côte Nord

 

54.           The Subcommittee received several objections regarding this region of the province.  They are set out below and are followed by our recommendations for the entire area.

 

(a)         Manicouagan

 

55.           Mr. Ghislain Fournier, Member of Parliament for Manicouagan, appeared before the Subcommittee to object to the proposed boundaries of the riding of Manicouagan and argue that the Commission failed to rely on the proper criteria in making its determination in relation to this riding.

 

56.           He notes that the population of the current riding was assessed at 52,561 in the 2001 census, clearly below the provincial quotient. He adds, however, that this population is distributed over 268,000 km².  This is 22 times the average electoral district.  He made reference to the lack of both transportation and communication infrastructure in the riding.

 

57.           He argued that the Commission focused too much on the question of population, making it impossible for the Member of Parliament for the proposed riding to represent his or her constituents effectively and efficiently.  The gain of 32,280 people and the immensity of the riding would make a Member’s work extremely difficult, if not impossible.  He points to the legislation, which requires that the Commission consider a manageable geographic size for ridings in sparsely populated or rural regions.  In addition, he notes that the Commission is mandated to establish extraordinary electoral ridings in the appropriate circumstances.

 

58.           Mr. Fournier was of the opinion that this riding should be declared an extraordinary electoral district and that the status quo should prevail.  This was mostly based on the immensity of the proposed riding and the difficulties of providing proper representation to this area, including challenges in relation to travel and communication.  He recommended a transfer of the Baie-Comeau area (which would have meant a gain of 32,280) to the Charlevoix riding.  He added that this change was also appropriate because of the great disparity and diversity of needs between residents of the Lower North Shore and residents of the Baie-Comeau area.

 

(b)         Charlevoix

 

59.           Mr. Fournier’s objection was supported by the objection filed by Mr. Gérard Asselin, the Member of Parliament for the adjacent riding of Charlevoix.  He noted how the riding of Manicouagan is currently the second largest in the province and that the Commission’s proposal, in addition to adding over 32,000 people, would add over 70,000 km².

 

60.           Mr. Asselin indicated how both ridings are located in remote locations, which made effective representation that much more difficult.  He was able to provide evidence of the heavy workload that the Baie-Comeau area represents and how the area requires the regular presence of the Member.  The need for two offices in this already-large riding was also mentioned.  Because of the travel required and other duties related to such a large riding, the Member would not be able to offer proper service or defend regional issues adequately.  The costs of representing such a riding were also raised as a concern.

 

61.           Mr. Asselin explained that Members’ offices in remote ridings become all-purpose service points for the electorate.  He argued that a transfer of the Baie-Comeau area to the Manicouagan riding would make it unmanageable.  Mr. Asselin also noted how the proposed changes are opposed by many individuals and organizations in both affected ridings.  Based on all of the factors raised, he believes that the riding of Manicouagan should be granted exceptional status, as authorized by the legislation, and that the current boundaries of the ridings of Manicouagan and Charlevoix should remain the same.

 

(c)     Portneuf

 

62.           Mr. Claude Duplain, Member of Parliament for Portneuf, filed an objection to its proposed boundaries. Mr. Duplain wishes the riding to be restored to its original boundaries.

 

63.           According to Mr. Duplain, the proposed boundaries are poorly drawn and do not encompass a community of interest.  The road networks for the proposed riding all run through the urban centre of Quebec City.  To travel from one section of the riding to another is not direct, but necessitates driving into the city and out again, often during peak traffic hours.  For example, to drive from La Branche to Portneuf would require crossing Quebec City.  To drive from Shannon to Tewksbury would require driving two sides of a triangle — driving into to town and then back out again — rather than a direct route.  These communities, while sharing many commonalities, are effectively separated from each other by the natural barrier of Quebec City.

 

64.           Mr. Duplain also objected to the removal of some 4,700 people from his riding.  He felt strongly that the poorly drawn boundaries and the loss of some constituents stems from the decision to redraw Manicouagan, several ridings away from him, rather than to grant it exceptional status and allow it to fall below the provincial quotient.

 

(d)         Recommendations for the Quebec City Area and Côte Nord

 

65.           The Committee agrees with the objections that were raised in relation to this region.  There is no doubt that the riding of Manicouagan is an extraordinary riding and that the Commission should have utilized the discretion granted in the legislation to allow a variance from the provincial quotient of more than -25%, in this case -45%.  We are quite aware that such a solution cannot be used excessively.  However, if the riding of Manicouagan is not considered to be a proper case for the use of the discretion granted in the legislation, we do not see when this power would ever be used and why it would have been set out in the legislation.

 

66.           We also note that the changes made to the other ridings in this area are as a result of the Commission’s decision not to grant extraordinary status to Manicouagan.  This means that the option of recommending the status quo in this area is available to us and is entirely appropriate.  This Committee cannot accept change for the sake of change.  The other current ridings involved are:  Charlesvoix, Beauport—Montmorency—Cote-de-Beaupré—Ile-d’Orléans, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, Louis-Hébert, Quebec, Quebec East, and Portneuf.

 

67.           Our recommendation is supported by  every witness who appeared before the Subcommittee, as well as other Members of Parliament who indicated their support by way of conversations with Subcommittee members.  In fact, an opened letter published in Le Soleil indicated that all Members of Parliament in this region favoured the status quo.  In our opinion, our recommendation would lead to more effective and efficient representation, particularly in the riding of Manicouagan.

 

Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean

 

68.           Four Members of Parliament came before the Subcommittee to object to the loss of a riding in this region.  They were:  Mr. Sébastien Gagnon, Member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay; Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Member of Parliament for Jonquière; Mr. André Harvey, Member of Parliament for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord; and Mr. Michel Gauthier, Member of Parliament for Roberval.

 

69.           Their objection was very well presented by Mr. Gagnon.  He argued that in choosing to favour the numerical rule in its report, the Commission furthered the imbalance between the major centres and outlying regions, thus precipitating the decline of regions in difficulty.

 

70.           It is argued that the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region should enjoy the “extraordinary” status referred to in the legislation, a position that is firmly supported by everyone in the region.  Also noted was the fact that the region would lose one-quarter of its representation, a loss that is disproportionate to the region’s real demographic decline over the past 10 years.  It was also indicated that the region has had four representatives since 1947.

 

71.           Mr. Gagnon argues that it was perhaps time to consider generally introducing a weighting system for rural regions, a kind of demographic equalization factor to promote democracy and development.  It was added that despite the good intentions stated in electoral fairness legislation, the value of one vote varies considerably from one province to another.

 

72.           Some of the economic difficulties in the region were noted and it was stated that accepting the Commission’s proposals means sanctioning and accentuating the vicious circle in which the region currently finds itself.  In addition, it was argued that the enormous area of the ridings of Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean cannot be disregarded.  Concerns were raised regarding effective and efficient representation is such large areas where travel can be extremely difficult.  By focusing solely on the numerical rule, the Commission’s proposals undermine this fundamental principle of accessibility, which is a pillar of democracy.

 

73.           It was stated that it is unfortunate that the historical characteristics of the region have been disregarded in favour of the numerical rule.  The readjustment proposal, as presented by the Commission, suggests a lack of knowledge of and respect for the rural populations and their history.

 

74.           We are extremely sympathetic to the objections of these four Members and find their arguments compelling.  It is clear that the loss of a riding in a region is extremely difficult to swallow, a problem that is exacerbated in the case of regions facing economic and other related difficulties.  As indicated previously, members of the Subcommittee debated at length whether a riding should be added to this area.  The Subcommittee was unable to reach a consensus on where the additional riding available for rural Quebec should be allocated.

 

75.           On a final note, Mr. Gauthier objected to the removal of the cities of Chibougamau and Chapais from the riding of Roberval.  He stated that this would be difficult to justify from either a geographic or regional standpoint.  This issue is discussed further in the following section dealing with Baie-James—Nunavik.

 

Baie-James—Nunavik

 

76.           Mr. Guy St-Julien, Member of Parliament for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik appeared before the Subcommittee to make several proposals regarding the riding of Baie-James—Nunavik.

 

77.           One proposal included a request that the city of Amos and surrounding areas be included in this proposed riding.  We accept this suggestion and note that it is not only supported by Mr. St-Julien, but more importantly, also by the people of Amos themselves.  Therefore, we find it very difficult to justify a rejection of this suggestion.  We are fully aware that this would mean splitting an RMC, which should be avoided when possible.  The wishes of a community are more important, however.

 

78.           Another proposal suggested the creation of an extraordinary riding which would include the Kativik Regional Government.  We are sympathetic to this request but acknowledge that it cannot be acceded to at this time.  The addition of a riding to the province of Quebec at this point would basically require a re-drawing of all ridings in the province, a suggestion that is not practical.

 

79.           It should also be noted that Mr. St-Julien was pleased with the addition of the Chibougamau-Chapais region to the proposed riding.  He is opposed to any transfer of this region back to its current riding.  This is a very contentious issue, made obvious by the conflicting objections made by Mr. St-Julien and Mr. Gauthier.  Even at the local level, there is no unanimity as to where this area should be located for the purposes of electoral boundaries.  We were made aware of the conflicting wishes of the mayor of Chibougamau and its councillors.  We would note, however, that this area is currently in the riding of Roberval.  Furthermore, with the addition of the residents of Amos and surrounding areas to the Baie-James riding, that riding could become very difficult to represent effectively based on its immense size and the increased population.

 

Compton-Stanstead

 

80.           Mr. David Price, Member of Parliament for Compton-Stanstead, appeared before the Subcommittee to object to the Commission’s decision to add the former city of Bromptonville to the riding of Compton-Stanstead, instead of adding the former town of Lennoxville, which the Commission has proposed be included in the riding of Sherbrooke.

 

81.           In his objection, Mr. Price indicated that Lennoxville (population 4,952) is more semi-rural and has more affinity to the semi-rural riding of Compton-Stanstead. The people from the Compton-Stanstead riding have their services in Lennoxville.  Meanwhile, Bromptonville (population 6,013) is a largely industrial town with no direct relationship to Compton-Stanstead.  It has strong ties to the riding of Sherbrooke, which it borders.  Mr. Price notes that he has the support of all the mayors and borough chairs concerned.  In addition, all Members of Parliament for the surrounding ridings are in favour, including Mr. Serge Cardin, Member of Parliament for Sherbrooke.

 

82.           We agree with Mr. Price that the current proposal is illogical in this respect and recommend that the Commission make the appropriate readjustment.  We note that this would have no real impact on the populations of the affected ridings.

 

Outaouais and Laurentians

 

83.           Mr. Mark Assad, Member of Parliament for Gatineau, appeared before the Subcommittee to object to the inclusion of the former cities of Buckingham and Masson-Angers in the new riding of Pontiac.  Mr. Assad argued that the following two principles were not properly considered by the Commission:  the community of interest or community of identity in, or the historical pattern of, an electoral district; and a manageable geographic size for ridings in sparsely populated or rural regions of the province.

 

84.           He stated that there is no community of interest or community of identity or even a similar historical pattern between Buckingham and Masson-Angers, and the Pontiac region.  He claimed that there was neither a historical link nor a linguistic affinity.  These two regions are important constituents of the new City of Gatineau and have always been considered an integral part of the National Capital Region.  Mr. Assad also argued that the new riding of Pontiac is too large and should not include the two cities.

 

85.           Mr. Assad presented additional information to the Subcommittee following his presentation.  He proposed that part of the former city of Aylmer be transferred to the Pontiac riding rather than Buckingham and Masson-Angers.  We are unable to support this objection.  First, the transfer of Buckingham and Masson-Angers to Gatineau would result in Gatineau having a variance of +29% and the Pontiac riding –29%.  While Mr. Assad suggests transferring parts of Aylmer to Pontiac, no indication is given as to which areas should be transferred. This suggestion would also seem to require transferring parts of Gatineau to Hull-Aylmer to make up for its loss.  Finally, there is no indication that such a change would be supported by other Members of Parliament in the area.

 

Trois-Seigneuries

 

[Note: this objection also makes comments and recommendation regarding the island of Laval and the electoral district of Saint-Maurice—Champlain.]

 

86.           Mr. Mario Laframboise, Member of Parliament for Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel, filed two objections to the proposed electoral district of Trois-Seigneuries.  One objection was to the proposed name “Trois-Seigneuries” the electoral district.  This objection is dealt with in Part III of this Report, which deals with all objections requesting name changes. The other objection was to the proposed boundaries for Trois-Seigneuries.

 

87.           Mr. Laframboise objected to the transfer of the municipality of Saint-Colomban to the adjacent riding of Rivière-du-Nord.  He notes that Saint-Colomban has been part of the Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel riding since 1933.  He argued that this municipality has a close affinity to the city of Mirabel and there has been discussion of a merger in the past.  An example of the close ties is that Saint-Colomban is patrolled by the Mirabel police force.

 

88.           Mr. Laframboise adds that the only reason such a decision could have been made is based on the population of the proposed ridings.  He indicated that the population in the Argenteuil-Papineau region was not increasing and that while Mirabel had seen some increase, this would be tempered by the closure of the Mirabel Airport in the near future.  He also added that the proposed riding of Rivière-du-Nord is part of a very dynamic demographic growth zone that should allow it to make up fairly rapidly any loss of population.

 

89.           Finally, he argued that this was not part of the Commission’s earlier proposals and Mr. Laframboise indicates that such a proposal would have been strongly opposed by residents of Saint-Colomban.  Significantly, his proposal is supported by Ms. Monique Guay, Member of Parliament for Laurentides (Rivière-du-Nord).

 

90.           We strongly support Mr. Laframboise’s objection and recommend that Saint-Colomban be transferred back to the riding of Trois-Seigneuries, to which it has a close and natural affinity.

 

91.           The Committee realizes its recommendation goes against the general principle of not splitting RCMs across electoral districts.  In general, the Committee respects the Commission’s decision to align riding boundaries with the RCMs; but in this specific case, given the close attachment of Saint-Colomban to Mirabel and the riding Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel, and given the long history of this attachment, we believe that community of interest concerns override the recent provincial redistribution of municipal boundaries.

 

92.           According to numbers available from Elections Canada, the transfer of Saint-Colomban from Rivière-du-Nord to Trois-Seigneuries would involve approximately 15,000 people.  This would place Trois-Siegneuries at 9.8% above the provincial quotient, which is well within the statutory limits.  The Committee further recommends the transfer of Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines into the riding of Rivière-du-Nord, which would bring the variance of the riding to just 1% below the provincial quotient.

 

93.           In conjunction with the above recommendations, we propose a series of minor boundary readjustments to a few ridings that would both accommodate the objection of Mr. Laframboise, and allow for the removal of the proposed, newly-created riding of Marc‑Aurèle‑Fortin — a riding that  combines two unrelated communities on either side of the Rivière des Mille Îles.  The extra riding thus created, we propose to transfer to rural Quebec, as discussed in our introductory comments and elsewhere in this Report.

 

94.           The boundary readjustments we recommend are to redistribute the boundaries through Terrebonne-Blainville to the ridings to the north and east in order accomodate for the population currently contained in the north shore section of the riding of Marc‑Aurèle‑Fortin, which would in turn allow the island of Laval to revert to its natural three ridings.  The Committee notes that the electoral district of Montcalm is a new, significantly altered electoral district, which could certainly be adjusted to allow for some of the necessary boundary changes without disturbing local communities of interest.

 

95.           Given the characters of these ridings, particularly the dense, urban ridings of Montreal, as well as the testimony the Subcommittee heard describing these particular ridings — in particular that testimony concerning Trois-Seigneuries and Laval — we believe these readjustments are justifiable and would lead to more effective representation throughout Quebec.

 

96.           We strongly recommend that the Commission adopt the suggestions presented here and recommend that the boundaries be readjusted as described above.

 

Beauharnois-Salaberry

 

97.           Mr. Serge Marcil, Member of Parliament for Beauharnois-Salaberry, filed an objection to the proposed boundaries for the riding of Beauharnois-Salaberry. Mr. Marcil’s objection is based on a community of interest and requests that the urban RCMs in the eastern part of his electoral district be constituted with their natural communities of interest in the adjacent ridings.

 

98.           According to Mr. Marcil, Saint-Rémi and Saint-Michel share natural social and economic interests with Châteauguay, the largest urban area in the region.  Furthermore, Saint-Édouard and Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur are tied closely with Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.  He proposed that Saint-Édouard and Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur be placed in the electoral district of Saint-Jean and that Saint-Rémi and Saint-Michel be placed in the electoral district of Châteauguay.

 

99.           In testimony before the Subcommittee, Mr. Marcil stated that he had discussed his objection with the Members of Parliament for the electoral districts of Châteauguay and Saint-Jean, and that they support his proposal.

 

100.    The Committee notes that the design of Beauharnois-Salaberry is awkward, with the major road networks requiring considerable indirect travel to get from one part of the riding to another.  It also notes that Beauharnois-Salaberry is a large, largely rural riding, sharing little community of interest with the dense, urban eastern corner of the riding as proposed.

 

101.    According to numbers available from Election Canada, Mr. Marcil’s proposed changes place Beauharnois-Salaberry at 92,772, with a variance of -3.9% from the provincial quotient; Châteauguay at 110,977, with a variance of +15%; and Saint-Jean at 97,864, with a variance of +1.4%.

 

102.    The Committee believes that given the urban and rural differences split across these three electoral districts, as portrayed in Mr. Marcil’s proposal and his testimony to the Subcommittee, these variances are acceptable.  It supports Mr. Marcil’s objection and recommends the boundaries be readjusted as he describes.

 

Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspésie and Chaudières–Appalaches

 

103.    The objections for the electoral districts from the Gaspé Peninsula to Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière are contained below.  The Committee’s recommendations are contained within the body of each objection.

 

(a)         Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine

 

104.    Mr. Georges Farrah, Member of Parliament for Bonaventure—Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, filed an objection to the proposed riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

 

105.    According to Mr. Farrah’s objection, the proposed riding does not reflect the north-south division between communities of interest in the Gaspé region, but rather divides the peninsula between east and west.  The RCMs in the northern portion of the Gaspésie region — Haute-Gaspésie, Matane, Matapédia and La Mitis — have shared affinities with, and orient towards the urban centres of Sainte-Anne-des-Monts and Matane. The RCMs in the southern Gaspésie — Côte-de-Gaspé, Rocher-Percé, Bonaventure and Avignon — share a community of interest oriented towards the current riding of Bonaventure—Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.

 

106.    The constituents of both ridings are upset with this decision.  They feel it will disrupt their representation: the understanding of their issues, and the services and assistance they receive through their Members of Parliament.

 

107.    Therefore, Mr. Farrah proposes transferring the RCM of Haute-Gaspésie to the riding of Matapédia-Matane.  The RCM of Avignon should be placed in Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.  This approach would affect only the two ridings involved:  there would be no domino effect down the peninsula and into the Lower St. Lawrence or the South Shore.  In support of his proposal, Mr. Farrah presented the Subcommittee with supporting documentation from the RCMs of Haute-Gaspésie and Avignon.  Mr. Farrah also put forward his objection in consultation with the Member of Parliament for the neighbouring riding of Matapédia-Matane, Mr. Jean-Yves Roy, who is on record with the Subcommittee as supporting this objection.

 

108.    According to data available from Elections Canada, the effect of the changes Mr. Farrah proposes would be to take Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine to 13% below the provincial quotient and Matapédia-Matane to 23% below.  The Committee is aware the variance for Matapédia-Matane is very great, but notes that it is still within the statutory limit.  It also finds Mr. Farrah’s suggestions to be well thought out, clearly presented and well supported.

 

109.    The Committee strongly supports Mr. Farrah’s suggestions and recommends the boundaries for these two ridings be adjusted according to his suggestion.

 

(b)         Rimouski-Témiscouata and Rivière-du-Loup—Montmagny

 

110.    Mr. Paul Crête, Member of Parliament for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, filed an objection to the proposed riding of Rimouski-Témiscouata.  Mr. Crête’s objection is to the decision by the Commission to divide the riding of Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques in two, placing the RCMs of Les Basques and Témiscouata in the riding of Rimouski-Témiscouata and Rivière-du-Loup and Kamouraska in the riding of Rivière-du-Loup—Montmagny.

 

111.    Mr. Crête was pleased the Commission listened at the public hearings to the original proposal for the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspésie and has restored four ridings to the region.  However, their proposed boundaries sever natural economic, social and cultural ties in the region.  For example, in the case of his current riding, the proposed riding of Montmagny—Rivière-du-Loup would create a riding overlapping two separate administrative regions:  Bas-St-Laurent and Chaudière-Appalaches.  The Member of Parliament would have to work with two different regional offices of Canada Economic Development and Human Resources Canada, both of which are important services in the region.

 

112.    Mr. Crête, in his objection, proposed that the boundaries in the region be readjusted as follows, conditional on an exception being made for the riding containing Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine:

 

·  The current boundaries of Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques remain as they are;

·  A riding Côté-de-Gaspé—Haute-Gaspésie—Matane—Matapédia be formed from the RCMs of the same name;

·  There be a riding Rimouski-Neigette-La Mitis; and

·  A riding of Avignon—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Rocher-Percé—Bonaventure be formed from the RCMs of those names.

 

113.    According to Mr. Crête’s proposal, this would create four ridings in the region that reflect how people live, work and relate to each other.  Three ridings would be within the allowable variance from the provincial quotient.  The fourth — his proposed electoral district of Avignon—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Rocher-Percé—Bonaventure — would qualify to be treated as an exception to the statutory limit, due to the difficulties involved in representing Îles-de-la-Madeleine.  Mr. Crête noted in his presentation to the Subcommittee that the Province of Quebec has given Îles-de-la-Madeleine such an exemption.

 

114.    The Committee finds Mr. Crête's suggestion to be well thought-out with regard to the three ridings along the lower St. Lawrence.  It has the support of the neighbouring Member of Parliament to the west, Mr. Normand.  It is, however, contrary to the suggestion of Mr. Farrah (see above); Mr. Farrah’s objection being also done in consultation with, and with the support of, Mr. Roy.  The Committee also notes that the Member of Parliament for the current riding of Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis has not filed an objection to the proposed boundary changes, but has filed an objection to change the name of the proposed riding of Rimouski-Témiscouata to more accurately reflect its new boundaries.

 

115.    Mr. Gilbert Normand, Member of Parliament for Bellechasse-Etchemin-Montmagny-L’Islet, filed an objection to the proposed new electoral district of Rivière-du-Loup—Montmagny.  Mr. Normand’s objection is to the division of the current riding of Bellechasse-Etchemin-Montmagny-L’Islet into the electoral districts of Rivière-du-Loup—Montmagny and Lévis-Bellechasse.

 

116.    According to Mr. Normand, the new ridings do not respect the social and economic communities of interest in the region.  The RCMs of Montmagny and L’Islet are part of the Chaudières-Appalaches region and the RCMs of Rivière-du-Loup and Kamouraska are part of the Lower St. Lawrence resource region.  The ridings overlap the administrative divisions in the province so that citizens and their Members of Parliament would have to deal with different regional offices for federal services.

 

117.    As Mr. Normand noted when he appeared before the Subcommittee, the riding would be split in half, with half being pulled towards Rimouski and half being pulled towards Quebec City.  In development issues, he argued, one cannot ignore provincial administrative differences; there would be different tax structures and incentives within the proposed electoral district, for example.

 

118.    Mr. Normand’s objection also refers to the increase in population for the riding of Rivière-du-Loup—Montmagny.  There would be an extra 10,000 people, which in combination with the difficulties created by the new boundaries, would affect representation for the electoral district.

 

119.    Mr. Normand is upset that the community will have no opportunity to discuss the proposal to split the riding in two; the original proposal, he noted, was very different.  He noted that at the Commission’s hearings, he had suggested that the four municipalities in Beauce-Sud be replaced by St-Henri-de-Lévis, which is currently in the RCM of Bellechasse.

 

120.    In his written objection, Mr. Normand suggested that the four ridings in the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspésie be left unchanged.  However, in the Subcommittee’s hearings, Mr. Normand appeared alongside Mr. Crête.  Although each Members made separate and independent presentations, Mr. Normand supported and made suggestions about Mr. Crête’s proposed redistribution for the region.

 

121.    The Committee understands and sympathises with Mr. Normand and Mr. Crête. However, the return of their two ridings to their original boundaries would have a ripple effect throughout the region.  It notes that the adjacent ridings on either side of Rimouski-Témiscouata and Rivière-du-Loup—Montmagny have not filed objections to their boundaries.  We reiterate that the suggestions made by Mr. Crête and Mr. Normand are not feasible in conjunction with the suggestions made by Mr. Farrah, and which the Committee has recommended the Commission accept.

 

122.    Furthermore, the Committee notes, just as for the objection filed by Mr. Odina Desrochers (see below), their proposals hold potential ripple effects for Lévis-Bellechasse and Beauce, and perhaps beyond.  The Subcommittee investigated whether there was an opportunity, through the combined objections of Mr. Desrochers and the two objections here, to solve the issues raised on both sides of the city of Lévis, but could find no means to solve the distribution problems raised by any of the three objections.

 

123.    The Committee, with regret, cannot support the objections filed by Mr. Crête and Mr. Normand regarding the electoral districts of Rimouski-Témiscouata and Rivière-du-Loup—Montmagny.

 

(c)         Mégantic-L’Érable and Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière

 

124.    Mr. Odina Desrochers, Member of Parliament for Lotbinière-L’Érable, filed an objection to the splitting of the riding of Lotbinière-L’Érable between the proposed ridings of Mégantic-L’Érable and Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. Mr. Desrochers’s objection is based on a community of interest.

 

125.    According to Mr. Desrochers, the division of the current riding of Lotbinière-L’Érable will eliminate the last exclusively rural, federal electoral district in Quebec.  The division of this riding seems to be the unfortunate and unintended consequence of the establishment of the RCMs of Lotbinière and L'Érable, which creates a potential boundary line through the middle of the riding.  Under this proposal, however, these two ridings, which form a community of interest, have each been attached to urban ridings.  RCM Lotbinière would account for only 25% of the proposed constituency of Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière; L`Érable would comprise only 28% of Mégantic-L’Érable.

 

126.    Mr. Desrochers has received many complaints through his constituency office with regard to this proposal from citizens and from local officials. Neither Mr. Desrochers nor the community made representation at the public hearings of the Commission because the Commission’s original proposal did not propose splitting the riding; he and the community were satisfied with the original proposal.

 

127.    Mr. Desrochers realizes that the current variance of +28% for Lotbinière-L’Érable is not supportable under the legislation.  He proposes joining the RCMs of Lotbinière and L’Érable to St-Nicolas, St-Étienne-de-Lauzon et St-Rédempteur.  The Chaudière River would become the natural boundary for the region.  These municipalities, in conjunction with the former municipality of Bernières have worked together for several years to create economic development.  Hundreds of families from Lotbinière have settled in these three municipalities.

 

128.    To make up the numbers, Mr. Desrochers proposes that the municipalities of the rural sector of Bécancour be annexed to the new electoral district of Richelieu.  The six municipalities of RCM Arthabaska could be placed together in the new electoral district of Richmond-Arthabaska. St-Lambert-de-Lauzon would remain Mr. Desrochers’s proposed constituency of Lotbinière-L’Érable.

 

129.    According to data available from Elections Canada, the effect of Mr. Desrochers proposal on the affected electoral districts is as follows:

 

·  Beauce:   +  5.8%

·  Levis-Bellechasse:   +38%

·  Megantic-Érable: –34.5%

·  Richmond-Arthabaska:  +  1%

·  Richmond:   –  4%

 

130.    Obviously, changes to other ridings would have to be made to accommodate Mr. Desrochers’s primary goal of uniting the two rural ridings.  It seems unlikely that such large variances can readily be accommodated without a severe cascade of boundary readjustments throughout the region.  The Committee investigated whether a minimal number of readjustments would be able to solve the issue, but was unable to come up with a solution.  We sympathize with Mr. Desrochers but see no means to achieve his objection.

 

III.    Name Changes

 

(a)     Chambly

 

131.    Mr. Ghislain Lebel, Member of Parliament for Chambly, objected to the proposed name of the riding of Chambly.  He would prefer the name “Chambly-Borduas”.  “Borduas” is the name of the provincial riding, which is entirely encompassed within the proposed riding of Chambly.  This territory would not be represented in the name of the riding even though it contains a majority of the residents in the new riding.  Mr. Lebel also stated that the proposed name of “Chambly” could be misleading because the provincial riding of the same name constitutes only part of the new riding.

 

132.    We support this objection and agree with Mr. Lebel’s suggestion.  This name would better represent the territories included in the riding and provide a better sense of identity for the electorate.  Too much consideration was given to attempting to limit the name of the riding to one word.

 

(b)     Labelle

 

133.    Mr. Robert Bertrand, Member of Parliament for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, appeared before the Subcommittee with a straightforward objection.  He requested that the proposed name of the riding of Labelle be changed to “Laurentides” or “Laurentides-Labelle”.  He indicated that this would better reflect the territory being encompassed by the riding and would be more representative of the electorate.  The RCM of Antoine-Labelle only covers the northern third of the proposed riding.

 

134.    We support this objection.  We prefer the name “Laurentides-Labelle” to avoid confusion with the current riding of Laurentides.

 

 

(c)     Trois-Seigneuries

 

135.    Mr. Mario Laframboise filed two objections.  The objection considered here relates to the proposed name of “Trois-Seigneuries”.  His main argument was that “Trois Seigneuries” makes reference to only one third of the proposed riding.  He explained that in Quebec, land was historically divided at a certain period into “seigneuries” and at another period into “cantons”.  Since two-thirds of the riding has been divided in “cantons”, the term “seigneuries” has no application in these areas.  Thus, Mr. Laframboise requested that the current name of “Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel”, which identifies the three key regions of the riding, be retained.  In the written objection filed with the Committee, it is indicated that this suggestion is supported by local and regional representatives.

 

136.    We support this objection.  It is clear that the Commission has chosen to avoid the use of hyphenated names referring to more than two regions.  This riding, however, encompasses three entire RCMs and it would be proper to identify them equally.  We do not see the logic of trying to find a name with which very few people, if any, would identify themselves in order to satisfy an arbitrary preference.  Of more significance is the fact that “Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière” has 33 characters and “Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel” would only have 27.  In addition, the Guidelines of Federal Electoral District Names, produced by the Secretariat of the Geographical Names Board of Canada, states that “names comprising three unique geographical names (each of one word only) united by dashes are acceptable, provided that most of the area represented by each of the three names falls with the electoral district.”

 

(d)     Baie-James—Nunavik

 

137.    Mr. Guy St-Julien appeared before the Subcommittee to make several proposals regarding the riding of Baie-James—Nunavik.  One dealt with the name of the riding.  Mr. St-Julien would prefer that the riding be named “Nunavik-Eeyou”, as suggested by Grand Chief Ted Moses.  We support this proposal as it is important to recognize the history of the Cree in this area.

 

(e)     Lasalle

 

138.    The Hon. Paul Martin, P.C., Member of Parliament for Lasalle-Émard, filed an objection to the proposed name of the electoral district of Lasalle.

 

139.    Mr. Martin’s objection requests the restoration of the name “Émard” to the constituency name.  According to Mr. Martin, Émard comprises a significant portion of the riding, with its own separate identity.  The riding designation “Lasalle” would not effectively signify the entire riding to its constituents or to others.

 

140.    The Committee agrees with Mr. Martin and recommends the riding name be changed to “Lasalle-Émard”.

 

(f)     Deux-Montagnes

 

141.    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron, Member of Parliament for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, filed an objection to the proposed name for the electoral district of Deux-Montagnes.

 

142.    According to Mr. Perron, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles includes several communities as well as the community of Deux-Montagnes.  The name “Deux-Montagnes” would be received poorly by residents of other communities such as Boisbriand, Saint-Eustache and Sainte-Thérèse.

 

143.    “Deux-Montagnes” would also result in voter confusion. There is a provincial riding by the name of “Deux-Montagnes”.  There is also an RCM called “Deux-Montagnes” in the adjacent electoral district of Trois-Seigneuries.

 

144.    Mr. Perron proposes the name of the riding remain “Rivière-des-Mille-Îles”.  The Committee agrees with Mr. Perron and recommends that the riding name remain as it is.

 

(g)         Châteauguay

 

145.    Mr. Robert Lanctôt, Member of Parliament for Châteauguay, filed an objection to proposed name of “Châteauguay” for the electoral district.

 

146.    According to Mr. Lanctôt, the area known as Châteauguay comprises only a part of the riding.  The eastern section of the riding is St-Constant. It is actually the more populous and faster growing section of the riding.  Yet the absence of its name from the riding causes voter confusion since many people do not realize they are part of the riding.  He requests the name be changed to “Châteauguay—St-Constant” to reflect both parts of the riding.

 

147.    Mr. Lanctôt also informed the Subcommittee during hearings that Bill C-300, currently before the Senate, would change the riding’s name to “Châteauguay—St-Constant”.  When the new ridings come into force, changes made according to the Electoral Boundary Readjustments Act would obviate the name change planned in the bill and automatically return the name to “Châteauguay”.  Therefore, should the name not be changed by the Commission, the Committee wonders whether another bill will be introduced to bring about the desired change.

 

148.    The Committee agrees with Mr. Lanctôt and recommends the name be changed to “Châteauguay—Saint-Constant”.

 

(h)     Saint-Hyacinthe

 

149.    Mr. Yvan Loubier, Member of Parliament for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, filed an objection to the proposed name of the electoral district of Saint-Hyacinthe.

 

150.    According to Mr. Loubier, the removal of “Bagot” from the riding name removes mention of a significant section of the constituency.  The RCM of Acton makes up the Bagot section of the riding.  It is one of two complete RCMs which comprise the riding, the other being Maskoutins. Acton identifies with Bagot; Maskoutins with Saint‑Hyacinthe. The Committee notes also that there is a provincial riding of Saint‑Hyacinthe, comprising only Maskoutins. This would lead to voter confusion federally since residents of Bagot will not recognize they are part of the federal riding of Saint-Hyacinthe.

 

151.    The Committee agrees with Mr. Loubier and recommends the name of the riding be “Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot”.

 

(i)         Rimouski-Témiscouata

 

152.    Ms. Suzanne Tremblay, Member of Parliament for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, filed an objection to the proposed name of the riding Rimouski-Témiscouata. Ms. Tremblay feels that the addition of the RCM of Les Basques should be reflected in the name, as should the full name of Rimouski-Neigette.

 

153.    The Committee agrees with Ms. Tremblay.  It is clear that the Commission has chosen to avoid the use of hyphenated names referring to more than two regions.  This riding, however, encompasses three entire RCMs and it would be proper to identify them equally.  We recommend the name be changed as she suggests to “Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques”.

 

(j)      Laval

 

154.    The Committee has made recommendations on the ridings names in Laval.  Those recommendations are in the overall discussion on redistribution for Laval, contained in paragraphs 34 through 42.

 

Conclusion

155.    In accordance with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec, 2003, the objections, and the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Subcommittee will be returned to the Speaker and the Chief Electoral Officer.  We urge the Commission to consider carefully the objections, and the comments and recommendations contained in this report.

 

Respectfully submitted,



Peter Adams
Chair

 

 

 

---

APPENDIX

 

SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION

 

This appendix sets out my position with regard to the treatment of Quebec electoral districts under the federal electoral boundaries readjustment.

 

I have taken an active part in the work of the Subcommittee and agree with most of its recommendations.  I do, however, want to make two objections to the Forty-third Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

 

First, in view of the following considerations:

 

·              That a majority of Members on the Subcommittee supported keeping the cities of Chibougamau and Chapais within the riding of Roberval;

·              The present position of the Chibougamau municipal councillors, which was clearly set out in their letter of June 13, 2003;

·              That the personal opinion of the mayor of Chibougamau influenced the decision of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and the Subcommittee;

·              That the mayor's position was his personal opinion and did not commit the Chibougamau city council, as is clear from the minutes of the Chibougamau city council meeting of May 26, 2003, which were presented to the Subcommittee;

·              The position taken by the Chibougamau chamber of commerce;

·              That the city of Chapais has called for the retention of the four ridings of Saguenay—Lac St-Jean; and

·              That the riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik is already quite large;

 

I submit that the cities of Chibougamau and Chapais should remain in the riding of Roberval.

 

Second, in view of the following considerations:

 

·              That the Réserve faunique des Laurentides and the entire boreal forest ringing it forms a demographic enclave;

·              That the Saguenay—Lac St-Jean region shares a unique identity;

·              That it is possible, under the Act, to give special status to the riding of Roberval (including Chibougamau and Chapais), and that a redistribution of the population of the other three ridings (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Jonquière, Saguenay—Lac St-Jean) would be within the 25% variance; and

·              That the four sitting Members are in agreement on this;

 

I submit that the Saguenay—Lac St-Jean region should keep its existing four ridings, which should, however, be readjusted to take into account the considerations listed above.

 

Michel Guimond, MP

Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans

Chief whip of the Bloc Québécois