Federal electoral districts redistribution 2022

Public Hearing Winnipeg, Manitoba (Fort Garry Hotel) September 7, 2022 – 7 p.m

List of Intervenors

Madam Chairperson (Honourable Justice Diana M. Cameron): I would like to call this public meeting to order.

Good evening, bonsoir, tansi. My name is Diana Cameron, and I am a judge at the Manitoba Court of Appeal. This evening, however, I'm here as Chairperson of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Manitoba.

Tonight, we have simultaneous translation. If you do not understand one of the official languages, I encourage you to go to the–where the audio-visual is and get a headphone set that will allow you to follow the language in the language of your choice.

Si vous voulez vous adresser aux membres de la commission en français, vous pouvez le faire. Le choix demeure le votre.

Translation

If you would like to address the members of the commission in French, you may. The choice is yours.

English

I will start by introducing the other two members of the commission: Dr. Paul Thomas, professor emeritus in political studies at the University of Manitoba and Dr. Kelly Saunders, associate professor of political science at Brandon University.

We are also accompanied tonight by the secretary of the commission, Mr. Kevin Young, the gentleman in the white shirt. He'll be timing you. He's the one who makes sure that the commission runs smoothly, that every- thing is in order and that we remain within the parameters of our jurisdiction.

Also with us is Eric Diotte, who is on loan from the Ottawa office of Elections Canada. He is our geographic expert and statistician. He is also the one who assists us with all the technical and numerical aspects of the map- drawing process, and we greatly appreciate his expertise. And thank you to both of you.

But I also want to thank all of you here tonight for taking part in this important democratic process. The right to vote is synonymous with democracy and finds its roots in our constitution. There is another equally important aspect to the right to vote, namely, that each vote must be relatively equal to every other vote to seek the relative parity of voting power.

The Supreme Court of Canada has used the term relative parity because we all know that absolute parity is impossible. It's impossible to draw boundary lines which guarantee exactly the same number of voters in each electoral district.

It's good to recall that the commission is independent and an impartial tribunal. We draw our mandate from the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and this exercise means we must remain non-partisan. That does not mean, however, that we discourage input from our members of Parliament. In fact, the act says in section 19 (1.1) that any Member of Parliament may make representations at these public hearings. We encourage MPs to do so, given that MPs have intimate knowledge of the various communities they serve; their views are important.

Some of the presenters tonight might also have certain political party affiliations. We, of course, welcome their–your comments and suggestions as well. However, what we will not welcome and what we will resist is any attempt to manipulate the electoral districts to favour one political party over another. That is often referred to as gerrymandering.

The process of setting the boundaries has been and will continue to be guided by the principals set out in the act, the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Canada, with the main criterion being to the extent that it does not detract from effective representation, the population of each electoral district be as close as reasonably possible to the provincial average. That average for our province is 95,868 people per electoral district. We've also tried to respect communities of interest, historical patterns and, to the extent possible, the previous boundaries of the electoral districts.

I'll just be a few more minutes.

We said that this commission is independent and impartial. We are also accountable to you in the–to the extent that we need to explain the why and the what. That is to explain why we did what we did in our proposal. In that proposal, we set out three foundational guidelines we decided to follow right from the outset to assist us with our decision-making process. In addition to factors such as community of interest and special geographic conditions, the three guidelines are: variance range of 10 per cent–so, to the extent that it does not detract from effective representation, we wanted all electoral districts to fall within a variance of 10 per cent, which means trying to keep the electoral district populations within a range of 5 or minus–plus 5 or minus 5 per cent of the provincial average.

Next, projected population growth. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a commission can take into account future population growth projections. As the boundaries will be set for 10 years, we wanted to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, each electoral district remains within that plus or minus 5 per cent range during that timeframe. So, we factored in future population growth to the best of our ability.

And, keeping communities together. We wanted, to the extent possible, to respect the territorial integrity in certain entities. We tried to avoid splitting our municipalities, Indigenous communities and designated bilingual zones.

To get as much public participation as possible, we invited submissions from the public prior to the creation of the proposed maps that are found in our proposal. The act does not say that we have to do this, but we decided to do it in order to get greater public participation. I can report that we received a number of submissions prior to drafting our proposal. They were most helpful, and in fact we included many of those suggestions in our report.

We then made our proposal public, encouraged the public to let us know what they thought of it. And that is why we are here tonight.

Our proposal is not etched in stone. It is not our final report. We are not simply going through the motions tonight. That would be unfair to you and unjust to the process. We will consider all suggestions. We will then look at all of the suggestions as a whole.

As you know, changing one electoral boundary will necessarily affect another. When a major change is brought, oftentimes that change will be–have a domino effect on others. Therefore, we will have to consider the cumulative effect of what is being proposed.

Following the hearings, the commission will develop and release its final report that will establish a new boundary–the new boundary electoral districts and any new electoral district names.

So, tonight, our role is to listen to you. It's not to engage or to debate with you. If we are unsure or unclear as to what exactly a presenter is proposing, we will seek clarification.

We have received 11 requests to speak tonight. If each person took up to even 30 minutes to speak, we would be here until the early morning hours, which is simply not reasonable. So, time limits ensure that everyone has an opportunity to speak. Therefore, I will ask that everyone's presentation be limited to 10 minutes or less in order to allow enough time for everyone who has registered to speak. If you are still speaking after eight minutes, our secretary will lift his finger and let you know that you have two minutes left, and he will wave after 10 minutes.

For those who so kindly provided written submissions prior to the hearings today, I want to assure you that we read each and every one of them and we have a copy of them before us. If you feel that you are not able to

present all of the information you wanted to in your allotted time, we would ask that you provide any additional information in writing to us within 10 days of this hearing, and I thank you in advance for your co-operation in this regard.

So, for all of your information, all of our public hearings are audio recorded, and the recordings will be made available on the website along with transcripts of the recordings for the duration of our commission's work. To those of you who have just recently provided written submissions, they will be posted on our website, as well, and all written submissions, regardless of when they are provided to the commission, are posted on our website, whether or not a representation has been made.

So, I want to thank you in advance for your co-operation. The commission has decided that the order of presenters will be driven the–by the order in which we received notice of their intent to make a representation. If time permits, we may, at our discretion, hear from persons present, firstly, who have not only–not yet represented, and then we will decide at our discretion after.

So, I'd like to invite the first person up to speak, Mr. Steven Fletcher. Thank you.

Is there a way to help with the microphone?

We'll read out the list of people who are speaking in the order that they're speaking.

So, it's Steven Fletcher, Diane Froelich [phonetic], Kiernan Szuchewycz–sorry if I mispronounced that, Jae Eadie, Vaibhav Varma, James Bezan, Lori Schellekens, Haojun Li, Hannah Marshall and Terry Duguid.

Thank you.

Steven Fletcher: Thank you very much, and I'm–I'd like to thank the commission for the opportunity to speak today.

I've provided the commission with a very detailed report on the proposal and I'd like to–I'm not going to repeat that, though I'm going to reflect on some things that the commission needs to know to make sure that we're making the right decisions and we're all agreed on the facts.

The commission's report referred to something called the Winnipeg metro region, and that can mean different things to different people, and some people think it's the 18 municipalities around–I know Dr. Thomas was involved in many initiatives surrounding that–getting the municipalities organized, and fair enough.

Stats Canada does not consider that–these to be the regional authority. Appendix A in the material I provided gives a map of what the federal government considers to be the metropolitan area and, as such, that logic for including Cartier and St. Francois Xavier in the, quote, west Winnipeg (Winnipeg West) riding, is inappropriate. Those two constituencies should not be included in a riding with Winnipeg.

The issue of the bilingual nature of–the bilingual designation of Cartier and St. Francois Xavier–well, there's no explanation what that is. There is no–I–

Madam Chairperson: Mr. Fletcher, actually we did notice that in your submission, and I thought I would just explain to you that when we refer to the designated communities, those are communities that were designated in the Chartier Report as French language service communities.

So–just–I thought I would let you know that.

S. Fletcher: Oh, yes–that's great. I hope that didn't cut into my time.

However, I did provide the Stats Canada population and mother language and bilingual numbers for those two areas and also Rosser and the Charleswood–St. James–Assiniboia riding itself, and we're talking about between zero to 200-ish people for context. And Stats Canada, when it comes to language, their statistics are confusing, I will grant you that.

In any case–in this case, for the Charleswood, St. James area–the west Winnipeg area, that is not an issue that should be involved in making a boundary decision for the federal ridings.

In regard to–starting east to west, the commission needs to reflect on if Kapyong Barracks should be in Winnipeg South Centre or in the riding–or the newer riding. That's just–the boundary of the RM of Tuxedo was Edgeland, which was west of Kapyong Barracks. And so that's a historic significance and maybe something to reflect on. There may be infrastructure and other unseen things that could affect–in regard to including Tuxedo in the riding, yes, fair enough. You know, very similar, same high schools, community clubs–don't have a problem with that. Going the–west Headingley, yes, that's fine.

However, to find a population to bring it up to the average, it would seem to be more appropriate to look to the ridings that are already oversized in the proposal. I provided those in the documentation and–so taking a little nibble out of Winnipeg South, maybe around the Lindenwoods area or north of Wilkes between the railway, that would easily provide 3,000 people and deal with the overpopulation of that area, and the kids go to the same schools, community clubs and so on.

Another possibility is to include Oak Bluff, for example, which is just like Headingley, and it's two and a half square kilometres with about 1,000 people along the Perimeter Highway. Those of us in Manitoba will know about the Perimeter issue and anything inside the Perimeter and everything outside of the Perimeter, there seems to be a tension there. And there's a few communities that can bridge that. Oak Bluff, Headingley are a couple of those communities. And it would be very reasonable to include them in the same riding.

If you have to–if you–the only RM other than Headingley in its entirety that may be appropriate would be Rosser because it does fall within the Metro Winnipeg area, according to the federal government. And a portion of it falls within the Perimeter. And there are areas of common–like infrastructure, like CentrePort, the water supply, the airport and so on.

The–to go beyond that, though, is–it's not appropriate. Theming's really important. Elmwood, Transcona were their own municipalities. Kildonan, St. Paul were their own municipalities. Saint Boniface, Saint Vital. That's why those are those names. Saint–calling Charleswood–St. James–Assiniboia–Headingley, changing that to west Winnipeg (Winnipeg West) is neither practical or concise, and it doesn't respect the heritage of the area. Each one of those communities was its own RM at one point and there are many other very good names that could be used.

I will note that Portage–Lisgar is neither–you know, is a great name for a riding, but, you know, Lisgar, there's no place, there's no town called Lisgar. But, as I put in my brief, the name Lisgar is profoundly important. So, there's an opportunity to use the name to help people not only connect with the area, but to educate them about their area, if there is a shoo-around.

And the name is so important. Like, if people in Headingley are considered–and even Cartier or–if someone said that they're in west Winnipeg there would be a riot. They have gone through huge effort to make sure that they're not considered Winnipeg, and there's a strong identity for those who don't live in Winnipeg that they don't live in Winnipeg.

And, again, we want a riding–riding names that encourage participation, that connect people to the riding. The only–and there's no practical–the only person who doesn't like a long name is the Speaker of the House of Commons. That's the only person. The riding needs to speak to the people. And I–any riding–and it all depends on your final boundaries, of course. But Headingley should be in the name of any boundary and perhaps the term Assiniboine Park–Assiniboine Park-Headingley. I think Assiniboine Park is historic. It brings all the commu- nities that we have talked about together and it's consistent with names from other ridings and other jurisdictions.

In the material that I have provided the commission I've gone into great detail and I've provided a number of recommendations. I am pleased that they're going to be included on the website, and I think it's really impor- tant to keep Winnipeg in Winnipeg and, you know, maybe along the edges RMs can be brought into their con- stituent part, like Oak Bluff or Elie or, you know, the town of St. Francois Xavier.

But to go from Kenaston Boulevard all the way out to the end of–to the outskirts of Portage la Prairie is an absurdity and just wouldn't be accepted, so–it would have to be accepted because you could–it would just–it would be completely inappropriate for all the reasons I've put in my report.

So, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time and I appreciate the opportunity to present and I do have questions for the panel.

In regard to the term in your report where it says now that St. Francois Xavier and Cartier are considered part of the Winnipeg region, what do you mean by now? They've always–by some definitions they've always been part of the regional area, and it somehow implies that something has changed when, in fact, nothing has changed. And it's irrelevant anyway because the federal government doesn't recognize that as part of the regional metro area.

The other question is naming. Well, perhaps, you know, anyone outside of Winnipeg–you know what? I'll just leave it at this: Gary Doer told Dr. Thompson [phonetic] many years ago when he became chair of the regional municipality authority or association, that if he could get those ridings or those RMs to work together, that Doer would arrange for him to go to the Middle East to sort that out. Like, the boundary commission does not need, nor should it get into, the nightmare of local divisions and politics, and that's what it's doing if–in reading some of these things–brought unity, commonality and engagement.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much.

S. Fletcher: And what was your answer to that first question?

Madam Chairperson: Well, we haven't been able to locate it in the report just now, so we'll take it under advisement. We'll either answer you by way of email or–and put–and–or I may have a chance to look at the report before the end of the evening to find out exactly where the reference is.

S. Fletcher: It's quoted in my report to you, as well.

Madam Chairperson: Yes, I saw that today, but I didn't go back to our proposal to look up where it said that.

Thank you.

Okay, Kiernan Szuchewycz. I'm sorry if I'm not pronouncing the name properly. My apologies. Actually, you can, maybe if you're more comfortable, pull up the chair, or if you prefer to stand, stand.

Kiernan Szuchewycz: I'll be very quick. Okay. Hello. So, my name's Kiernan Szuchewycz.

Madam Chairperson: Szuchewycz?

K. Szuchewycz: That's right.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

K. Szuchewycz: And I'm just here on behalf of the Longest Ballot Committee, and I've a very quick proposal to make for today. And that is in the interests of reconciliation to rename the electoral district of St. Boniface– sorry, St. Vital, to the electoral district of Louis Riel.

Just to–I won't go through his whole biography, but he was born in St. Boniface and this was the main–there was a larger riding that he won called Provencher, when he was elected as an independent several times but this was the main population of when he was elected. And I think, in the interests of fairness and reconciliation, a name change is warranted.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

All right, Jae Eadie?

Jae Eadie: I think you'll be able to hear me all right, Madam Chair and commissioners.

I did send you a written copy of my–of what I'm going to outline to you this evening. I'm not going to read it word for word, but I am going to refer to it.

First of all, my name is Jae Eadie. I live on Assiniboine Avenue in the community of St. James, which has been misplaced in Winnipeg Centre for far too long and should be a part of Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia- Headingley or the proposed new riding of Winnipeg West, which is poorly named, as somebody has already mentioned.

I will start by officially objecting, once again. This is the third time I've appeared before a boundaries com- mission. I object once again to the commission's arbitrary decision to cap the tolerance at plus-minus 5 per cent. You probably know that section 15(2)(b) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act gives boundaries com- missions a great deal of flexibility of up to plus-minus 25 per cent.

I suggest to you that the reason Parliament enacted that was to give boundaries commissions considerable flexibility when drawing electoral districts to try and keep communities of like or historical connection together in one constituency.

Members of Parliament who wrote that act represent communities. They understand what it's like to keep communities together. I represented this area that I'm going to be referring to for 26 years at Winnipeg City Hall, and I understand what a community is. And the area I'm going to refer to is the St. James community–and I've attached a map, and I'm going to explain that in a second–has never been a part of what you call Winnipeg Centre; absolutely never.

But I just–I do want to put on the record that I object to your arbitrary decision to cap the tolerance at 25 per cent when the act gives all commissions much greater flexibility of up to 25 per cent, and for good reason.

I'm now going to refer to the St. James community. I attached a map to this presentation, but the community is bounded on the east by St. James Street, north on St. James to Dublin, west on Dublin to the northern extension of Ferry Road, south on Ferry Road to the Assiniboine River and east along the Assiniboine River to the southerly extension of St. James Street. That is the St. James community that I'll be referring to. Elections Canada tells me that the population of that area as of 2021 is 5,214 electors.

Nine–or 2021 was the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the municipality of St. James. The eastern boundary of that municipality was St. James Street; it wasn't Portage and Main. The western boundary expanded over time to what is now the West Perimeter Highway. It became, eventually, the city of St. James-Assiniboia.

In the current political structure of the city of Winnipeg, that area, bounded by St. James Street on the east to the Perimeter Highway on the west, is within the Assiniboia community committee area. And, as a matter of fact, the electoral ward of St. James takes in that entire area, with the exception of Westwood. That is St. James.

But the St. James community that I refer to has, for far too long, been in a different constituency and it has been separated from the rest of the St. James-Assiniboia community. There's absolutely no valid reason for that. If you were to use a tolerance figure of greater than 5 per cent plus-minus, you could correct that historical error that your predecessors, and even you are, at this point, going to yet recreate.

In the preamble report, when you were referring to what is the current riding of Charleswood-St. James Assiniboia-Headingley, you mention that the current population figure of that riding is 11 and a half per cent below the provincial quotient for this redistribution process. So how did you solve the problem? Well, you moved the boundary well into rural Manitoba, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Cartier, St. François Xavier, parts of the RM of Portage la Prairie are not within the city of Winnipeg. Headingley isn't, for that matter, either, but Headingley has already had an historical connection with Winnipeg and with the current riding of Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley.

Instead of you–so you created that problem, expanded the lamely named riding, now Winnipeg West, well into rural Manitoba, when you could've fixed part of the problem right here and now by including the St. James community in the new riding of Winnipeg West or with a much better name I'm going to suggest to you. You probably could've solved half your population problem if you were willing to bend on the 5-per-cent tolerance that you created, which you did, by the way, as you know, with Churchill–Keewatinook-Aski and rightfully; so you could've done even better with that riding.

So, by adding the St. James community to your proposal of Winnipeg West, you would, for the first time in many years, unite the community of St. James-Assiniboia in one federal riding, and it would make sense, because

right now the St. James community in Winnipeg's centre is the forgotten part of that constituency. We rarely see an MP or a candidate there. Successive MPs don't even refer to the community in their householders, and I've checked every one of them for the last 30 years.

To his credit, Pat Martin, when he represented the area, made at least one visit to St. James on Remembrance Day when he showed up at the St. James legion for Remembrance Day services. His two successors have never shown their faces. So we're the forgotten end of Winnipeg Centre. We don't count for anything. But the St. James community rightfully belongs in your proposed Winnipeg West, though I'm going to suggest to you that you've got to change that name.

So if you add the St. James community, as I've defined, into Winnipeg West, and then shrink what you've added in rural Manitoba, shrink that boundary back closer to the city of Winnipeg, you might take in some territory south of the Assiniboine River to help make up some of the population difference, and then bend on the 5 per cent and be realistic and keep communities together, because that's why the tolerance is up to 25 per cent in the act. I'm sure you're going to be hearing folks in Brandon tomorrow complaining about taking Virden out of Brandon-Souris and putting it in Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa. If that is a senseless change I don't know what else is.

But in any event, here in Winnipeg, the riding you've proposed to call Winnipeg West should contain all of the St. James-Assiniboia community from St. James Street west to the–at least to the Perimeter Highway, and then the riding name should be changed to Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley, and then it would be an accurate reflection of what that riding is.

The areas of St. François Xavier, Cartier and parts of the RM of Portage la Prairie do not belong in what should be an urban riding, and especially in a riding that you would call Winnipeg West. Those RMs are not in the city of Winnipeg; they are west of Winnipeg. They are their own municipalities, more properly located in either Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman or Portage-Lisgar, but not in a riding called Winnipeg West.

As a matter of fact, the–you know, the name Winnipeg West, as I've suggested to you, is a misnomer. Bring back the name Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley, include the St. James community in that riding so that our community is whole again and not separated and–with our community located in a riding that nobody pays attention to in Winnipeg Centre and has never had an historical connection.

So you see, in my summation that–I'm not going to repeat myself too much–but put the St. James commu- nity, as I've defined it in my presentation, properly into Winnipeg West or Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia, shrink that rural–those rural communities back closer to the city of Winnipeg, keep Headingley in, make some adjustments south of the Assiniboine if you have to and forget the 5 per cent and use whatever tolerance figure makes the whole thing fit properly and keeps our community–or puts our community back with the rest of the historic area of St. James-Assiniboia. That would be my preferred.

Now, if you honestly can't find it in your hearts and minds to make that change and to make adjustments to make it work and you've already abandoned your 5 per cent principle with Churchill-Keewatinook Aski–and justifiably so, and I suggested earlier you could probably do a lot more and shrink that southern boundary of Churchill-Keewatinook Aski even closer to the north–then if you can't find it in your hearts and in your minds to add the St. James community to the western part of Winnipeg, in that riding which you propose to call Winnipeg West, then for God's sake change the name of Winnipeg Centre to Winnipeg Centre-St. James so that our community gets some identification. We might even get some attention from our members of Parliament.

But that isn't my preferred option. I want you to go back and redraw that west Winnipeg (Winnipeg West) riding and include the St. James community and make whatever other adjustments are necessary to make our community whole, to make that riding more urban than rural, which is the way–it should be urban–and change the name back to Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley, which would be on–a more accurate reflection of the communities that are in that urban federal constituency.

End of submission.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

J. Eadie: Thanks.

Madam Chairperson: Sorry if I'm mispronouncing. It is–

Vaibhav Varma: That's okay. It's Vaibhav Varma.

Madam Chairperson: Vaibhav, Vaibhav. Thank you. Vaibhav, Vaibhav.

V. Varma: Well, thank you, everyone. I wanted to thank the commission and the opportunity to speak here today. This is an important part of our democracy and our democratic process, and I feel very privileged to be a part of this and have an opportunity to represent my community and the organization I represent.

Just a personal introduction about myself. My name is Vaibhav Varma. I am here on behalf of the Winnipeg South Conservative Association, which is the official EDA of Winnipeg South, representing the Conservative Party. I am a third year honours student at the University of Manitoba, studying political studies and history.

But I'm not only here representing the Winnipeg South Conservative Association; I'm also representing myself as a resident of this constituency. I was born in Winnipeg South, and I have lived in Winnipeg South my entire life. My mother was born and raised in Winnipeg South as well, so I have a comprehensive understanding of this riding and the various boundaries and demographic features, as well as the projected growth of this riding.

We can all understand that this is one of the fastest growing, if not the fastest growing, community and area of our city, but with that I have some critical concerns with some of the proposed boundary changes, especially with the northern boundary of our constituency in Winnipeg South, and I'm here to discuss those changes and offer some suggestions and reasoning as to why some of these boundaries were poorly drawn.

So, as I mentioned, the Winnipeg South Conservative Association represents the Conservative party in Winnipeg South, which also represents more than 1,600 Conservative party members in this constituency. So the–our EDA and our association have taken into consideration the three guiding principles that have defined by these boundary redistribution, primarily voter parity, growth projections, as well as keeping communities together. And the basis of my presentation today hinges on the concern that the proposed boundary changes in Winnipeg South breaks the third pillar–keeping communities together–because what has happened is a commu- nity has been completely cut in half arbitrarily.

So, I'll first discuss the three primary changes to Winnipeg South. First, Whyte Ridge and Linden Ridge have now been moved to Winnipeg South Centre. Bridgewater Lakes and half of Bridgewater Centre have been moved to Winnipeg South Centre, with the new boundary being Bison Drive and a section of St. Vital South. St. Vital south of Bishop Grandin Boulevard and east of River Road until St. Mary's moves into St. Boniface- St. Vital–[interjection]–Bridgewater Lakes and half of Bridgewater Centre have now been moved to Winnipeg South Centre.

So, as I mentioned, obviously this is one of the fastest growing areas of our city and there needs to be changes to this constituency as a whole, but my primary concern is with Bridgewater and the breakup of that community through these new boundaries.

So, the proposed splitting of Bridgewater, in our view and in the association's view, does not seem appro- priate. I'll explain that the neighbourhoods of Bridgewater, which were designed as one major neighbourhood by the same developers, consist of Bridgewater Forest, Bridgewater Trails, Bridgewater Lakes, and they share a common retail community and residential community known as Bridgewater Centre.

And these sub-neighbourhoods, part of the greater neighbourhoods of Bridgewater, collectively share major roadways, walking trails, playgrounds, retail centres, and there's no distinction between these two–between these four neighbourhoods. You know, I can speak for myself, residents use the same businesses in these regions. They are on the south side of Bishop Grandin Boulevard and Kenaston highway. They're almost their own com- munity and they're very much isolated from the city.

But what has happened is the new boundary is–cuts right through Bridgewater Centre and effectively puts Bridgewater Lakes and the northern half of Bridgewater Centre into Winnipeg South Centre instead of keeping the entirety of Bridgewater into Winnipeg South.

So, what we recommend is that Bridgewater–the entirety of Bridgewater stays together and the new boundary, instead of having them at Bison Drive, be moved north to continue from Bishop Grandin Boulevard.

And then in the major one kilometre distance field between Whyte Ridge and Bridgewater there is a section of power lines and there's no development there because of those hydro and electric lines, which would be an appropriate boundary to keep these and I have attached maps at the back of my presentation.

But I'd also like to talk about, for example, cutting Bridgewater Centre in half. For example, most of Bridgewater Centre consists of condominiums that look identical, and by putting the boundary with Bison Drive the northern–the condominiums on the northern half of Bison Drive look exactly the same and were built at the same time by the same developer as the ones south of Bison Drive because it was intended as one major com- munity known as Bridgewater Centre. But now, about 10 metres apart, these two condominiums would be voting for different candidates and would represented by two entirely different MPs despite being exactly the same.

As well as, like I mentioned, many residents don't know when they are crossing into new areas of Bridgwater because it was designed as one major unit, so by having them in two different constituencies, this would cause massive confusion amongst the residents of this area, and I think it would really impact the representation of this area.

And part of this–the new boundary commission and the redistribution moves Whyte Ridge and Linden Ridge, which were originally part of Winnipeg South, to Winnipeg South Centre. We believe this is an appro- priate change because both Whyte Ridge and Linden Ridge are very similar to Lindenwoods, which has already been moved to Winnipeg South Centre. So that would keep that entire community together. It does not make sense to keep that as part of Winnipeg South.

But what it appears has happened is that Bridgwater Lakes and the northern half of Bridgwater Centre have been grouped together with Whyte Ridge and they have no similarities whatsoever. They're separated, like I said, by a giant field with electrical hydro lines and they have nothing in common. But what has happened is they've been lumped in with that group.

So I acknowledge that there are major population changes in this region, but it doesn't justify the fact that this community, the neighbourhoods of Bridgwater, has been effectively cut in half. For instance, neighbourhoods like Sage Creek, River Heights, Tuxedo, River Park South, these are all major communities, but they've been kept intact. I don't understand why Bridgwater is any different.

And so I have drawn some maps and I have indicated the entire region of Bridgwater, and it's shaded in blue. And, like I mentioned, it includes Bridgwater Forest, Bridgwater Lakes, Bridgwater Centre and Bridgwater Trails, and acts as almost a subcommunity. It's a very suburban area and it's–it is very separate from the rest of this city, especially north of Bishop Grandin Boulevard and Kenaston Boulevard. It has no similarities to Fort Whyte, it has no similarities to Linden Ridge and it should not be included in those areas.

We believe that, in keeping and being consistent with the three guiding principles of the commission, that this community be kept together as outlined as the third guiding pillar of the redistribution process, and suggest that the new boundary, instead of being Bison Drive, be moved north to the power lines in between Whyte Ridge and the northern half of Bridgwater Lakes. This would be immensely more appropriate and would keep a com- munity together–a community that is new, that is growing, that is developing, that is developing a sense of identity and community. There are already several neighbourhood associations in Bridgwater, representing the entirety of Bridgwater.

One of the struggles that I, as a resident, have been noticing is that there is a lack of sense of community, and what this redistribution would do would further sever that lack of engagement between the entire community because the community would feel even more isolated than they already do being split up into two different constituencies. So instead of breaking up this constituency, I believe that the entirety of Bridgwater should stay together so it can develop that sense of camaraderie and being a complete neighbourhood as it continues to grow and being part of Winnipeg South and the rest of the southern half of Winnipeg.

So, in closing, our recommendations would be to keep Bridgwater together as an–as it currently stands, Bridgwater is broken apart and it breaks the third guiding principle of the Manitoba commission.

So I would like to, again, thank the commission for the opportunity to speak here today and all the commissioners for all your hard work. I understand that this is a–this is not an easy task and I do appreciate the

opportunity for consultation with community members because those of us who live in these communities, have grown up in these communities, have a very comprehensive understanding of what these boundaries should look like and how to keep these neighbourhoods together.

So thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Next on the list, James Bezan.

James Bezan: Good afternoon–or, good evening. And it's indeed a pleasure to be able to join you as a–the member from Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman to talk about predominantly the changes that are proposed for Selkirk- Interlake-Eastman.

But first of all, I want to say congratulations to the commission. I appreciate the hard work it is in trying to figure out how to do population redistribution. I strongly believe in representation by population and I think that those of us, as elected officials, want to make sure that we all have an equal voice representing the constituents that have elected us to the Canadian House of Commons.

I completely endorse the guiding principles in trying to keep, as best as possible, communities linked together, taking into consideration, you know, natural trade routes, community togetherness and how different communities and municipalities operate together. I would encourage the commission to make sure that as much as possible, in rural Manitoba, to keep municipalities within one electoral district versus another.

When you start splitting municipalities between members of Parliament, even of the same political party, they will try sometimes to play one MP off the other. So, as best as possible, keeping municipalities within one electoral district, I think, is laudable.

I would just say in–from the comments that have been made already and I'm–you have my presentation and I'm not going to go into much detail on that, although I'll hit some of the highlights but, you know, I would again say that we need to look at rural versus urban. Know for the fact that those of us representing rural ridings have logistical challenges.

I do appreciate the fact that the Churchill riding, Churchill-Keewatinook Aski is 76 per cent of the geographic land mass of Manitoba and know that you're trying to increase the population there and knowing that there is population challenges with that riding as it continues to decline, as it's documented over the last 30 years. We need to consider that a lot of those communities are fly-in only. It's very difficult for the MP up there, Niki Ashton at the time, to get to all those ridings.

Mr. Eadie makes a comment about, you know, not seeing his MP right here in Winnipeg. It's even more challenging when you start looking at rural areas. You know, just this past weekend, just working on Saturday and Sunday, I drove over 500 kilometers going to community events and meeting with constituents around the riding; and that was just two days' work, 500 kilometers, you know.

If you can't get your MP to Remembrance Day in the city of Winnipeg that's, you know, five kilometers down the road, you've got a different issue. That's a different problem that you need to be talking to your Member of Parliament about.

I would say, you know, and you look at Remembrance Days in rural areas, like they all happen at the same time: 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. I've, in my 18 years, have only got–I've done Remembrance Day every year and I've only done a duplication twice; that I've been able to get to two communities that I've gone to the Remembrance Day service in the past. And both situations, they were over 10 years apart. So that just puts things and, I think, into a little bit of perspective.

I would just say that in my observations, as I noted, the–I did question the splitting off of 80 people within the RM of Portage la Prairie to add them to the new riding of Winnipeg West. To me it makes little sense again. Try to keep municipalities all together.

I would also say that the RM of Woodlands–I made one error there. I put in there that they're part of the South Interlake Planning District. They are not. But I'll just say this: that they have a lot more in common with

Interlake municipalities and communities than they have with other municipalities in the Portage-Lisgar riding. Moving Woodlands into Portage-Lisgar, again, I think that doesn't take into consideration the community connectedness as well as the traditional trade routes and the economics and industrial behaviour within that municipality.

They have a lot in common with the town of Stonewall, as I've already pointed out, in the RM of Rockwood but they're also very well connected to the RM of St. Laurent, as well. Twin Lakes Beaches is something that they've been developing alongside with the RM of St. Laurent. The challenges of Lake Manitoba with the flooding that we've experienced in the past, as well as the Interlake droughts that we have are things that impact on Woodlands, the same way it impacts St. Laurent, the same way it impacts on Rockwood, Armstrong and all the other municipalities in the Interlake.

I accept the fact that we have Provencher, which is the fastest growing riding in Manitoba, with Winnipeg South, that we need to take in consideration the rapidly growing population there. And so adding the RM of Whitemouth to Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman, as was done previously with the additions of Lac du Bonnet and Pinawa 10 years ago, I accept the fact that we need to move population into the riding. But I would just again highlight three points that I made, which is, one is to keep the RM of Woodlands in the riding of Selkirk- Interlake-Eastman, bringing back in just about 3,800 citizens; that the Portage-Lisgar riding maintain the entire RM of Portage la Prairie–that impacts 80 people–that the–to balance off and making sure that the growth within Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman isn't too greatly impeded going forward; that the RM of Rosser, as already been suggested by Mr. Fletcher, be considered to be added into the new riding of Winnipeg West.

Now, I've had the honour of representing the RM of Rosser for the past 18 years. It has been an incredible municipality and so I am torn in me making the suggestion that should go to another electoral district. But RM of Rosser does have a lot in common; it is part of the metropolitan capital region; it is part of CentrePort; it–part of the–Winnipeg international airport, lies in the RM of Rosser. So there is a lot of connection between the RM and city of Winnipeg already. So when you make those adjustments, I believe that you will still end up, as I've documented in my presentation, within the–for those three ridings of Portage-Lisgar, Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman and the new Winnipeg West, you'd still be within the deviation that you want of plus or minus 5 per cent of provincial average.

I would also just say that I have discussed this with both Members of Parliament, Marty Morantz and Candice Bergen, and they accepted these suggestions.

Happy to answer any questions, if you have.

Lori Schellekens: Good evening. I did not intend it as written, but I will get this back to you. I apologize for that.

Madam Chairperson: That is fine. It's, as I said, the–what's–the proceedings are being recorded and there will be a transcript made.

L. Schellekens: Okay, thank you.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for having me here today.

When you look at the Interlake, you look to the west Interlake. We are the gateway–excuse me–to the Interlake if you're going up to Thompson. The economic drivers are different into the Interlake–from the Interlake to Portage-Lisgar. In the Interlake we have fishing–sorry, I'm the reeve from the RM of Woodlands; I apologize for that.

So we have fishing, dairy, beef, pork operations, along with grain farming. That is our staples, whereas Lisgar–Portage-Lisgar is more of a horticultural grower, vegetables, fruits, greenhouses and a share of grain also.

The Interlake has been in existence for over 100 years. This makes a lot of history and strong community

ties.

We are also part of the Interlake caucus who is made up of mayors and reeves from at least 14 RMs. This is

a group that problem-solves for the Interlake residents and shares their wealth of knowledge, and we can also bring issues to the AMM that are distinct to the Interlake for resolution.

A lot of the regional projects we work with include the RMs of St. Laurent, RM of Armstrong, and the RM of Fisher, and the towns of Teulon and Stonewall.

We share a lot of services for our residents and they mostly access the east for those. Some of the examples would be the personal-care home in Stonewall, and there's a new regional project for a new PCH that is in the books–in the works.

A water treatment plant in Stonewall is bringing treated water to the town of Warren in Woodlands. We share the SAMS van and the Teulon Handi-van. Doctors, diagnosis–diagnostics and hospital services are in Stonewall and Selkirk, and we also share a bylaw officer with Stonewall.

A large part of our projects and services are focused on utilizing things in the east and some may go to Portage if they live in the northwest corner of the RM.

Our population who lives here, whether they work–they may work in the RM or they work in the neighbouring towns east of us, which would be Stonewall, Selkirk and Winnipeg. The RM of Woodlands is growing, but by the estimated numbers for 2002's census, it was 35–3,515; 2007, they had predicted 30–3,656; 2012, they predicted 3,547; 2021, it was 3,045; and as to date, we are at 3,521. So in 20 years, we've only really gained 200–or 121 people in 20 years.

So my question would be this: Because we really are not growing fast, could the increase to Portage-Lisgar come from the west side, taking in consideration of McGregor, Pilot Mound, Crystal City or Rosser?

As James has told you, we do share Twin Lake beaches with St. Laurent, so we do have close ties with them. We are a team during the good times and the bad. Water is and will always be the one emergency that is not if, but when will it impact us.

The MP and the MLAs know and have lived through some of the worst times in the Interlake due to the water. Having leaders who understand this problem makes it easier to try to get help in a timely fashion because we don't have to stop and explain it over and over.

I understand boundaries must adjust. It is my hope that the residents can come off–that the change in–sorry, in boundaries [inaudible] come from another place.

We are proud to be called Interlake people.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

L. Schellekens: And I'll get the copy to this.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

Haojun Li? I'm sorry, I'm sure I mispronounced your name. Could you pronounce it for me?

Haojun Li: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Haojun Li. I happen to live on the edge of the new proposed Winnipeg South. I can see Bison Drive from my backyard. And, forgive me, I've never spoken on this kind of occasion, so maybe I wouldn't be looking very, you know, good; I don't wear a suit like many people.

Madam Chairperson: That's absolutely no concern.

H. Li: Okay. And–what am I going to say–so, what Vaibhav just said pretty much overlaps what I'm going to say. But I would like to say it from a different perspective.

I came to this country roughly a month–roughly a year and a month ago. And I don't study politics, I don't have any party affiliation. I do have some political opinion, like everybody does. So I wanted, you know, to talk about what I'm going to say from a regular-folk perspective.

So, I live–I just said where I live, so, like, when I looked at this new proposal map that the split of Bridgwater seems very confusing to me. So Bridgwater, as a whole, is a very new community. The houses are–most of them are built in last decade. There are still many new constructions going on.

So, at the same time, many movers to these communities are new immigrants, are students like myself, so we rely on each other as a whole in Bridgwater because we are new to this country. We found each other; we have deep bonds with each other.

And so, like the commission just mentioned, you want to keep the existing community in its own shape, so I don't think it's a good idea to split this existing Bridgwater community into half, because I know many people who live on the other side of Bison Drive, on the other side of Kenaston Boulevard; we are always together. We go to dinner to each. When we–when they want a nanny, I be their nanny. When I'm hungry, I go to their homes for dinner. So you can see we're a big family.

So I–this new map looks kind of bizarre. I don't know why you choose to do this way. And I understand because the population is ripe–is rapidly growing in Winnipeg South. It's a new construction, new communities are being built, so you want to follow the ongoing population trend.

But, like I said, many new residents of this–of Winnipeg South are international students because there is the U of M and also new immigrants who have–who are not yet eligible to vote, or many of them have no intention to gain Canadian citizenship among many reasons. Like, I can tell you many Chinese new immigrants have no intention to gain citizenship because China doesn't allow dual citizenship and many of Chinese want to keep their Chinese citizenship.

So if we really go by this map, I think you will see the lowest proportion of eligible voters in prairie provinces. That's what I think. So I don't think that's a good example of democratic representation.

And–I don't prepare a script, like you don't have my script, so I think I have finished what I say and by the very end I want to thank this–the commission. I'm very grateful and feel very privileged for this participation in this democratic process, which would not be possible in my country of origin.

Thank you so much.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

Floor Comment: I'd like to withdraw my intention to submit a presentation at this hearing.

Madam Chairperson: And Terry Duguid? Not here? All right.

So those are all of our speakers. I'm just wondering if there's any observers here tonight that haven't had an opportunity to speak that want to say something. Or if there's anybody who feels in a minute or two they can say what they felt like they didn't get a chance to say, but this is like what we would call our reply in the courtroom. It better be about something new and it better be brief.

No? All right.

On behalf of the commission I would like–[interjection]–go ahead. Sure.

Dr. Paul Thomas: This is my fourth time in doing this commission work. Each time it's never been a sell-out crowd, but there's always been things to learn, and you pick three people from political science and legal back- grounds–judicial backgrounds, and you ask them to ask them to think about a province which is vast in territory, highly diverse in regional economic terms, all sorts of sociological differences, and you ask them to imagine a line drawn on a map and balance a series of considerations. There's no way they're going to get it perfectly the first time around nor when you've had four tries, like I have.

So, I know I've heard things tonight that I didn't fully appreciate, and that's the value of these hearings, and that's the value of the written submissions. And we've done an innovation this time. We've put the written submissions up online so that other interested parties, MPs, local government officials, party association repre- sentatives, regular citizens, could see other people who are trying to influence the thinking of the commission. I think that's a valuable additional step, and I think it's produced some interesting feedback that we wouldn't have captured if we went to these public hearings just alone.

So, I want to thank people who turn out. You know, one wise person once said that they gave up on demo- cracy when they realized it would take too many Monday evenings, and this is not a Monday evening, but it takes effort and time and expense to think about these things. And it's complicated.

And so I just wanted to say I'm–as a veteran of this, I'm very grateful. I always learn these things because you can't know everything about communities. I heard some things tonight which were very persuasive, I must say, without disclosing more than that.

So, I just wanted to thank you.

Dr. Kelly Saunders: Yes, I'm just going to echo what my colleagues have said.

As a political science professor, this makes my heart sing to have all of you come out and to put the time and the energy into thinking through these issues, very vital issues. This is what democracy is all about. So, thank you so much for the time and energy you've put into this. And, as my colleagues have said, you've given us lots of food for thought.

So please be assured, we've heard you very carefully and we will go back and certainly incorporate to the extent possible many of your comments and concerns tonight.

So, thank you. [interjection]

Madam Chairperson: Who are you, sir? Bob Foster? Okay, come to the microphone, sir, because we are recording.

Robert Foster: Yes, the name's Foster. And I appreciate [inaudible] All I wanted to do was set the [inaudible]

community [inaudible].

Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

So, I will just–yes?

Lorna Broadfoot: Can I speak, too? Hi, I'm Lorna Broadfoot. I'm the deputy reeve at the RM of Woodlands, and I really want you to pay attention to rural and urban as you take this into consideration, please. We're rural, in case you didn't know.

Madam Chairperson: Is that it?

Okay, thank you all.

I also want to thank each and every one of you for speaking in such an articulate manner and taking the time to come here today and share your views with us. I share the view of my colleagues that yes, indeed, we have heard you, and there are things that you have said to us tonight that we did not earlier consider in our deliberations. We will take everything that you say seriously, and we'll consider it in–as we continue on after we finish hearing presentations on this.

So, thank you very much once again.

Hearing concluded.