Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to colleagues and members of the committee for allowing us to be here today to present.
Given the nature of this, I find the word “objection” might be a little bit strong, but I guess that's the word we have to use on the filing of the committee. I just want to give my kudos to the committee and the boundaries commission for New Brunswick on what a great job they did.
My objection is being filed based on two major things. One is on a change in the boundary that resulted from the time when the original proposal was made to the time when the final proposal was made for one area of the riding. When the original proposal was made by the boundaries commission, it was going to be included in the riding of Tobique—Saint John River Valley, but after the final report came out, a section of it was taken out. That was not contemplated in the original proposal, nor was it even discussed in any of the public meetings as a result of that. That was the first thing.
The second thing—a little lesser—is the naming of the riding. I actually wrote a letter to the committee, and I'll just very briefly go through the two issues.
One is, if you look at appendix A, the area we're talking about, the first page of appendix A, is an area called Canterbury—North Lake, Canterbury Parish—Meductic. That area where the river is flowing is actually in the current riding of Tobique—Mactaquac.
In 2003, when electoral redistribution was done, this area was actually in the riding of New Brunswick Southwest. The boundaries commission at that time, through communities of interest and other reasons, said there was clearly a better economic tie, closer social ties, and closer family ties between this area and the Upper Saint John River Valley, which would include Woodstock, Grand Falls, and other areas in the riding of Tobique—Mactaquac. Hence the area was put into Tobique—Mactaquac. Then when the final boundary was proposed by the commission, the area was taken out.
Mr. Chair, when I actually saw the final boundaries commission report, I looked at it and said, those areas have been taken out. I went to the two local service district elected officials as well as the mayors and councils of the two municipalities involved—those being Canterbury and Meductic—and I told them about the presentation and what had actually happened in the final report. I asked them if they wanted me to make a representation to stay in Tobique—Mactaquac or move to New Brunswick Southwest, as proposed. I said I would not file an objection if they did not want me to. They did want me to do that. In the appendix in this presentation, there are also four letters of support—one from each of the municipalities as well as one from each of the local service districts—supporting staying in the riding of Tobique—Mactaquac. The net net of all this is that there are around 1,450 people, a population who are involved in roughly 1,000 square kilometres.
I've also included a table in the letter I sent to the committee, on page 4, where it shows what the change would be. Currently, under the population as proposed by the commission, Tobique—Mactaquac would be 7.91% below quotient, we would be 5.9% below, and New Brunswick Southwest would be 9.9% below and would become, approximately, 12% below.
I'll let Mr. Williamson speak to the geographic challenges he has on his.
A final point is with respect to the name, Mr. Chair. Given that the name was proposed, Tobique—Saint John River Valley, at a time when they were going to add an amount of territory including down below Fredericton, a naming change like that probably made sense. However, given that most of the characteristics of the riding have remained the same, I'm recommending that the Tobique—Mactaquac name remain.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members.
