Evidence of meeting #73 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commission.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Excuse me, what does that have to do with the price of apples?
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
These people are appointed by Elections Canada and I don't see the relevance to what they drew.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
The relevance might be, Mr. Karygiannis, that you accused this commission of gerrymandering. I'm just wondering if you know what the word “gerrymander” means, and whether you stick by that accusation.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
We're here today to discuss changes. The commission proposed originally that it wanted to go from Midland onwards, and the changes they proposed later on, unfortunately, were not the original ones.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
So before us today you're not repeating your charges that the commission engaged in gerrymandering, yes or no, please?
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Chair, am I being hostile? Is the member hostile?
Allow me to answer. You asked a question, and I'll answer your question.
The commission originally proposed that the northwest part of Scarborough be kept together. For whatever reason changes were made. My constituents were not consulted. The consultation is right in front of you. Over a thousand people wrote. At the end of the day, these people's submissions have to be taken seriously.
The other thing is that if the commission looked at it precisely, at the eastern part, which you can see on the map, going from McCowan straight down to where the marshalling yards are, they would have looked at that and said 7,500 residents would be left orphaned. And they should have included them somewhere, or taken it around.
Certainly, the final job that they submitted, dividing Scarborough—Agincourt into two, and giving parts north of the 401 and south of the 401, is not what they started out with.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
For the record, Mr. Karygiannis, you are reported by a local newspaper as having said, quote, “Gerrymandering was done in order to provide NDP MP Sitsabaiesan with her base vote”. I just want to give you one final chance to tell us whether or not, for whatever reasons the change was made, you now disavow that statement.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Sir, that was a newspaper article, and what I'm trying to tell you here today is that Scarborough—Agincourt is cut in half. The residents of Scarborough—Agincourt were not consulted. As a matter of fact, a lot of them, especially a lot of seniors and people who have been there for many years, going back 50 to 60 years in this community, felt insulted that this was done to them.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Okay.
I appreciate the substance you're bringing at the moment, but you've not answered the question. I'd like that to be known. Most people know that the word “gerrymander” means to manipulate the boundaries of electoral constituencies so as to favour one party or class, and you have not disavowed your accusation published in that newspaper. You have not claimed that the newspaper is in error.
I thought it was pretty bad that in Saskatchewan we had at least four MPs making very strong claims against the commission. Thank goodness we had a number of Conservative MPs who stood down and said that was inappropriate. Frankly, it's offensive to this committee and to the commission—
11:35 a.m.
NDP
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, I think the member is certainly not looking at the wishes of my constituents. He represents constituents, although he hasn't been here for a long time, but the wishes of the constituents are paramount.
When thousands of people say that this is certainly not what they wanted, clearly the commission did not listen to those people, clearly the commission did not reach out to my communities, and clearly the commission did not hear from my constituents.
Here are the results, and I'm sure the member knows that listening to constituents is very important. I am sure that, after he gains some experience, he will know that the results of listening to your constituents are, by a far cry, more important than political gamesmanship, and especially across party lines. Certainly coming across party lines is not what I came here with.
Now, I'm sure the member can continue to be that; he's a vocal proponent of his party, and for that he's appreciated, but here are the results. These are people, irrespective of the party line, who came across and said, “We disagree with this”. The only people who agreed with it were seven people. Both the municipal and the provincial people and the school trustees are against this. So if all these people are against it, certainly the commission did not do a good job to reach out.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you, Mr. Karygiannis.
As I said, I appreciate the substance you're bringing to this, and I'm sure the commission will take into account the stack of papers that's under your left arm. I do hope that after 20-odd years in Parliament, I never end up in the position of accusing an electoral boundaries commission of gerrymandering.
I'd also like it to be noted that this appeared on March 21, well over a month ago. This is the kind of remark that can influence the way people respond to inquiries, in terms of whether or not they're upset.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
I really beg to differ. I think the people of this country are very knowledgeable, and people are very smart when they respond.
