Public Hearing Winnipeg, Manitoba (Virtual Hearing) September 22, 2022 – 7 p.m
List of Intervenors
Madam Chairperson (Honourable Justice Diana M. Cameron): Is the meeting in order now? I can't tell; it's not the same as it was before. Okay. All right.
I would like to call this public meeting to order. Good evening. Bonsoir. My name is Diana Cameron. I am 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.
Tonight we have simultaneous translation.
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
If you do not understand tonight the language that is being spoken, there is a little globe at the bottom of your Zoom call. You can press that button–et choisis la langue que tu comprends. [–select the language you understand.]
Okay. 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 studies at Brandon University.
We are also accompanied by the secretary of the commission, Mr. Kevin Young. He's the one who makes sure that 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. He is on loan from the Ottawa office of Elections Canada. He's our geographic expert and statistician. He is also the one that assists us with all the technical and numerical aspects of the map- drawing process. We greatly appreciate the expertise of both of our other members.
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. This exercise must remain non-partisan. While we will resist any attempt to manipulate the electoral districts to favour one political party over another, we encourage participation by everyone, including and especially MPs.
I assume that you have 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 the 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 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 or have any other questions, we will seek clarification.
Time limits ensure that everyone has an opportunity to speak. Therefore, I will ask that everyone's presen- tation be no longer than 10 minutes. We will give you an eight-minute warning. If you feel that you are not able to present to us all of the information you wanted in your allotted time, we would ask that you provide any additional information in writing to us within 10 days of this hearing.
For those who so kindly have provided written submissions, I want to assure you that we've read them and have copies of them. If they are not already there, they will be posted on our website. For your information, all public hearings are audio recorded and the transcripts of those recordings will be made available on the website. All written submissions, as well, that we receive in the future will be posted regardless of whether a represen- tation has been made.
I'd just like to take a brief moment to explain the technology tonight. The members of the commission are in a meeting room. The presenters and observers are in a webinar. The order of the presenters tonight has been determined by the order in which we received their notice of 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. For those who are making presentations, headsets are mandatory. They are required in order to facilitate the simultaneous translation at the hearing.
Having said that, I will start with our first presenter then. Matthew Hinatsu?
Matthew Hinatsu: Hello.
Madam Chairperson: Hello.
M. Hinatsu: So, I have a question here. It says, like, it wants to promote me to a panelist. Should I join as a panelist?
Madam Chairperson: Yes. Please join as a panelist now.
M. Hinatsu: Hello?
Madam Chairperson: Hello, Mr. Hinatsu, you should be showing up on our screen momentarily.
M. Hinatsu: I do not have a webcam. It's just a mic. I do not have one.
Madam Chairperson: So, you're not using your video on your computer? You're just going to speak orally?
M. Hinatsu: Yes, it's just audio. I do not have a webcam. But I do have a presentation I can share my screen with.
Madam Chairperson: Sure, that would be wonderful. Thank you.
Mr. Hinatsu, have you provided your presentation previously to the commission? I'm not quite sure right now.
M. Hinatsu: I have submitted a Word document and an Excel sheet to the commission in writing prior to today.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you.
M. Hinatsu: I'm not sure how I can get my screen on here. Is there a way?
Madam Chairperson: Okay, if you look at the bottom of the–if you look at the bottom of your Zoom, there should be a tab that says share screen.
M. Hinatsu: I see apps. I do not see a share screen option.
Madam Chairperson: On the–maybe at the top of your screen is there a share screen option?
M. Hinatsu: Okay, there it is. Sorry.
Madam Chairperson: No?
M. Hinatsu: I do have it now. Are you able to see that?
Madam Chairperson: We can see your conclusion. Yes, we can.
M. Hinatsu: Can you see the starting point?
Madam Chairperson: Yes, we can.
M. Hinatsu: Okay, thank you. May I begin?
Madam Chairperson: Yes, please do.
M. Hinatsu: Okay. So, my name is Matthew Hinatsu. I am a 17-year-old student at Shaftesbury High school heading into the grade 12 year. I'd like to note, before we start, that I am not affiliated with any political party nor have–has my proposal been created to favour any political party. The presentation I'm about to make is solely based on my own and neighbours' entrusts.
I'd like to thank you, the committee, for their hard work on the initial proposal and for allowing the public to have an input on how they will be represented over the next decade.
In the committee's initial proposal, the commission notes a difficulty in the old Charleswood-St. James- Assiniboia-Headingley riding and how the population of the old riding is well below the provincial average. Although the new riding meets the population requirements of the plus or minus 5 per cent tolerance the com- mission has set out, I feel that the new Winnipeg West riding does not suit the needs of its constituents due to the riding being–including a considerably large part of rural Manitoba.
Therefore, I want to express my concerns with the current riding and offer an alternative plan to better represent the people in Winnipeg West.
So, the problems I have with the new Winnipeg West riding the committee has proposed in their initial proposal is that the riding boundary extends west from the city of Winnipeg all out into portions of the RM of Portage la Prairie. So, I feel this dilutes the voice of the city voters and their needs along with the rural voters and their needs as the hybrid riding this has created doesn't represent its constituents as well as it could be, in my opinion. I feel the rural voters should be included in the more rural Portage-Lisgar riding instead.
Therefore, because of the vastly different population groups combined in the Winnipeg West riding, I feel that the interests of the city and rural voters alike would be misrepresented under these new boundaries.
So, to solve this problem, I have created my own version of the Winnipeg West riding as I aim to remove the portion of the riding extending into rural Manitoba. I acknowledge, however, removing this portion would remove too much population from the Winnipeg West riding, so I shifted the riding boundary further east to compensate for the lost population, so the result would be a purely urban riding that meets the population require- ments by drawing from the Winnipeg Centre and Winnipeg South Centre ridings, while keeping them within the population tolerance.
So, in the new Winnipeg West riding, I have removed the RM of Headingley, the RM of St. François Xavier, the RM of Cartier and the portion of the RM of Portage la Prairie, and in it's place, I have added additional portions of the city of Winnipeg, down south here, west to Kenaston and north of Wilkes. Then, as Kenaston moves north and crosses the Assiniboine River, the boundary keeps going north along Century and King Edward Street, until it meets Dublin and moves west.
This new riding would have a population of 97,000 people or 1.8–1.18 per cent over the average population per riding.
So, I acknowledge that changing the boundaries of Winnipeg West, I would have to change or modify the other surrounding ridings in my proposal. So today, I've made changes to the four ridings immediately surrounding the boundaries of Winnipeg West, which are Winnipeg South Centre, Winnipeg Centre, Portage- Lisgar and Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman.
I have done the math and all the new ridings will meet the commission's population tolerance of the plus or minus 5 per cent from the provincial average.
So, in Winnipeg South Centre, no new populations were added, however, the small portion north of Wilkes and west of Kenaston was removed and given to the Winnipeg West riding, which included the FortWhyte Alive park.
Madam Chairperson: So, sir, I'm wondering–did you provide us with these maps earlier?
M. Hinatsu: Yes, I have.
Madam Chairperson: Okay, then. I'm just–I must be missing something. Thank you.
M. Hinatsu: Okay. The new population of this riding would be 98,183 people or 2.41 per cent above the prov- incial average.
Next, in Winnipeg Centre, as I spoke before, the area west of Century Street and then of King Edward Street has been removed from the riding. However, that reduced a population too much and brought it below the average, so the area east of McPhillips and south of Burrows street was added so the population is now 93,365 people or 2.61 per cent below the provincial average.
Next is the rural riding of Portage-Lisgar. This is the riding that has undergone the most changes, as now it includes the RM of Cartier, RM of Headingley, RM of François Xavier and the RM of–the RM of St. François Xavier, which was previously included in the Winnipeg West riding, and I have taken the RM of Rosser and the eastern part of the RM of Portage la Prairie from the old Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman riding.
To compensate for those changes, as they would have moved the population well above the plus 5 per cent, I removed the RM of Woodlands, the RM of Dufferin and the RM of Thompson and the RM of Roland, to bring the population to 100,220 or 4.54 per cent above the provincial average.
And lastly, the riding of Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman. Not as many changes were made here, as I only added the RM of Woodlands, which was shed from the riding of Portage-Lisgar and I removed the RM of Cartier, RM of Whitemouth and the southern portion of the RM of Grahamdale to prevent a divide throughout the RM. The population of this riding is now 99,485 or 3.77 per cent above the provincial average.
So, in summary, I've modified the Winnipeg West riding to shed rural parts of Manitoba and replace them more urban parts of the city. These changes could be accommodated with some changes to the surrounding ridings to help balance the population differences created by these changes.
Overall, these changes should be able to represent the residents of rural Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg better–of the–sorry, residents of Winnipeg West better, as this plan avoids mixing the rural and urban populations together in the previous riding of Winnipeg West.
So, as my sources here, the pictures shown in the slides were from the riding modification tool that the Manitoba commission has provided and the population numbers have been provided by the website ridingbuilder, which derived its population from the 2021 Canadian census.
Lastly, I'd like to thank you, the commission, for giving me an opportunity to allow me to express my concerns about the new ridings and for the hard work you guys have put into creating the new ridings for the province of Manitoba.
Thank you for the audience, too, listening to my proposal, and I wish you all a good night. Thank you, merci.
Madam Chairperson: Well, thank you very much, sir. We appreciate all the hard work that you've put into this proposal. We certainly understand what it's like to work with those maps. Thank you.
The next presenter is Connie Beaudry. No Connie Beaudry, okay. We'll move on to the next one, Moira Kennedy.
Moira Kennedy: Hello.
Madam Chairperson: Hello.
M. Kennedy: Hi. Can you hear me?
Madam Chairperson: Are you sharing your video? I can hear you. Are you sharing your video?
M. Kennedy: Yes, I can share my video. Okay.
So I'm just going to be speaking. I don't have a slide show or presentation; I hope that's okay.
Madam Chairperson: Perfectly fine.
M. Kennedy: Okay. So, hello, my name is Moira. I'm here today to present on the proposed changes to Elmwood-Transcona. The commission's proposals have some drastic changes to the boundaries, extending southeast and north. But I'd like to specifically talk about an area the commission has suggested as an exclusion. Harbour View South is an area of rapid development between Concordia and Transcona. The proposal has moved Harbour View South out of Elmwood-Transcona and into the riding of Kildonan-St. Paul.
While I appreciate that redistributions are necessary as populations grow and change, I think separating Harbour View South from the same representative as Transcona is a mistake. This is because the ties the com- munity has to old Transcona are so strong and parts of our community have been deemed the new Transcona.
The proximity to Transcona is a crucial part of the community's identity. Harbour View South residents frequent the community events, shops and restaurants in Transcona because their community is a natural extension of Transcona.
So my grandparents moved to Harbour View from old Transcona when they started their family, and they chose this area because it was marketed as the new Transcona and was just minutes away from where they grew up. Now my parents live here in Harbour View as well, and we have always called this place Transcona.
I work in Transcona. I shop in Transcona. I spend most of my time in Transcona because, like many of my neighbours, that is my community. We are part of the Transcona municipal ward and the Transcona Business Improvement Zone. Further, our catchment elementary, middle and high schools are in Elmwood. If the com- mission were to go back to the current boundaries of Elmwood-Transcona as a baseline and look to where cohesive changes could be made, I would suggest to adjust the northern boundary of the riding along Oakland. Adjusting that boundary south would maintain Harbour View South with Transcona and redistribute the popu- lation into Kildonan-St. Paul, respecting the two distinct neighbourhoods.
I also think Harbour View South has much more stronger ties to Elmwood-Transcona than East Mint, which the commission has included in their proposed changes.
Residents from Harbour View South have a lot more in common with, and will share interests with, the residents of old Transcona much more than they will with the residents of East St. Paul. Excluding Harbour View South from Elmwood-Transcona would prevent residents from being represented by a community they are a part of. With this in mind, I would ask the commission to strongly reconsider carving out Harbour View South from Elmwood-Transcona and maintain cohesive representation for the community.
Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's greatly appreciated. Thank you.
M. Kennedy: Thanks.
Madam Chairperson: The next person on the list we–I have is Courtney Derksen [phonetic], but I'm not–I wasn't seeing Courtney Derksen [phonetic] on the list.
So, Cathy Singh? So, another–no? Dan Mazier? Mr. Mazier?
Dan Mazier: And done. How's that?
Madam Chairperson: We're–we can see and hear you, sir.
D. Mazier: Perfect. Good evening. We're all good to go?
Madam Chairperson: Yes.
D. Mazier: Good. I want to sincerely thank the commission for their work in drafting the new federal electoral district boundaries for Manitoba. And while I believe the commission has addressed most of the suggestions previously made in their proposed new boundaries, I'm concerned with the impact on the new proposals to the communities in the northern region of my constituency.
Dauphin-Swan-River-Neepawa is a unique constituency. It is entirely rural without any urban centre. However, it does share a few things in common. The economic foundation of the communities of the Dauphin- Swan River-Neepawa is agriculture-based. Residents regularly travel to larger communities to access essential goods and services, and communities of interest are essential to the region's social, economic and cultural fabric.
Unfortunately, these proposed boundaries are threatening the shared interests of Dauphin-Swan River- Neepawa. I know my colleague from Brandon-Souris has raised similar concerns with the geographic expansion of Churchill-Keewatinook Aski. I ask that the commission consider his remarks seriously because I too, do believe that Manitoba's most northern constituency should be given special consideration, the same special con- sideration that is given to both Ontario's and Saskatchewan's most northern constituencies and the same special consideration that has been allowed these constituencies to deviate in population variance outside of the 5 per cent standard in their prospective proposed changes.
Swan River is one of the largest communities in my constituency. It acts as a central hub for many commu- nities and municipalities surrounding it. Unfortunately, the constituency of Churchill-Keewatinook Aski is not given special consideration and continues to experience a population decline as it is projected to do. Swan River and many communities in my constituency will inevitably be moved north into the new constituency, a new constituency that does not share communities of interest in economic trading areas.
The town of Swan River serves as a hub for work, school and essential goods and services to many constit- uents who live nearby. Unfortunately, under the proposed boundaries, many of these communities and families who rely on Swan River as the central hub would find themselves in a separate constituency from their main community of interest.
Allow me to give you example. A couple lives in the RM of Minitonas-Bowsman. They work in Swan River; their children go to work in Swan River; and they buy their groceries in Swan River. They also purchase their agriculture inputs from the local farm dealers in Swan River to grow a grain crop in their RM, which shares the same agriculture-based economy. They drive to Swan River in less than 15 minutes.
Under the proposed boundaries, these constituents, like many in the RM of Minitonas-Bowsman and the RM of Mountain, would be represented in the same riding as the community of Churchill. I do not believe that the constituents so close to Swan River will be better represented by a Member of Parliament whose main con- stituency office is over 600 kilometres away.
I do understand that a regional and geographic divide emerges north of Swan River and further east. This includes a difference in economies and trading areas. However, the rural municipalities surrounding Swan River do not differ in these important areas of mutual interest. I know these are concerns shared by many of the residents, communities and local governments in the area.
I encourage the commission to consider the concerns and recommendations included in the correspondence from the RM of Mountain, the RM of Minitonas-Bowsman and the Town of Swan River. Each of these regions has expressed concern about their communities being represented in the constituency of Churchill-Keewatinook Aski. I believe these concerns are very valid and should be taken seriously.
I would also like to bring Riding Mountain National Park to the commission's attention. This national park is unique to Canada. It is situated precisely in the centre of my riding, surrounded entirely by people and com- munities. Riding Mountain National Park is a beacon of natural beauty. It is a tourism hotspot and a hub for private and public investment. Constituents from all around my constituency access Riding Mountain from different locations and for different reasons. I would encourage the commission to consider renaming Dauphin- Swan River-Neepawa to Riding Mountain, as I believe this name better represents the hundreds of communities throughout my constituency.
Thank you for allowing me to present today and share my thoughts on how the commission can ensure Manitobans are best represented in Canada's Parliament.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Mazier. We appreciate your comments.
D. Mazier: Thank you. Have a good evening.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you.
The next speaker I have is Michel Forest. I don't see a Michel Forest.
And then Terry Duguid. And I think the–I'm looking at the secretary; I thought that we were expecting Mr. Duguid tonight.
All right, well, unfortunately we've had a number of speakers that haven't been able to make it tonight, but that's the end of our speakers.
If there's anybody else who's observing tonight who would like to make a presentation, could you put up your virtual hand so that we might hear from you?
Okay, Tina–I'm not sure how to say your last name, ma'am. Tina Bubenzer? If she could be brought in?
Michel Forest: Can you hear us?
Madam Chairperson: Yes, we can, just can't see you. If you could turn on your video, if you can.
M. Forest: Yes, we are trying to do that. Okay, can you see me now?
Madam Chairperson: Yes.
M. Forest: Okay. First of all, I would like to say my name is Michel Forest and I am the councillor for the village of St. Pierre-Jolys.
Madam Chairperson: I'm sorry, sir, you'll have to spell your name because you're showing as a totally different person on our screen. So could you spell your name out for us, please?
M. Forest: My name is Michel, M-i-c-h-e-l, last name is Forest, F-o-r-e-s-t.
Madam Chairperson: Okay, so were you registered to speak?
M. Forest: I believe I was registered to speak–
Madam Chairperson: Yes, you were. You were, but just not–we're seeing your–we're seeing a different name than yours and that's why you're–so, that's why.
M. Forest: We are in our Chamber and we are using the CAO's computer to be able to send our message forward here.
Madam Chairperson: Okay. Thank you, Michel. And I'm sorry, what was your position, again?
M. Forest: I am a councillor for the village of St. Pierre-Jolys.
Madam Chairperson: Okay. Thank you so much.
M. Forest: Okay. Can–are we good to start now, or?
Madam Chairperson: Yes, we are. Thank you.
M. Forest: Okay, thank you very much.
Dear members of the commission. In reading the proposed Provencher riding changes, which suggest that the RM of Emerson, Franklin and the RM of Montcalm and the RM of De Salaberry and the village de St. Pierre-Jolys should change from the Provencher riding to the Portage-Lisgar riding.
The members of the council of the village of St. Pierre-Jolys are unsettled. This council has been following the proposed changes since the announcement. Opportunities to comment and provide submissions have been discussed by council, and we felt that the need to–we had to comment. We are unsettled with proposed as presented. The village of St. Pierre-Jolys and the above-mentioned municipalities need to remain included in the areas representing similar communities and diversity of interests.
We are writing to indicate our preference is for the village of St. Pierre-Jolys to remain in the current Provencher riding. Moving the village de St. Pierre-Jolys to another riding would not be favourable for the strong francophone community. By grouping the francophone rural municipalities and the village de St. Pierre-Jolys in the Provencher riding, it asssures a common vision of working together toward a continued goal of shared interests concerning culture, language and economic development.
Our francophone communities already share many common interests that preserve our language and culture. The Village de St-Pierre-Jolys, along with many others within this riding, belong to the Association of Manitoba Bilingual Municipalities, AMBM. The majority of the rural municipalities and a village in the current Provencher riding belong to the AMBM.
The Village de St-Pierre-Jolys enjoys a good working relationship with our current MP and we don't want to lose all the strides we've made with the Honourable Ted Falk and his team.
We also like to wish–we also like to wish and share our–from our research staff, it would make better sense for the RM of Springfield to be combined with the city of Winnipeg riding, as they have many commonalities, such as shared sports teams, events and as well as community crossovers.
Alternatively, the population of Niverville could also be better served under the Portage-Lisgar riding. We believe that these proposals would be better served for those areas and would leave our municipalities where they are better served.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback as you finalize your review.
The Village of St-Pierre-Jolys is an excellent fit in the Provencher riding. We ask to maintain our current position in this riding so that we can continue to grow our regional initiatives, partnership that we've worked so hard towards.
With kind regards, thank you, merci.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you, merci. We appreciate hearing from you, sir. And as I've indicated before, we will be taking all of the submissions into account when we go back to reconsider our proposal.
So thank you very much.
M. Forest: Thank you for listening to us. Merci.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you, merci.
All right, so I'll just ask one further time if there's anybody else who wishes to speak, to put up their hand if they haven't spoken yet tonight. And I see Mr. Craig Howse has his hand up.
Craig Howse: Good evening. Can you hear me now?
Madam Chairperson: Yes.
C. Howse: Okay. Okay, my name is Craig Howse. I'm the reeve of the RM of Grahamdale, and I'd like to thank the commission and council for allowing me to speak on behalf of the RM of Grahamdale, of concerns to the boundary between–the electoral boundary between the Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman and Churchill-Keewatinook Aski–the RM of Grahamdale's concerns with the proposed changes to the boundary between Selkirk-Interlake- Eastman and Churchill-Keewatinook Aski.
We understand the intention in separating a portion of the RM of Grahamdale in order to relocate Lake St. Martin and Little Saskatchewan First Nation communities and adjacent lands that may be added to these com- munities in the future.
However, we feel additional attention should be paid to maintaining the continuity of the municipality of Grahamdale where possible, in order to minimize the impact to the RM of Grahamdale residents.
We are concerned that the proposed boundary, by following the line of Provincial Road 513 through the hamlet of Gypsumville, splits off several residents of that community from the remainder of the hamlet. We propose that instead of following a line of provincial road, that the boundary deviates east from provincial road at Mile 189 North before turning north and rejoining 513–
Madam Chairperson: Sorry, sir. Could you say that again, just a little bit slower so that we can get that down because were going to have to–
C. Howse: Okay, I can start again here. We are concerned–
Madam Chairperson: Just what you're–okay, where I think I was is that you feel like the current boundaries splits up several communities and don't follow the highway, but you were making a suggestion.
C. Howse: Yes, okay.
We propose that instead of following the line of provincial road, that the boundary deviates east from prov- incial road at Mile 189 North before turning north–
Madam Chairperson: Okay.
C. Howse: –and rejoining–
Madam Chairperson: Hold on. East from provincial road?
C. Howse: Yes.
Madam Chairperson: Okay.
C. Howse: At Mile 189 North, and then before turning north and rejoining PR 513 at mile–Road 49 North. And I'd just like to add, additionally, there is a farmstead where–
Madam Chairperson: If I just might–just ask for a minute. I'm just going to ask Mr. Diotte if you were able to get that down?
C. Howse: Deviates from east provincial road at Mile 189 North and then goes south to–
Madam Chairperson: Five thirteen?
C. Howse: -turning north and rejoining 513 at Mile Road 49. It kind of goes around the town of Gypsumville. Like, right now–
Madam Chairperson: Goes around–
C. Howse: Yes. Because right now, it's going right to–PR 513 goes right through the town of Gypsumville. So it's basically, if you live on the north side of Gypsumville, you would be in the Churchill-Keewatinook Aski riding. And if you live on the south side of PR 513, you would be in the Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman riding.
So, it's–basically, it's splitting the town, depending on what side of 513 you live on, so.
Dr. Paul Thomas: I believe I–we received your submission, and–
C. Howse: Yes.
Dr. Thomas: It followed the STRM mostly.
C. Howse: It followed the–the proposed boundary follows PR 513, Provincial Road 513. So, I'm just joining, again, today to express our concerns about basically, you know, if you–in our RM, it's being–you're kind of dividing the town of 'Gyp'. So it's a concern, and, you know, it–we feel that everybody in the RM should be represented by the same constituency.
And that's kind of what my presentation would be, then. So, I' like to thank you.
Madam Chairperson: All right.
C. Howse: Thank you, then, for giving me opportunity to, again, express our concerns over the proposed changes.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, sir.
C. Howse: Okay?
Madam Chairperson: Yes.
C. Howse: Okay, thank you.
Madam Chairperson: We appreciate it. Thank you.
All right, I'm just going to ask one final time, if there's anybody else who has not yet spoken who would like to speak, to raise their virtual hand.
I don't see any hands being raised. I would like to thank everybody who's in the meeting and everybody who presented tonight. The commission appreciates your comments, and we will consider them as we continue on to make our final decision and our final report. So thank you, and I would just ask the–ask if my colleagues would like to say anything before we end off this evening? No?
All right.
Dr. Kelly Saunders: I'd just like to thank everybody for being here. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: All right, then we will end the meeting. Thank you.
Hearing concluded.