Federal electoral districts redistribution 2022

Public Hearing Winnipeg, Manitoba (Virtual Hearing) September 20, 2022 – 7 p.m

List of Intervenors

Madam Chairperson (Honourable Justice Diana M. Cameron): Diana Cameron, and I'm a judge at the Manitoba Court of Appeal. This evening, however, I'm here as the Chairperson of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Manitoba.

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. He's the one who makes sure the commission runs smoothly and that everything 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 that assists us with all technical, numerical and numerical aspects of the map-drawing process.

We greatly appreciate the expertise of both of them and thank them for their valued assistance.

But I also want to thank all of you here tonight for taking part in this important democratic process.

This commission is an independent and impartial tribunal. We draw our mandate from the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The exercise must remain non-partisan. While we resist any attempt to manipulate the electoral districts to favour one political party over another, we encourage participation by everyone, including our MPs, who have valuable input–excuse me.

I assume that you've read our proposal. I would emphasize that it's not etched in stone. It is not our final report. We will consider all suggestions and then look at them as a whole. As you know, changing one electoral boundary will necessarily affect another. When a major change is brought, oftentimes that change will have a domino effect on others. Therefore, we will have to consider the cumulative effect of what is being proposed.

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

So, tonight our role is to listen, 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–I think as of tonight–12 requests to speak tonight. Time limits ensure that everyone has an opportunity to speak. Therefore, I will ask that everyone's presentation be no longer than 10 minutes. If you feel that you are not able to present to us 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 the hearing.

For those who so kindly provided written submissions, I want to assure you that we've read them and have a copy of them. If they are not already there, they will be posted on our website.

For your information, all of the public hearings are audio recorded, and the transcripts of those recordings will be made available on the website along with transcripts of the recordings for the duration of the commission's work. All the written submissions to the commission will be posted regardless of whether a representation has been made.

I would just like to take a brief moment to explain the technology. The members of the commission are in a meeting room, virtual. The presenters and observers are in a webinar. The order of the presenters has been deter- mined by the order in which we received notice of their intent to make a representation.

I will call the name of the presenter and our technician will place that person in the meeting room with us for the duration of their presentation. If time permits, we may, at our discussion, hear from those present who have not already presented or provided notice. If you fall into that category, please put up your virtual hand prior to the end of the meeting.

I would encourage all of the presenters to wear headsets if they have them. The headsets will assist in the transcriptions of the presentations. The headsets will be required for our meeting on September 22nd in order to facilitate simultaneous translation at the hearing.

So, having said that, I would start with our first person, who I don't actually see as being here in the meeting, Yves Hacault, so I will move to the second person for now, which is Daniel Blaikie.

Daniel Blaikie: All right.

Is my sound coming through? Are you able to hear me?

Madam Chairperson: Mr. Blaikie?

Are you ready to present, sir?

D. Blaikie: I am, thank you. Can you hear me okay?

Madam Chairperson: Yes, we can hear you.

D. Blaikie: Okay, right on.

Well, first of all, I just want to start by thanking everyone on the commission for your work. I know it's a challenging job and it's difficult to please everyone. So I thank you for the work you've done and the work that you will do between now and your final report.

And I just wanted to offer, as somebody who's represented the area for about seven years now, a few thoughts about the proposed changes. In particular, when I look at what is proposed to be included in the riding, from the point of view of the RM of Springfield, I would note that–I mean, I think one of the features of Elmwood- Transcona for some time now is that it's been a uniquely urban riding. And so this is a significant change in terms of the kind of riding that Elmwood-Transcona would be.

It's a change that does not appear to bring a lot of residents with it, but it does bring the work of having a relationship with at least two other municipal councillors from outside of Winnipeg, which currently is not part of that work. It means relating to another member of the Legislative Assembly for that area.

And it also means that where there has been friction–and there has been between the part of the RM of Springfield that is within the limits of the city of Winnipeg and the residents that live near that part of the RM– there has sometimes been conflict when that largely industrial area of the RM of Springfield–either new dev- elopments within that area, commercial, industrial developments or a change in practice for existing industry within that area. And it has been–I think it has served residents well to have somebody who represents the area where people live without feeling a sense of obligation, shall we say, to that commercial area or a duty of repre- sentation to the area itself.

As I say, not a lot of residents within the proposed boundary change, but a fair amount of additional admin- istrative work, I think, in order to be able to do the job of representing the entire riding well. And in some cases, it will be more challenging when there's friction between the RM of Springfield and Winnipeg residents who live directly adjacent to that industrial area within the RM. So, something that I wanted to share with the com- mission as part of your ongoing work.

Likewise, I think that, you know, adding the area of East Mint, it is a fair ways away from the current riding of Elmwood-Transcona. It crosses a rail boundary. It includes, now relating to the MLA, I believe, for Southdale is the MLA that represents that part of the city. It means dealing with yet another city councillor on issues that occur there. So I do think, you know, if you compare that to Harbour View South, where it falls under the same municipal representation, it falls under similar provincial representation already.

I'm concerned that the effect is to take what is a pretty nice, tight riding, which are hard to come by in the electoral map, in part because of the difficulty of the kinds of work that folks like you on the commission are asked to do. But I think Elmwood-Transcona and Winnipeg-Transcona before, it had succeeded in being a pretty nice, tight urban riding with a very good community of interest between the communities that are being represented, and I think that this proposal challenges that kind of historical integrity of the riding.

So, I just wanted to offer those up as important considerations for you to contemplate in the balance of your work. And I thank you very much for allowing me the time to do that and the ability to do that remotely, I might add, as I'm currently in Ottawa. So, I appreciate both that flexibility and your time.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

So, the next person that I have on the list is Tracy Schmidt. I don't know if Tracy Schmidt is here in the meeting.

Tracy Schmidt: Good evening.

Madam Chairperson: Hello, Ms. Schmidt.

T. Schmidt: Hello, thank you.

I'd like to thank the commission for their time this evening and for the previous presenter for putting together their thoughts about political representation in our community. And I offer my thoughts this evening as a lifelong resident of the great riding of Elmwood-Transcona.

Today, I'll be presenting on Elmwood-Transcona and the proposed changes for northeast Winnipeg, and I name the municipality there intentionally as, for at least the last 20 years, the riding of Elmwood-Transcona has been an urban riding squarely inside the city limits. There is great commonality found between the areas of Elmwood, Concordia and Transcona as neighbourhoods within the city of Winnipeg.

The commission's proposal for the new boundaries deviates drastically from the current map and tradition, particularly with Elmwood-Transcona, by incorporating large sections of the rural municipality of Springfield. The sections included are largely industrial and it would be a stretch to find a true commonality of interest for representation for the few constituents in those areas.

Similarly, the businesses in those areas will certainly not have much in common with the residents of Elmwood or even with the residents of Transcona. There have certainly been times in recent memory that the practices of the commercial businesses in the RM of Springfield have negatively impacted the residents of Transcona. The previous speaker, the Member of Parliament, has already spoken to that.

Moving into specific areas of inclusion and exclusion as proposed by the commission, I'd like to express my opposition to the exclusion of Harbour View South from Elmwood-Transcona. The residents of Harbour View South have much more in common with the interests of the residents of old Transcona than they do with the residents of East St. Paul. Harbour View South residents frequent the shops of Transcona. They eat and they work and they shop and they go to school in Transcona.

While on the map, certainly, there could be a need to carve out, they identify as a community that has developed and continues to develop in between Transcona and Concordia. Excluding Harbour View South from Elmwood-Transcona would prevent residents from being represented by a community that they've been a part of for their whole lives.

The next community I'd like to highlight in the commission's proposed boundaries is the community of East Mint, which would be an inclusion–a new inclusion. This inclusion is significantly further south than the riding's identity currently reaches. Geographically, the boundary line has awkwardly severed the neighbourhood of East Mint away from the neighbouring communities of St. Boniface and Southdale and Island Lakes. Those commu- nities not only–those are communities that the East Mint not only borders, but residents would certainly identify as being a part of, likely having much more in common with the good people of Southdale than Transcona. Moreover, the inclusion of East Mint in Elmwood-Transcona disregards the natural barrier of the train tracks.

For both those geographical reasons, as well as the interest of maintaining cohesion within the community of representation, East Mint should continue to be represented by the MP for St. Boniface-St. Vital, in my opinion.

While I understand that changes have to be made to accommodate the growth in population in northeast Winnipeg, for the reasons I previously stated, I don't agree with the exclusion of Harbour View South in favour of the addition of East Mint.

I also don't believe it benefits anyone's representations–sorry–representation with the addition of the rural municipality of Springfield. If the commission were to go back to the current boundaries as a base line and look to where cohesive changes could be made, I would urge them to look at adjusting the northern boundary of the riding along Oakland. Adjustments north or south, depending on what the commission believes is necessary, would maintain Elmwood-Transcona's identity as an urban-suburban riding and allow flexibility to maintain cohesive representation for the aforementioned neighbourhoods that, while distinct, share many common traits and interests in respect of infrastructure and other public services.

And those are my submissions subject to any questions.

Madam Chairperson: I actually did have one question I was just hoping that you would repeat.

You said maybe adjust the northern boundary to where?

T. Schmidt: So, along Oakland Avenue was my proposal.

I'm just looking at my map here, trying to–so, here we go. So, the–both the current and the proposed boundaries run down Oakland. I'm sorry, I believe perhaps what I meant to say is move it south.

Madam Chairperson: Oh, okay.

T. Schmidt: I may have–[interjection]

Madam Chairperson: Move it to the south?

T. Schmidt: –I may have been–I may have had my map oriented in the wrong direction when I spoke.

Madam Chairperson: Okay.

T. Schmidt: Let me just look a my map here for a second.

Madam Chairperson: Sure.

T. Schmidt: Just reviewing what I presented.

There we go–looking–so, yes, not adjusting the–but adjusting the northern boundary south to accommodate the inclusion of the Harbour View South area.

Madam Chairperson: Okay, thank you.

T. Schmidt: Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

So the next person on the list, then, is Mr. Simarpreet Singh.

Simarpreet Singh: Hi, can you hear me?

Madam Chairperson: Yes, I–we can hear you. Thank you.

S. Singh: Okay, great.

Hello, my name is Simarpreet Singh, and I'm here to present on the proposed changes the commission has put forward for Winnipeg–

Madam Chairperson: Mr. Singh, you're frozen.

S. Singh: –vital and an inclusion for Elmwood-Transcona.

Madam Chairperson: Could you start that from the beginning, sir?

S. Singh: Sure.

I'd like to discuss the community of East Mint, which I am a resident of and which is a proposed exclusion for St. Boniface-St. Vital and an inclusion for Elmwood-Transcona.

This change strikes me as peculiar for two reasons: (1) it isolates the community from the areas it shares and identifies with, and (2) it brings the boundaries significantly further south than it has traditionally reached, crossing the train tracks.

Looking at the current boundaries, East Mint shares representation with the neighbourhoods of St. Boniface, Southdale and Island Lakes. An important characteristic all these neighbourhoods share, aside from the proximity, is that they are all communities south of the train–

Madam Chairperson: He seems to–we seem to have lost Mr. Singh.

S. Singh: I'm sorry. I think I was cut off.

Madam Chairperson: Yes, really, I think what had happened, Mr. Singh–I don't know–you froze and then the picture went away. But where you were–what you were at the point where you were at is you were saying–you saying that you were–shared the boundaries with St. Boniface, Southdale and Island Lakes, all south of the train tracks, and that's the last that I was able to pick up from you.

S. Singh: Okay, great.

So, these are the areas that have flourished and grown around the industrial areas just to their north. All of these neighbourhoods being represented by the MP for St. Boniface-St. Vital not only provides [inaudible] but it respects that East Mint shares identity and interests with its surrounding neighbourhoods by virtue of geography.

With this in mind, I hope the commission will reconsider its suggestion to move East Mint into Elmwood- Transcona and will maintain the neighbourhood's representation with the MP for St. Boniface-St. Vital.

Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

So, we'll move then to the next person on the list, which is Gordon Landriault.

Gordon Landriault: Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

Dr. Paul Thomas: Yes.

G. Landriault: Thank you.

Good afternoon, panel and thank you for this opportunity to present. I believe you have a copy of the brief I submitted, so I don't have to require to read it, but I can talk about parts of it.

Madam Chairperson: Yes, that's fine.

G. Landriault: Okay.

Basically, 10 years ago you made the Churchill-Keewatinook Aski riding very much larger by including seven First Nations in the Interlake area and excluding all the other–rest of the community, gerrymandering just the First Nations in.

This time, you are looking at adding onto the west side of Churchill-Keewatinook Aski, the west side of the lake and out to the Saskatchewan border, a large portion of land there and communities, and really not adding anything in landmass into the existing Interlake area except for a little bit of Gypsumville and only half the street–down one half the community, not even the whole community of Gypsumville–and still excluding St. Martin and Grahamdale and all them other places that already would drive by to service some First Nation communities.

And now, like I said, on the west side of the lake, you want to add a large area that has nothing in common with the existing riding of Churchill. It's mainly agricultural communities and agricultural based–should be more within Swan River. The two communities that could be added that has a common interest within the riding is the two First Nations communities, Sapotaweyak and Wuskwi Sipikh Cree nation. They belong to the Swampy Cree Tribal Council. And the tribal council was based out of The Pas and works out of The Pas.

So it would make sense to add them, but not to add the rest of the area. They–it should be excluded and left where it is in Swan River, the–Dauphin, Neepawa, because that riding is not overpopulated as it is, and they're not above the threshold.

And so you've based your report and recommendation, from what I can see, basically on keeping the popu- lation threshold within the plus or minus 5 per cent, not taking into account the landmass of servicing. If–the riding's already the third largest in Canada with the largest number of communities–80-plus communities being serviced now by one MP, four fifths of the province of Manitoba. Inuvik, a larger riding, only has 25 commu- nities to service.

You're proposing to add on another 20 communities and expect them to have democracy within the system. You're taking democracy from the people by making it so large the MP would never be able to communicate and visit them communities on a personal basis.

I would suggest to the commission that if you made Winnipeg with one MP and then the rest of the province with two more, they wouldn't be able to service them communities easier and better and represent democracy better to the people than what you're proposing with Churchill and what presently exists in Churchill because of the challenges of serving the riding now.

In Saskatchewan, the commission there has recognized the challenges of serving remote and–communities and inaccessible communities don't have roads, and made the riding actually smaller and ignored the population threshold.

Northern Ontario, provincially, basically done the same thing in northern Ontario when they created the riding in Keewatinook. To give better service and democracy to the people, they carved out a new riding prov- incially and made a new riding there.

The Manitoba commission, over the last number of boundary changes, has totally ignored that part of the legislation that allows for rural and northern populations not to be part of the population threshold when looking at boundary changes.

I thank you for your time and I like to–I have submitted a written brief outlining the proposed changes, and I would be glad to answer any questions.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you, sir. I don't have any questions.

So, thank you very much. I don't know–I don't see that my colleagues have any questions. It doesn't look like.

So, thank you very much for your presentation, sir, and we will have your written submission–we have your written submission, and as you know, there–they'll be–they're posted on the Internet. Thank you.

The next person on the list is James McAllister.

James McAllister: I'm not showing up. I don't know. Things working here? There we are. Okay. Always have fun with the camera on Zoom calls.

Thanks very much to the commission for this–for all the hard work they do, for starters, and secondly, for this opportunity to join online. It would not be possible for me to attend any of the in-person sessions in Winnipeg or Brandon or Steinbach, so this is the only chance I get to speak directly to the commission.

I'd like to do a shout-out first to Professor Thomas and Professor Saunders, both of whom I've known for many years. And I'm sure they're having a lot of fun with being on the commission and doing a great job for the people of Manitoba and Canada.

I've sent in a revised submission couple of weeks back, and it's the assumption of that submission that the redistribution of boundaries should take into account a service role–or, what I call the service role, the manat of members of Parliament. Political scientists sometimes look at the service role and–of MPs and–but often push it aside and stress the policy-making aspect. And I think that's a mistake.

It's important to see how MPs spend their time and how they operationalize their priorities and how they carry out their day-to-day affairs, business affairs. I looked up one of my old textbooks from political science 200, and it describes the process in this fashion–defines a service role: All MPs perform the daily function of ombudsman or social workers for their individual constituents in intervening with ministers or public servants to hasten administrative decisions, to correct bureaucratic errors and to repair government injustices. There will always be constituents with passport, immigration, employment insurance, pension and many other kinds of problems, and some MPs specialize in trying to resolve these sorts of problems.

The textbook goes on to talk about the caseload of MPs. It's about–it quotes the figure of 42 per cent of what an MP does. And it quotes David Docherty, who just happens to be the president of Brandon University, while writing in one of his–back in the republications.

So, between this third and a half of MP's time taken up by this service role, it's important to recognize the geographic barriers within which they must contend. Electoral districts should not be so large, remote or difficult to access, and it's difficult or impossible for MPs to perform this role. Conversely, it should be recognized that MPs who represent urban areas, especially in large metropolitan cities, have an easier time in meeting their constituents. Many people in these metropolitan areas may not even know the name of their MP or how to contact them or even think of doing so.

So, I've stressed in my submission the way the commission has handled the northern riding of Churchill- Keewatinook Aski, and I think this is a problem that's gone back several decades. I made a submission 10 years ago complaining about this and, of course, was ignored. The remoteness of some of the communities, you know, say in that riding currently makes effective representation in Ottawa problematic to an extreme and the commis- sion proposes to make these problems even worse.

Now, you–we all know that no electoral district should be smaller than 75 per cent of the quotient or greater than 125 per cent of the quotient. But then there's the extraordinary circumstances clause of the legislation which allows the commission to exceed these limits. Previous commissions in Manitoba have slavishly attempted to reduce these variances to 95 per cent and 105 per cent, and this has harmed the citizens of northern Manitoba. This 5 per cent variance may have been–may be acceptable in Winnipeg or even southern Manitoba, but it is not acceptable in the sparsely populated North. And I refer in this–in my submission to three sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms–section 3 and 25 and 35–and that really are contravened by the commission's recom- mendations.

I suggested that the southern boundary of the North–of Churchill-Keewatinook Aski–should be altered such that the electoral district should not include any territory south of the 53rd parallel. I haven't seen anybody else pick up on that, but to me that's a significant boundary because it's the northern boundary of Manitoba up until 1912. Wasn't until 1912 that the area north of that even was part of Manitoba.

And what the commission is recommending, instead, is that the northern riding be increased in size to cover four fifths of the land mass of Manitoba. I thought of naming my submission The Riding That Ate Manitoba because, if this trend continues, there won't be very much that isn't in Churchill riding.

I provided a map in this submission that shows the province as it was after 1912 and how the northern Manitoba was a totally different part of Canada. And it was only then that the boundaries of Manitoba–it came to include all the territory north of the 53rd parallel.

So, other commissions in other provinces have recognized–as I think the last speaker mentioned–have recog- nized that the remoteness of the northern areas should be taken into account and that the clause that allows the province–provincial commission to set aside ridings that are less than 75 per cent of the quota could be applied to Manitoba.

Now, we know–we all have–we always–already have proposals from all of the 10 provinces. And in Ontario, one riding is only 68 per cent of the quota, and Newfoundland, 63 per cent, and Saskatchewan, 43 per cent of the quota. So, there are no other districts, as was mentioned by the last speaker, is proposed to be reduced to 45,000 people, which is far below what is being proposed by the Manitoba commission for the northern districts of the province.

In Ontario they already have a riding called Kenora, which is way below the 75 per cent of the quota, but now they're proposing a new riding across the whole landscape of the most northern part of the province, which will only have 36,000 people in it, what–68 per cent below the quotient.

The–both longstanding example is Newfoundland and Labrador, and I would really recommend to the com- mission that they read the proposals of the Newfoundland and Labrador commission, especially the section they have on extraordinary circumstances, Labrador and Newfoundland on Labrador. And it talks about how the area north Labrador was separated out as its own constituency in 1987 and its remained such ever since.

Even though the–[interjection]

Floor Comment: Sorry for interrupting. This is just your two-minute warning.

J. McAllister: –is way–population is way below the provincial quota, its only got about 26,000 people.

So, they've designated a whole paper to explaining why the area of northern Labrador is separate. And some of the arguments, I would say, apply to Manitoba, as well, to the northern riding of–in Manitoba.

I think that's all I've got to say and welcome any questions.

Madam Chairperson: I don't think that there–it doesn't look to me like there's any questions, so thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. McAllister.

The next person that I see on the list is Gloria Kelly.

Gloria Kelly: Good evening, Madam Chair.

Can you hear me?

Madam Chairperson: Yes, I can. Thank you.

G. Kelly: Good evening, panel.

To begin, I wish to thank the commission for its work and for allowing me to present this evening. I'm here as a resident of Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley riding where my family has lived for the past 14 years. This evening I will be speaking to you against part of the changes proposed for this riding located on the western side of Winnipeg and offering a possible alternative.

To be transparent, I am here tonight as a private citizen, but I am active politically, and in the riding I'm currently the chair of the Liberal EDA.

I fully understand that there is a need to have some semblance of balance when it comes to riding popula- tions, but it must be noted that there is a great advantage to having those population bases similar in nature. That's not what is proposed for Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley.

The current proposal, as it stands, would add to the riding a large swath of rural Manitoba that has absolutely no connection in any way to the urban constituency we have today on the west side of Winnipeg.

There are two parts to the proposed changes to this riding, and they are literally on opposite sides of the current boundaries. I take no issue with moving a portion of Winnipeg South Centre located in Tuxedo into the St. James–sorry–into the Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley riding, as their issues and concerns are very much the same. It is the westward movement of the constituency boundary to take in the rural municipalities of St. Francois Xavier, Cartier, and part of the RM of Portage la Prairie that is of concern.

This addition to the riding goes completely against the concept of community interest and appears to be actually based simply on the need to balance population.

Having lived in both rural and urban areas of this country, I understand that many of the issues are the same, but there are major distinct differences that must be taken into consideration. I realize that saint–Charleswood- St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley riding grew by only 2,903 voters between 2011 and 2021. This will not be the case going forward. The massive Ridgewood communities that are under way or in the planning stages will boost the population numbers in this riding significantly.

Ridgewood West–

Madam Chairperson: Excuse me, you said the–excuse me? You said the massive which communities?

G. Kelly: Ridgewood.

Madam Chairperson: Ridgewood or Bridgewood?

G. Kelly: Ridge–R–Ridgewood.

Madam Chairperson: Oh, thank you.

G. Kelly: They will–Ridgewood West's plan called for 789 single-family homes and four multi-family projects. They are under construction, with families moving in as we speak.

The larger Ridgewood South is moving into the construction phase and the original plan for this planned community indicated it could be as large as 3,000 new homes with the single- and multi-family units. There are houses for sale in the Ridgewood South that are already being listed.

As this boundary change is not scheduled to take effect until 2024, by that time, we may well have the numbers in our current boundaries to rival those that we would gain from the earl–from the rural areas we are slated to gain.

Now, as I am a believer in providing alternatives to an argument against something, I will propose the following makes more sense for this riding.

The community of St. James is currently split with part in Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley and part in Winnipeg Centre. If the boundary was moved so St. James as a whole is represented by the same Member of Parliament in Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley, that would bring a few more bits of population into our riding.

St. James has been, for many years, a very–word is not insular, but a very strong community that has its own identity. It has been split for the past number of years, and to bring it back together would be a service to that community.

With the rural areas, I believe it would make more sense to look at how Brandon-Souris, Portage-Lisgar and Dauphin-Swan River may be reorganized to better meet the needs of rural Manitobans.

Across Manitoba, the average population in ridings, I believe, is 95,868, with eight urban ridings just over that and six rural ridings just under. Thus, it would appear to make no sense to add a large chunk of rural to an urban riding when redistribution in the rural areas to the west and northwest of Winnipeg might benefit constit- uents more from such a realignment of boundaries than the current proposal.

Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Doesn't appear to me that there are any questions.

So, our next presenter, then, will be Niki Ashton.

Niki Ashton: Good evening.

Madam Chairperson: Good evening.

N. Ashton: Good evening, I'm joining you from Treaty 5 territory, the traditional territory of the 'nisawchi' Cree– Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, my home community of Thompson. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you, the commissioners, here tonight.

I'm a proud northerner, born and raised here in the North, and honoured to have been elected and re-elected as the MP for Churchill, first, and then Churchill-Keewatinook Aski since 2008.

First, as MP, I would like to state that I work to represent all constituents. If I run again and I'm to be re- elected, I will work to represent all my constituents.

Having said that, here tonight, I would like to express my opposition to the current boundary redistribution proposal. It would put Indigenous, northern and rural constituents at a disadvantage in terms of representation. It ignores the notion of communities of interest. It does not take into consideration the well-documented undercounting of Indigenous and northern communities in the census. And it is not in line with more recent moves, such as in northern Saskatchewan–a riding that we consider to be a sister riding–to not only not expand the riding, but to, in fact, reduce the size of it.

Churchill-Keewatinook Aski is currently the fourth largest constituency in Canada. Unlike Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, which is–which are the first and second, we have a significantly higher population.

I would like to give you a snapshot of how challenging it is to service a riding like ours. We have 41 First Nations, numerous northern affairs communities, rural municipalities, four urban centres. What may not be known is that 19 communities in our constituency do not have access to all-weather roads. This means that 15 communities–that this means that you can't drive to them to be able to hold office hours, meet with constit- uents, except, of course, during the winter road season.

Fifteen communities, including major First Nations such as the four Island Lake First Nations, can only be accessed by plane on a year-round basis. Two of the First Nations in our constituency, Little Grand Rapids and Pauingassi, don't even have airports and have to be accessed by other communities in periods of time outside of the all-weather road–the winter road season.

Climate change is reducing the winter road season, making living–never mind visiting and servicing–these communities even more challenging. I know we all agree that people deserve to have access to their members of Parliament and their offices, that their members of Parliament should be able to visit on a regular basis to be up to date on the issues that matter to communities. Expanding our constituency, as is proposed, makes the work of servicing our riding much more challenging.

I will also note that as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, flight schedules, particularly to our large northern centres, including here in Thompson, have been cut and have not been reinstated, making travel in our North and to places like to Winnipeg, to be able to access the southern part of our constituency, far more challenging.

Second, the current proposal ignores the notion of communities of interest. I will agree with others who have said that adding Sapotaweyak First Nation and Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation can be seen as reflecting the notion of communities of interest. These are First Nations that have connections to other First Nations in our constit- uency. They are members of the Swampy Cree Tribal Council, which is based in OCN, and made up of First Nations already in our constituency.

However, the rest of the proposal ignores the notion of communities of interest. The rest of what is proposed from the Dauphin-Swan River constituency has nothing to do with our current riding. This is a region that is very different geographically, demographically and economically from the rest of our constituency. People from communities like Bowsman and elsewhere in the proposed area do not come to The Pas or Thompson or anywhere in our constituency to access services or go shopping and therefore, are very different–very much outside of the constituency that currently exists.

Third, I would like to raise the issue of population figures. The census has routinely failed northern and Indigenous communities. During the last two census recounts–during the last two censuses, recounts have been called for by municipal and northern leaders, given serious concerns of undercounting. As MP, I have raised the concerns shared with me by northern leaders and I have supported calls for recounts. These concerns have been documented in the media. It is important that the boundary commission not fail Indigenous and northern com- munities as well by drawing lines based on what have been deemed inaccurate population figures.

Fourth, I would like to reference the fact that other constituencies with whom we have much in common, such as our neighbouring riding in northern Saskatchewan, is being made smaller. Concerns were shared there regarding challenges involving servicing the riding, and those concerns were clearly heard. I sincerely hope the same will be done here at home.

Finally, I would like to call on the boundary commission to involve reflection on the spirit of reconciliation. In a few days, we will recognize the second annual national day of truth and reconciliation. Reconciliation is work that rests with all of us, particularly with those of us who have decision-making power that will have a clear impact on Indigenous communities and the lives of Indigenous peoples–Indigenous communities that didn't even have the right to vote until just over 60 years ago. This boundary proposal makes the work of representing and servicing Indigenous communities–communities that have the most to do with the federal government–more challenging. It also 'folluse' population figures in their communities that are not accurate in many cases.

Overall, Indigenous, northern and rural communities deserve to participate equally in our democracy. They deserve representation. We deserve representation. Indigenous, northern and rural communities deserve access to their members of Parliament, their offices and the services they offer. They deserve constituencies that allow for their voices to be heard.

I appreciate the opportunity to present to you and I sincerely hope that the message shared by a number of us to not expand the riding, as is currently proposed, be strongly considered.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

I see that Mr. Thomas has a question.

Dr. Thomas: Just to follow-up on that interesting presentation, I wonder if you might tell me how many con- stituency offices you currently operate and do you have any sense of your total caseload, say, during a calendar year.

N. Ashton: Sure.

Oh, I'm not sure if you can see me. Can you hear me?

Dr. Thomas: I can hear you. Yes.

I can't see you yet, but that will happen, I think.

N. Ashton: Okay. It doesn't show the video option, so I think I may have gone–been switched back to an attendee.

I can certainly speak. So, we do have three offices: two full-time offices; one in Thompson, one in The Pas; and a part-time office in Peguis First Nation and which, of course, is part of the riding redistribution in the last go around.

And what we've done, and certainly we did on a regular basis before COVID, was hold regular office hours in communities across our constituency. I would do winter road office hour clinics and summer visits, as well, that involved office hours.

So, we certainly bring–and this is not just, of course, me, it's actually almost our entire staff team–that hits the road with me to be able to hold office hours and take in casework and, you know, canvass constituents as we go into every community. And so, when I speak of the challenges of travel throughout the riding, it's–I know it well from the work we've done on that front.

In terms of the question on caseloads, I mean I certainly don't have any figures in front of me at this moment in time but we–I mean, our offices have–are extremely busy. As many will know, federal services have been cut in our region over the last, I would say, couple of decades, meaning a lot more casework comes to us that may have gone to front-line federal public servants in the past. But we also deal with very unique casework as well, given that many First Nations, like I mentioned, deal directly with the federal government.

So, we don't just do passports and EI and CPP and child benefit. We certainly go beyond that, and parti- cularly with the department of Indigenous services around housing, around water, around fire services, around healthcare and–you know, every day, all hours of the day, I will be contacted personally and, of course, then I bring the team on board as well.

And so, when I speak of the challenges in servicing, not just a riding the size of ours, but a riding that has so many Indigenous communities that deal directly with the federal government, I think it is critical that we really avoid expanding the riding further than it needs to be.

Of course, I did mention–around–the communities of interest; that there are two First Nations that do have that but it–there's no question that it would be much more challenging to expand the riding any further.

Dr. Thomas: Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

N. Ashton: Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: The next person listed I don't think is here, Craig Howse.

I don't see a Craig Howse on the list, but the next person is then Craig Adolphe.

Craig Adolphe: Hello. Hi.

Sorry, I was just raising my hand there when you said Craig Howse. I thought maybe it was a typo. Okay, you can hear and see me? I'm not sure. Okay, perfect. [interjection] Okay, great.

Madam Chairperson: Yes, we can see you.

C. Adolphe: Great. Okay, so I'll start, then.

So, I think in my sort of submission to be able to speak today, I listed my sort of political affiliation for the sake of transparency, but I am speaking sort of as an individual with personal experience as a resident of St. Boniface-St. Vital.

I've lived in St. Boniface all of my life, which is now 33 years. My father was born here. My parents still live here. My paternal grandparents lived here. And I want to speak on the issue of removing East Mint and the St. Boniface Industrial Park–that area, as well. I was glad to hear that lots of concern has been raised about the East Mint portion, but I think both need to be commented on.

I would say, I think it sets a bad precedent for what the boundaries of the riding are–particularly the East Mint, but, you know, I have concerns about both.

I know St. Boniface as, like, a community is probably one of the most protective in the province in terms of its sort of history and culture. You know, there's historical reasons for that. But I think primarily the concerns that I see about those two changes that I mentioned are more about the community as an economic and a social space. Are–I'm not, you know–this isn't something I have an academic background in, necessarily, but sort of the human geography perspective is I think how you could describe it.

So, East Mint, obviously, borders a lot of good neighbourhoods that have been mentioned: Sage Creek, Southdale, Windsor Park. Those are sort of the regions that you could sort of associate it with. I think if you ask the residents of the East Mint area, that's how they would define it. You know, if you put it in simple turns– simple terms, if you were going to visit someone in that area, that's how they would explain to you how to get to where they live, you know, in relation to, you know, oh, just sort of east of Southdale, just north of Sage Creek, those are the sort of ways people talk about it.

But the experience, I think, for the residents of the East Mint area–look at things like their economic life, like shopping malls, commercial shopping strips, shopping malls. They use St. Vital mall, they don't–not Kildonan Place as you would see in the Elmwood-Transcona riding as the primary mall or commercial strips.

Again, like looking at Fermor versus Regent, the sort of–if you put sort of a tracker on every person and looked at how they handled their day-to-day life in terms of shopping or, you know, going to get a haircut, going to the doctor, going to the dentist, optometrist, those sorts of things, I think it's a pretty clear demarcation of what the sort of boundaries of those two ridings are right now. And this seems like a bit of an aberration in terms of where it should be–the proposed change for East Mint, I should say.

So, my–just sort of on a personal note, my grandparents lived in St. Boniface, again those examples, they brought the–they bought their groceries, they got their haircuts, you know, my grandpa visiting the local bar, when he went to seniors assisted living; it was all in St. Boniface. And just to sort of extend that, like, where they were put to rest in an–sort of–was the cemetery space that exists in the East Mint area. I don't mean to suggest that, you know, it's critically important that their urn never leaves the political boundaries of the riding, but I think it's sort of–is an example of the way that east–the East Mint area is part of that St. Boniface-St. Vital sort of community and how it's experienced by the people living in the–an area.

I'll leave the sort of notes on the East Mint area then–there. But I would add, also, sort of the St. Boniface Industrial Park was another concern I had, I guess.

I mean, it's sounds silly to me, in a way, to be taking the St. Boniface Industrial Park out of St. Boniface- St. Vital as a political entity but I understand that there's, you know, reasons for changes to the boundary and, you know, as a physical space I understand the sort of–the boundary is just–as it exists, sort of separated by the Symington Yards and stuff; how then–argument could be made for that. But I think there's other considerations that should be factored in. I'm sure it would–considered to some degree but I would say, you know, it's worth revisiting and weighing that in opposition to probably the population issue and trying to find some way to change the boundaries of, I guess, the neighbouring Elmwood-Transcona. But, anyways, I just wanted to add that in as well. I thought it was also a concern.

I guess my last note would just be that I know a lot of development in the south, like around the Sage Creek area, is relatively new, but I think the boundaries that have started to form in terms of lived space are already pretty well-established.

So, I think for the East Mint area in particular, it's definitely worth revisiting the proposed change and the way it's being sort of split off out of St. Boniface-St. Vital.

If there's any questions, I'll stop there.

Madam Chairperson: No, I don't see–Professor Thomas, do you have a question or not?

Dr. Thomas: No, I don't. No. I'm fine, thanks.

Madam Chairperson: Okay. Thank you. No, either–I don't have any questions. We have no questions.

Thank you very much for your presentation and taking the time to come out tonight.

C. Adolphe: Okay, and thank you.

Madam Chairperson: All right, the next person that I have on the list for presenting tonight is Robert-Falcon Ouellette.

Robert-Falcon Ouellette: Mais bonjour. Merci beaucoup pour m'accueillir ici aujourd'hui. Je suis fier d'être ici sur le Territoire Traité no 1, un territoire traditionnel des Anishinaabe, Neheo [phonetic], Dene et de Dakota, également territoire des nations métisses le terre de Louis Riel et le territoire aussi des Inuits et aussi la maison de toutes les citoyens qui habitent ici à Winnipeg.

Alors je vais présenter ici aujourd'hui–est-ce que c'est correcte si je parle en français un petit peu?

Translation

Well, hello. Thank you very much for welcoming me here today. I am proud to be here on Treaty No. 1 Territory, the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe, Nehethowuk, Dene and Dakota peoples, also the territory of the Métis Nation the land of Louis Riel, and also the territory of the Inuit as well as the home of all the citizens of Winnipeg.

So. today I will be presenting–is it okay if I speak French a little bit?

Madam Chairperson: We don't have translation at this hearing. Our translation's at our hearing on the 22nd.

R. Ouellette: Pas de problème. [No problem.] No problem then. Anyways, I will continue on.

Madam Chairperson: Merci.

R. Ouellette: No issues.

So, I'm just doing a quick presentation surrounding what I think is actually the change of the electoral carte map that has been presented actually–will actually produce a lack of representation for the citizens in Winnipeg Centre because it's actually going to lead to a concentration of poverty and other socio-economic challenges.

So, I have actually grave concerns about the redistribution of the electoral map for Winnipeg Centre and for Winnipeg, as well. And I think people of Winnipeg Centre deserve to have equal access to all services like any other riding across the country.

The current redistribution poses serious challenges of equal representation, access to government services and will prevent people access to Member of Parliament services and their ability to navigate all government services.

And my feelings are that because of the redistribution, the way it's done, it's actually going to hurt the overall city in the long term. So, as a Member of Parliament, it was very difficult to stay ahead of the challenges and the caseloads of the riding and to fulfill one's parliamentary duties. Sometimes one needed to work up to 80 to 100 hours a week and there were many occasions where I would need to sleep in the office to try and meet the needs of the people of Winnipeg Centre.

My staff would often burn out on many occasions after giving so much of themselves to citizens. And I say– and I talk about my workload, not to brag because, you know, when you're elected as an MP, you know, we obvious tend to think politicians are there just to brag about how hard they're working for the citizens. But it's actually true. I think a lot of the MPs do–all do work very hard because of a sense of duty to represent citizens well, but sometimes I think the redistribution, as currently proposed, is actually going to set the current MP or future MPs up to fail and it's going to set the community and city to fail, as well.

Now, the addition of the North End into Winnipeg Centre creates a concentration of poverty. There will be childhood issues related to poverty. There will be lots more homelessness, drugs, crime, gangs, addictions, mental health challenges. And they were already concentrated in the centre in the Winnipeg Centre riding.

And while it sight–seem feasible to concentrate everyone in a similar socio-economic status in the same area, this actually has a perverse impact on the ability to improve the situation in the long term. Essentially, the Winnipeg Centre MP becomes the only advocate for poverty reduction issues in Manitoba.

And while other ridings mile–have poverty issues, they do not experience the–experience them at such high levels. And this makes it difficult to get changes in government policy in order to help alleviate poverty levels and make sure that that poverty does not impact overtly the social structure of our society.

The poverty creates a situation where the Winnipeg Centre MP, when meeting with ministers and govern- ment officials, have to have discussions about these problems, find really they're really the only one advocating for any changes.

Now, the additional challenge is that when people in lower socio-economic groups demand or come to the office looking to navigate government services, they often find it very difficult because there are already so many people in the office asking for those services. As the Member of Parliament formerly for Winnipeg Centre, it was–the caseloads were extremely complex and very difficult to meet. And often people come to the MP's office because they can't get help elsewhere. But not only are you dealing with a few easy immigration issues–and an immigration issue in, for instance, in Winnipeg South, with an immigrant or a newcomer who has a Ph.D., is going to be much more different than someone who is trying to get their children out of a refugee camp in a country with no Canadian consular staff on the ground and they have difficulty speaking the language.

Now, when I would–I want to share a secret. When I needed to appall–obtain a policy change from the government or help with a program, I would get up in behind closed doors at caucus meetings and I would speak to all my colleagues, including backbench MPs, ministers and the Prime Minister, about the people of Winnipeg Centre and their stories and how a policy change would actually help them. And incredibly enough, I never lacked a heartbreaking story because the people's needs were actually real.

Now, I often felt that if I had a few more colleagues who were facing similar challenges in their ridings, in Winnipeg and Manitoba, it would actually be easier as a community and a society to help more people. The needs of the suburbs and more affluent areas of our province do not have less value, but who is going to speak on behalf of the grandmother raising three children in a mould-infested apartment where the landlord makes no repairs? The local MP is often the final stop in trying to get help for many. And what we're doing with these changes with Winnipeg–the North End, adding it to Winnipeg Centre is concentrating all those needs in one area.

The Winnipeg Centre MP should not be the only one advocating about homelessness, addictions, secure treatment facilities, crime, complex immigration issues, Indian status claims, veterans' claims, housing projects. I was always amazed when my other colleagues in government would say, I can't believe what you're dealing with on a daily basis. And while they offered a lot of sympathy, they had their own citizens to look after.

Another issue is there's going to be a concentration not only of poverty but also of refugees. Because the rents are much lower in Winnipeg Centre, many refugees end up renting in that riding. And while refugees should be able to rent where they can get the best value, the issue for the refugee is that when they have a claim that's been rejected or encounters issues, they'd often go to their local MP to obtain help at the last minute.

Now, in most federal ridings, this might mean a few cases a month would be seen. In Winnipeg Centre, this is a daily occurrence. These cases take a lot of time and effort because a mistake by an official could mean for death for the claimant if they're returned to their country.

Adding the North End is a recipe for disaster not only for the workload, but also for basic levels of service and justice that people should receive.

In conjunction to this, there is also going to be a concentration of Indigenous issues. Indigenous peoples can be found across Winnipeg, and in Winnipeg Centre, it's around 20 per cent, which is above the Canadian–or, city average of 12 per cent. Again, adding more people–Indigenous peoples from the North End of Winnipeg Centre–creates a concentration of people experiencing high levels of trauma and difficulties in life. They often need considerable help in accessing government services.

The cases the local MP's office needs to deal with include CF Services casework, Indian status issues, banning from northern reserves–where people have been banned from their community, banished and sent back down to Winnipeg where they end up in Winnipeg Centre or the North End–crime and rehabilitation issues, human trafficking, prostitution, more addictions, mental health, health services, homelessness and the list goes on.

One MP and staff cannot do this work all by themselves. It's way too much. And addressing the root causes gets pushed to the side because the MP–you're only dealing with the immediate crisis day after day. And this should be shared by more MPs across the city.

And, finally, there is going to be a concentration of a lack of representation. Winnipeg is already complex enough with very large socio-economic challenges, but because it also contains some of the most important organizations within Winnipeg and Manitoba, it becomes even more complex. Think of areas or organizations which include the art district, the Exchange District, City Hall, the Manitoba Legislature, the Minto Armoury, the 12 army reserve units, the naval reserves, the Winnipeg Jets, the Winnipeg Symphony, the opera, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the offices of the Southern Chiefs Organization, MKO–the northern chiefs, the head offices of Bell MTS, the head office of Canada Life, and the list goes on with community groups, environ- mental groups, and all three homeless–major homeless shelters found within Winnipeg Centre and Polo Park in addition to that.

The addition of the North End is going to add another complex community with extremely high needs that one MP from Winnipeg Centre cannot help alone. And if Winnipeg Centre, as a suggestion, were actually divided equally among all ridings in Winnipeg, there would be a greater collective investment in addressing our society's challenges. The spreading of the workload would allow more organizations in Winnipeg Centre to receive a better service and representation in Parliament.

And I'll leave you with one final antidote. The Canada Summer Jobs, as an example, is a program which provides employment to youth under age 35. In Winnipeg Centre, we were oversubscribed every year, and even though I was able to get additional hundreds of thousands of dollars to meet the needs, we were only able to often–to offer six weeks of employment to youth, while other ridings in more suburban environments were able to give the full amount of 12 weeks with better pay to more organizations and go beyond community groups. They were actually able to help private enterprise employ youth.

This is not fair to the people of Winnipeg Centre because everything is concentrated in that riding and it makes it very difficult to come to a head to our challenges.

I know I don't have any more time to speak. I believe I've spoken for my full 10 minutes, but if you have any questions, I'd love to answer.

But I will end with one thing. I actually think this is actually a form of structural violence in our society towards some of our most disadvantaged, the way that we concentrate the poverty in one area. And I hope the electoral commission will take time to adequately consider the impacts of adding even more concentration of poverty and more complex needs of citizens into the workload of one MP.

Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

Dr. Thomas: That was a fascinating description of the multiple dimensions of representation from one of the top three, I guess, poorest constituencies in the country, and very diverse and congested community. So I learned some important things from that.

But I would like to push you a little in terms of, if we don't take the boundary north, do we take it south into South Centre? Do we take it west into St. James? Where do we capture additional population if the inner city, Winnipeg Centre, is not growing relative to other parts of the city and province?

R. Ouellette: That's actually a really great question.

You know, I think perhaps the Exchange District, you know, if I was thinking about it, might be actually better off in St. Boniface. And I would actually add, maybe, River Heights to that area.

I also think you could actually move a little bit more into St. James. I know it's St. Charles, St. James, Headingley at one point, but there seems to be, you know, a bit of a difference. And I think adding a bit more affluence would enable–to the riding would enable the MP to actually have more allies.

Sometimes I actually felt extremely alone in Ottawa, and other MPs would not even understand what I'm talking about because they don't deal with such a heavy concentration because we do have a large Indigenous population that has really some very high needs in the inner city. We also have a very large newcomer, immigrant, refugee population, with people who have extremely challenging caseloads, combined with just people who are generally poor, inclined with environmental groups in Wolseley.

And everyone wants to meet with you. And when I say you have to sleep in your office if you want to meet with everyone and try and satisfy their needs, it's really, really hard as the MP. And you–I actually believe it's almost unbearable; happy I only did one term, if I have to be honest. It's almost too much to manage for one person.

Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation.

R. Ouellette: Cree spoken. Translation unavailable. Hay-hay.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

And so the next person that I see on the list here is Doug Eyolfson.

Douglas Eyolfson: Okay, there we are. Can you hear and see me?

Madam Chairperson: Can hear you. There we go, yes.

D. Eyolfson: Okay, great. Thank you.

Okay, well, thank you to the commission for their–everyone's hard work and for this opportunity. For full disclosure, I've served as the Member of Parliament for the riding of Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia- Headingley from 2015 to 2019. Ran as the Liberal Party candidate in 2019 and '21. I've worked with Gloria Kelly, who gave an earlier presentation, and I should say that although you'll find many similarities in our pre- sentations, we have not, in fact, co-ordinated on putting together our presentations.

The Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley riding represents the western aspect of the city of Winnipeg and the Rural Municipality of Headingley. The population of the riding is almost 85,000 people currently. Ninety-five per cent of the riding's population currently lives within the boundary of the city of Winnipeg. Of the 5 per cent living in Headingley, many are employed locally within the rural municipality, while many others are employed, actually, within the city of limits–within the Winnipeg city limits–and do much of their shopping and receive services within the city limits.

So with the current boundary, the riding is overwhelmingly suburban, consisting of some large suburban neighbourhoods, businesses of varying sizes, from small, local operations to major manufacturing concerns. Within the riding is also Richardson international airport and many of its surrounding support services.

The proposed movement of the riding's southeast border from its current position of Shaftesbury Boulevard, I feel, is appropriate. The new area, from Winnipeg South Centre, that would be included, is likewise suburban, and the people living there would have many of the same concerns as the suburban residents of the riding. However, the westward expansion of the riding would not be appropriate or fair to the residents of the areas of St. François-Xavier, Cartier and Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie, which would now be included.

The area in question is almost exclusively rural and the population has many different perspectives that they would not have in common with their fellow constituents who do live within the city limits. Additionally, many residents would have a disproportionately long way to travel compared to their fellow suburban constituents if they needed to visit the constituency office of their local MP.

Residents of this newly included area would have the impression that they were not being properly represented federally when they represent such a small proportion of an overwhelmingly suburban riding. If the expansion of the southeast portion does not sufficiently address the needs of the riding numerically, it would be much more appropriate and fairer to expand the eastern riding boundary north of the Assiniboine River, which is at currently at Ferry Road. A large portion of what is known as St. James is currently within Winnipeg Centre. If this boundary was moved eastward from Ferry Road to include a portion of St. James that is in Winnipeg Centre, then residents who are currently living in an urban-suburban riding would continue to live in a suburban riding and would have more concerns in common with their fellow constituents.

If the entire area, on both sides of Portage, was too many residents, perhaps moving the boundary along Portage and just including one side, either the north or the south side of Portage Avenue up to St. James Street, might better numerically balance this out.

So, with that, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity on this–for this brief presentation and will happily take any questions.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you. I don't have any questions.

Does it look like anybody else has any questions? No.

Thank you for taking the time to come and make a representation today. Thank you.

D. Eyolfson: Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: So, I'm just going to see if there's anybody–Yves Hacault is still not here in the hearing. He was registered to speak, as well as Craig Howse is not here, and he was registered to speak. So we've had two no-shows.

I see we still have people in the meeting. As I indicated at the beginning, we have some time if anybody wishes to say a few words to the commission that was registered as an observer but would like to say something tonight, please feel free to just put your virtual hand up, and we'll see if we can accommodate you.

All right then. I don't see any virtual hands, so I want to take this time to thank everybody who came, either as a participant or simply an observer tonight, for taking part in the process. I know both of my–the–my colleagues may have something they wish to say, I'm not sure. No?

So, once again, thank you very much. The commission has heard you. We will consider all of your presen- tations and all of your recommendations. And thank you for a wonderful meeting.

Good evening.

Hearing concluded.