Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go ahead, Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, you indicated that you had spoken to Mr. McKay beforehand. Mr. McKay is not here, and obviously he could clarify this himself, but Mr. McKay's recent letter said that the changes that were in the report before the current one were “assented to”. I'm just wondering. Is that consistent with the conversation you had with Mr. McKay or your understanding of the representations made to the commission by members of the community?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you for the question.

Absolutely not; at no point did I ever assent to the original proposal that was put forward, the 2012 proposal made by the commission. I had actually spoken with the member for Scarborough—Guildwood during the public consultation phase and suggested some of the changes that I was going to propose, from hearing the concerns from my residents, and at that time the member from Scarborough—Guildwood had no complaints or objections to the suggested proposal that I was going to take to the commission on behalf of my residents.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

That's our seven minutes there.

If I have the committee's permission, since Mr. McKay has now joined us, I'd love for him to get his five minutes in.

Mr. McKay, do you have a presentation for us? We'd love you to give it here. I know you missed out on some of the other questions, but at least we'll try to be as fair as we can and let you make your presentation now.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'll try to be brief and not repetitive, because you've probably heard a lot of what went on.

Certainly, when the initial proposals came out there was no basis for any objection on the part of me or anyone else in the riding of Scarborough—Guildwood. I published them fairly widely and got virtually no response whatsoever. Frankly, it never crossed my mind that the changes being requested by the NDP were actually going to have any real impact. If you look at Scarborough—Guildwood, you'll see it is below the 401. It's an entirely different, separate, and stable community in and of itself.

Our initial response to what we consider to be benign proposals was that we made no representations to the commission. We did have people there, we did monitor the commission, but under no understanding of the perceived facts did we see it as having an impact on the boundaries of Scarborough—Guildwood.

Subsequently, the commission made a second proposal, the effect of which was to disappear Scarborough—Guildwood. That's a pretty big impact. That's way past gerrymandering, let me tell you. Needless to say, constituents were more than mildly upset.

I was pleasantly surprised when I called a meeting shortly thereafter, and on a wet, cold, lousy, rainy evening, 60-70 people showed up to voice their objections to the disappearance of Scarborough—Guildwood.

The effect of the commission's decision was to give no notice to the people of Scarborough—Guildwood. This comes out of the blue and destroys their riding as they've known it for the last ten years. It's not as if this is a community of disparate little bits and pieces, or a relatively new creation; this is a fairly coherent community, and the previous boundaries reflected this coherence.

As you can appreciate, my surprise was matched by that of my colleagues on both sides of me. We had all talked and thought there were adjustments to be made here and there. We agreed that Scarborough was growing, and that they might have to make it six ridings instead of five and a half. The suggested changes were relatively benign, relatively agreeable to my colleagues from Scarborough Centre and my colleague from Pickering—Scarborough East. On that understanding we raised no objections.

The commission, in my judgment, with their second ruling, in effect, threw the cat in with the pigeons, and when all the feathers had settled, we were plucked clean.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You're very welcome. Thank you, Mr. McKay. We're happy you could attend.

Mr. Dion.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since he came a bit late for valid reasons, maybe I will ask Mr. McKay to comment more about the rationale of the commission. This committee needs to understand that rationale and your answer on that.

I think the commission came with four arguments, to which other colleagues may also react.

The first one is to have better balance between populations of different ridings in the Scarborough area. Secondly, the commission has heard that Morningside Heights and Malvern should not be split. It seems that this was something the commission wanted to avoid.

The third reason is that the commission heard a lot of objections about creating an electoral district east of the region that crossed highway 401. Many presentations argued for a “more natural north-south orientation for electoral districts in this region”. I'm quoting the commission.

And finally, the commission was advised that, “if the boundaries of an electoral district had to cross highway 401, it was preferable that this occur in the more mature and developed western portion of Scarborough area”.

What are your reactions to this rationale?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Let me deal with the question of balance.

The population growth has generated the entitlement, if you will, to six ridings as opposed to five and a half. Something had to be done; there's no disagreement there. The question was how you moved it so that you stayed within 100,000 to 110,000 constituents.

I thought the first proposal actually did that quite well, and I thought it kept, I'd say, five out of the six of us relatively within the concept of what we would understand to be balance. Dan is on the sidelines here because his hasn't actually changed all that much

Second of all, with respect to the communities that might be affected by the previous proposal, I know those communities. I'm not prepared to argue whether they're a split or they're not a split. All I do know is that in order to keep those communities together, in effect, you affect a whole bunch of stable communities, older communities, communities that have a history in Scarborough. In order to accommodate these communities, you've disrupted.... If you're accommodating two communities, you are disrupting ten, twelve, or fourteen communities. I can go through and name them.

The third and fourth points are actually the same, regarding whether you do the two and a half, or three and a half east or west. If you do the two and a half, if you in effect make the half riding north and south of the 401 on the west side, you actually disrupt a far larger or more dense population by doing that. If you do it on the east side, you actually have a little bit more coherence. The reason you have a little bit more coherence is that the eastern boundary between Scarborough and Pickering, and between Scarborough and Durham is the Rouge River, now a national park. They are distinct communities. The people in Pickering are represented by a distinct municipal government, so it makes some sense.

My final point is that I actually represented that area, lo these many years ago. It was actually a fairly coherent riding. It was Scarborough East. It was both north and south of the 401. There was actually a lot of intercourse between the north and the south by virtue of the location of community centres, by virtue of the park, by virtue of the interests people have in the park, and by virtue of the traffic flows as well.

I actually think they made the wrong choice. Stay with the east and try not to disrupt ten, twelve, or fourteen communities in order to satisfy what are the perceived needs of two.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

How long do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have two minutes left.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have other members who wanted to answer. It's your call.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I just want to congratulate Madame James for coming with a proposal. My concern is that if everybody complains, albeit there is no alternative, I don't think the commission will move. You came with an alternative—thank you very much for that.

If I have time I will ask Karygiannis, did Madame James address part of your problems? Is there a compromise somewhere, an alternative solution that could make sense?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

I guess the compromise would be that we go back to the original proposal, with the changes Mrs. James proposed.

When you look at the map of Scarborough—Agincourt plus Scarborough—Wexford, you see that originally when the city was being planned, it was going from west to east, and building was going along that way. First of all, they reached the 401, which was built. In the 1960s they built up to Finch. Then in the 1980s they built north.

Dividing a community, which is solely intact, and taking three major names—Agincourt Mall, Agincourt GO Station, Agincourt library—and saying you're now part of Scarborough—Wexford.... The people south of the 401 and the people north of the 401 are in two distinct communities. These are communities that have been around for a long time.

Originally the riding of Scarborough—Agincourt was going south to Ellesmere. In the last go-round, the electoral commission decided we're going to keep Scarborough—Agincourt together north of the 401. It made the right choice, supported by a lot of people. Now, unfortunately, it's going back.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Excuse me. I just wanted to be sure that the four of you are proposing the commission's former proposal, and you two, the last one. Is this the situation that we're facing?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

That's basically it. There will be minor modifications we would suggest to the second proposal, but still, you've got it.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Davis is not affected at all, so he's neutral.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Davis?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Sorry, I meant Mr. Dion.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Dion, to answer your question, yes, I do support the commission's 2013 proposal, as they have listened to the concerns raised by—

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

And your four colleagues are proposing the first one? That's roughly it. Otherwise, we'll be all over the map. We as a committee will have difficulty understanding.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Just for clarity, I have a question for Ms. James. You were proposing changing the northern section, but what about the eastern section, which was initially going to change in the original proposal? Do you maintain that Scarborough Southwest should remain as status quo?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Sorry, Mr. Chair. Can I answer that question, because it came from another witness?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure. We all have free time. Go ahead.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I'm proposing that Scarborough Southwest, which is your riding, stay exactly as it is today. The boundaries between you and Scarborough Centre and you and Scarborough—Guildwood would be as they are today, which I believe you're happy with. If there's an objection there, I'd like to hear what the basis of that would be.

Thank you.