Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 26th, 2013

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

I don't know if you're quoting from Mr. Tynning's presentation in Swift Current. You may be. He made an excellent observation, that urban MPs typically have to deal with one city council, one school board, and one health division. He was talking about the fact that in my riding I have to deal with 40 towns, 60 RMs, two or three health agencies, and two or three school boards. He was pointing out that there is a very different requirement in rural areas than there is in urban areas in terms of how many governments you have to deal with.

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

So you essentially agree with it.

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

But it doesn't separate the notion that those communities of interest are still tied together, because, for example, the health districts in my area go right through Swift Current, Saskatchewan, into the rural area. So both urban and rural are involved.

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

Here's another quote for you.

The first one was from your colleague, Mr. Warkentin, by the way.

This one is from Mr. Calkins:

Many constituents and municipal leaders feel that the hybrid model

—the so-called hub and spoke—

will not allow the interests and identities of the riding to be clearly communicated at the federal level.

Do you disagree with that?

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

In my riding, the mayor for the city of Swift Current came and said clearly that he did not agree with the proposals that were being made by the boundary commission in Saskatchewan.

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

I want to know why that is.

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

I would suggest that Saskatchewan and Alberta are two different beasts. Clearly we've had a different history. All three parties have actually had success under that history. There's no compelling reason to make a change—

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

Can I ask you about what you just said, that all three parties have done well? I'm trying to think back to the testimony we've heard from any of the MPs so far. No one has raised the idea of how this manifests itself politically to this point. I've read a number of the comments from Saskatchewan MPs talking about the electoral implications.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I have a point of order.

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

No, I'd like to answer that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We have a point of order from Mr. Reid, and then I'll get back to you, Mr. Anderson

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I think Mr. Anderson's point was that all three parties have done well in representing their constituents under this system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll let Mr. Anderson answer that. He wanted to answer the question.

Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

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

There was some notion in some of the testimony that we needed to change the boundaries in order for some other political parties to do well. In fact, I can read you a quote here:

At the moment, it's 14 to nothing, which seems a bit one-sided and unfair and unrealistic.

That was quoted by CBC this morning. It's a quote by Mr. Goodale.

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

The commissioner rejected that. It said—I'm going to quote here:

...a large number of contacts were inspired by the encouragement of members of Parliament opposed to the abolition of rural-urban hybrid districts. Representatives of political parties whose candidates had not been elected supported the proposal, presumably in the belief that the changes would enhance their political fortunes.

The commission rejected both sides. Would you say that's proper?

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

To reject both sides of—

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

Yes. If there's political interest either by those who are elected or by those who want to be elected, based on their particular perspective of the maps and on how parties are going to fare, that shouldn't factor into the commission's deliberations. Is that fair?

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

I hope that would be the case. In this case, I'm not sure that's happened.

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

Mr. Komarnicki, I want to read something you said in your testimony today:

...the commission...were predisposed to creating urban-only ridings.

Are you suggesting they came in to this deliberation with an inherent bias?

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

I'd say they did.

We had the political scientists from Regina and Saskatoon indicate that they needed to take the fact of urban-only ridings into consideration. The time had come for that, and they suggested why they took that position. The commission said it reaffirmed their initial thoughts. They said those submissions were something they relied on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Komarnicki.

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

I want to conclude with this point, that in the end they said the majority of the people they heard after that were opposed to the urban-rural mix, and they chose to reject it. You would think they would take into account the position of the people of Saskatchewan and the presenters who presented in person. They said that notwithstanding that the majority was opposed to the change, they didn't accept it. Why?

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

It's amazing what a robocall can accomplish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

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

Robocalls had nothing to do with it.