Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 16th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We will go ahead and begin. We have some great witnesses with us today. We are continuing our study of redistribution in Saskatchewan. We have with us four witnesses and we will get right to them.

Members, you have five minutes to give us your report and then we will ask you questions after that. We have another panel later today and then we will try to do some committee business at the end of the day.

Minister Yelich, would you like to go first?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll get right to it. There are a few things that are unprecedented. At no other time in Saskatchewan's history have so many individuals become engaged in a federal electoral boundaries process, and there has never been a dissenting report from a member of the federal electoral boundaries commissions, as you well know.

It is reported that 75% opposed the commission's proposed boundaries and it will be unfortunate if the opinion of so many is disregarded. I would be disappointed to learn that. In addition to the petitions, I would like to include postcards. As a member of Parliament this is an acceptable form of communication between MPs and constituents who wish to voice their concerns on many issues.

Constituents in communities like my own, Kenaston, less than an hour outside of Saskatoon, did mail-in cards and petitions opposing boundaries. Upon the release of the final report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, constituents who made presentations to the commission were still very concerned. They felt their voices were not heard and the commission gave no consideration to constituents who did not agree with the commission's urban-only concept. You can read the transcripts to understand why presenters found the commission unwilling to understand the opposition that we proposed to the urban-only concept.

I have with me today letters that I have received from constituents who want to reiterate the concerns that they presented to the commission and I will present them in both official languages at the end of my presentation.

In an April 9, 2013, article in The Globe and Mail, Justice Mills refused to speculate about whether early submissions opposed to urban-only ridings would have changed the commission's initial position to implement urban-only ridings, and he indicated that it was:

...our view of the demographics, the population trends, immigration to Saskatchewan, of the size and growth in the cities, and a whole raft of things that involved communities of interest....

Clearly, communities—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The translator is having a little bit of trouble keeping up with you.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Well, I have a little bit of trouble getting this in, in five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I understand that, but if they're not getting the testimony, it won't count for anything.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

If that were the case, you wouldn't have to leave a town like Clavet, less than 20 minutes outside of Saskatoon, head two and a half hours to the city of Moose Jaw to see your member of Parliament.

Historical boundaries were also not taken into consideration because, historically, Saskatchewan has had urban-rural hybrid ridings in Regina and Saskatoon. The manageable geographic size of ridings were not taken into consideration. The riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan begins east of Saskatoon, wraps around the southwestern part of the city of Regina, and that can be up to a three- to four-hour drive.

The reality is that Moose Jaw is not the size of Vancouver or Calgary. In larger cities, where there are urban-only ridings in the core of the cities, as you move outward most ridings become a blend of urban and rural. Cities grow, so it makes sense to have hybrid ridings on the outskirts to absorb the growth.

Saskatoon is one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada. The overall growth of Saskatchewan wasn't so great to increase the number of seats. The provincial quotient could easily be attained by adjusting the existing boundaries. Supporters of the new boundaries keep talking about not being represented effectively, but during all of my three or four campaigns—four, maybe five—I have never gone to a door where they told me they were not adequately served. Perhaps the commission does not understand the role of the federal members of Parliament.

The majority of federal issues are not exclusively urban or rural, and I ask the committee to understand that. For example, immigration seems to be considered an urban-only issue, but many rural industries utilize a temporary foreign worker program to address the shortage of skilled workers in Saskatchewan. Using urban versus rural issues, as federal electoral boundaries go, doesn't really make much sense. Many of the urban or rural issues cited by proponents of the boundaries are provincial or.... During the hearings, they did not understand the federal role. The boundaries spoke about provincial-regional issues such as transit. Even one of the students was asked about bus passes.

The report of the commission states in item 3 that they do not accept the argument that the creation of solely urban ridings in Saskatoon and Regina will draw a wedge. I dispute that. The concept of community of interest in some urban settings, particularly in larger cities given the high rate of mobility in their populations, remains problematic.

In closing, I would like to say that the existing boundaries should be respected. The reasons for change for the sake of change should be discouraged. Again, I would like to see the boundaries remain the same. It is the riding of Blackstrap that is hugely affected by the redrawing of the maps. The city lights of Saskatoon will now see the city lights of Regina, and it wraps around Moose Jaw. So it is a very difficult riding to manage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Vellacott, would you like to go next?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members.

It's a privilege to be here and to present to you today. Hopefully we will get a better, more sane, realignment of boundaries for the province of Saskatchewan. I obviously, as well, in my indication to the committee, oppose the proposed boundaries and I'll lay out some of the reasons here now.

I am very much in support of the historical trading patterns, blended urban-rural, ex-urban kinds of boundaries that we've had in the past. I will indicate the biggest problems that I have with the current proposal.

Right from the get-go, Professor Courtney—I'll go right to this issue, I may have some questions on it later—had a fixed mindset and a determination before even a word of testimony was heard. In fact I had reported to me conversations that occurred at the orientation here in Ottawa before there were any meetings, before there were any witnesses heard at all, where Professor Courtney was talking adamantly of needing the urban-only boundaries in the province of Saskatchewan, particularly in the major cities of Saskatoon and Regina.

To me, that does a great disservice, a disrespect that denigrates the process, when one of the commissioners—a reputable, respected gentleman otherwise—has a mindset and a predetermination of having urban boundaries, and then tries to collect evidence to justify it afterwards. To me that is a disservice. He probably should have recused himself at the point that he realized he had this set, determined mindset from the get-go.

How else can one explain the very humongous ridings, for example, all the way from my boyhood home of Quill Lake, way across, looping around Saskatoon over to Rosetown, a stretch of probably three or four hours or more, depending on how heavy your foot is. How else do you explain that?

How do you explain their comments saying that these ridings, these newly proposed boundaries, are now no larger than the ones that presently exist in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Souris—Moose Mountain, and the Yorkton—Melville ridings.

If you were to ask those members of Parliament.... Then they make the almost asinine statement that those members did not indicate that they were inadequately serving the needs of their constituents. What member of Parliament is going to say that? It's a fairly asinine comment, in my particular view.

You should talk to those MPs, in terms of chasing from one end to the other on weekends, away from Parliament here. Talk to the spouses of those MPs, as I have done, in terms of their having to be at events at opposite or disparate ends of those particular ridings. They talked in terms of using modern communications, which we all do, electronic and so on, but in a high-tech age we should also still use high-touch, that will always be the case.

The younger generation want to talk to you directly, middle-aged older people.... Imagine what it would have been like, if Jack Layton, in his last campaign—where he did remarkably for the NDP—had said, “I'm going to do this by Skype. I'm going to do it by the modern electronic means”. You would not catch the enthusiasm of a Jack Layton. You would not catch the excitement that he brought in that setting, or his charisma. You cannot possibly figure to serve the needs of constituents simply by Skyping and those things, which the House of Commons doesn't allow anyhow.

What would it have been like if Justin Trudeau, instead of travelling extensively to bars and malls and schools, and everywhere across the country, would have said, “I'll do it by Skype”. Of course, he uses all the modern technology, but that is no replacement for direct contact with people, and Justin Trudeau was all across the country. I point out Jack Layton and Justin Trudeau, of late, and how they went across the country, first-hand, meeting people. There's something captured that way that you don't capture electronically.

I have some letters in hand here. There's the one that's maybe been referenced here before, from the mayor of the city of Saskatoon, and Mr. Fougere as well has indicated his opposition. Mr. Atchison, the mayor of Saskatoon, says it makes no sense. It does not promote unity. It doesn't work with the regional kind of thing that we're encouraging in Saskatchewan.

I have a letter here as well, that you have in French and English, from the mayor of Warman, a city just on the edge of Saskatoon, and she opposes it as well. She says that when we think and work regionally now.... Recently there was a water main break in Saskatoon and they were on a boil water advisory in Saskatoon, but also in the cities of Warman and Martensville, because we have a common water system and a common infrastructure tying them together. Now they've cut those communities off from one another. Alan Thomarat, who is the CEO of the Home Builders' Association in Saskatchewan, makes this point well in a piece that was in your package, too.

Lastly, one of the councillors in my riding, Randy Donauer by name, also opposes it. He talks about the need to work together regionally, and more and more we're doing that as the cities and towns in the area close to Saskatoon.

I think it's never too late for these individuals to do the right thing and reverse themselves. I have a proposal of a bare minimum that could be done, but I can come to that later, in the question period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Trost, would you like five minutes, or less?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Hopefully more, Mr. Chair.

Thank you ever so much.

Before we start, just for reference, the members should have some of the maps that were distributed. There is one of the city of Saskatoon. Another one shows some changes to Prince Albert, Saskatoon, Humboldt, along with a regional municipality, or RM, map showing some minor changes.

Thank you for listening today. Like many of my colleagues, I have very strong reservations about the major changes that are happening in the Saskatchewan boundaries. While these boundaries are often described as a mixture of rural and urban, I actually think the term “spoke and hub” would be a better description, because in fact the city of Saskatoon and the ridings around there are not predominantly urban under this new drawing. They're a mixture of urban and suburban communities. Saskatoon has urban neighbourhoods, but the majority of its neighbourhoods would be considered suburban: low-density, driveable, car-centred. To me, I think that is the tragedy, the problem, with these boundaries, in that the areas surrounding Saskatoon are also predominantly suburban.

My colleague Mr. Vellacott noted that Martensville and Warman, two cities of 8,000 people, are also very much suburbs of Saskatoon.

While I agree with my two colleagues on the weakness of the new boundaries, I have decided to take a slightly different position in my presentation. I feel and understand that at this point, major boundary changes are not going to happen. We are fundamentally going to be working inside the boundaries, with some minor changes, that have been presented by the commission. What I will be suggesting today, then, are not wholesale changes but minor tweaks to make workable what we have.

My first suggestion is in reference to the city of Saskatoon. On the map you can see one arrow going in a northerly direction and another arrow going in a southerly direction. I am proposing that these areas be moved from the proposed riding of Saskatoon Centre—University and Saskatoon West in the respective directions.

I'm proposing that because the only area of Saskatoon where community of interest and natural community cross the river is the downtown core. Therefore, based on local geography, that community of interest should be brought together. That does, however, necessitate some minor population changes. Up in the north, north of Lenore Drive, that would be best moved over to Saskatoon West. We can go into that with questions later on as we go further here.

The second change I am proposing has to do with the areas of the current Saskatoon-Humboldt constituency that border with the constituency of Prince Albert.

Now, I am supporting the changes my colleague Randy Hoback made in his presentation, numbers one and two in here, and he made very good points about community of interest, including natural trading areas, etc. One point he failed to note, however, and one of the reasons I suggest that these areas be put in with Prince Albert, is that these two communities are predominantly francophone in their history.

Area number one here is the town of St. Louis and the rural municipality of St. Louis. The rural municipality of St. Louis still has about 40% of its population listing French as their mother tongue. One of our colleagues, Mr. Galipeau, has family members buried at the cemetery in St. Brieux, which is also historically a francophone community.

These communities are under two separate ridings under these proposals, and I suggest they be put in with the riding of Prince Albert. These are areas I represent. Why Prince Albert? Because Prince Albert already has francophone communities such as Zenon Park. Again, I can provide more answers in the question period here.

In my final minute, I'd like to make two other quick suggestions. You see a very small, detailed map here of the edge of the city of Saskatoon. What I'm proposing there is that a portion outside the city, about five miles outside—the acreages in that area are very tightly connected to the city—be brought in. That would add about 400 or 500 people to Saskatoon. They all live, work, and have their utilities from Saskatoon. It's just a very small change and very similar to what one of the other Saskatoon ridings also has.

Finally, in my last 30 seconds, I'd like to bring your attention to some letters that each of you have received from the City of Humboldt. They have made a difficult request, but since their council has unanimously asked me to give it, I will give it, and I will support it. They asked that they be moved out of the proposed riding of Kindersley—Warman—Humboldt and put in either the riding of Yorkton—Melville or in the riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre.

That has to do with their community of interest and their desire to be connected to other communities that are based around the potash industry. A $10 billion potash mine is being constructed a half hour away from them, and they would like to be included.

As was noted, their letters should have been sent to you and should have been translated. They should be in your package.

Thank you. I would appreciate questions on all my proposals and recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Trost.

Ms. Block, last but not least. I understand you have some voice issues today, so we'll all be quiet while you speak very softly.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you, I'll try to get really close to the mic.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. This is going to be more painful for you than for me.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the maps that were tabled by the boundary commission on January 26, 2013. We are here in the interests of the people of Saskatchewan and our constituents, who we are proud to represent and serve every day. I remain strongly committed to my position that the hub-and-spoke model is ideal for Saskatchewan, as it balances all the primary criteria as outlined in section 15 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

I recognize that many of my colleagues from Saskatchewan have already appeared before you. I concur with the strong arguments they have made and will therefore not repeat them. I would like, however, to make a few observations.

I am disappointed with the rationale provided by the commission to support their final submission and would highlight the following. First, as an MP representing both rural and urban communities, I believe that the commission's primary focus on two communities of interest in the province of Saskatchewan, when considering redistribution, is an oversimplification of the complex relationships that exist within our communities and our province as a whole. The rigidity of the commission's position completely ignores the ebb and flow between urban and rural Saskatchewan, and does not contemplate our history or our future.

Second, my colleagues and I simply cannot ignore the unprecedented nature of a dissenting report in the history of boundary redistribution. It is my hope that the commissioners will take the dissenting report as well as the standing committee's recommendations into consideration in their final response.

While my support for the current hub-and-spoke model has been clear, it is apparent that the commissioners had concluded before the consultations began that Saskatchewan, in their opinion, should have some purely urban ridings, with at least two of these in Saskatoon. It would also appear that they have remained deeply committed to their conclusion throughout the consultation and deliberation process.

Therefore I'd like to support my colleague, Mr. Trost, and his proposal to make what I believe are two necessary changes to the boundaries of the Saskatoon West and Saskatoon—University ridings. These simple changes will not affect any other ridings in Saskatchewan and will more closely align communities of interest within the city.

I would like to recommend to the commissioners that they partially return to their original proposal and include the downtown, being the triangle formed by the South Saskatchewan River, the area south of 33rd Street, and east of Idylwyld Drive, in the proposed riding of Saskatoon—University. Put plainly, when folks think of downtown Saskatoon, they think of the downtown area....

Could I have my colleague finish?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure.

Mr. Trost, will you speak for Ms. Block, please?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Put plainly, when folks think of downtown Saskatoon, they think of the downtown area on both sides of the river. Downtown Saskatoon is the most natural community of interest that exists within the city and it shouldn't be separated into two electoral districts. The City of Saskatoon recognizes this by having councillors for ward 1 and ward 6 represent constituents of the downtown on both sides of the South Saskatchewan River.

The second change is to add the community of Silverwood Heights back into the riding of Saskatoon West, as in the original proposal. Folks living in Silverwood Heights are cut off from the east side of Saskatoon by the South Saskatchewan River. There are no bridges that connect this community to the east side of Saskatoon, so it makes no sense for them to be part of the Saskatoon—University riding.

Further, Lenore Drive-51st Street, is a major east-west street that connects this community to the west side of Saskatoon and communities such as Hampton Village, Dundonald, Blairmore, and Montgomery. Folks living in Silverwood Heights predominantly work, play, and do their shopping on the west side of Saskatoon, and this would better unite the community of interest that is on the west side of Saskatoon.

These two simple changes would more seamlessly integrate these two communities of interest in Saskatoon and ensure that the populations of both ridings remain similar.

Thank you, and I'm not sure if she would be happy to take your questions. She will if she can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much to all of you for being succinct.

Thank you for your valiant effort, Ms. Block.

We go to questions for five minutes each, starting with Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you. I'm going to start by asking Mr. Trost some questions.

I think members of the committee know that I have started carrying along my own copies of the current boundaries, the initial proposal boundaries, and the report boundaries. The report boundaries are the ones that are, in effect, now under question.

Looking at the letter you received from the City of Humboldt, Mr. Trost, I noticed that the city of Humboldt, according to the proposal map—this is not the one that is current, it is the initial proposal made by the commission—it does indeed abut the boundaries of Yorkton—Melville. But on the report map, the boundaries of Yorkton—Melville have been moved eastward by three boundary lines. I'm guessing there are now three intervening rural municipalities, according to this map, between Humboldt and Yorkton—Melville, meaning that I don't think they could be accommodated unless either they were created as an exclave of Yorkton—Melville, not being contiguous to the riding they want to be in, or some other municipality, which has not made a presentation to you, would also be included to provide some kind of corridor.

I may be misunderstanding things. Could you provide some light there?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Let me give some more detail. That would be roughly direct. For those of you who have the new map, there's the city of Humboldt, and then there's a little enclave there.

The little enclave represents portions for the entirety of the regional municipality of St. Peter, the town of Muenster, and looking at the map, I believe also the town of Englefeld. You are looking in the neighbourhood of approximately 1,200 to 1,500 people between the town of Humboldt and Yorkton—Melville at that point.

Those communities do tend to be very similar. They are all from the St. Peter's colony German settlement in their history, and they would probably move in fairly similar fashion. If you are going to move the city of Humboldt, then probably the arm of Humboldt would go with the city because it's the surrounding area. You would also have to move about 1,500 people over there to get them into Yorkton—Melville.

That's one of the reasons why, when I spoke to the mayor of Humboldt, I asked if he would be interested in maybe going to Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, because I know this is a fairly large ask that they are asking. They are asking for essentially a 7,000 person move, which is going to be tough to do.

Having said that, they are really stuck in an awkward little corner that really doesn't suit their interests, so even though it would create a massive domino effect, I feel compelled to ask on behalf of a unanimous position of the city council.

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

I also wanted to ask you about the other places you mentioned, St. Louis and—is it St. Brieux?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

It's pronounced depending on if it's local or actual francophone.

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

They are both in as the boundaries now stand, or as the boundaries will stand following this redistribution, in Humboldt—Warman—Martensville—Rosetown. Is that right?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

No, that is incorrect.

St. Brieux—which is not the proper historic pronunciation but that's how the locals pronounce it—is the no. 2 area on the map that I have, with Yorkton, Melville, Warman, Rosetown. That is an area that is currently put in with the constituency of Yorkton—Melville. The no. 1 area is the town of the St. Louis and roughly the rural municipality of St. Louis, which includes communities such as Bellevue and Batoche, which I'm sure everyone is very familiar with, and so forth.

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

The best known francophone area in northern Saskatchewan is Zenon Park. Which riding is that in?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

That would be in Prince Albert. You have three historically francophone communities tightly grouped together but in three distinct ridings. In fact I think St. Brieux would be the only historically francophone community in Yorkton—Melville, the predominantly ethnically German-Ukrainian riding that I grew up in and my folks still live in.

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

I only have 30 seconds so I'm going to ask this quickly. You are suggesting, I assume, that they all be put into one riding? Which riding?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

That's correct. They should all be put into Prince Albert because there would be a community of interest based upon historical linguistic ties. They all have other ties that were presented by the member for Prince Albert for geography and natural interest.