SELE Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, April 2, 2003

Â

1215

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.))

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance)

Â

1220

Mr. Greg Thompson

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Greg Thompson

Â

1225

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

Mr. Greg Thompson

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mr. Greg Thompson

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Greg Thompson

Ms. Libby Davies

Â

1235

Mr. Greg Thompson

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Greg Thompson

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

Â

1240

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Greg Thompson

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Â

1245

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Â

1250

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. John Wright (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. John Wright

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Â

1255

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 004

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 2, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

  (1215)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. We are the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Translation]

    We are very happy to welcome Mr. Greg Thompson here this afternoon.

[English]

    Mr. Thompson, you have about 10 minutes.

    Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your accommodating me.

    I am going to read into the record, Madam Chair, what I'm proposing in terms of my constituency, and I will then finish up with some general comments.

    This was the letter, Madam Chair, that I filed with the committee, but I want to read it into the record for obvious reasons:

OBJECTION TO THE ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION REPORT FOR New Brunswick

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs consider the matter of the following objection:

That the name of the new constituency, instead of St. Croix as recommended, be St. Croix-Belleisle. This name encompasses the names of two major water systems in the constituency, one on the western boundary and the other along the eastern boundary. The Commission proposed the name St. Croix to “better reflect the area's geography, history and the bilingual nature of New Brunswick.” The name Belleisle also has great historical significance including the establishment of early settlements of the United Empire Loyalists. The Belleisle Bay and Belleisle Creek areas are representative and familiar to the parishes and communities recommended to be part of the new St. Croix constituency. Instead of creating the impression of “adding” these areas to St. Croix, the adoption of the name “St. Croix-Belleisle” would convey both an impression and a reality of “inclusion” of the parishes of both Kings and Queens Counties since the name “Belleisle” is clearly identified with the lower part of the St. John River Valley which is adjacent to those areas. As was pointed out to the Commission previously, the name “St. Croix” by itself has great significance to the western part of the constituency, mainly for Charlotte and York Counties, but may be lesser known and recognized by the residents of the five other counties which make up the constituency. Adding “Belleisle” to the name would be suitably descriptive of the entire constituency.

    Madam Chair, I'm not sure if we should proceed with questions or not. But to make some closing comments, I've heard and read the testimony of some of those who appeared before your committee, and some of the recommendations that they brought to the committee, which appear to have been shot down, if you will, by the electoral boundaries commissioner, Mr. Richard. They basically threw the purpose of this committee process into dispute, questioning why we have this process. The recommendations that came out of the process are basically dismissed by the commission, which seems to question why we are doing this.

    In fairness to the committee, I want to point out, Madam Chair, that the commission responded quite favourably when I originally made my presentation last fall in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, objecting to the original boundaries outlined by the commission. So I don't have any huge criticisms of the commission, but I am a little bit perplexed by the statements coming from the commission chair following the presentations made before your committee last week. Again, it defies logic. Why are we doing this if everything is categorically rejected, simply because of the timeframe and complexity of readjusting once again the boundaries in the province of New Brunswick?

    To go back to a positive note, the commission recognized the geographical challenges of the constituency of New Brunswick Southwest, which I currently represent. I think it correctly decided or agreed that representing a constituency with those geographical challenges is itself very difficult at the best of times, given the fact that I represent a number of islands in the Bay of Fundy. In fact, when I'm on the outer reaches of those islands, I am closer to Nova Scotia than I am to my home in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, which is on the Bay of Fundy and obviously part of New Brunswick.

So they did recognize that. In fact, if you take a look at the statistics, I think New Brunswick Southwest now comes out at about minus 13% in terms of the population equation, if you will. I know the limit is 25%. I'm not suggesting they move to that, but what I'm suggesting is they did take that factor into consideration, given the readjustment that took place after the first go-around.

    Madam Chair, I'm prepared to leave it at that, and I guess we'll have to wait and see how the results come out at the other end.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Thompson, I'm aware that some comments were made by one of the commissioners. I'm sure he's entitled to his opinion, but there are three. We won't worry about that, and we'll continue to do our work.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: No, I understand, and I appreciate that.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Are there any questions?

    Mr. Reid.

    Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): I have two questions. One, do we know which commissioner filed the dissenting report?

  (1220)  

    Mr. Greg Thompson: If I'm correct, I believe the dissenting report was presented by Mr. Barry.

    Mr. Scott Reid: All right.

    Second, we didn't present on this, but at our most recent meeting, Mr. Herron, whose riding of course adjoins yours under this new plan, suggested the idea of transferring what we in Ontario would call rural townships--Kars, Springfield, and Studholm--from the riding currently called St. Croix into the riding currently called Fundy. I just wondered if you had a comment on community-of-interest issues that you could share with us.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: You're very observant because you're absolutely correct in terms of those areas that are identified by Mr. Herron in his presentation.

    I do have some sympathy for the commission in a sense and an understanding, of course, of the difficulties in juggling population bases and so on.

    In the northern part of my riding I'm losing some areas, including Northampton and parts of York County and Carleton County in around Richmond. I'm losing two border areas, Forest City and Fosterville, all up through that back country, including the village of Canterbury. Those are areas that I would prefer to keep, in all fairness. I was first elected in 1988. All of my elected life I've represented that part of my constituency. I have a good working relationship with those people, and I don't want to lose them. When the transfer was made, basically I lost that part of my northern riding.

    They've added on parts of what is now Mr. Herron's riding, Fundy--Royal. You named those parishes quite accurately. The population base remains basically the same. In terms of the square kilometres, that remains almost the same as well. So I'm sacrificing because I don't want to lose that part of my riding in that trade-off for part of his area.

    There is another set of problems that this creates. I did mention that on the present plan I'm about 13% under what we would consider the norm. If they transferred back to my constituency those northern areas that I lost, that would put me up about 5%, more in line with my neighbouring riding of Tobique--Mactaquac. In my mind, taking that away from the riding of New Brunswick Southwest is not a strong and compelling piece of logic.

    Again, it comes back to the tampering with and rejigging of some of those lines. One of the points I made to the commission when I appeared last fall was that a lot of this could have been avoided in many of these rural ridings as you're adding and subtracting, tacking some on, taking some off, and so on.

    For what? What was the problem in New Brunswick to begin with? If you take a look at the map as it now exists, the problems lie over in the Moncton area with the increase in the population base. I think those problems could have been accommodated without that domino effect through the rest of the province, going over to that part of the province where the problem existed and fixing that, which would have left the other ridings basically intact.

    I think the mistake the commission made had to do with the complaint brought forward by the francophone group, the Société des Acadiens, in the last go-around on redistribution approximately 10 years ago. I may have made a mistake in identifying that group, Madam Chair. But it was a francophone group that made the complaint, and actually attempted to take it through the courts--it was later dismissed, but I believe the complaint is still out there--that it was gerrymandering for the sole purpose of taking away a francophone riding in the province of New Brunswick. That basically encapsulates their argument. When the present committee took up its task, they were very determined to deal with that, and they attempted to draw the lines to accommodate that complaint.

    One of the interesting things, if you take a look at all of the testimony that was laid before the commissioners last fall in New Brunswick, is that they basically stated that New Brunswick has changed. It just shows you that they didn't have a real sense of what was going on in the province of New Brunswick.

  (1225)  

    The commissioner himself said bilingualism was working; the harmony between the French and English in New Brunswick was a model for the rest of the country. So the original complaint they heard was launched by a group of francophones, not the community itself. They went out into the communities and found that relations couldn't be better between the French and English in New Brunswick.

    If you look at the original proposal that came out of the commission, they had to go back and do some major surgery on their plan. Originally they came out with the idea that the province of New Brunswick had 720,000 people, so if you were a mathematician and quickly took 10 ridings and divided them into 720,000, the magic number was 72,000.

    So in a very uninformed and unintelligible way--and again I'm attempting to abbreviate this story--they came up with a plan that included 10 ridings at 72,000 each, which made absolutely no sense. It looked like a jigsaw puzzle. They were attempting to create these divisions based on their original sense that we had to re-establish that other francophone riding.

    Finally, as the process unfolded and they heard testimony from various anglophone and francophone groups, they said the harmony between the two linguistic groups in New Brunswick couldn't be better. They had no problem with the redistribution, as it took place 10 years ago or so. I'm saying that a lot of those lines are predicated on the original position the commission took. The commissioner was at least courageous enough or honest enough to admit he had made a mistake on this and went back to redesign the whole thing.

    I guess the difficulty most of us have is that this is the final court of arbitration. I'm not hugely dissatisfied with what I have, as just one member of Parliament in the province of New Brunswick, but the difficulties that some are experiencing are simply the result of this lack of understanding of the province of New Brunswick and the make-up of these federal ridings before they started the process, if you understand where I'm leading, Mr. Reid.

    You're saying we had our public meetings, we went back, and we listed and redrew the boundaries. But it appears there's no sense of goodwill in terms of fine-tuning it now. Obviously there are some hitches and glitches in the final proposal that I could go on in great detail about. What is discouraging is the fact that this final process before this particular committee seems to have been simply dismissed by the commissioner, which I think is very unfair.

    If I can make a suggestion to further commissions when they are established, in a non-partisan sense, it would be nice to have someone on that commission who has been elected, regardless of the political party, so they can have a sense of how truly difficult it is to represent constituents, given these artificial “boundaries” that are created by commissioners across the country. There are maybe some lessons in this for future commissioners when they sit down to do that task.

    Some of the obvious discussions, comments, and thoughtful observations that came forward in those initial public meetings should have somehow been part of that earlier process. Taking 720,000 people, dividing that number by 10, and just working the lines with the aid of a computer and the technology they had made no sense.

  (1230)  

    As you well know if you've sat on any of those committees, if you extract Kars and Springfield and some of those communities from a riding, they can tell you instantaneously how much of an impact that has in terms of the population base and so on. They have the ability, then, to just manipulate numbers back and forth to come up with that 72,000, which makes no sense.

    But it did create problems for members of Parliament in New Brunswick and others, who recognize that what they have today is not perfect and that it could have been avoided if they had been more thoughtful from the get-go.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

    Mr. Proulx.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I do find it unfortunate, Madam Chair, that Commissioner Guy Richard made this comment, but as you said, he's one out of three. Nevertheless, he's the chair of that commission.

    Mr. Thompson, my concern with your request is very technical and is in regard to the spelling. Are we sure that both “St. Croix” and “Belleisle” are written in this particular manner in New Brunswick? There was an historian who was used by the commissioners, but I just want to make sure that this--

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Chair, I'll just interject here a little bit. We tend to anglicize all the names; that's unfortunate, and I--

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: It could be from old French and Belleisle should be written this way, but I just wanted to make sure. Unfortunately, we don't have a road map of New Brunswick today that might confirm.... Do you have one?

    Mr. Scott Reid: I have my New Brunswick map.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Let's see if we're correct, but it would not be the first time I've been proven wrong.

    It's because they're talking Belleisle Bay and Belleisle Creek. I don't know why St. Croix is written that way because if it comes from the French, it should be “Ste” if we're going to use the abbreviation.

    The Chair: But St. Croix, the island, is this way.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: The interesting thing is, Madam Chair, that St. Croix, the island, is now owned by the United States of America. When you read the stories regarding our preparations for the 1604-2004 celebration, that is, the 400th anniversary of the settlement on that island, you'd almost believe it was Canadian territory, but it isn't. It's owned by the United States of America.

    The Chair: We'll check that.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I have a couple of questions, Mr. Thompson. First of all, were Kars, Springfield, and Studholm originally in your riding of New Brunswick Southwest?

    Mr. Greg Thompson: No, they weren't, Ms. Davies. They've always been in the riding of Fundy--Royal.

    Ms. Libby Davies: If they were moved into Fundy and he wants it renamed as Fundy--Royal, as it is now, what would that do to your name change, because you were focusing on Kings and Queens and the historical connection? If those three places went, would that take out most of your Kings area?

    Mr. Greg Thompson: That's right. What would happen with the name change I'm suggesting with St. Croix--Belleisle is that the Belleisle part of it, if you will, would simply vanish, so there would be no need for a name change.

    Ms. Libby Davies: So we need to be aware of that.

    If we did move Kars, Springfield, and Studholm into Fundy, it would impact his name change because his name change is based on Belleisle, which is part of the Kings historical area. That's one thing.

    The second thing is, I just want you to establish this a little more clearly if you could. You are not necessarily adverse to those three places going back into Fundy, but you would prefer to have your northern communities reclaimed. That's your preference.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Yes.

    Ms. Libby Davies: And if that didn't happen, if you lost the three at the south, then presumably your variance would be.... You were at minus 16% and now you're at minus 13%. If you lost those three, you would then presumably drop down below where you were before in a negative variance, although Mr. Herron was arguing that because you have these other islands, that would be the rationalization of that. It's just so we have a picture of what....

    Mr. Greg Thompson: I'm really impressed with the committee members, Madam Chair, at how much attention they're paying to the detail here.

    But you are correct in that, because if the counties in question, or parishes is a better description--we're using military terms here, aren't we, in a sense--were annexed or if their territorial integrity was challenged, or if they did go back to where they are today, to Mr. Herron, that would have a significant impact on our population base, if you will. So in answer to your question, if they maintained the boundaries as they presently exist in the riding that I presently represent, it would equal out. In other words, if I could maintain that northern part of my riding and Mr. Herron would keep his, that would be a wash in terms of--

    Ms. Libby Davies: Yes. Mind you, I don't know what it does to the other riding of Tobique--Mactaquac.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Actually, if you look, Madam Chair, at the numbers as presented--and I know Mr. Reid has the commissioner's report with him--basically if you take a look at the population base of Tobique--Mactaquac under the new scheme of things, if you will, in the new redrawing, and if, for example, Tobique--Mactaquac lost those northern areas or parishes and they did remain in the riding that I presently represent, New Brunswick Southwest, the numbers between those two constituencies would balance out quite nicely. In other words, it would not have a huge negative impact on Tobique--Mactaquac.

    Do you follow the argument, Madam Chair?

    So that logic I think should prevail. In terms of the physical management of the riding--if you're looking at the travelling around--one of the points I make, Madam Chair, in my original presentation is that if I want to leave the mainland and travel to the furthest island in my riding, which would be Whitehead Grand Manan, that's a day's adventure if you can line up the ferries and if you can get there. Basically that means two days, because you don't simply arrive on the island and turn around and go home again, so it means two days to get from one end of my riding to the other.

    And that, in all fairness, is one of the things the commissioners considered when they looked at the geography of New Brunswick Southwest, saying, we can allow New Brunswick Southwest to be a little “smaller” in terms of numbers simply because we do know it's very difficult to travel from one end of that riding to the other.

    The comparison I made was that there are a couple of the city ridings, if I can use that word in New Brunswick, where travelling from one end of that riding to the other is about a 20-minute taxi drive, as opposed to myself, eight hours. In fact most of the time I have to charter a plane to get over to that island and back if I want to do it in one day, and that's one of the reasons why obviously the House of Commons has always recognized that geographic supplement in recognizing large geographical areas. So if the House of Commons can recognize that, surely to goodness the commissioners could, and in all fairness I think they did this time.

    The Chair: I think you've answered the question three times, but I just want to be clear. You wouldn't be opposed to Kars, Springfield, and Studholm going back to Fundy--Royal?

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Provided I can keep the northern areas, which I “lost” to the other riding.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Can I ask it this way? You wouldn't be opposed if Kars, Springfield, and Studholm went to his riding. Are you suggesting that you would only support that on the condition that you got Canterbury North Lake, or would you--

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Yes. That would be correct, on the provision that I would keep the integrity of my riding as of today, including those areas of North Lake, Fosterville, Canterbury, Richmond Corner, Kirkland and then the parish of Northampton, which is on the eastern side of the Saint John River.

    The Chair: Just a second, because we all have maps in front of us.

    North Lake?

    Mr. Greg Thompson: North Lake, yes.

    The Chair: Canterbury.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Canterbury.

    The Chair: Richmond.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Richmond. And Northampton, which is on the other side of the Saint John River.

    The Chair: But not Southampton.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: The parish of Southampton would be in the riding presently of Tobique--Mactaquac.

    The Chair: And what about Woodstock?

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Woodstock is a strange anomaly, in a sense, because I have a constituency office in Woodstock, but Woodstock proper, the town, is in the riding of Tobique--Mactaquac, and I have to drive through that town of Woodstock to get across to Northampton, which is another parish in my riding.

    The Chair: So Woodstock parish?

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Parts of Woodstock parish are in the constituency I now hold, but all of the boundaries of the town of Woodstock are within the riding of Tobique--Mactaquac. So I circumvent the town, if you will.

    The Chair: Just to be clear, if you were to give up Kars, Springfield, and Studholm, which is a request that has come to this committee--

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Yes.

    The Chair: --we have no requests right now until today, as you are speaking, to take over North Lake, Canterbury, Northampton, Richmond, and Woodstock parish.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Yes. I'm saying Woodstock parish, but what I'm taking in is actually parts of Carleton County.

    The Chair: Yes, they're all part of Carleton County.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Yes. The way it's described in the act, Madam Chair, is all of those areas south of the Meduxnekeag River, with the exception of the town boundaries of the town of Woodstock, New Brunswick. That's how it is worded in the....

    The Chair: Mr. Thompson, we didn't have a request to take those areas of Tobique--Mactaquac from Tobique--Mactaquac and put them into St. Croix. We did have a request from somebody to take over Kars, Springfield, and Studholm. So I'm trying to be clear. There is no possibility that if you didn't get North Lake, etc., you would support Kars, Springfield, and Studholm going to the other riding?

    Mr. Greg Thompson: That would be correct.

    The Chair: I see.

    Mr. Proulx.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: In that region of Kars, Springfield, and Studholm, what do you think is the mix of francophone and anglophone? We saw figures the other day from Elections Canada, but I don't have my notes with me.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Again, I don't know the figures, Madam Chair, but I would say it would be somewhere in the vicinity of 95% anglophone and 5% francophone, or possibly less, but I don't think it would be more.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: What about the area of North Lake, Canterbury, and so on?

    Mr. Greg Thompson: The numbers would be somewhat the same, a very high percentage of--

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mostly anglophones.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Mostly anglophones, yes.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

    The Chair: May I ask one more question. If Kars, Springfield, and Studholm went to Fundy, you wouldn't want to change to Belleisle, but what about Wickham and Johnston? Are they not on Belleisle?

    Mr. Greg Thompson: When we're talking there, Madam Chair, for the sake of brevity, we're not mentioning all of the parishes that are involved, but basically, if we can simplify this, we're talking of all those parishes on the eastern side of the Saint John River.

    We're talking of all those parishes that are on the eastern side of the lower Saint John River that are presently held by the riding of Fundy--Royal. That's probably a better way to describe it, because I think the members of your panel are very good in identifying those parishes, but I think we've left out--

    The Chair: No, actually, the request we had before us, Mr. Thompson, is not to send Wickham and Johnston to Fundy. It was just the three, Kars, Springfield, and Studholm.

    Does anybody else have any other questions?

    No?

    Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson. We appreciate you coming before us, and we have all learned a lot about place names.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you. I appreciate your interest.

  (1245)  

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): I'd like to bring up another matter.

    The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Guimond on another matter.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Madam Chair, I have just returned from our party's caucus and we realize that the deadline to submit objections on behalf of Quebec is April 27, the last day. So, we have until April 27 inclusively to table objections. I want to tell you right off the bat that I am not asking that this date be changed. In any case, we cannot do so because this 30-day time period is imperative.

    The clerk, Mr. Hall, is not here, but I would like you—or the clerk of the committee—to let us know in a letter that you will accept objections and signatures that are faxed to you.

    Mr. Proulx probably heard the same comments at his caucus, and perhaps Mr. Reid did as well, since the problems are the same for Ontario, where the deadline is two days earlier. The fact is, the House rises during those two weeks. When Parliament sits, it is easy to prepare our objection, to go and see a colleague to ask him to sign in order to collect the 10 signatures needed, but in the middle of the week following Easter, let's say on April 24 or 25, will our colleague who is in Rimouski or Rivière-du-Loup jump into his car to go and collect 10 signatures from other colleagues?

    I am going to listen to your comments, Madam Chair, but I will ask you to write them down, since words have a tendency to fly away, while texts remain; I would like you to confirm whether the clerk will accept objections submitted by fax. Will the signatures we have collected by fax be accepted—I believe April 27 falls on a Sunday—if we do everything else required, I table all of the originals in the following days?

    The Chair: Mr. Guimond, just to clarify the situation, I looked at what Mr. Hubbard had submitted. There is one signature per page, and all of the pages were sent by fax.

[English]

    They were all sent by fax. So you can definitely tell your caucus mates that they can send them by fax and that they can come in one signature by one signature.

    If I look here I can see at the top of the page that Mr. Hubbard has faxed this to Mr. Adams, Mr. Adams has faxed it back to Mr. Hubbard, and it has all gone together to the committee. So they can send it in by fax and then send in the hard copies later.

    So whether we need an official ruling on that, I can assure you that it has been done and we will have agreed that because, one, it's a Sunday and, two, it's two break weeks, I absolutely agree that we have to be able to fax them. And if we've transgressed some rule--

    Mr. Michel Guimond: The clerk will send some documents that he has received. But the problem is, will the clerk be available during those two entire weeks, including the weekend? If we check about New Brunswick, we saw some colleagues presented their opposition to the table and Mr. Corbett said, I take it on behalf of the town hall, or something like that. But will we receive some kind of confirmation?

  (1250)  

    The Chair: I'll ask the clerk to send out a confirmation to all members and especially to all parties. All right?

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes.

    The Chair: The other thing is we're sending out letters to the people who have a name change before the Senate, to alert them to the fact that they want to also change the name here. I made an announcement in our caucus and I would encourage all of you to mention it in your caucus.

    There are some people who have a name change that is currently before the Senate. It is entirely possible that the name would be re-changed in this process and they would be under the impression that the name change in the Senate would supercede this one. It won't happen that way. This will supercede the Senate one. In some cases they become redundant because the riding isn't the same any more. In other cases they would also want the name changed; they'd better come before this committee and make sure. So it's a picayune detail, but they're going to get caught in the shift between two bills.

    Yes.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: I have a question on another matter. I discussed this with the research staff and the clerk, and I have a copy of e-mail that I gave the research staff.

    The Chair: Oh, the volunteer....

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: It's a question of who is to be allowed to testify in front of the subcommittee. Mr. Guimond and I now have a joint request from a section of the province of Quebec. Some people want to appear in front of this subcommittee to make another pitch. My understanding is that the spirit of this is for members only.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: So it would be for members only, with no outside witnesses, no resource people, but strictly for MPs.

    The Chair: It's my impression that it's just for MPs. We had better clarify whether or not they're allowed to bring a friend. They certainly can bring 6,000 postcards, or whatever it was, but it's my impression that it's just the MP who can speak.

    The other reason I am under this impression is that it was a bit contentious in Ontario. The MPPs are affected, but they don't have a chance to appear before this committee, and they weren't happy.

    Mr. Scott Reid: In all fairness, they do have the option of passing a new law disassociating...and using some of their formula.

    The Chair: Which the commissioners pointed out to the guy who was screaming in Hamilton.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I wonder if I could bring up something that is more related to the issue of Mr. Proulx's point.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Could I finish my point? I'm sorry, but there was a second question in there as well, in the sense that....

    The Chair: We'll get clarification on the first question.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay.

    The other point is that I assume a member can file an objection on a riding that is not necessarily his or hers. For example, if Monsieur Guimond has a problem with a riding that is unheld, or that is held by an opposition member to him, can he file an objection on it?

    Oh, there are two questions in that. We have the riding of Timiskaming, for example, which is unheld at this time. Could a member who held that riding, whether from the Bloc or Liberals--who want to hold that riding...?

    The Chair: And they're not a next-door neighbour.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: And they're not a next-door neighbour.

    Could we accept that?

    Mr. John Wright (Committee Researcher): As far as we know. I will double check it, but Jamie and Thomas and I have discussed this and we believe a member can file an objection in a riding that is not his or her own and is not directly affected by it.

    The Chair: Do they have to be in the same province?

    Mr. John Wright: I wouldn't see why “not directly affected” would not be not directly affected.

    The Chair: I'm just kidding, but I am going to file an objection to yours.

    Okay, can we get clarification on that?

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: That includes the point where it's not only for an unheld riding, but can also be for any riding in that particular province.

    Mr. Scott Reid: For example, Middlesex in Ontario, as was pointed out.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, Middlesex and its former MP, John Richardson; Timiskaming; and Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. So there are three vacancies.

    The Chair: So we'll get Thomas to issue something to all the committee members, and we'll get this clarified as soon as possible.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Could they both go out together, so that people aren't flying around with e-mails?

    The Chair: Yes, we will minimize the use of paper.

    Secondly, to all colleagues, I won't be in the country next week. I will be with the IPU in Santiago, but I think I can get e-mails, and my staff have a way to get in touch with me. So if anything is urgent, please call me. They will have a way to reach me there. If something comes up, I will be happy to hear from you if you have a problem.

    Right now we're scheduled to meet on the 28th.

  (1255)  

    Mr. Scott Reid: Sorry, are you away next week when the House is in session, or the week after?

    The Chair: I'm away the week the House is in session. I'll be in my constituency the week after Easter, if anyone needs me. So just call me.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Now, to comment on Mr. Proulx's point, there has been a precedent set of allowing presentations to be made to other committees of Parliament by interested third parties. There are two examples of this, both with the Standing Committee on Official Languages. One was Monsieur Godin's objection, and the

[Translation]

    Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick.

[English]

made a presentation. I can't remember the name of the organization, but it was the equivalent for Alberta that made a presentation regarding the St. Albert riding just north of Edmonton. So this might be one way of dealing with these groups, to find a similar committee that's willing to listen.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I simply want to add that I read the summary Thomas Hall prepared for us in which he mentions some of the act's provisions. Among others, he refers to paragraph 22(1), where it says that “If... an objection in writing is filed with the clerk of the committee... specifying the provisions of the report objected to and the reasons for the objection.” But it is not specified that this is an objection from a member. In paragraph 22(2), it says: “An objection... shall be in the form of a motion for consideration by the committee of the matter of the objection, and signed by not less than ten members of the House of Commons.”

    That's fine, but does it necessarily have to have been submitted by a member of Parliament? According to me, yes, but—

[English]

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: That was the sense of my question, and it will be very helpful if we could get the text.

    Thank you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: These are excerpts taken from the text.

[English]

    The Chair: That's just a summary of some of the act. But you're right that we should clarify it, and we'll get it.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Reproduce the law.

    The Chair: Not the whole law, but the pieces....

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes.

    The Chair: So we'll get that clarified. It's very good to have the actual example of what we're being asked.

    Thank you, colleagues.

    The meeting is adjourned.