Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 18th, 2013

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I'm very sensitive to that because I have that many municipalities in my area. I think the fact that you have actually come together and agreed to the decision that is before us here today speaks volumes. That's exactly what we need to do. We need to work together. When you have a community that says they want to remain in a certain area, as in my case, Pic Mobert wanted to stay with White River because that's where they do their business, but now they have been thrown into the Thunder Bay area....

When you think of the fact that the accessibility to the MP will basically be the same, that the MP will have to displace himself no matter what, the impact there doesn't quite make sense to me.

I appreciate the fact that so many people have come out here to support the decisions you are putting forward. It is all about representation, not only on their behalf, but it's the ability for the MP to be able to represent them according to what an MP in an urban area can do as far as accessibility is concerned.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madam Hughes, I would bet we're going to hear that again at some point further on in our study.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I'm not sure yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Menegakis will finish us off, please, for five minutes.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our colleagues for their testimony today.

Mr. Blaney, I also want to congratulate your electors for travelling so far to be here with you. I see that this is a very important decision that affects them directly. It is definitely easier for us when members agree and when we have broad support from the communities concerned.

My only question is this: can you think of a convincing reason why the commission should not be in favour of your proposals?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

You have to hope.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Menegakis, I believe the point that Ms. Hughes raises is very important. There is the number of people that a member represents, and there is the number of communities. Those are two different realities in terms of territories and administrative entities that must be represented. I would dare say that is certainly an additional argument.

Consider my situation, for example, which I hope to preserve and that my successor will preserve. There are 30 municipalities plus a central city, Lévis, which I share with another member, Mr. Gourde. That is great.

It is possible for one person to cover that area. I am coming back to the reality of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. Of course, if I talk to the people from Les Etchemins and Rivière-du-Loup, they will tell me that has nothing to do with it. The situation simply tears a member apart. Montmagny and Rivière-du-Loup are two different realities. It gets a little abstract. There is really a disconnect between the citizen, the member and the government he or she represents. I very much appreciate your comments and I thank you for them. I encourage the commission members to uphold the decision they made in September.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Bernier, Mr. Lapointe, do either of you wish to add something?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I would like to cite a very specific example.

The two most highly populated towns are Rivière-du-Loup and Montmagny, and they are situated virtually at opposite ends of the riding. The one is in Chaudière-Appalaches and the other in Bas-Saint-Laurent. So they are not in the same administrative regions. I have never been able to attend Canada Day festivities in both places because they do not coordinate their activities and the celebrations take place at the same time.

Consequently, I cannot require two remote regions to raise the flag at different times simply because I would like to be in one of them and then have enough time to travel so that I can raise the flag in the other. I cannot even suggest such a thing because they are two completely different worlds.

We work hard and we ultimately manage the files that present problems across the district. We do it, but sometimes three municipalities celebrate a 100^th anniversary on the same weekend. So, unless we can be everywhere at once, it is not possible to be in three places at the same time. The more you increase this burden, the more you create these kinds of situations, in which an elected member, even with the greatest good will in the world, cannot always get to all the places he or she considers legitimately important.

Sometimes I tell people that I am so happy to be with them on a particular evening, but I know that there is another very important event in the district where I have to ensure I am represented. So we do not have a choice because, unfortunately, the last time anybody tried to clone someone, it turned out badly.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I will take 30 seconds to say that I believe that, if this committee decides to approve the proposal it has before it regarding Beauce, I am virtually certain that the electoral boundaries commission will move forward with our proposal because it referred to it on page 10 of its report. It specifically cited Beauce to show that people wanted to stay together because they had a profound sense of belonging. We are only continuing in the same perspective, making very minor adjustments, particularly to the quota.

I believe there was a very high variance in Beauce. Now it would return to nearly 10%. It was less than 10% in Mégantic—L'Érable, and it will stay lower than that with one minor variation. I believe the commission would approve your recommendations.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

We'll conclude. I'd like to thank our members for coming and being as prepared as they were, some with more backup than others. Thank you for being here and for sharing that constituents can make a difference and members of Parliament can make a difference when they work together. Now let's see if this committee can help you make that difference. We'll do our best.

Thank you very much.

We are adjourned.