It's fair to say that
the argument presented by the people who participated in the commission’s public hearings. The members of the commission saw the logic that underlay that proposal. Having people attend hearings and propose changes is the normal process. That is what the hearings are for.
My impression is that saying that the commission was involved in
gerrymandering, or political interference,
adversely affects the commission’s reputation and the work it has tried to do here.
I have difficulty stating that there is consensus on the way this has happened and on what the new ridings should be. I feel that the commission really is doing its best. It is very difficult, as we have been able to see. The situation is similar in a number of places in the sense that the first map is quite different from the second one. The process requires members to come to us now to show us why these changes are necessary. But there must be consensus. You have to consult and you have to agree on the changes proposed.