Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

May I say that I endorse Mr. Coteau's and Madam Zahid's remarks in full.

This is really a tale of three maps. I hope they've been distributed to you.

The first map is the current configuration of the boundary. The second map was the first suggestion of the commission, to which we submitted no objection because it worked to the greater benefit of both the 416 area and, more particularly, Scarborough. It recognized the integrity of Scarborough. We supported and had no objections to that. The third one completely blindsided the riding. It totally butchered the riding, bears no relationship to anything else, and did bits and pieces, because of other configurations.

I'm left to be the only one to object, because the community had no opportunity to object, no opportunity to weigh in, no opportunity to say what they might prefer. This is a process objection as much as it is a substantive objection. This proposed configuration, as Madam Zahid said, bears no relationship to communities of interest, no relationship to geographical sensibilities, no relationship to historical truths and no relationship to the integrity that has been Scarborough. Literally, I don't think we could go quite back to the 1700s, as Ms. Lantsman said—and there might be some who said I was there—but it is a community that has had its integrity over many years. At one point Scarborough was a township; then it became a borough; then it became a city, and now, much to its resistance or chagrin, it is part of the greater Toronto area.

With that, I cede whatever time I have left either to Mr. Coteau or to Madam Zahid.

I thank you for your time and your attention.

John McKay

$469,523.00