Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask if you could please call Bill 2, The Electoral Divisions Amendment Act. For information of the House, I think throughout the next few days there will probably be some announcements around a committee, et cetera, as House leaders work out the details.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 2, The Electoral Divisions Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les circonscriptions J lectorales, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward for consideration of this House Bill 2, The Electoral Divisions Amendment Act. This is a bill that has generated considerable speculation and discussion not only within the media and the wider community but also within this House. Members opposite from the Liberal Party, I know, had asked to bring it forward for dealing with sooner, but this is the earliest time that the rules permit, without leave, to be able to deal with it. I am happy that we are able to do so today.

In 1955 Manitoba adopted the process of ensuring that our electoral divisions are established in an open and nonpartisan fashion. This is the fifth time since the establishment of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and the second time for me as Premier that a government has presented a bill implementing their recommendations. As members opposite know, the intent of the Electoral Boundaries Commission is that it should not only be as representative in terms of the quality of people who are on the commission, but also it should be seen to be as completely nonpartisan as possible, and I believe indeed that we can say that of this commission. It is made up by statute of the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, the Honourable Richard Scott, the chief electoral officer, Mr. Richard Balasko, and the president of the University of Manitoba, Dr. Em` ke Szathm< ry.

The commissioners, over the course of seven public meetings held in Thompson, Dauphin, The Pas, Portage la Prairie, Steinbach, Brandon and Winnipeg, heard 61 presentations. In addition, the commission received 140 written representations from individuals and organizations from across our province. I want to begin by commending the commissioners for their work, and as it did in the last report, the commission has provided not only a set of new boundaries but a number of thoughtful observations for potential future implementation by our Legislature. It is important that we not only review those observations presented in this report, but review and see how we can make modifications to this open process, which is considered to be a first-rate process by people right across our country.

Last time I introduced a similar bill, I spoke about the need to understand the unique and difficult challenges which face our rural and northern members, more so than those shared by our urban members. That was a topic of considerable discussion before the commission, and I believe that the commission struggled very diligently to attempt to bridge those competing interests and concerns that impact more on rural and northern representatives. I know that the commission as well very definitely took note of many of the changes that we have made in terms of supports to our elected members in this House to try and make the task a little easier for rural and northern members to represent their constituents.

* (1430)

We must continue to work at ensuring that all of these challenges are dealt with on a timely and effective basis. My government will review all of the information provided by the commission and will work with the members of this House in a spirit of nonpartisanship to try and strengthen the longstanding process which we have, which we are proud of and which I believe all Manitobans feel secure in.

Just in addressing some of the finer details of the electoral boundaries which will be implemented by this particular act, I would say that these boundary changes are probably as even-handed and balanced as they can be, given that they are the subject and decisions of humans who have to try and balance the advice of many different people and many different concerns. When I look at it from a perspective of party politics, I say that the boundaries probably do not work particularly in the favour of any party in this House. I know that when the original proposal was put forward in June, many people suggested that it would have a very significant, positive impact on our side of the House. I believe that the commissioners took note of that, and in re-forming the boundaries, probably did so in such a way as to remove that advantage from this side of the House. I do not object to that, Madam Speaker. I think that the job of the commission is a very difficult one, and I believe that they want to continue the reputation of the commission as being absolutely nonpartisan, absolutely balanced and even-handed in every respect. I believe that they succeeded as much as any group of human beings could be expected to in striking that balance.

I think it is important because we have had comments in this House in recent times, maybe from the member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans), the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), about erosion of populations in rural communities. I think that this particular reconstruction of the electoral boundaries speaks more strongly than anything that I have seen to the fact that there has been a better stabilization and indeed growth of rural populations than we have seen in perhaps the last century in this province. Indeed, every previous change in boundaries by the Electoral Boundaries Commission created a circumstance in which there were fewer rural and northern seats and more city of Winnipeg seats. This is the first time, I believe, this century in which that has not occurred. It has not occurred because there has been tremendous growth and stability in the economy of rural Manitoba.

There certainly have still been shifts within rural Manitoba. There certainly has continued to be some communities that, for a whole variety of local reasons, have continued to shrink and even disappear. But, overall, the population of rural Manitoba has stabilized for the first time this century, which I happen to think is a good thing. I do not think that it benefits anyone to have tremendously increasing concentrations of population and then vast areas of shrinking wasteland. The more we can distribute the population and the economic activity in our province, the healthier our province will be. I certainly believe that a healthy Manitoba needs a healthy northern population, needs a healthy rural population, and it needs, obviously, healthy cities and towns. So, in that respect, I think that it has been a good exercise at relooking at ourselves and seeing what the impacts are of the changes that have been made in recent times.

Among those things, I think we have to speak to decentralization, decentralization of government activity having had some impact on the stabilization and revitalization of various areas in rural Manitoba. We have to look at diversification of our agriculture industry, which is now more diversified than it has ever been in its history, and more value-adding taking place before we ship our agricultural products elsewhere.

I know that, Madam Speaker, we can always look at this from different perspectives. From a party perspective, I will say that our party intends to support this legislation because we believe in the nonpartisan balanced approach to electoral boundaries review that it represents, and we accept, whether we agree with all of the details of the report and the act, the process as producing as much as possible a nonpartisan outcome. There will always be those who will talk about, with perhaps some valid reason, that will lament the disappearance of some well-known names from the electoral map, ones like Sturgeon Creek and Osborne and Gladstone that have been a part of the electoral map for a long, long time.

I recall in the last change that the member for Fort Rouge at that time spoke about his disappointment at the disappearance of Fort Rouge and now it is back. So names are chosen to reflect differing circumstances, and at the same time I think the commission always attempts to reflect the history and reflect the changes that have been taking place in the ensuing decade that has led to this new map. For my part, I accept it as the work of an eminent commission that has done its best to reflect the changes of Manitoba's population and to turn that into boundaries and an act that will fairly and equitably reflect the interests of all Manitobans, and I urge everyone to vote for the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I too would like to thank the commission members for their work. We have always supported an independent boundary commission system for Manitoba. It is a system that allows us to adjust populations on a timely basis, and it has obviously over the years since Douglas Campbell, I believe, introduced this legislation and concept allowed various parties to form government. The Liberals were replaced by the Duff Roblin government in the late '50s, and the Weir government was replaced by the Schreyer government, the Lyon government, the Pawley government and now the Filmon government.

* (1440)

We have had a belief and a practice that politicians in this Chamber do not set the boundaries for politicians to be elected or re-elected, that it is somebody outside of the political process that sets those boundaries. This of course sets Manitoba apart from other jurisdictions over the years. We think the statutory provisions in the act are superior to the government of the day establishing boundaries and picking individuals like the federal system. There are still individuals that are picked rather than positions picked in the act, and many provinces have the same format still where you do not have statutory positions but you rather have individuals.

This country is full of examples where in the past–and I think Grace McCarthy was one example that was always raised in Point Grey of British Columbia. They used to have a very vivid description of these polls that were an angular poll, numbers of polls into a certain area that were always chosen to be part of that old Socred seat established by the Socred party, that that in fact was a partisan way of setting boundaries. Even as late as 20 years ago in that province, in fact right up to the 1991 British Columbia election, you still had boundaries established by the government of the day often argued for the benefit of the government of the day in a majority of the government of the day in the B.C. Legislature.

So certainly we prefer a statutory law, and we have dealt with this law before. I know the member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) has probably dealt with it certainly in the '70s and the '80s. I am sure the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) has dealt with it in the '60s, '70s, and '80s. So as we proceed into the '90s, this is only my second time of dealing with it, but I do know that the principle of independent boundaries is a good one and any Legislature that has the majority establish the boundaries in the long run is asking for a practice that works against the best wishes of the people.

I want to thank, as I say, the individual commission members, but, Madam Speaker, I think we have not gone forward with many of the suggestions that have been made in the past on boundaries. Let me deal with a couple of points that I think have caused us a great deal of difficulty. Number one is when do these boundaries take effect? We believe and we said to the commission and we know in Ottawa that there is a particular way of implementing the boundary commissions in such a way that does not allow for the government with the majority to be planning on one set of boundaries and have in a potential election year opposition parties trying to guess what boundaries would be in place or alternatively guess wrong on what boundaries are in place. We think that the commission–and we recommended to the commission before that they must deal with this issue.

The Fox-Decent report, for example, was a commission whose implementation did not take place until after the election. In other words, you start fresh after that election program. There has to be a way of dealing with the independent Boundaries Commission report becoming a political, tactical advantage for the government of the day. One would cite the fact that when the map was first produced in July of this year, the draft map in July, the government said: Oh, we will be running on the new boundaries. We will not call the election until the new boundaries are in place. Then we had the proposed map, which is in this bill, in December of 1998, and all of a sudden it was, oops, we are not so sure anymore; I cannot commit ourselves to running on the old boundaries or the new boundaries or whatever; I am not making any commitment whatsoever.

Through the media to the government, we said bring the Legislature back in January; bring the Legislature back in February; bring the Legislature back in March. The Legislature was only adjourned, Madam Speaker; it had not been prorogued, and in that way, if we were really committed to the independent Boundaries Commission, then we could have passed those boundaries in those three months. Those of us who were trying to guess what boundaries would be in place would therefore be playing on the same level democratic field as the Premier (Mr. Filmon), and really then we would have an independent boundary process and an independent boundary process transition.

For us, Madam Speaker, with 23 incumbent seats, I dare say that this is a much bigger challenge than it might be for other opposition parties, because we have much more to deal with in terms of transition. It is a pleasant problem in terms of the numbers you have, but it is also a logistical challenge for your transition, and the only party then that knows the boundaries is the government.

An Honourable Member: That is the way it should be.

Mr. Doer: That is not the way it should be, because that is then not independent. That is taking an independent, nonpartisan process and turning it into a partisan process.

Now, having said that, I want to deal with another couple of issues that arise from the Boundaries Commission report. In 1989, there was a tremendous amount of controversy about the fact that the Boundaries Commission in essence went close to one member, one vote, in terms of representation. Of course, this flows from the '87 legislation that reduced the variation in some ridings of the 25 percent, and provided for a 25 percent variation in northern Manitoba and provided for a 10 percent variation in rural Manitoba.

As a city MLA and as an individual who has the privilege and opportunity to travel both to rural and northern Manitoba, I was extremely disappointed and so were members opposite that the legislative framework established by this Legislature was very much ignored in the '88 map and the '89 boundary law. In fact, the former chair of the commission, and I think it was former Justice Monnin, at a press conference, said: I treat the province like 57 slices of cake and I sliced those pieces of cake up equally and evenly.

Madam Speaker, that was not in the legislation because, quite frankly, for me to represent Concordia in a very, very concentrated community is totally different from the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen). Quite frankly, some of the media coverage comparing Flin Flon to Seine River, with the greatest respect to Madam Speaker, was very, very Perimeter centric in its view. To compare Concordia to Flin Flon with Island Lake and Tadoule Lake in that constituency is absolutely devoid of any reality of Manitoba. The boundary commission report and the boundary commission, in my view, must reflect and should reflect and must in the future reflect the full reality of Manitoba.

So, in 1989, what did we do about this? Well, the former Deputy Premier, the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), proposed a resolution to this Legislature, and many members opposite, when they spoke, spoke to the fact that we would amend the legislation. We would agree to amend the legislation and have added to the boundary commission representation one member from rural Manitoba and one member from northern Manitoba. I supported that, and we supported that. I know that you have to pick not individuals but statutory positions to get away from, again, gerrymandering the boundaries through the selection of a person.

* (1450)

I thought the recommendation 10 years ago was a good one, and we supported it. Regrettably, we did not act on it. The government had a majority, and after the 1990 election when we became the opposition and it had the support of the opposition–I do not know whether the Liberals would have supported that position or not, but I dare say it is not a bad idea. Maybe somebody like the chair of the Rural Institute or the president or the grand chief of MKO or some other statutory position–I do not know which ones they are, but somebody that represents somebody beyond the city of Winnipeg should be on the boundary commission, because to live and work in a community outside of Winnipeg is to understand the different representation that comes to this Chamber.

I am disappointed that we collectively did not do anything about that, because you do not do it after the boundary bill is produced. Then you are back into amending something that is already brought to this Chamber, and then you are getting into issues of political advantage and political disadvantage, which is not the goal of a boundary commission. But I believe this boundary commission law must be and should be changed. It must be and should be changed to deal with the whole composition of the representation on the commission. So we are therefore committed to working with all parties because I do not think any position should be selected, but I am not– think the three individuals on the commission are good people, but I dare say, and I have not looked, I bet you they live in one geographic area of the city. I will bet money that they are–I cannot bet money. That would be illegal. I take that back, I rescind it, I apologize. I would guess that they are probably living in an area of the city that has got particular issues of representation.

But Concordia, where I represent, the 20,000 people in Concordia are a lot easier for me to represent than 18,000 people in The Pas or 18,000 people in Rupertsland or 18,000 people or 19,000 people in Lakeside. It is just not fair to have people who have to represent rural communities have close to the same boundaries as those of us who are in the city. It is unbelievable to have a representation of people in northern Manitoba to be similar to representation for those of us in Winnipeg who are five minutes away from our constituencies, five minutes away from our constituents, and have very little difficulty going from one community to another.

Now, I have had the privilege of travelling with the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and to travel in his constituency is unbelievable. It is absolutely unbelievable. It is like that old movie Planes, Trains & Automobiles–planes, boats, airplanes, because I think–and helicopters. I mean, all the modes of transportation–and dog sled teams I have not been into, but I have been into skidoos. You know, you have to wait an hour in an airport to get a skidoo back to the community because the airport, of course, is on one side of the water away from the community versus the other, because the provincial government has the airstrip so the federal government has the community and the people have no connection to it.

You look at the Garden Hill area. There must be 6,000 people in Garden Hill, the First Nations community. The airstrip is across the water. If it is break-up time, you have to wait for a helicopter to get across the water because the airport, as I say, is on the island and the people are, of course, across the way. It is similar in St. Theresa Point, Wasagamack, other parts of that constituency, Oxford House. A lot of these places, it is a massive job to travel. Even in some places, I mean, God's River, the road and the airport are the same place, right. So you have to watch out when you are trying to land there that if you are landing or driving, I suggest you had better keep your head up. Now that is different than Concordia.

The amount of time the member–I know, I have travelled to meetings with the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) quite often. I remember last June when the Legislature was sitting, they were at a meeting all weekend in The Pas with the OCN community. Then they had a meeting at Moose Lake. We then had a meeting in Thompson that night that we were able to fly up to from this Legislature. They had to drive four and a half hours, five hours, over to the meeting in Thompson. Then, because of a tragic murder in a community, they had to drive back to another community five and a half, six hours away to be back at a meeting at nine o'clock the next morning.

I have to tell you that the way the boundaries are now, I am worried about the safety of our four members from northern Manitoba. I am very worried that they work long hours and drive late at night trying to represent their constituents. I am very worried when they get in a vehicle at 10:30 or eleven o'clock at night to go another six hours on the road after going all day long. I do not like it. I do not think it is entirely safe. I know they are pretty used to doing it, but to say that is the same as Concordia or Inkster or even Brandon East is wrong.

I think that the commission, therefore, has to be expanded. We have to keep the concept of an independent Boundaries Commission, but we must look at expanding the commission representation with all party agreement before the next boundary change, and we have to fulfill the recommendation made by the Deputy Premier. Why have we not done this? Why have we not done this in terms of statutory representation on the commission?

Why can we not think of somebody, a position in rural Manitoba that is similar to the position of the president of the University of Manitoba, a statutory provision, not a federal position where you just appoint the members that could be or could not be partisan? Why can we not think of a First Nations person in northern Manitoba, a statutory position, maybe the chief of this community or that community, so at least Manitoba would have more than people in one part of Winnipeg on the Boundaries Commission? So I really strongly urge that that action take place, and let us work on it. Let us think of those people–or positions rather, not people–who would be nonpartisan.

Secondly, I want to deal with the 10 percent and 25 percent. This Legislature passed laws on dealing with a 10 percent variation in rural Manitoba. It passed legislation dealing with a 25 percent variation in northern Manitoba. That was the recommendation of this Legislature to the commission. We did not tell them how to do it, what boundaries to change, what boundaries not to change, but we said that we know, as legislators, that a 10 percent variation is at least a minimum requirement for a rural representative and 25 percent is a fair and reasonable representation variation for northern Manitoba.

Now, we were told in '89, well, there may be a court case and, you know, the Charter of Rights and all this other stuff, but Madam Speaker, there have been court cases since. In 1992 the Supreme Court ruled on Saskatchewan and of course Saskatchewan had its own history of boundary establishment, if I could use that term in the most diplomatic way, but the Supreme Court said there are two criteria for establishing boundaries. One is the population, obviously the voters. The second criterion that must be considered by legislatures and Parliament and is acceptable in any provincial law is the duty of representation.

Our law, therefore, of 10 percent and 25 percent, the clear directions of this Legislature were found by the Supreme Court to be very consistent with their twin objectives of representation and the population. So when we see the kind of media coverage about Flin Flon versus, let us take Seine River, was one example, or Concordia was another example, the people doing the coverage did not understand the Supreme Court decision, nor did they understand the difficulty of being a rural member. So I think it is important for those of us who live in the city to rise up with the rural and northern members and get this right.

How do we get it right? Again, you do not do it in the middle of a boundary bill, because then it would be perceived to be political, but you do do it, instead of having the words "may be" 10 percent in rural Manitoba and "may be" 25 percent in northern Manitoban, which gives the boundary commission the complete ability to deal with this issue and, if they refuse to do it, the words "shall be" or something like that. I am not saying I would want to work in an all-party way.

I say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews): this is very similar to a resolution that came from the Conservative Party in '89. This is not an NDP idea, but I believe the language should be agreed upon by all parties. I absolutely agree that the language can be and should be agreed to by all parties, but our Legislature–yes, well, anybody that has negotiated any contract knows how much you get with may as opposed to shall.

But having said that, the '92 Supreme Court basically said that the laws and directions passed by this Legislature in establishing the boundaries, the political direction, the policy decisions were correct. The '87 policy decisions were correct as evaluated by the Supreme Court in 1992. Regrettably, it is not in my view the Boundaries Commission's right to roll back the policy decisions of this Legislature. It is rather their responsibility to have a nonpartisan way of establishing the boundaries but consistent with the Supreme Court and this Legislature's view that representing Lakeside is harder and difficult and more onerous than representing Concordia in the sense of representation.

* (1500)

I think that rural members and northern members should be joined by city members. I think that to have the balance of population and representation which is consistent with the Supreme Court decision is very consistent with an interpretation of our law that gives a 10 percent variation for rural representation and we give a 25 percent variation for northern representation. I feel strongly that that must be dealt with and must be dealt with after this election campaign, whoever wins or whoever loses. That is something we said in '89. We agreed on that in '89, adding two members to the Boundaries Commission and having a clear delineation of the intent of this Legislature on the policy issue of population as one criterion, representation as the second criterion and dealing with the unique challenges of rural and northern representation.

In 1989, we also thought that the Independent Boundaries Commission should, in fact, have committee meetings in various parts of Manitoba, and included in that should be areas such as First Nations communities. In the Boundaries Commission report in '89, it said that there was quite a lot of criticism for not having any public hearings in First Nations communities.

Well, Madam Speaker, I think that is wrong as well. I think the Boundaries Commission should have–and our provincial secretary wrote the secretary of the Boundaries Commission and the chief electoral officer to say why are you not having any meetings in aboriginal communities? You have got 10 or 11 meetings set all across the province. Why are you not meeting? You are making major proposed changes to Cross Lake and major changes later in Grand Rapids and Easterville and other changes that will directly affect the political organizations of those people, the economic ties of those people, the kind of representation issues for those people, and that you should consult directly with those people first, not just have two meetings in the Convention Centre in Winnipeg and meetings in the nonaboriginal communities. We thought that there should be meetings in First Nations communities. Again, I think the commission should be required by this Legislature, again, not to be dictated on its boundaries, but as a policy matter I think that they should be attending those sessions.

I also want to comment on the timing of this process. I absolutely believe it is wrong to have a draft map produced in July and have meetings take place on the draft map in September, or August rather. It started in August, I believe. There were only four or five weeks from the time the map was produced till the time the public meetings took place.

Some of those communities, Madam Speaker, had, I dare say, agricultural challenges in August. We had an early harvest this year. There was not anybody, I understand, that showed up at Portage la Prairie--maybe they were tied up with the early crop--in terms of that public hearing.

In northern Manitoba, some of those communities have shut down. Some of those people have people that travel out of the community because they can get out of the communities. There are a lot of cultural events—powwows and other events in the summer—and there was very little time for anybody, and many of the organizations do not meet in July. This Legislature does not meet in July unless there is urgent business.

An Honourable Member: Or September or October.

Mr. Doer: Well, I will not go on. I was not intending this to have any "cheap shots" in it, and I will leave that to the members opposite, but back to my main point. I think that we to again have a map out in May, and public hearings perhaps in September, but it is not fair again to have people that may have a shutdown in Thompson or be on the fields in Manitoba. You know, people in Manitoba do not operate all the same way. The summer for some is a period of vacation with their families; for others, Thompson, for example, they may be shut down part of that period of time so they go visit other people in their communities–agricultural producers, powwows, other events. So I thought it was again wrong to have those hearings take place in the summer.

If the Boundaries Commission itself had a year to deal with the census and come up with the population variations, why cannot the public have a couple of months to come back and talk about the impact on their community, on their ability to have representation? I think one of the reasons why we have had so little turnout in some of our areas, again, was based on the timing of the commission.

I want to raise a couple of other issues about this report that we must deal with. Madam Speaker, we have a serious discrepancy between the band council count and the actual population count in aboriginal communities and the actual census in those communities. We also have a real discrepancy between the count in the inner city from the census and the actual number of people that reside in the inner city. Now this is not a problem unique to Canada, and it is not a problem unique to Manitoba.

There is a huge debate going on in the United States now of whether the inner cities of the major urban centres are properly represented for purposes of the future congressional elections. You have got massive population shifts for congressional elections in the year 2000, but there is a huge debate going on in the United States about the inadequacy of the U.S. census on inner city populations and the underrepresentation of people who may be on the margins economically in the inner cities of the United States and therefore on the margins of political efficacy and representation.

We know that the Legislature and the purpose of democracy is to have everybody feeling that they are part of the voting on an election campaign and everybody feel that they have a right to vote, and that their vote will make a difference. I think the undercounting of inner city communities is a serious problem in North America. I am not sure whether we will get some kind of consensus––[interjection]

Well, we have never been responsible for the census yet. We have never been in office federally, but the inner city areas are undercounted. Now you talk to the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) or the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), and they will tell you that there is a huge discrepancy between the voters list–and you will know federally–the census number and the actual people living in a particular area. Therefore, we have to find a way in this century, with all the medical records we have and other data that we have, of looking at other ways of coming to a conclusion about actual numbers of people that therefore would dictate voters.

`

There were more people on the voters list, I think in Grand Rapids, if I am not mistaken, than was in the census in the 1995 election. We looked at various communities across northern Manitoba and rural Manitoba, and the undercounting was something like 33 percent. In the Swan River constituency alone, the undercounting of First Nations communities was 33 percent. When we looked at Rupertsland, I think it was comparable, 33 percent undercounting between the number of people that the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) has to represent and the number of people that were actually identified by the census as being therefore population. The member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), the same thing; the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans), the same reality; the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), with Nelson House, Split Lake and other communities, York Landing, same situation; the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) with South Indian Lake and Tadoule Lake and other communities, and the Mathias Colomb community, again a community that was greatly undercounted.

* (1510)

Madam Speaker, what is the short-term remedy to undercounting those communities? Well, there is a legal short-term remedy. The long-term remedy is to get the act straightened out so that people will not be undercounted. Whether it is in a rural community or in a northern community or in an inner city community, there is a remedy to deal with that. With computers today and with other data that are available like medical numbers and other information that is available, band counts, which is the basis of payments from the federal government, there are ways of dealing with that situation. But the short-term remedy of that situation was there to the Boundaries Commission. In my view, the Boundaries Commission erred dramatically in not having a 10 percent variation of rural Manitoba and not having a 25 percent variation in northern Manitoba, which would have meant that north of 53rd Parallel would have gone from four seats to five seats. If it meant another seat in rural Manitoba, so be it. I would live with that. It is not a political consideration. We went through the political reductions in rural and northern Manitoba last time. But if we were to go to the actual variations of 10 percent, in rural Manitoba it undercounts First Nations people. I dare say there is lots of undercounting going on. Swan River is a 33 percent undercount in those communities. It would be most directly affected in those two geographic areas. We believe that the North should have had 5 seats. I am very disappointed that the 25 percent variation is not in this act and a fifth northern seat is not there.

Now, we can debate about who would win that seat or lose that seat or if it is a rural seat who could win it or lose it. You know, there is past history, but you never know what is going to happen in an election campaign, and I would be very careful to make any predictions about that. I just know that you cannot–the four people, whoever they are, from whatever political party they are who are elected to represent those four northern seats, they are almost in a situation where I believe their safety is at risk just to represent those people. I dare say if rural members are driving eight or nine or 10 hours at night again after being in this Chamber all day long, that is also a problem for them relative to those of us who have to drive 15 minutes to our constituency and then can be in a very central area in Winnipeg to represent our constituents. So we believe there should be a fifth northern seat.

How long have I gone so far? What is that? Thirty-three minutes?

So we believe that there should be a fifth northern seat. We believe the law is there, we believe the Supreme Court has ruled accordingly, and we believe the undercounting of First Nations people, the remedy is there in law to have a fifth seat. Certainly it is the expressed will of this Legislature, an all-party will of this Legislature.

In 1987, the former member for River Heights, now Senator Carstairs, the NDP in government and the Conservatives in opposition, we said there should be variations for rural Manitoba and northern Manitoba, notwithstanding the political ramifications of that. I think that original consensus has been deferred, has not been properly dealt with in this map. Therefore, the independence is reflected in this bill, but the direction of this Legislature is not in terms of northern Manitoba.

I would also like to make another comment about the inner city. We have a lot of changing population, a lot of transient, or a lot of people moving into the inner city, some from First Nations communities, some from other communities across the world. It is much more difficult to count those communities, as we have witnessed from Supreme Court decisions in the United States, and it is much more difficult for us to represent those communities for those people who are responsible for representing them.

Now, when I saw that Broadway was right on the population average for Manitoba, in fact I think it was 19,000 electors in the original population map, we were hoping, and we wanted to see that in order to make sure inner city residents were well represented that the boundaries actually went from the inner city out. In other words, the methodology used to establish boundaries in the city of Winnipeg, we would have accepted 10 percent from rural and 25 percent for northern. The boundary bill in this province we believe should have in Winnipeg gone from the inner city out. We have so much work going on to try to make the downtown area of Winnipeg a better place for people to live and work. We have so many social and economic challenges to make sure that people who feel they are disenfranchised rebuild their communities and are able to rebuild their communities with hope and with support from the provincial government. We are trying to invest and trying to come up with solutions on housing, on social services, on health care services, on educational services, on recreational services, on economic development, on downtown redevelopment, on its place in Winnipeg and our place in the future of Manitoba.

So to have a situation where the inner city of Winnipeg loses the inner city seat and southwest Winnipeg gains a seat, I think was a problem in methodology. I do not have any difficulty in distributing the 31 seats in Winnipeg to save the 10 percent from rural. It may be down to 30 seats if we had 10 percent rural and 25 percent northern. It may even be down to 29 seats. Of course, we would say that those are the first priorities, 25 percent and the 10 percent. But I think the methodology to be used by the Boundaries Commission should be inner city out to the burbs, rather than the suburbs in. I think they made some errors by doing that, and that is not to say that it is not–you know, people talk about strategic difference. I mean, we do lose a seat, but we have a lot of other competitive seats that we are in the race on. That is not the point; that is not the point. The point is that if you look at turnout, if you look at economic and social data, if you look at health care data, the people in the city who are most distanced from the democratic process and feel most distant from power or the expression of power in this Legislature I would dare say would be in the inner city.

We also think that, wherever possible, the Boundaries Commission should have had decisions which kept communities as close as possible to the same representation as they had before. Again, it is not a political problem for us but with the change in Osborne and Crescentwood going one geographic way to going another geographic way, going north and south to east and west, I mean, all it does is it breaks the communities of interest. There are the railway tracks there, and, again, we thought that that was not in keeping with the spirit of the act where a community of interest, wherever possible, would be kept the same.

Having said that, I think the Boundaries Commission did a very good job in a lot of other decisions they had to make. I want to say that the adjustment they made to Roblin for the Dauphin community makes a lot more sense. Anybody who has been to Roblin before knows that their community of interest is not Swan River but Dauphin. People in Roblin make decisions whether to go shop in Yorkton or Dauphin. The hospital infrastructure–Roblin, I believe, is in the Parklands health area. There is a lot more community interest in Roblin than there is in other communities, and that was a good adjustment based on public input from the people of that area. We support that as a positive, positive decision.

* (1520)

Some of the other decisions on splitting municipal boundaries and how the commission dealt with that based on the feedback they received from the committee were good recommendations. The Boundaries Commission had to deal with the community of interest and the municipal boundaries consistent with the law, and where they made errors–I know that there was an intervention on the Rockwood community in the Rockwood municipality where that municipality was split, and the people in that area felt that that was a disadvantage for their representation. I thought the commission did well to listen to those arguments and acted accordingly.

Madam Speaker, I also think that in some parts of the city there is not a lot of change. Southeast Winnipeg, for example, I think the boundaries reflect the population shifts. It moves quite uniformly out to those areas. In northeast Winnipeg, it moves quite uniformly out to those areas. It makes the adjustments in a very reasonable way. In northwest Winnipeg, I have already commented that I thought that the boundary adjustments, in all of the city, should come from the burbs in as opposed to the inner city out, or the other way around, rather. It should have come from the inner city out rather than the burbs in, the suburbs in, as a resident of a suburb, I might say, and as an MLA who represents half a suburban seat, only half a suburban seat, not as much as the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson). So we think that that made sense as well. Its adjustments in eastern Manitoba, south-central Manitoba, we think made sense. The new LaVerendrye boundary dealing with some of the Francophone population, we think made sense as well in that riding, and a lot of other changes that were made were the best changes that could be made.

So, Madam Speaker, in conclusion, we made a lot of speeches in '89. There were 16 speeches in '89. I thought we had an all-party consensus on rural and northern Manitoba. I remember the eloquent words of the former member for Churchill. I remember the eloquent words of the former Deputy Premier of this province, the present member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey). Judging by what is going on in that nomination race, you may want to–I will not go there. We believe that this Legislature set the parameters. We did not say that northern and rural Manitoba would be treated the same. We did not say that being an electorate in Flin Flon was the same as being an electorate in Seine River. We said, no, that being an electorate in Flin Flon or Rupertsland, with the 25 percent variation, meant that the variation must be taken into consideration by the Boundaries Commission report.

We also said that rural Manitoba should be 10 percent. We also said that this commission should have additional people. We also think we should deal with the census of the undercounting of aboriginal people all across Manitoba in terms of its impact on ridings and the undercounting in the inner city. So, therefore, we think that the commission should be changed for the future. We think that the North should have and must have five seats in order to achieve the results of the Supreme Court's decision. We think the rural communities should have 10 percent variations; and, we think the inner city count should go from the inner city out. Those would be our concerns, and this time around, as we deal with the independent Boundaries Commission report and we as politicians honour the recommendations of the independent Boundaries Commission, that does not mean to say that we as the legislators are absolutely devoid of responsibilities. We have to deal with the deficiencies of this new map in terms of rural and northern people.

We should commit ourselves to having rural and northern representatives on the commission and a fair reflection of the Supreme Court in this province. Fifty-seven members of this Chamber are not equal. Those of us who represent a 40-block area in the city of Winnipeg have a lot less travelling responsibilities and representative responsibilities in terms of outreach than those of us who travel by canoe, by skidoo, by airplane, by winter roads and by any other means to represent Manitobans. All Manitobans are equal but not all geographic areas of this province are equal, and this Legislature has got to do something about that before the next Boundaries Commission report. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I too want to say a few words in regard to Bill 2. After all, it is a bill which we have been calling for for a little while now. Having said that, no doubt the temptation for me personally is very great to not necessarily be politically correct. So I might deviate from being politically correct on a couple of occasions in putting my comments on it, and that is only because at times I think that it is indeed warranted. There are fundamental principles that as a person, as a political party, I believe that we feel are absolutely essential. The disappointment that I have had on a personal level over the last number of months has been overwhelming to the extent that it has been borderline depressing in terms of what I have seen take place.

I would start off, Madam Speaker, and because we are talking about boundary redistribution, I will only allude to the length of the session very, very briefly, by saying that I do believe that there is an obligation for this House to be sitting. Had this House been sitting when it should have been sitting, this bill would, in fact, have been passed. I look at that as one of the cornerstones of democracy. When you spend and generate billions of dollars of tax dollars, there is a responsibility to the public to be held accountable in what I classify as the centrepiece of democracy. By not sitting here, what we do is we make a mockery of what I believe is one of the cornerstones of democracy.

Another issue, Madam Speaker, is the whole issue of boundary redistribution. My colleague the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) stood in his place at the opening of the session on a matter of privilege and talked about putting off debate on the throne speech. We believe, quite frankly, that there is at least one precedent that shows that we could have put off the debate on the throne speech in order to deal with boundary distribution. We felt that that was critical because no one inside of this Chamber could guarantee that we would, in fact, have the new boundaries before the election itself being called.

Now, having said that, in support of my colleague from The Maples, I assisted in doing what I could with respect to his matter of privilege. Well, it was to my surprise that the government did, in fact, acknowledge that they were prepared to pass the legislation prior to dealing with the throne speech.

Madam Speaker, I applaud the government in taking that particular approach at dealing with the boundary redistribution. I was, again, greatly disappointed when the official opposition, who, I believe, also had a moral responsibility to see this legislation passed, denied the opportunity of this Chamber of passing it, of not changing or allowing for the boundaries to pass prior to debate on the throne speech.

My colleague for The Maples refers to it as playing with democracy. Well, Madam Speaker, yes, the government was wrong in their handling of this particular issue. I would argue that the official opposition was also wrong in the handling of this critical and very important issue.

There is very little doubt in my mind that, had it not been from the positioning of the Liberal Party on this particular issue, we would likely not be dealing with that legislation here today. I applaud and acknowledge the actions back in January when I had approached the Leader of the Liberal Party and indicated that I was wanting to have my nomination—actually, it would have been towards the end of December after the release of the boundaries—in which our newly elected Leader at the time, and there was no indecision on his part, indicated that there is a moral and ethical obligation for us as a political party to be having our nominations on the new ridings. That then set the stage for the party's position that we would do whatever we could at whatever cost in order to apply pressure on this government to do what was right. What was right was to see these boundaries being passed as soon as possible.

* (1530)

Madam Speaker, I respect the Leader of the official opposition and the comments that he put on the record in regard to the New Democratic Party's position on some of the content and what they would like to see as a future. I disagree with a lot of content. I want to comment on some of that. I will wait for the member for Thompson's (Mr. Ashton) speech.

When we talk about, for example, the underpopulations or Census Canada not getting a true count of the numbers that are actually there, then what we are really talking about are some of the tools that Elections Manitoba uses in order to gauge what the population actually is. I do not know if Elections Manitoba should be taking flak for that particular issue.

One of the things that we have to be very cognizant of, Madam Speaker, because I know that Elections Manitoba and other parties will be reading what the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) or the Leader of the official opposition, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) have put on the record–so we have to be very careful. I would suggest to Elections Manitoba, as a party that garnered 24 percent of the vote in the last provincial election, that we have a lot of insights on what is necessary in order to see Elections Manitoba remain completely independent and free in making what is absolutely critical in terms of decisions of fairness and equity in dealing with democracy on the whole issue of boundaries.

Now why I say that quite candidly is because, you know, the 25 percent, 10 percent variation, that is an issue, and I can vaguely recall having that discussion, went back in 1989, amongst our caucus. You know, Madam Speaker, there are pros and cons to being a member of a rural riding as opposed to an urban riding and, yes, that should also be taken into consideration. It would joy me tremendously to be an MLA from rural Manitoba. There are all sorts of other opportunities that are out there in rural Manitoba. I am not going to be announcing; I am quite happy where I am. But I would suggest to you that there are certain opportunities and privileges and enjoyments that a rural candidate has over an urban candidate, so I do not want the Manitoba Elections office to believe that it is all one-sided.

When we talk of duty of representation, you have to take into consideration technology, computerization and Canada Post, telephone communications. There are all sorts of ways in which we communicate with our constituents I do not believe for a moment that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) or the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) is any worse off than I because I happen to represent an urban riding. If those members feel that they are worse off, I am more than happy to sit down with them and explain to them some of the things that they can be doing with the extra resources that they are being given, with the modern technology that is out there. There are many.

I know it excites the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). The member for Thompson should be, I am sure, aware that potential opponents that the member for Thompson has–the member for Thompson has a distinct advantage over his potential opponents because of the extra financing, because of the communication budgets, both post office and because of telephones, in terms of going into the next provincial election. It is not like a candidate can go and knock on all 7,000 residential homes. The member for Thompson–you have to take a balanced approach at what we classify as duty of representation, and you have to balance that with equity and a sense of fairness within our democratic system.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you that there are many disadvantages that rural candidates who are not elected have, the nonincumbency factor, that put them at a distinct disadvantage compared to an urban candidate who is hoping to unseat an incumbent. I ask that the member for Thompson respect that fact, and if he does not respect that fact, I would suggest to you that he is being very political. It is indeed--[interjection]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about population, the Leader of the official opposition made reference to Point Douglas and made reference then to Seine River or the Speaker's seat and compared it to Flin Flon and talked about what the media used.

I can tell the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), whenever I had the opportunity to talk to the media, I talked about Point Douglas versus Seine River, a 17,000-18,000 versus a 29,000-30,000. We are talking of a depopulation in certain parts of Winnipeg, and we are talking about serious growth in other areas of Winnipeg.

Those, Madam Speaker, are issues that have to and need to be addressed, and that is the reason why we created this independent process through Elections Manitoba. How can we justify to some MLAs and their constituents, and more importantly to Manitobans, the type of inequities that are here today? How do we then justify the lack of responsibility for actions by the government and the official opposition had this bill not passed because of the inequities that are indeed there?

When we look at the process, Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things that I want to comment on. December 1997 is actually when the research secretary was hired for Elections Manitoba. February '98, the commission first actually met. Between February and May, map options and census Canada figures were released. [interjection] Because I placed the phone call, and every member can place that very same phone call and ask what actually took place.

Madam Speaker, in May, existing maps with populations of variations were in fact released July 1, which is--

An Honourable Member: Is this after you phoned them or before?

Mr. Lamoureux: I phoned them a few weeks ago–a couple of weeks ago. July 1, the draft was released to the public. Starting on August 27 to September 11, public input was formally received in seven different locations in Manitoba. After considerable feedback, the commission went over several options and recommendations which ultimately led to the final report being released on December 18.

Madam Speaker, from that point on, the responsibility then, the moral and ethical responsibility, was for this government to get us back into session and pass that legislation. [interjection] Wrong. The dean of the Chamber is wrong. I do not want to get off topic. You can refer to my earlier comments in this speech.

Now, having said that, Madam Speaker, I want to go back to 1989. It was May 24, 1989, the last time we debated the boundary redistribution issue inside this Chamber. Actually we did not debate it that day, I stand corrected. It was read for the first time. Like many other bills, 95 percent of the bills that come before this Chamber–the bill is brought in for first reading, no debate occurs for a great deal of time. Well, it actually came to debate for the first time in second reading on June 21, 1989. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) was correct. Sixteen people actually commented.

An Honourable Member: Five hours to debate it.

* (1540)

Mr. Lamoureux: That is right, five hours to debate it. Okay, having said that, then on June 23 it went into committee. On June 26 it was going through a third reading; on June 26 it received Royal Assent. That is five days; that is all it took.

You know, Madam Speaker, when it went to committee–[interjection] No, we are talking from first reading. If you want to count first reading in the first four months. We are talking about legitimate debate days within this Chamber. Between first reading and second reading, I would suggest to you that those were days that it could have been given first reading on June 21, quite frankly.

Madam Speaker, the point is when we went into Committee of the Whole back then, it passed without a word. There were no comments added to it. When it went into third reading, there were no comments to it. It went into Royal Assent. There is a good reason and the Leader of the official opposition raised it in his speech, and that is that we want to be very careful that we are not accused of gerrymandering, which is a terminology that is used where politicians fix the boundaries. We want to prevent that from occurring.

Madam Speaker, to this day we still do not have a commitment on paper. Yes, we have a commitment that we are going to pass these bills. That is a signed-off document, prior to the budget. I am a little bit of a skeptic, because I have seen signed documents before. I still do not have a commitment from the Premier saying that he will not call an election before these boundaries are put into place.

So, Madam Speaker, I trust and hope, and most of that faith is going to the official opposition, I must say, to ensure that whatever is taken, whatever has happened–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): The Leader of the Opposition said: do not trust us. I am not too sure what he was referring to.

Mr. Doer: Trusting somebody who does not have the authority to call an election is not a good idea. So the only person you can trust who has the authority to call the election is the First Minister. I would suggest that we not trust him, because I do not either.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for The Maples did not have a point of order.

Mr. Lamoureux: Here is the point. The Leader of the official opposition I believe will respect what I am saying as pretty close to 100 percent in terms of its accuracy. We know that we cannot trust the Premier. We agree on that point, okay? The Leader of the official opposition acknowledges that particular fact.

Well, Madam Speaker, what I am going to have some trust and faith in is not only in that paper, because that paper, it is signed, yes, but what I am looking for is the assurance from the official opposition. We know that the budget is going to be coming down on the 29th. We know that for a fact. Well, what I am looking for the official opposition party to do is to ensure that this legislation is in fact passed and given Royal Assent prior to the budget debate starting. That is what I look to the official opposition to do. That is something which they can materialize. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says: no problem, do not worry. There is that wonderful song: Don't Worry, Be Happy. The member for Thompson rectifies it by saying: well, you should always be a little bit worried.

Well, Madam Speaker, you know, that is something in which I trust that only the New Democrats can, because they have full co-operation from us in order to ensure that legislation gets passed. Let us not be petty. History is something that is there behind us. We have the bill. We can tell whether or not they are manipulating. They are prepared to pass it. By all means, let us pass this legislation. There is absolutely no reason why this legislation cannot be passed.

One of the unfortunate things is the moment that I sit down the member for Thompson I believe is going to stand up. When the member for Thompson stands up, I think he might take exception to some of the things that I have said.

An Honourable Member: I have been taking notes, Kevin, yes.

Mr. Lamoureux: As he indicates, he has been taking notes. Well, Madam Speaker, what I would like the member for Thompson, as I talk for the next 20 minutes or so I figure I have–no, I will not be that long. I am kidding.

Madam Speaker, what I would appeal to the member for Thompson is to keep in mind, as I have pointed out, that the office of Elections Manitoba, in my mind there is absolutely no doubt, will read and will take seriously everything in regard to debates and comments on this particular bill. Hopefully that is in fact the case. I really believe that it is a responsibility of Elections Manitoba, as it does on certain other issues, to convey and have discussions with party representatives. Those party representatives are not necessarily elected individuals. They represent the parties in dealing with different issues regarding the elections and how they are run in the province of Manitoba.

Well, Madam Speaker, I would suggest that as opposed to Elections Manitoba getting overly caught up in possibly some rhetoric, myself included, I guess to a certain degree, on this particular bill, those discussions are better taken outside of this Chamber but take into consideration some of the comments that are being put forward on the record from members of this Chamber. I like to think that we express not only party positions but also positions–what we feel are important to our constituents. That is what I am going to comment on right now in terms of the constituents' aspect.

This is the second time where boundaries are changing. The first time boundaries changed, I lost Brooklands or part of Brooklands, and I lost the part of Weston. Wonderful people, it gave me a great sense of pride in first receiving good support from those communities; and then, unfortunately, because of the boundary distribution, I had lost the privilege of representing them in the following election.

For almost 11 years now, I have been representing the Shaughnessy Park-Mynarski area between McPhillips and Keewatin Streets. It is indeed humbling to know the type of support that I have received from that area. It has been a privilege for me to have represented those constituents, and I trust and I convey that I have always attempted to do what I could to try to make those communities a better place to live. I can only hope at this point in time that, if the boundaries do take effect, I am going to be able to get the type of support that I have had from the past in the new area, the area in which my colleague for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) currently represents. I know the member for The Maples today will ensure that if, in fact, I am fortunate enough to be re-elected, I am held accountable for that area. I know I can count on that, Madam Speaker.

But going back to what I think constituents want is that they very much believe in the democratic system. They very much believe in those principles, those foundations of democracy. I alluded earlier to the session, a very important issue for me personally and our political party. When we look at the issue in which the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), no doubt, will spend a good 50 percent of his speech, in all likelihood, on–

* (1550)

An Honourable Member: It has gone up to about 90 now.

Mr. Lamoureux: –possibly 90, as he has referred to–is some of the perceived and, in some cases, real advantages and disadvantages of being a rural versus an urban MLA. I appeal to the member for Thompson to take into consideration the impact on things such as candidates, the incumbency factor, issues such as everything from abilities to appreciation. When the member for Thompson, I would think, goes to a door in a remote area of his riding, I think that a constituent would look at that as a phenomenal effort. The member for Thompson would likely be rewarded handsomely, and the best thing you could probably get is not only appreciation but also some support. That does not necessarily mean that that is going to happen. I think that there are very clear advantages of being a rural MLA. I also believe there are very clear advantages of being an urban MLA.

What is important, more important than anything else, is not what Elections Manitoba does in order to ensure better democracy–better representation, I should say, not democracy–I misspoke myself. Elections Manitoba's responsibility is to ensure a sense of fairness in the democratic system, and I very much believe in a one-member, one-vote system, even though I am sympathetic to the 25 percent–and I know our party is sympathetic to the 25 percent–I would not personally support that it should be instituted, that it should be "shall" be 25 percent. I could not support that. I could see Elections Manitoba giving some guidance to be taking that into consideration, along with the 10 percent. I do not believe that it should be "shall." I think that it would be a mistake.

What is more important is not what Elections Manitoba does on that particular issue, it is more important what we do here in the Manitoba Legislature, in particular on the Legislative Assembly Management Commission, because it is through LAMC that those sort of financial resources are given to allow members to ensure that there is a sense of equality in representation. It is not the primary role of Elections Manitoba, it is the primary role of the Legislative Assembly Management Commission.

Madam Speaker, I would trust and hope that Elections Manitoba will at least respect that particular argument that you can reduce–you can have Rupertsland's population reduced to 50 percent, if you like, of the average size of a constituency, yet if we through LAMC give no rural benefits to that member, I would argue that there would be poor representation of that particular rural riding. What is critical, when it comes to fair and equitable and good sound representation, first and foremost, is the individual who gets elected; second, it is the resources that that particular individual is provided.

Madam Speaker, Elections Manitoba is not responsible for either one of those. It is very easy-- and that is why I said at the very beginning of my speech that I might not necessarily be politically correct in my statements. When I made that comment, this, what I have just said in the last two paragraphs or two minutes, is the primary reason for that.

So what I believe my constituents would want me to say in regard to boundary redistribution is that their vote has to have some value in terms of equity across the province. That I will articulate for; I will articulate that to the very best of my ability, not only from within this Chamber but also within the Liberal Party, and I would lobby Elections Manitoba. I would ask that the lobbying of resources in enhancing opportunities to be able to better represent your constituencies is something that happens in LAMC, and that is something that I am deeply, as the Liberal Party is, committed to ensuring takes place. After all, it was the Liberal Party in '88 that brought in a lot of the rules of enhancement of our access allowances in working with the third party at the time–

An Honourable Member: Do not call us the third party. I never liked that term.

Mr. Lamoureux: I do not like the "third party" either. That is a fair comment.

The other opposition party at the time, I would ask that we be treated in the same fashion as the other opposition party. But having said that, Madam Speaker, I think that the proof is in the pudding, and the party has demonstrated, I believe, strong leadership on this whole issue of boundary redistribution and ensuring good, solid, fair representation. It is a message which we plan to continue and be ever so vigilant on.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I must admit I had planned on speaking today, but my speech has been assisted greatly by the comments made by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

An Honourable Member: Be nice.

Mr. Ashton: I will not be nice. I would like to make an invitation here to the member for Inkster and that is to walk a few–I was going to say a few miles in my shoes here, but maybe a few hundred miles in my shoes and the shoes of every rural and northern MLA in this Chamber. I want to preface it by saying that I do not underestimate the challenge facing urban MLAs at all. It is a difficult job being in the public eye. I understand that; I recognize that. We are all in a similar situation, and I never, ever, would suggest that urban MLAs have privileges that we do not have in rural and northern Manitoba. But, you know, when the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) just talked about the privileges that rural and northern members had, well, I could not resist.

I am just trying to think of what privileges I have as a member of the Legislature. Now, first of all, my constituency is about 750 kilometres north of the city. I had the privilege this morning of getting up, getting on the plane, coming down here. I am lucky this week I got to fly because if I drove, it would be nine hours––

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): I left at 5:30.

Mr. Ashton: The member for The Pas left at 5:30 this morning. I will not be back home until Thursday night. That is a real privilege, is it not? I get to spend four days here in the city, away from my family. That is just the start, the travel we have to do just to get back and forth where we live. I look to the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings), the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), I look around at our caucus, the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans)–we are all in the same situation–the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), the member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans). That is something urban members do not have to face, that geographic separation from their constituencies.

Now, I realize it may be a long trip back home for the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) if there is a traffic jam. I suspect it might be 15 minutes.

Mr. Lamoureux: No, 25.

Mr. Ashton: Twenty-five? Well, I guess the member for Inkster must drive a little bit slower than I do. [interjection] I appreciate the honesty of urban members–the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), who says seven minutes to travel home. Now, that is one of the privileges, right? We get to spend the week in Winnipeg. Wait a sec. Some of us also represent a lot of communities in our constituency. You know, we have the privilege. I will give you an example of this because the member for Inkster actually is not alone in this. There was a presenter to the Boundaries Commission I thought summed up the same mentality. Actually, it was somebody associated with the Conservative Party. I think it was the lawyer who was originally supposed to be part of the Monnin inquiry. It was talking about how in the technological age we did not need to have any recognition in terms of the size of constituencies because of the technological age.

I would like to invite the member for Inkster and anybody else who is not aware of how far that technological age penetrates in Manitoba to come to my constituency. I represent eight communities. By the way, I have it a lot easier than the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson). I have it a lot easier than the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen). I think the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and I are probably in an equivalent set of circumstances, but I have four communities out of eight that do not have any roads. Oops, there goes that sort of technology aspect.

Mr. Lamoureux: Do they have telephones?

Mr. Ashton: Well, there is another one. The member says do they have telephones. For the member for Inkster, how many people does he think in remote communities can afford telephones, 10 percent, 20 percent? I do not want to assume that the member for Inkster is not aware of this, but in many of my communities, you have 10-20 percent having phones, and it is getting smaller and smaller the way the phone rates are going. So, so much for this technology.

* (1600)

I just want to outline some of the kind of circumstances we went through because by way of background–by the way, when I first found out about the first draft of the boundaries, I was on holidays. I was told, Steve, your seat is going to be the biggest seat in the province. I am in the first draft, and I thought, my goodness, they gave me half of Rupertsland. Do you know what? They had made Thompson the largest seat by population.

So what I did, I went into the boundaries' hearings, and I actually took the map. I wish I could unroll it here, it would be considered an exhibit, I am sure. I kind of said, welcome to Thompson, welcome to the Thompson constituency, and I outlined the eight communities and what it is like to be a member of the Legislature representing those eight communities. I would note that anybody who has travelled in the North, like the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman), previous ministers and some of the MLAs who have taken the time to do that, will understand what it is like.

I started with Thompson obviously, urban community. Now, all I have to do is drive nine hours to get home, and I can represent my constituency, okay. Now, Wabowden, it is actually on Highway 6. It is not that bad. It is about an hour from Thompson. Then I started getting into the communities with road access.

Now, Nelson House, by the way, one hour outside of Thompson, has some of the worst road conditions in the province. I mean, we have been a little bit vocal about that in the House. We know it is an hour's drive, but you are lucky if you get there with your four tires intact. The same thing with Split Lake, it has an all-weather road. By the way, that is the end of the access to roads in my constituency.

Now, if you want to get to York Landing, there is a ferry. Do you know how often it runs? Twice a week. Now, if you want to go to York Landing right now, can you go by ferry? No, because we have not had the spring thaw yet. [interjection] Even if you are, if you want to spend three or four days in York Landing–please, I would invite the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) to do that. I am sure the community would be a very gracious host. Do you know what? You could say, well, there is the winter road. Well, you know, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) took the time to travel on that winter road, and it is not an easy road to travel on. If you get an early thaw like we did this year–I was planning on going in at the end of March. Guess what? No winter road.

Now, I actually have communities that are accessible by train only. The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) has been in that community, as well as the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). You know, what is interesting is you can get into those communities. Now, one problem, the train runs three times a week. Now, you can actually go into one of the communities, in and out the same day, if you catch the southbound train and the northbound train. There is only one problem with that. Sometimes the train can be 24 hours late, so you might run into a little bit of difficulty. Sometimes the two trains coincide so that you get about half an hour in that community.

Now, the other two communities on the rail line, you have to spend at least a day, if not two days, in the community, okay? Now, no all-weather road access. You know, I tell you, there are not a lot of people sitting around playing games on the Internet, you know. This is the reality of a northern community.

Now, let us deal with the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) because people will say, aw, it looks pretty good, right? The member for The Pas represents Cross Lake and Norway House. I will tell you how good our road networks are into Cross Lake and Norway House. A year ago, the road was closed for several days. This is a provincial highway. Of course, it happens to be in the North, okay, so provincial highways in the North have a slightly different character than provincial highways in those parts of the province where, you know, if you want to put a political map over them, they are coloured blue. So you cannot necessarily even get in there. You cannot get in necessarily right now. In fact, between the time the ice bridge is open and the ferry runs, you have several weeks when that community is not accessible.

Okay, I am just dealing with Thompson and The Pas here. What about Rupertsland and Flin Flon? Now, I say to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), who talked about the privileges that members have, you know, you can send out all the franks and householders your want, you can have all the travel money you want, but try and put yourself in the situation of the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen). Now, he lives in Cranberry Portage. He represents Flin Flon. Do you know where else he represents? Brochet, Lac Brochet, Tadoule Lake, South Indian Lake. Do you know what? They do not have road access. Do you know how the member for Flin Flon accesses his constituency? He gets in a car from Cross Lake. He drives to Thompson. Then he drives through my constituency in its entirety to hit the first community that is accessible in the northern part of his riding at Leaf Rapids. Do you know how long a drive that is? About four hours, five hours, if you do not get stuck on Highway 391. That is the member for Flin Flon.

Now, I have left the best or in this case the worst till last, the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson). Now, actually, the member for Rupertsland has a unique distinction. He right now in the current boundaries can be in his constituency in about an hour and a half. You may say, boy, he is lucky. He gets to go and he is in his constituency in an hour and a half. The only problem is it starts at Sagkeeng First Nation and goes all the way to the 60th Parallel--[interjection] Well, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says how many ridings will we have in northern Manitoba? We said put in place in terms of what the North had before 1989, which was five northern ridings. That would solve the problem, and that was the position of many northerners.

An Honourable Member: Five would resolve all those problems?

An Honourable Member: It would go a long way.

Mr. Ashton: Well, you know the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says, and five would resolve all those problems, and as the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) points out, it would go a long way.

I realize the member for Inkster does not quite get this privilege that he thinks we have. You know, actually, I am very proud to represent Thompson, and I would not like to change places with the member for Inkster–but maybe even for a week. I think I could handle the 25-minute drive back. We will trade it, the nine-hour drives. This is something any of us who represent rural and northern areas do on a regular basis. I know rural and northern members in this House who are travelling within much closer constituencies. I recognize this as well. The LaVerendrye constituency, for example. It looks very easy to service, right? But how many communities are within that? You know, it is not like in a city riding where you have one event here, and you are five minutes–[interjection] How many?

An Honourable Member: Eighteen.

Mr. Ashton: Eighteen communities, the member for LaVerendrye (Mr. Sveinson). The member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), you look at the area that he has to represent.

An Honourable Member: We should give him 18 ridings.

Mr. Ashton: Well, and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says we should give 18 ridings. I say to the member for Inkster–and I could be political–I could suggest that maybe the mentality of the member for Inkster showing today is one of the reasons why the Liberal Party has I think had one MLA outside of the city in the last 20 years. Because you know it shows a complete ignorance. As much as I disagree with the Conservatives on so many issues of principle, I mean I do recognize there are many members across the way who represent rural ridings the same way we represent rural and northern areas, and probably understand of what I speak, and many urban members too, because a lot of our urban MLAs in our caucus have travelled into those communities. In fact, when I look around right now, everybody in this room has been in my constituency at least one time.

An Honourable Member: I have been there four times.

Mr. Ashton: And the member for Inkster has been in Thompson four times. That is sort of like one month of being the MLA for Thompson here. I understand that may have been a great experience for the member.

An Honourable Member: How many times have you been in Inkster?

Mr. Ashton: Oh, I have been in Inkster. I have actually knocked on doors in Inkster too, by the way.

An Honourable Member: Are you talking old or new?

Mr. Ashton: No, I am talking I have been in Inkster. I can say to the member opposite, do not talk about the rural northern ridings as somehow being privileged because of any kind of assumptions you have about modern technology. It is not the case.

An Honourable Member: I said there are advantages and disadvantages–

Mr. Ashton: Well, you said advantages, disadvantages. Earlier on you talked about the privileges. Now you said about the advantage that incumbents have. You know, I would like to show you my shoes if I could, but that would be another exhibit. With these shoes, you know the big advantage I have in my communities. When I go into communities like Thicket Portage and Pikwitonei and Ilford and York Factory First Nation, York Landing, you know what I do, the big advantage I do? Do you think I mail tons of stuff in? That is the big advantage. Do you know, do you think I go around with glossy leaflets? You know what I do? I knock on their door, and I ask them if they have any problems or any concerns. That is the experience of most rural and northern MLAs is community contact, the same thing as in the city. There is no magic thing when you step outside of the Perimeter. You know, the bottom line is, in fact, we have a distinct disadvantage in one way. Tonight, you will be back in your constituency; tomorrow you will be back in it. The day after you will be back, and rural and northern MLAs cannot do that.

That, by the way, brings me to the bottom line with the boundaries discussion. In 1989, a lot of the problem we are seeing today with northern seats was created. I say to the member for Inkster–in 1989, in fact 1988, the Boundaries Commission took the law which allowed for a 25 percent variation in northern Manitoba, 10 percent rural Manitoba–you know what they did? They said: we assume that the Charter of Rights will result in this being struck down. So they went and they eliminated the fifth northern seat, Churchill.

Now that was not the legislation; they assumed that. You know what happened in 1992? The Supreme Court of Canada, in a case involving Saskatchewan, said you are allowed to have those kinds of population variations because the reality is you need to balance out both representation in terms of the legislative sense and also representation in terms of members of constituencies having access to their member of the Legislature.

* (1610)

So, in 1989, the Boundaries Commission made a mistake, a serious mistake, I believe. In 1992, it was proven to be the case. We ended up with this set of boundaries discussions.

Well, I want to note that the first map that was put out was one of the worst pieces of work I could have imagined under these circumstances. I understand it is an independent commission, and I am saying this now after we are dealing with the final report, but I can tell you, to have had Thompson be the largest constituency by population was an insult, an absolute insult. To ignore the needs. In fact, staff people–I appreciate by the way that I think the commissioners were concerned about this–were going around saying: well, the North is not going to get a fifth northern seat.

You know, we did not ask for any special privilege. We asked for the use of the 25 percent provision which would have dealt with that, and the member says: Oh, sure we asked for special privileges. And what special provisions? To make sure that–

An Honourable Member: Then why do you say they have to take into consideration?

Mr. Ashton: Well, I am saying to the member, and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) still does not get it. The first map that was drafted, the seats like Seine River's, for example, were some of the smallest seats by population; Seine River was smaller than some of the rural ridings. [interjection] Well, the member for Inkster is suggesting that his constituents are not as good as ours. I assume if we have a situation of 25 percent representation–

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Thompson has definitely left on the record–he is trying to put words in my mouth to the effect that he is saying that my constituents are not quite as valuable as maybe they could be or should be. I did not catch the exact words because the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) was trying to imply something which I totally disagreed with. I do believe that the value of my constituents is equal to the member for Thompson's or the member for The Pas's.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, my entire point here is that constituents of the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) should have the best possible opportunity to access their member of the Legislature. Unless you have fair boundaries that reflect the act at 25 percent, you are unable to have that take place. I would say to the member for Inkster who will be driving home to his constituency tonight, that 25-minute drive that he talks about, that tonight he will be back in his constituency and people can phone him at any particular point in time. They can phone him at home.

I will not be home tonight. I will not be home until Thursday. That is one of the difficulties you have as a rural and northern MLA. I cannot commute, and I say to the member for Inkster that one of the reasons we have a balance is because of that. By the way, in Saskatchewan, my understanding is that the variation that is included there is a 40 percent variation in the northern area.

The member for Inkster seems to have this thing about the North getting recognition of its geographic area in terms of electoral boundaries. I know the member said he did not have a problem with the 25 percent. He seems to have this fixation on northern Manitoba. I say to the member for Inkster, the bottom line is here. This is something that is enshrined in every Legislature in this country, the fact that there is a difference by region, and that is why the first map that was issued was such a insult to northerners.

Madam Speaker, I give the commission some credit on the second round of hearings, but I want to note that having been at the hearings in Thompson, by the way, one of the main recommendations we made was that the commission, which, coincidentally, consists of three people based in the city of Winnipeg, should have taken the opportunity not just to go into the major urban centres but to go into, for example, Cross Lake or Norway House or Nelson, travel into some of the aboriginal communities because, believe you me, this was a significant concern at the time, particularly in Cross Lake. I give the commission credit--

An Honourable Member: Is that not where Cubby Barrett got his license?

Mr. Ashton: Where Cubby Barrett got his license. Yes. We will get into that. I am diverging here because I want to point out the fact that the commission did not travel to aboriginal communities. If they had, I think they would have heard, as I hear from my constituents, very direct concerns about ensuring that the North was treated fairly.

Now, I want to make a couple of suggestions here by the way, because I think part of this—this could have been dealt with by the commission. It can be dealt with by legislation. I want to make a number of suggestions to resolve some of these problems. First of all, I would suggest that from now on in, as we discussed in 1989, we have a Boundaries Commission that has both rural and northern representation. [interjection]

Well, the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) asks a very good question. We could do it, for example, on the basis of we have the University of Manitoba. We also have institutions outside of the city, Brandon University, Keewatin Community College. There are various different institutional arrangements. I think, if we accept the principle, we can work out someone who is objective on these matters. I think that would help give the broader perspective that we need. That is the first recommendation that I think we can all agree on, okay.

The second thing I would like to suggest, by the way, Madam Speaker, to resolve some of the other ongoing difficulties, I think we really should revisit the provisions of the act in terms of the 10 and the 25 percent variation. I think the intent was very clear in 1987. It was not followed in 1989, and I do not think it was followed this time in its fullest sense to allow the kind of variation that ensures that you get fair boundaries.

I also want to make another suggestion, that we look at changing the timing in the dealing with boundaries, because one thing that I find is very unfortunate about this situation because of the fact that for the first time in more than a decade we did not have a fall sitting, is that we end up in a situation where the final map was drafted in December, our session did not begin until April. By the way, the government could have brought us back in under the old session to deal with boundaries. They chose not to. We then were dealing with the throne speech. We are now dealing with the act in place here, and there has been a fair amount of debate back and forth from Liberal members, Conservative members and from our side about when those boundaries will come into play. Well, there is I think a solution to this.

One suggestion I would make is that we could have avoided this problem if we, for example, had required the commission to bring its boundaries in at the end of, say, 1998 and then have those boundaries come into place upon passage by the Legislature not the following January but the January after that, okay. That would have given plenty of opportunity of notice to the political parties who would then be aware of the different boundaries, would have given people I think a chance to familiarize themselves with different boundaries, because we would end up with a rather unique situation now. We could have an election within a matter of days, weeks, months. A lot of people with the changes will not know which boundary they are in, which constituency they are in. The solution I think would be to get some delay.

By the way, as much as we have had some strong words back and forth, we have not engaged in the kind of a manipulation that took place in the federal House of Commons. I would just like to draw the attention of people to that, with the delay of the boundaries, some of the interesting developments where candidates were basically persuaded not to run again, were appointed to bodies such as the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Oh, I am sorry, I am talking about a specific case here. I should not say too much about Ron Fewchuk because he no longer is in that job. I guess he has gone on to Liberal patronage–Senate, well, not the Senate but the pension heaven–but that was a case of how you do not deal with boundaries. I do not want to see us lose that.

* (1620)

I want to suggest, Madam Speaker, we very really came close to losing that this time. I point the finger in this case at the Premier (Mr. Filmon) who said originally there would be new boundaries and then a few months ago suggested we might be running under old boundaries and now we are back to new boundaries. As the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) points out, we do not yet have a definitive position in terms of the time of the election, but I would say the agreement ensures that. I cannot see anybody in this House supporting any other situation than having those boundaries in place before the election. That was the intent of what we have agreed to in terms of the seven days we are to debate, but from now on in let us take that temptation out of the mix. When the final decision comes down, that is it. There is no more recourse. There should be no ability of a government or an opposition party or any party to be able to time the circumstances as to whether it is better for them or worse for them politically. I think we are all agreed on that, and that can be easily dealt with.

Well, I want to go a bit further as well, because I want to get back to some of the suggestions that can be made in terms of the northern seats. The current act says that the commission may be able to go to 25 percent. It has proven it has not done that, and I would suggest we need to look at bringing in the provision "shall" and defining it in that sense. I do not think that is unreasonable, by the way. By the way, I will tell you what we said in Thompson, and I guess it depends sometimes your view of the province. When you are in northern Manitoba, I like to take those maps and sort of turn them on their head a bit.

Think about this for a moment. We went to the Boundaries Commission, a cross-section of people. Even the returning officer for Thompson, an appointment of this government, a very respectable community official, said five seats is fair.

You know what I said? The real issue here, if you want to put it in perspective, is not four seats versus five seats for the North. The real question, Madam Speaker, was whether there were going to be 52 seats or 53 seats for southern Manitoba. Fifty-three seats was the original draft of the map. We were arguing that it should be–or 54, pardon me, and it should be 53, or 53 and 52. We argued that it was not unfair to suggest that the North should have five seats, and the rest of the province should have 52.

Now, if we got our way, if we had been listened to as northerners fully, I do not think we would have tilted the balance of power in this province too much by having that extra northern seat. I know the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman), who I am sure is an advocate within his caucus for the North, would agree with me. I mean, that one extra seat, what would it have done? Would it have created chaos politically? [interjection] Well, the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) says one more NDP seat. I notice he did not suggest the Liberals in that mix, but, you know, there have been competitive races in the North.

An Honourable Member: Who represented Thompson before you?

Mr. Ashton: As the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) points out, I defeated a Tory cabinet minister in the North. We have had Tories in the North. It is interesting because, you know, I ran against a very well-known incumbent, and I beat him, to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). So it is possible; it is possible. You know, there are Tories in the North. They are easy to identify because all you have to do is look at the board appointments. It is like if we have one member–I am sure they sit there and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman) says we have one member in Pikwitonei. I know how you can spot him; he is on a board already.

I must admit, too, we have made it very easy for them to appoint defeated Tory candidates in the North. We produce a lot of them in the North, and we have produced a regular supply now since 1981, perfect candidates for regional health authorities and other government positions.

But, you know, that is not the point. The point is fairness. Thirty years ago the North voted Conservative, to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). [interjection] Well, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says why five; why not six; why not seven? It is interesting, he has gone from four, now he is up to six or seven. [interjection] Well, to the member for Inkster, the act says the commission can go up to a variation of 25 percent which is a reasonable variation. What I am suggesting is that is what the commission should have done, and the result would have been five seats, following the intent of the act. [interjection] Well, it is interesting, because, you know, the member for Inkster cannot make up his mind whether he wants four northern seats or six or seven–[interjection] I appreciate that. I actually invite the member for Inkster to make his fifth trip to northern Manitoba, perhaps come up and we will organize a forum on this in Thompson. I will invite the member for Inkster to get up and explain why he thinks that northern constituencies and northern MLAs have all these great privileges. I am sure the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) perhaps in his new career might be able to come along and give some assistance to the member for Inkster because he might create a bit of a stir in Thompson. [interjection] That is right, we will give him a tour of the mine.

But, you know, I want to appeal to the good nature of all members of this House and even to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). I will almost forgive him for his comments about us having these great privileges in rural and northern Manitoba.

An Honourable Member: You do not think it is a privilege to be in Thompson?

Mr. Ashton: Well, I consider it a privilege to be in Thompson, to live in Thompson. I am proud of Thompson. It is my home community; I have lived in it since I was a kid. I am proud to represent Thompson in the Legislature, but, you know what, the only privilege is representing Thompson in the Legislature. I do not get any material privileges. To tell you the truth–I want to say this on the record–I actually got to the point after 17 years where I must have travelled a couple of a million miles back and forth, that I actually do not quite enjoy travelling the way I used to.

I look at the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae). I am sure when he gets out on Highway 1, you know, every time he goes back to Brandon, he is saying, boy–he is probably thinking of the member for Inkster's comments here. He is sitting there and, Madam Speaker, it is, boy, what a privilege to be able to represent a rural constituency. I can see the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson). He is going to be travelling this weekend around his 18 communities. He going to be thinking, boy, Kevin is right. This is great. This is a great privilege. I look at the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), and he is doing the same thing. The member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin). We are all going to be thinking about those inspiring words of the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

I am going to be driving back, and I am going to be saying, boy, I am lucky. I always have these advantages as an incumbent. As I drive through Highway 6, and after I get beyond St. Martin and I do not see anybody past Grand Rapids, except–well, pardon me, Ponton, which has I think six registered voters.

An Honourable Member: Well, when you get into an outboard motor.

Mr. Ashton: Well, I did not talk about that. I am glad the member for The Pas reminded me. I have been lucky because I have travelled every which way in the North, except for dog team, I have to work on it, but I give the member for Inkster an example, the kind that we in the North have to face on a regular basis. I went into York Landing, York Factory First Nation, I went in in November, no ferry, no winter road. You fly in. So actually one of the members in the community said to me, are you going to overnight, Steve? I said, well, maybe next time.

Well, I spoke too soon. The weather got bad. I could not get out that night, could not get out the rest of the morning. You know what somebody said–in fact, Thomas Beardy, who is a counsellor, said, you know what, do not worry, Steve. There were two other people that were in the community at the time. They said, we will get you out by skidoo. Now this is November, okay. So we went off by skidoo over to Split Lake. We then caught a taxi from Split Lake to try and meet the incoming van that was sent up by the airline–remember, we could not get on the plane. We caught it on the highway. We then went back. Two other people from Winnipeg, they got on the bus, and they travelled 10 hours to Winnipeg. I still remember going downtown to see my wife who was not expecting me for the whole weekend, and I must admit she was a little bit shocked that I was going by skidoo in November, but that is the reality. If you want to get into Thicket Portage in the summer, you know one of the best ways is going by boat. Phone somebody up–if they have a phone, I just said that to the member for Inkster–and they will pick you up by boat.

An Honourable Member: It sounds like you do not like this. You do not like this job, Steve.

Mr. Ashton: The member for Inkster says it sounds like I do not like this job. Look, I have already announced I am running again. I am proud to represent Thompson. But you know what, all I ask is that the member for Inkster–

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Speaker, I just want to ask the member for Thompson: why does he feel so depressed about the riding which he represents? That is what I want to know. That is the point.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, I am not sure if you were up on a point of order, but, regardless, it is not a point of order. It is a matter of interruption.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, my whole point, to the member for Inkster and I wish you would be listening, is give me the opportunity as a northern member. Do not tie one hand behind my back by making sure, as the original draft of the boundaries was going to do, that I have the biggest by population. Give the member for The Pas, the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), the member for Flin Flon, the opportunity of the same contact with our constituents that you do every night when you drive home to your constituency.

* (1630)

An Honourable Member: That is not possible, Steve.

Mr. Ashton: The member for Inkster says, it is not possible. Give us the best possible chance. Give us what the legislation allows, the 25 percent, that is all we are asking. In the end, I tell you, one thing about northern MLAs is that you could say we are proud of giving good representation. You can still call us suckers for punishment, whatever you want, but I will say one thing, you can give us whatever boundaries, and we will try our best and we do. I say to the member for Inkster, again, who seems to be now–and I assume that he is speaking officially for the Liberal Party because he is the one MLA that is running again. I do not know if he is an acting leader. I do not want to get into that, sorry. It is a sensitive issue, but, anyway, I assume–[interjection] He is arguing this. I want to say to the member for Inkster, if you want to have any chance of winning seats outside of the city, what you need is to have some sense of rural and northern Manitoba.

When I talk about the experience of travelling in my communities, and I look at all the other rural MLAs–one thing, by the way, what I always do as a matter of course is to make sure I travel like everybody else does. When the winter roads open, I am on the winter road. When it comes to highway travel, I travel by highway. That is what we do. That is part of representing your constituency.

But, you know, I say to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that one of the things we have to do for all of us, including the rural MLAs as well, is to ensure that the constituents of the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) or my constituents or any of the rural and northern constituents have a fair chance to see us, have a fair chance to have contact with us. You know, it is not fair–and the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) understands of what I speak. It is not fair if you have a situation in which you have two different categories of MLAs in this province.

You know, you can give some support through constituency allowances, and, by the way, I welcome the members' comments because we are still inadequate. I know members of this House in rural and northern areas who pay out of their pockets every year because they do not have enough allowance to be able to travel even just within their constituency, and I notice the member for Portage (Mr. Faurschou) and the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) and the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans). We do that on a regular basis because we care about our constituents, but, you know, I say you can give us all the travel allowances you want, but you still have to have some sense of balance. That is why we have the allowance for 25 percent; that is why we have the allowance for 10 percent.

I want to appeal not just to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), but I want to appeal to this Legislature and the future Legislature to learn from the experience of what has happened. I have deep concerns about the fact that we in the North have to even go and argue our case before the Boundaries Commission. That should never happen again. We should not have to go cap in hand. We should have what is our just due under the legislation. I say that for rural Manitoba as well, because I actually questioned some of the constituency boundaries in rural Manitoba because I really think that there was not full use of the 10 percent in some cases that has led to some constituencies in rural Manitoba that are not fair constituencies. I note, by the way, there is an assumption of growth in the city. The smallest ridings right now are the suburban ridings in the city, and I know some of the other members will talk about the situation facing core area ridings, for example. But, you know, there are some inequities built in there.

But I want to make sure we do not have to go cap in hand again, Madam Speaker. What I want to suggest on this is that because this is an independent commission, I do not think we have any choice other than to support its recommendations, and I want to note on the record, it is one heck of a lot better than the first map which I classified as an insult to northerners and I think to many others in rural Manitoba.

I want to state, by the way, that I think the commission did listen on some of the smaller concerns, the community-by-community concerns, but the next time around, next time, the next Legislature perhaps, we should be making sure that we have–and I want to sum up here–a fairer commission that represents rural and northern Manitoba. It is not acceptable that we do not have a single member from a rural and northern area.

We should have, Madam Speaker, a proper timetable to put this into place, so it is put in place perhaps a year after the reports come out, so there is none of this jockeying back and forth, no questions asked about that. We should make sure that next time around that the 25 percent provision is available to northern seats and the 10 percent in the rural areas. It will not tilt the balance in this province. I do not think this time around that it would have made much difference, if any, certainly to the political balance or even the rural and northern balance.

I want to stress, especially to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), because, you know, as a northern member, I have always fought for a province that is inclusive, yet I believe in fighting for Winnipeg when its interests are affected. Winnipeg is the driving engine, but without rural and northern Manitoba, there would not be much in this province. This is part of I think the arrangement that we need, understanding our unique needs in this province.

One of the things we need in northern Manitoba and rural Manitoba is we need electoral processes and boundaries that are fair, Mr. Acting Speaker. I think we have gone a long way by having an independent process the last 40 years, but we have to go a lot further in the future, and I strongly urge that we not forget this lesson. We have to make sure we do it better next time, and doing it better means giving better representation to rural and northern Manitoba. Thank you.

Mr. Kowalski: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to put a few words on the record in regard to this bill.

A number of times, I spent Christmases with Douglas Campbell. He is related to my wife. I remember often speaking to him about what was his proudest achievement. Many people, when they speak of what Douglas Campbell did for this province, they talked about electrification, yet he felt that the most important thing he did was introduce this independent body to set boundaries. The principle behind it was that no political party, no lobbyist–the term "gerrymandering" has been used–would interfere for political purposes with the setting of fair boundaries for a fair and democratic election. I think that is something we all agree with, but we are almost interfering with that principle by using the timing of setting those boundaries for political purposes. So I am glad we have gotten to this point today, but I am not going to rest easy until this bill receives Royal Assent.

We talk about whether the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will call an election before or after this bill is passed. We talk about that it should be passed before the budget, but in the brief time I have been in politics, I have learned there is very little you can count on for sure. You have to be flexible. Things could happen. The budget could be defeated theoretically. Anything could happen, and we are gambling with a fair and democratic election by not passing this bill as soon as possible. So I will not rest secure until this bill has been passed and know that the next election will be fair and democratic. So that is the one point.

Also, I know that, before I did my matter of privilege, I read the debate from 10 years ago. I read all the different speakers. I am sure that Elections Manitoba referred to that before they did this review of the boundaries, and I am sure 10 years from now before they do it again, they will be reading the debate from this session. So a couple of suggestions.

Number one is that in the naming of the ridings I believe we should avoid naming ridings after towns, especially in rural Manitoba. For example, they have chosen to name one riding Carman, but what about all the other towns in that riding? When whoever is successfully elected from that is in some other town in that area and says, I am the member for Carman, do they feel disenfranchised? So I think that is something that they should look at in the future, that in the naming of boundaries they get away from naming provincial ridings by referring to towns. One member has suggested maybe hyphenated names, but still they did Winnipeg-St. Paul federally. That might be one solution, but in some areas you might have three or four towns of equal size or close. Why should one be favoured? So 10 years from now when the Boundaries Commission is going to do this again, I hope they will get away from naming provincial ridings after towns.

The other thing to get away from this, this was a matter of circumstances that, when the normal rotation of elections comes and when the 10 years come and that, the timing was unfortunate. It is unfortunate that we were not called into session prior to dealing with this, but maybe there is something we could change in the legislation in the future so that we do not get into this predicament once again. The suggestion is possibly—and it is not up to Elections Manitoba, that would be up for us to do it as the Legislature—to put it in the act that, when the bill is passed, it is retroactive to the release of the report. If we passed the legislation and made it retroactive, whenever the report is—bang, that is the new boundaries. We still retain the responsibility of passing that legislation because ultimately it is ours, but by making it retroactive to when the Boundaries Commission–then it cannot be used for political manipulation.

So I hope debate will proceed quickly through the House, through second reading, through committee stage and third reading, and we pass this bill so that the next election is based on fair and democratic boundaries. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

* (1640)

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is written: "But ye be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass mirror: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was."

I would like to talk about The Electoral Divisions Act, the democratic principle, and some ideals of a good, democratic, political system. The Electoral Divisions Act of Manitoba was passed initially, as I can recall, in 1957, maybe earlier, but I know from 1957 up, which created the Electoral Boundaries Commission, consisting of: (1) The person who, from time to time, is the Chief Justice of Manitoba; (2) the person who, from time to time, is the president of the University of Manitoba; and (3) the person who, from time to time, is the chief electoral officer. In other words, it is naming institutionalized positions, rather than particular individuals who may occupy such positions.

The Electoral Divisions Act empowers the Electoral Boundaries Commission in the year 1968 and every ten year thereafter to proceed and establish a cushion for its electoral divisions in the Province of Manitoba. They do this by dividing the total population of the province by 57, the number of electoral divisions in this province. So all you do is get the population according to census statistics, divide it by 57. That is the average provincial number of people in every district, in every riding.

Now, since the Legislative Assembly, this Assembly, was not in session, neither in July 15, 1988, nor in December 18, 1988, the president of the council, namely the Premier, who presides in cabinet meetings, has this Boundaries Commission report, both the preliminary and the final report, without the report being made publicly known to the people of this province, some of whose basic rights, the weights in their respective voting rights, are being fundamentally altered to promote the basic democratic principle, both in theory and in practice. Believe me, there is a wide gap between the theory and the practice of democracy.

Now, let us look analytically at this so-called democratic principle. What is the basic democratic principle?

Therefore the English political philosopher by the name of Thomas Hobbes said, in his book, the Leviathan: For the prosperity of a people rules by an aristocratical or democratical assembly, cometh not from aristocracy or democracy, but from the obedience and concord of the subjects; nor do the people flourish in a monarchy because one man has the right to rule over them, but because they obey him. Take away, in any kind of state, the obedience and consequently the concord of the people, they shall not only not flourish, but in a short time they shall be dissolved. Therefore, human beings as individuals are the ultimate choice makers in determining group actions as well as private, personal actions in the calculus of consent in determining the political right to govern.

In a truly democratic society, the governors govern through the consent of the governed, to whom the persons in authority are made responsible and accountable to through the periodic exercise of the right to vote where its voter is counted as an individual in the determination of the majority which decides who is to govern.

The British philosopher John Locke said, and this is the rationale for the majority rule: For that which acts any community, being only the consent of the individuals in it, and being one body, it must move only one way. It is necessary that the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority. But let us accept it. The majority is not always right. There is always that potential risk of the tyranny of the majority to the detriment of the minority.

What, then, are the component characteristics of the democratic principle? There is the authority to govern; established, it emanates and derives from the consent of the governed. Two, the authority to govern derives from the doctrine of majority rule. However, since the majority is not always right, adequate protection of notice and hearing of the views of the minority is guaranteed, so that the minority may not be subject to the ever-present risk of the tyranny of the majority, which is always there. Consequently, the majority of electors in the process of general election gives legitimacy to the assumption of governmental power by those who have been elected to positions of authority by the same democratic process. The same election can unseat the political ruler as the fluid majority of electors may decide, for what was previously the minority may now become the majority.

Finally, another characteristic of the democratic principle is that there are specific limits to governmental powers. Those who are temporarily vested with the power of making authoritative decisions, those who run the government, have no right to intrude into the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, such as the democratic right to vote in an election for members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly of any province and the right to be qualified as candidate for membership in those bodies.

Such constitutionally guaranteed rights are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Examples of such would be reasonable limits prescribed by law, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Examples are the necessity to protect the public safety, to protect the public health of the people, to protect the public morale and the fundamental right of the freedom of other citizens.

* (1650)

If a vote-rigging plot, according to Chief Justice Monnin, is an unconscionable debasement of the citizens' right to vote, and, if to reduce the voting rights of individuals is a violation of our democratic system, how can a nonelective political party bureaucracy consent or sanction any manipulation whatsoever by any minority of the entitlement of the right of the majority of individual party members in good standing and residents within the constituency boundaries to nominate and vote at any nominating meeting the candidate of the majority's choice? How can they do that?

Let me recall some incident in the past. The Chair in a Canadian Parliamentary Association Conference pointed out that legislators are most of the time males; wealth, privilege, education, and Euro-Canadian ethnicity still are advantages to getting elected in Canada. Then when a minority or disadvantaged group is culturally different from the larger society, the views and experiences of the group will often be different. He said our challenge in our daily work is to use a framework of consistent principles to guide our future decisions. He said today we can discuss and help develop a framework of principles to guide ourselves.

He said resolving such conflicts is not so easy; legal, scientific, historical, ethical, financial considerations all play a role in government decisions. If we were afraid of difficult decision making, he said, we should not be here as legislators. Many individuals and social groups are seeking redress for social and physical harm that they suffer. This requires serious consideration, he said, and I look forward to discussion of these issues.

Then the Chair opened the floor for discussion and said: Si vous avez des questions? Alors, M. Conrad Santos, Manitoba.

Conrad Santos said: The new minority group are not well represented in the Legislature, even the corresponding proportionate distribution of themselves in the total population. When the minority group succeeds in being represented in one seat in a 57-seat Legislature, I would like to hear some explanation from you why the Boundaries Commission should abolish that one seat which factually is the most stable in the province. These are just the facts.

So I asked the question, and one of the participants said: I am not familiar with the situation you describe in Manitoba. And then Mr. Santos said: I am saying any province. I am just saying a theoretical thing, but it is applicable to Manitoba.

Then the Chair said: Maybe we could ask someone from Manitoba to answer the question if you feel at ease with it, and if not, I do not want to put anyone on the spot. So they called on our Honourable Speaker. The Honourable Speaker said, Louise Dacquay–she introduced herself–Speaker from Manitoba: The reference Conrad made is that in Manitoba we are undergoing a boundary review based on our legislation which dictates that every 10 years the boundaries be reviewed, and it is based on population. The inner core portion of the city of Winnipeg has decreased in size, which I think is not necessarily restricted only to Winnipeg but also some of the other larger cities in the neighbouring provinces. The suburban area has grown substantially. Regrettably, Conrad's constituency of Broadway has now been deleted–at least this is the proposal. It will be going to public hearings. Nothing is final at this point in time. This is the proposal put out by the independent Boundaries Commission. Regrettably, Conrad is the only member of the Manitoba Legislature from the Filipino community. We do have members in the Manitoba Legislature from aboriginal population. That is only for clarification. Regrettably, I cannot answer the question. I have absolutely nothing to do with it.

And that is indeed the truth. Now I ask the question: If every member of a political party elected to public office, who is a member of the constituency he represented and he represented all the people in the constituency in which he or she was voted to public office by the majority of the electorate in his or her riding, how can a nonelected, nonpartisan electoral Boundaries Commission of three of the most eminent citizens of the province justly abolish any constituency, as distinguished from merely redrawing the limits of his boundary without adversely affecting either the rights of the citizens who are qualified voters to vote or the right of the elected representative of the people to run once more as a candidate for public office when that representative has no more riding to contest for election.

Could the abolition of the most stable innermost core area riding be justified? The facts show that the constituency population in that riding is merely 26 persons over the desired provincial cushion of 19,547, the average provincial constituency population. If you divide 26 by 19,546, it is only one-tenth of 1 percent difference. Stable. Now, if you use the population of Winnipeg, which is greater than the provincial average, it will only be 378 persons less than the desired city average of 19,951. If you, again, do your division there to get the present day's equivalent, it is no greater than 2 percent difference, the most stable there is in all of the province's boundaries in all constituencies in this province. I ask the question: why is it abolished? I cannot answer; no one can answer.

Now I want to shift gears and talk about democratic attitudes, values and belief system in democratic societies. The honourable Deputy Speaker is looking at the clock–maybe I should stop at this point in time.

An Honourable Member: No, no.

Mr. Santos: I wish to talk about democratic attitudes, values and belief systems in democratic political communities, truly democratic ones. In writing about the deriving of the just powers of government from the consent of the govern as the centrepiece of the democratic principle, the American distinguished professor of political science of long ago, Charles Merriam, he was also active in practical politics, wrote a book called Systemic Politics. He said: Between coercion and consent there are many intermediate stages that run into each other so subtly as to make distinctions difficult. There is the continuum including intimidation, threat, fear. There is the continuum: information, suggestion and persuasion. Deeper than what we see, the miranda of political interaction. That is what he is terming, miranda, what you see, lies the credenda, what you really believe. The credenda of consent and then behind the credenda cries the real politic, the inner workings, the political goings on, the practice, the tactics and all the strategies that could possibly be invented by the human mind in the struggle for political power to govern.

In securing the consent of the govern, governments are run inevitably by human beings, and we are not angels. So we utilized a variety of ways and means in different societies, in widely different cultures, we have utilized bodies of doctrines to be believed, things much in same, stage of reason so that the masses of the people will be obliged in their human intellect to give their consent to the continuance of the governance of the many by the few through the institution of government. Three examples of such credenda inculcated in us believed by the masses and by the people generally are the following: During the days of absolute—

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) will have 20 minutes remaining.

The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.