Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 26th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll call our meeting to order.

We start today with the study for Saskatchewan, which, if anybody's counting, leaves us that province and two others yet to do. We're moving along.

Guests, it's good to have you all here today. We hope to be able to ask questions of you after your reports. There are five minutes for each of you. We'll do all of the reports and then we'll ask questions. We have one hour for this session.

Mr. Goodale, would you like to lead us off for five minutes?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Sure.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity.

My objection, of course, has been circulated in writing, so I won't take your time to read through all of it.

I support the report and the map proposed by the majority of the boundaries commission in Saskatchewan, that is Queen's Bench judge, Mr. Justice Ronald Mills, who comes from a rural community near Prince Albert, and professor emeritus, Dr. John Courtney, from Saskatoon, who is acknowledged to rank with the leading three or four political scientists in this country.

Saskatchewan is very proud of both of them. Through long years of experience and service, they are steeped in the heritage and the values that characterize Saskatchewan. That, along with their reputations for intelligence and hard work, are probably the reasons why they were selected by the Chief Justice and by the Speaker to serve on the independent, arm's-length, non-partisan, quasi-judicial boundaries commission for Saskatchewan.

I stress all of this about their backgrounds and their values because both have been under a bit of attack by robocalls, and push polls, and the like. There has been a concerted campaign to discredit their work, and this committee needs to know that Judge Mills and Dr. Courtney are two individuals of very high standing.

There was a dissenting opinion in the commission's report for Saskatchewan, filed by the third member, David Marit. It is that dissent with which I respectfully disagree. What's at issue here is the strategic approach underlying redistribution in Saskatchewan. Mr. Marit argues for the status quo with minimal adjustments because he supports exclusively rural or mixed rural-urban ridings with no clear urban voices.

The majority of the commission took a different view, consistent with much of the reasoned evidence before them. They noted that Saskatchewan's population is growing and it is becoming increasingly urbanized. More than 75% of the province's people live in urban centres of all sizes; 40% live in Regina and Saskatoon alone. Yet not one single Saskatchewan riding is distinctively urban at the present time. Not one. All 14 are either purely rural or mixed.

To address that, the commission majority produced a measured, reasoned, and balanced plan. They have not gone whole hog in the other direction. They have proposed a variety of ridings that accurately represent the vast diversity that is Saskatchewan's reality. Instead of having a map that is artificially stacked 14 to nothing against any distinctive urban representation whatsoever, the majority proposed a realistic blend of six predominantly rural ridings, one more than exists today, five urban ridings—three in Saskatoon and two in Regina, instead of none today—and three largely mixed ridings. It is I think a fair balance. This configuration will allow both rural and urban voices to be reflected in the House of Commons without one swamping the other, without communities of common interest being compromised or obscured.

In other provinces, I note that other MPs from other parties, including the government, have underlined the importance of this same principle. I think of Mr. Calkins from Wetaskiwin as one example.

The key point here is reflected actually in the structure of Saskatchewan's municipal organizations. There are two of them, not just one. One is distinctively rural and the other is urban. Why? Because the interests they represent are different and each deserves focused, full-time attention. They are both important. They need to work well together. But each has a distinctive voice that must be heard in its own right. It's fundamental to fairness in our democracy. That's why I disagree with the dissent and I strongly support the majority report of the Saskatchewan commission.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Goodale.

Mr. Komarnicki, it's great to have you here today. You have five minutes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I have filed two written reports, one on March 18, 2013, and one previous to that.

Starting with the March 18 report, I want to draw some things to the committee's attention. First of all, Saskatchewan did increase its population to the tune of 54,448. If you divide that into 14 ridings, that's 3,889 people per riding. That's not a significant increase in population, and it certainly wouldn't justify a fundamental shift of what has been the history in Saskatchewan.

I want to talk a little about the history of Saskatchewan. For the most part, except for the period 1933-1965, we've had a mixed urban-rural riding. In 1965, when that mix was settled, there were then 13 ridings, and when the committee did the quotient, it was 71,168 people, a mere difference of 2,645 persons from the present quotient. When you multiply that by 13 ridings, it's a difference of 37,000. An addition of 37,000 people, or 50,000 people, does not justify a fundamental shift in how Saskatchewan is being represented.

When we look at how the commission arrived at the fundamental change, I would suggest to this committee that they were predisposed to creating urban-only ridings, as evidenced by the fact that they said the initial communications confirmed their initial thoughts that there should be urban-only ridings. Then they were not prepared to change, notwithstanding all the subsequent representations that were made essentially to keep that the same.

If you look at their report, they said the majority of the subsequent representations, after they had made up their mind as to how this would work, were opposed to changing that urban-rural mix. Yet they chose not to accept that. Why? I say because they were of the view, as they said, that the time had come to change what we'd been doing and to switch to urban-only ridings.

But what is that based on? Is that based on a population increase of 30,000? When we look at the quotients throughout Canada we find that most quotients vary to a significant degree between the provinces. We look at Alberta, the number of people in their constituencies, 107,000; Ontario, 106,000; I think it's 35,000 in P.E.I. So there's a wide range of switching. If the committee were going to do something with that small increase in population, I would suggest they could have done it by what I would call tinkering with boundaries, adding some here, taking some there, but not making a fundamental shift.

When we look at the history of Saskatchewan, we find that except for that period of 1933-1965, it's been an urban-rural mix. That's what Saskatchewan is about. That's what makes Saskatchewan unique. It hasn't got a great population, and Regina-Saskatoon is not Montreal, Vancouver, or Toronto; they can be well represented.

So when we look at the numbers—and I filed that on March 18—we see that the commission had a submission made initially by a number of political science professors from Regina and Saskatoon, who suggested that in that period of time there was a precedent for urban-only ridings. But I draw your attention to the fact that in those years, in that chart, Saskatoon had a rural portion ranging from roughly 3,000 to 4,500, and Regina itself, in 1951-52, had a population of 5,241 that moved into a rural-only riding.

What's interesting in that period is that Souris—Moose Mountain effectively had two members of Parliament, as opposed to the area I now represent. It takes me three hours to get to the northeast corner of my riding and two and a half hours to get to the southwest corner, and it takes my learned colleague here 20 minutes to cross Wascana. The issues that face Wascana or Regina and the issues that face Souris—Moose Mountain are similar. We have cities, we have housing shortages, we have newcomers that we need to deal with, we have policing issues, we have oil and gas exploration, potash, carbon capture and sequestration, and enhanced oil recovery—all the issues that might exist in Wascana and more.

What I'm saying, Mr. Chair, is that the time has not come in Saskatchewan to fundamentally change what has been happening. It's not there. The commission was dead wrong. We should not accept that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Komarnicki.

Mr. Anderson, you're next, please, for five minutes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm proud to be here today representing the good folks of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, which is a huge rural area with a low population. We've got about 40,000 square miles of territory in our area, with approximately just fewer than 70,000 people, and I have one city in my riding.

I had the realization that my riding was going to expand a bit, and it has a bit of expansion up in the northwest corner. You can see on the map that there's a line in the northwest. I'm fine with that. I understand the necessity to try to deal with the equality of population; something needed to happen along those lines. I think Mr. Ritz and I have agreed that this is an acceptable way to do that. Actually, I made these suggestions in front of the commission, so in terms of the micro part of the equation here today, I would support what's happening in my riding.

But I have a bigger concern, and that is at the macro level, at the provincial level. We are moving from what is commonly known as a hub-and-spoke system, a combination of rural and urban ridings, to a system that has some strictly urban ridings and then the other ridings would be a mix of rural and urban. I think I've got less of a vested interest, actually, in the changes that are taking place kind of generally around the cities than many of the other MPs, because they don't affect me directly, except in terms of how I see representation being affected over the next few years if the changes go ahead. I want to talk to that for a few minutes.

There is no compelling reason for change. We've had 45 years of a system in place that's worked well. It's been fine-tuned. Actually, I would suggest it's unlikely that anyone could come up with a worse suggestion than what we have right now in terms of the proposal. One of the commissioners said at one point in his comments that we can't have two losers; you have to have a winner and a loser. I would suggest here that we actually do have two losers: both urban and rural lose in this.

I'll go through some of the reasons. One, I believe the proposed changes negatively impact representation in all areas, both urban and rural. History has shown that all three parties actually have done well under this system in the past at various times; there's been strength from all three parties. Right now, obviously, our party has political strength in the province. One of the reasons I think it's worked well is that MPs have had to understand both rural and urban issues in each of the areas and the constituencies they represented. They've been able to represent those issues as a group. I think this has worked particularly well for us over the last few years.

Our economy is still primarily rural based. When you look at the drivers to the economy, it's things like agriculture, mining, oil and gas. Those are rural based; that's where the operations take place, but typically they are managed from the cities. So there is a strong connection, and there continues to be that strong connection, between rural and urban in so many ways. It's frustrating to see a change that would actually enlarge rural ridings. As you bring the focus into just urban ridings, the populations are denser there and it obliges larger rural ridings, but then it reduces representation in the city as well.

The question I really have is this. Why are we doing this deliberately? Why are we creating this divide?

The impact of the present proposal expands rural ridings and creates some very bizarre communities of interest. If you look at Saskatoon, acreage is being tied into the Regina global transportation hub, and it makes no sense at all. It has broken up the Moose Jaw-Regina development corridor there. It does not make good sense, and it reduces city representation from four to three in both major cities.

These changes that are proposed were opposed by 75% at the presentations, and that included members of the urban municipality organizations, which had not been consulted prior to SUMA announcing its position on this. The mayors of Saskatoon and Regina presently have come out against it, and former mayors oppose it. The mayor of Swift Current, in my riding, has opposed it. We have former city councillors who oppose it. The Regina chamber of commerce came out against it, and we have numerous RMs, rural municipalities, that have opposed this.

I'd like to address why I think this has perhaps happened. I think there's been a misunderstanding about the role of MPs by commissioners. There's a failure to understand Saskatchewan communities of interest and what they really represent, and I actually think the commissioners got bad advice from a small group of people early in the process who have presented themselves as experts in this. I'd certainly love to address this a little bit later, and some of the misconceptions they have about Saskatchewan.

It's unfortunate that two members of the commission seem to have embraced the proposal and skilfully ignored the vast number of presentations. Mr. Marit's dissenting report is insightful. It's unprecedented. It's important that we look at that. We will likely be changing back, I would suggest, to the type of system we've had in the past, perhaps 10 years from now.

Hopefully, Mr. Chair, the commission can give Saskatchewan voters their voices back.

We look forward to your report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.

Minister Ritz, it's good to have you here today. You have five minutes.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly welcome the points made by my colleagues at this end of the table. I certainly welcome the dissenting report by one of the commissioners, David Marit, who heads up the SARM, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.

Mr. Goodale said that SUMA is very supportive, but that's not necessarily true. A good portion of the delegates to SUMA represent small towns and villages throughout my area, and they're certainly not in favour of this.

The biggest concern that I have, and that a lot of my colleagues in Saskatchewan have, is growing voter apathy. Mr. Anderson made the point that we will soon be changing back again to a hub-and-spoke method, because of the growing population base in Saskatchewan as a whole. The province has finally come of age.

Saskatoon and Regina are the first and second fastest growing cities in Canada, with the youngest demographics. We're in this for the long haul. So I welcome the dissenting report that reflects and builds on the 75% of applications before the commission that were in favour of the status quo, with some changes here and there to reflect today's growth.

What they didn't take into consideration at all were trade corridors, communities of interest. A lot of community satellites around Saskatoon and Regina are served by the city's water, sewer, and gas systems, and they don't reflect those trade corridors or those centres of interest at all.

I'm very concerned about voter apathy as we constantly change where people should go to vote. Serviceability of a riding is extremely important. Any one of us who represent large rural areas knows this. As my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain said, his riding is roughly six hours across, point to point. Mine is similar in scope. Cross it with a few rivers that aren't accessible all year round and you have some serviceability problems.

People want to see their MP. I made this point at the commission, and Justice Mills said to just use Skype. Well, these are private issues in a lot of cases. People want to see you face to face, get to know their MP. I don't for a minute believe there are issues pertinent to the rural areas that aren't pertinent in the urban areas, or vice versa. I think there's a good cross-section of work that needs to be done. In my time here in the House I've found that the more knowledge you have of issues across the spectrum, the more important it is when it comes to votes in the House, because votes and the work that you do here are not divided on rural-urban lines. Not at all. I'm not sure why we do that to the voters.

I've never in my 16 years heard a complaint from anyone saying they're not being represented because they're rural or they're urban. I've never heard that. I think there are a lot of issues that are germane to this. From the Saskatchewan caucus perspective, we work as a team. We meet at least once a week, and more often than that if there are issues that we need to discuss to build a consensus on how we approach an issue, regardless of where it terminates or begins.

The problem we have with this new map is beyond the serviceability of the ridings. Once you isolate those urban ridings, you create a patchwork quilt to make the rest of it work. You can see how difficult it's going to be for people to identify with their MP when their community of interest has nothing to do with where the MP is based or where the office has to be. In some of them, the office will actually have to be outside the riding to give the best service. That's just untenable in today's society.

So I think a lot of things were completely missed. I know you have in front of you some letters from three city councillors in Saskatchewan. I had a discussion with the mayor of Saskatoon the other day. These letters are under the City of Saskatoon letterhead, but they're not authentic in that regard. One of them is a relative of a candidate, one is a campaign worker for a candidate, and the other one's a failed candidate. So take them from where they came.

I have a quote here from Mayor Don Atchison from Saskatoon:

It is my strong belief that the divisive plan before you now pits urban against rural, city against town and ultimately damages the relationships we have been nurturing. I believe in consensus and building on mutual trust. This plan promotes neither.

That's, in a nutshell, exactly what we're talking about here. We're hopeful that the commission will go back to the drawing board, take the 75% of applications that were made to heart, and leave us with the status quo as the basis for some tweaking here and there to give the voters of Saskatchewan what they need.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

You're all very much right on time today. Great.

We'll start with our line of questioning.

Mr. Armstrong, you're going first.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to start with Mr. Anderson. I was intrigued by a lot of your testimony. One of the things you said was there was no compelling reason for change. If there was no compelling reason for change, why do you think the commission made such a radical change in the status quo?

You mentioned there was a small group that got to them early, and after that, 75% of the presentations and representations in the public sessions were in opposition to these changes, but that for some reason the commission turned a deaf ear to this 75%. Can you expand on the history and the small group and how this radical change was pushed in the first place?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Absolutely.

There was a group of political scientists who got together and made a proposal early in the process, and they made some representation. It was interesting that later there was an article in the Kindersley West Central Crossroads newspaper, where one of the spokesmen for them basically said that, give or take a few adjustments, the boundaries have essentially been drawn up close to the suggestions we made. They made the suggestions early in the process. It didn't seem to matter what the discussion was, the commission locked in on those, and it has basically not changed its position since then. They did adjust a few boundaries after that, but they did not deal with the structure, the systems they had put in place.

I just find it interesting, because a comment from the spokesman of this group shows they really don't understand what's going on outside of the city they're involved in. He talks about my riding and says:

Also I think—and also Cypress Hills—Grassland is a big riding, and I haven't heard any—in the past since it's been in existence, any complaints about lack of representation..

—which I appreciate, of course—

...so you could easily grow some of the rural ridings not quite as big as Cypress Hills—Grasslands but somewhat as big as Cypress Hills—Grasslands and not have a problem with geographical manageability.

Anybody who lives in a riding similar to ours understands that this person clearly does not have any idea of what he's talking about. I made my presentation. At the end of my presentation to them, I said, if you came into my riding today and we were to drive to the four corners to hold our meetings, you would get back to the same point 24 hours and over 1,000 kilometres later—just to get back to the point where you came in. Clearly, working out of the city, they don't have an understanding of a rural riding.

Secondly, they did make the point that “...in terms of information technology, it's easier than ever for rural MPs to connect with their constituents....” That's true on one level, but on the other level we're being told, as Mr. Ritz pointed out, that Skype should work for us in a rural riding. The reality is that it is not practical. I had a young lady who made a presentation in our area, and when Judge Mills asked her how she wanted to see her MP, her answer was: “I want an appointment. When I come to see my MP, I want an appointment. I don't want an e-mail. I don't want a phone call. I don't want to Skype.”

It was interesting. He referenced immigration as an urban issue, and he clearly did not understand the reality of what's happening in rural Saskatchewan. I looked at his testimony. I was astounded by that, because presently immigration is the biggest file in my riding, which would surprise many people. It's a commonality between urban and rural areas.

They also said that there are no “similar communities of interest” around the two cities. His comment was, “Saskatchewan now is a rural and an urban province.” That, again, clearly demonstrates a failure to understand what's going on around Regina, with the Global Transportation Hub, and with the incredible growth that's taking place in the communities that are developing around Saskatoon. I guess I come back to the fact that we still have an economy where the rural areas are tied to the city areas, the urban areas, and those communities of interest exist.

Judge Mills said at one point that the communities of interest were the second most critical factor they were considering, but they seemed to have completely moved away from that and abandoned the idea.

If you take a look at the map, for example, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan goes from south of Moose Jaw up to just south of Humboldt. So you've got things going on between Moose Jaw and Regina, and the MP is going to have to represent Dundurn, which is right up by Humboldt.

If you look at Humboldt—Warman—Martensville—Rosetown, Rosetown and Humboldt are in the same riding. The MP is going to have to go through one or two or three other ridings just to get to the other side of his own riding in order to cut that distance off.

I'm willing to represent a large rural riding. I think it's just crazy that we set a process in place that makes other ridings have to expand to come to those kinds of sizes as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have 30 seconds.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I'll be quick.

In regard to the Skype comment by the judge, I wonder if that same judge would agree to host trials by Skype, to hear testimony. I don't think any judge across this country would agree to that, because there's a different interaction when you're face to face with a constituent, when you're face to face with a lawyer as a judge.

Could you expand on the role of an MP, particularly in the rural areas, when they have to go and meet people face to face? What's the difference between social media and actual face-to-face contact?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I think we'll get that answer in an answer to one of our other colleagues. He's gone over time.

I know that Mr. Cullen will ask you the same question, so you can give the answer.

Mr. Cullen, five minutes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I like your optimism, Chair.

I've got a lot of questions, so I'll try to keep my questions short, and I'll ask the members here to keep their answers similarly short.

Mr. Goodale, I have a question about this 75% number that's been thrown around today and in various press reports. I'm going to read from Commissioner Mills, and this is a quote: “I have no idea what the 75 per cent number is, that's not a number the commission generated.”

This 75% number that has been rolled out by your colleagues, do you have any comment on that?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

I gather it was a number used by Mr. Marit in his dissenting opinion. There's no precise indication of exactly how it was calculated.

Judge Mills was asked by the media where it came from, because he's of course the keeper of the documents and all the representations, records, and so forth. He provided the quote you just read into the record. In the same article he goes on to say that the calculation must have been based on including some of the representations that were received, but not all of the representations that were received, including a number of form letters that were submitted without briefs.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Let me ask you this. Are there any urban representations, any urban members of the provincial legislation who are entirely urban?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Oh, yes. Most of the members in both Regina and Saskatoon are entirely urban. Provincially, you mean—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I mean provincially. Excuse me.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

—in the Saskatchewan legislature?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes. Does that offend their values?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

There are one or two on the fringes of the two cities that include kind of the doughnut effect, if you will, around the city. But there would be 10 or 11 in both cities that are exclusively urban.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Does that offend the values of Saskatchewanites?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

No.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay.

I'm going to read a quote to you, Mr. Anderson:

Think of the responsibilities that rural MPs have. They're different from...urban folks, in that when the urban MPs want to meet with their municipal council, they have one council, which is often shared by several MPs.

Would you agree with that quote? When you think of the responsibilities a rural MP has, they're different from those of urban folks?