Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 16th, 2013

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

It also connects the educational facilities or institutions in the city of Saskatoon.

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

About how many people actually live in that triangle that we're talking about in the southern part of what's changed?

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

I don't have the exact numbers for that one. I do have the population deviations from the original.

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

What are the deviations?

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

On the original proposal, Saskatoon West would be 3.92% over, and Saskatoon Centre—University would be 3.31%. Under the counter proposals, Saskatoon West would be 6.52% over, and Saskatoon—University would be 0.22% over. That is before I make my suggestion of adding another 600 people in the acreages, which would then move Saskatoon—University to slightly more than 2% over. So you'd have 6.5% over the province's deviation and roughly 2% over the province's average for the full province. It would be well within the boundaries that have been set up by the commission for other ridings in the province.

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

By making this move you're not doing what I would call a significant change in population. It's not going to significantly affect the quotients.

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

No. In fact, if you look at both Regina and Prince Albert, you already have wider variations from the quota than the widest variation that I noted. The commission has already established that, if a community of interest is involved, a standard deviation of 5% to 7% is well within the norm they find acceptable.

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

In the northern part of the change you're looking at between those two ridings, is that one unified community you're reuniting up there? Can you talk about that?

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

That area, and this goes to some of the arguments my colleagues made, would probably be better tied in with Warman and Martensville. This is the irony of part of the problem of dividing based on city boundaries. That area has effectively no real link to Saskatoon—University. Its links are completely over to Saskatoon West. Between Pinehouse Drive and Lenore Drive, the income demographics start to change. You don't have the same sort of housing and neighbourhoods that you have in the downtown core. The downtown core continues up along the river bank, up along Warman Road, a boundary that the commission suggested and that we're supporting. We're moving when there gets to be a demographic-economic change based on a major roadway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Armstrong.

Mr. Scott, Madam Latendresse, together, collectively.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I would like to go back to what Mr. Dion and Mr. Cullen were mentioning a little earlier.

In the province at the moment, some ridings are exclusively urban and some are exclusively rural, correct?

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

I can answer that for Saskatchewan. In and around the city of Saskatoon you have exclusively rural and exclusively urban. Both under the current boundaries and the proposed boundaries this would be considered urban and rural. In fact, one of the proposed boundaries, provincially in Saskatoon, starts in Ms. Yelich's riding and wraps up and around into my territory taking in the acreages that I'm talking about and a considerable number of farms. Provincially, if we're going to use the term “rural-urban blended”, that happens provincially in Saskatchewan just as it does federally.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

As we read the proposals in the commission's last report, we see that the new element would be in having ridings that are exclusively urban. But there is something else…

There are still some hub-and-spoke ridings in the new proposal?

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

The proposal as made by the majority of the commission is that you would have seats exclusively inside Saskatoon and Regina. In my presentation I said those aren't really urban; they're a mixture of urban and suburban communities. That tends to be new. In most of our history, probably about 80 years of Saskatchewan's hundred-plus years of history, Saskatoon and Regina have had hub and spoke to some degree. That's been the norm. It's been the exception over the years. That would be the one thing that's distinct.

The riding of Regina—Qu'Appelle continues to take on that nature of hub and spoke. It goes roughly 200 kilometres north of Regina. Frankly, some of the ridings that wrap around Saskatoon have substantive urban-suburban populations in them. You have to understand that 40,000 people live within 15 minutes of Saskatoon. Wrapping around Saskatoon you have effectively 40,000 Saskatonians in the ridings of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre or Humboldt—Warman—Martensville. So 40,000 people who are all effectively Saskatonians have been distributed in two rural ridings.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Let us go back to your specific proposals for the various Saskatoon ridings. I know that this has already been discussed, but do you have an estimate of the number of people who would be affected in the two areas?

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

I think you're looking at about 5,000 people in one and 3,000 people in another. We can get you those specifics. You're talking about a few thousand people going in each direction, maybe 8,000 or 9,000 at the most. We'll get you those specific numbers well before the end of the week, Mr. Chair.

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

That's great.

I would simply like some clarifications. I do want to thank Mr. Trost and Ms. Block for presenting some concrete tweaks, if you like, which I hope we'll get enough clarity on to be able to reference them.

I do want to give Mr. Vellacott an opportunity to simply clarify whether the words he used are words he continues to want to use. You did refer to Professor Courtney as having a “fixed mindset”, a mindset of “predetermination”, and that he had denigrated the process. You indicate he should've recused himself. You indicate there's no other explanation for the lines than the fact of what you alleged to have been the mindset of Professor Courtney. You may have shied away from using the word “bias” in response to Mr. Cullen's questions, but in the legal world you basically used language to suggest bias, so I simply want to make sure that you want to stand by the language you used.

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

I don't know what you're suggesting by way of what type of bias; perhaps an academic bias, if you will, or abstractions.

When he, in conversations around this place during the orientation, said we must—this is not my language, this is his language—do urban-only ridings in Saskatoon and Regina, he was using an adamant kind of language, dogmatic language. I don't know how else to interpret the fact, but he had a predetermined mindset from the get-go. Obviously, then, you're going to filter everything else out, or at least when it pertains to Saskatoon and Regina you can only hear what you want to hear in respect to urban. So I would stand by that.

You're quite correct. I used terms like those. I think it is disrespectful to the process when a commissioner is supposed to have an open mindset. I think it does a disservice to the electoral boundary distribution process. It denigrates it. Those are my statements based on his own comment, and actually his own book that he wrote in 2011 as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you all.

I have no more speakers on my list, so I want to thank this panel. I thank you very much for coming today.

Those of you from Saskatoon, I hope to see you in May when my London Knights are there winning the Memorial Cup.

Other than that, thank you all . We'll suspend for a minute while we go to our next panel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I call the meeting back to order.

We have two new guests from Saskatchewan on our study of Saskatchewan. I believe they are the last two witnesses from the province, Mr. Lukiwski and Mr. Boughen. I believe we are going to have five minutes each.

I think you're going first today, Mr. Boughen. Go ahead, please.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present my objections to the final report issued by the Saskatchewan boundaries commission.

I come here representing the interests of my constituents, who I am proud to serve today and every day that the House sits. I should note that I am not running for a third term; I'll just leave it there.

It concerns me that the commission was predisposed to dramatically shifting the boundaries from the outset. I reference page 4 of the final report. This commission has indicated that they felt “the time had come” to create a dedicated situation different from the one currently in existence.

This is simply not for the commission to decide. A definite problem arises, since they have steadfastly maintained that position despite resounding opposition. They maintain that position although the community in Saskatchewan has said, “We don't like this.”

The initial draft stated that the commission received over 200 pieces of communication, from brief one-sentence to one-paragraph notes to formal documents, which favoured moving away from the hybrid urban-rural model. They considered these communications, yet disregarded the vast majority of 3,000 letters and public submissions that were in favour of keeping the current model.

It is clear that the commission has taken an inflexible position. The commission received arguments from MPs, mayors, reeves, city councillors, business leaders, and residents, and rejected all of those arguments. These are people who know the variety of issues facing the many concerns of our province. These are people who know the impact that dramatically shifting boundaries has on people.

I will discuss a few of these rejected arguments, including the one indicating concern because Saskatchewan's two largest cities would be left with three representatives instead of four. This means that there would be fewer seats at the table to advocate for issues and projects within those cities. MPs, city councillors, and business leaders indicated as much in their presentations to the commission.

Furthermore, the commission has this notion that residents of Regina and Saskatoon have unique issues, compared to smaller centres such as Moose Jaw, Yorkton, or Estevan. This is a preposterous notion. I know that residents of my riding are just as concerned about housing, roads, transportation, jobs, and all the other things that are having an impact on urban people.

The Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association, known as SUMA, currently does not consider Regina and Saskatoon to be the only municipalities with urban issues. In fact, they define an urban area as one with at least 5,000 people, which means that Saskatchewan has sixteen cities, not two. Melville is considered a city even though the population has fallen under 5,000.

If our son or daughter plays hockey, does it matter if we travel on city streets or a grid road to the arena? I mention these because there seems to be an overabundance of the notion that we can't have what we now have, and that it has to be split off. Do do we really think that snow shovels easier in rural Saskatchewan than in urban Saskatchewan? Ladies and gentlemen, these are false notions.

As we contemplate creating divisions in the province along urban and rural lines, we need to consider the life events that do not have boundaries.

Professor John Courtney, a member of this commission, supported this way of thinking when he stated on page 113 of his book, Commissioned Ridings: Designing Canada's Electoral Districts, that “designing hybrid rural-urban seats ignores the fact that social interests are layered in multiple ways and that only one of these is place of residence”. Professor Courtney went on to write that “many who live on the fringes of a city but beyond its actual municipal [boundaries] have their place of employment, are entertained, do their shopping, or are educated in the city”.

It would seem that the professor has changed his position on this. This is a major point, since Professor Courtney has created boundaries contrary to his own viewpoint.

Before I begin to close, I'd like to note that during the federal electoral boundary review in 2002, Dick Proctor, the former NDP MP for my riding of Palliser, argued in favour of the hub-and-spoke model.

In conclusion, like they did in 2002, Saskatchewan residents have indicated loud and clear that they're opposed to strict boundaries between the largest cities and the rural areas.

Simply put, electoral districts and boundaries should be based upon the reasoning put forward by residents. As mentioned, the commission was predisposed to a dramatic shift and steadfastly maintained that position despite significant opposition. I urge the committee to reject the current proposal put forward by the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Saskatchewan.

Thank you for listening. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Boughen.

Mr. Lukiwski, you have five minutes, and you know how tough I am with my clock.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I do, Chair. Let me say, as a member of the procedure and affairs committee, that the perspective from this end of the table is that you look far more handsome than you do when I sit way down at the corner.

That was my sucking up for the day.

It's good be here. Let met say at the outset that I am here to raise, as have the majority of my colleagues from Saskatchewan, some objections to the commission's report. But let me first say that I absolutely have the upmost respect for the commissioners and the work they did. It's a very difficult job, and while I disagree with some of their findings, I have no doubt that they put their suggestions forward in what they believe are the best interests of Saskatchewan residents.

I applaud them for their efforts, but I have some very serious objections. The first is that I think the final report, posed by two of the three commissioners—we know that there is a dissenting report by Commissioner Dave Marit—failed to take into consideration the characteristics of the communities immediately surrounding both Regina and Saskatoon. They seem to suggest in their report that there is a clear distinction between Regina and Saskatoon and the rest of the province, which they characterize as rural Saskatchewan.

I want to point out at least one example—there are many, but I don't have enough time to point them all out—in which I think they frankly failed in their approach. That involves the area just outside of Saskatoon. Right now, there are million-dollar-plus homes on large acreages outside of Saskatoon. All of the residents of these moved out of the city of Saskatoon, not because they don't feel that they're residents of the city but because they wanted a larger land mass on which they could build houses. They can see the city of Saskatoon from their doorsteps. They consider themselves to be residents of Saskatoon. If you asked any one of them, they would say so. Those who work continue to work in Saskatoon. If they want to go in for a cultural or sporting event, they travel to Saskatoon.

They absolutely consider themselves to be part of Saskatoon. Their issues are the same as those of Saskatoon residents. Yet in the eyes of the commission, they are rural Saskatchewanians. In the eyes of the commission, apparently these people have more of a community of interest and of identity with the city of Moose Jaw than with the city of Saskatoon.

It's simply ludicrous—notwithstanding that if the people who live on these large acreages want to travel to meet their member of Parliament face to face, as most people do, they would have to travel to Moose Jaw, rather than travelling five minutes into Saskatoon. It just doesn't make any sense.

One of the reasons the hub-and-spoke approach worked so well was that it allowed these smaller communities that have a strong affinity with Regina or Saskatoon to continue to be part and parcel of those cities' riding associations. I believe that two out of the three commissioners were unfortunately misguided in their approach. They felt that this clear distinction between the two major cities and the rest of Saskatchewan is one that would ensure better representation. Frankly, I just don't feel that this is the case.

However, having said all of that, I am also a realist. I firmly believe that the commissioners are steadfast in their resolve to see urban-only seats in Saskatchewan, and that is their right. While I respectfully disagree with their approach, I'm going to make some suggestions based on what I believe the commission's final report will be, which is that they will be creating urban-only seats in Regina and Saskatoon.

I have a suggested change to what is now being called the Regina—Lewvan riding that I think, if we have to go to an urban-only configuration in Regina, would make this riding far more balanced and far stronger.

Do we have a map up on the screens in the room?

Thank you very much, Mr. Dion.

What I'm proposing...I hope you can follow along with this. If I had a laser pointer....

Oh, we have a laser pointer. I love laser pointers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let the record show that Mr. Reid had a laser pointer.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Great. What I'm suggesting, I'll describe it first, and then I'll try to put it on the screen for you.

I'm proposing that the area east of Lewvan Drive and north of Wascana Creek known as the Cathedral area in Regina be included in the riding of Regina—Qu'Appelle. Wascana River, which I will show you in a moment, is a natural dividing line and this would allow the Cathedral area, which I consider to be a community of interest with a strong community association that is very active in the city of Regina, to maintain its community of interest. We wouldn't be dividing it. We'd simply be shifting it as an entity from one riding into the next.

The reason I'm doing so is that I believe it would improve the population variance. Right now, Regina—Lewvan is overrepresented and Regina—Qu'Appelle is under-represented but what will happen is that this area in here, which would go under Regina—Qu'Appelle, would make the variance a little closer. It also allows for the possibility of growth. The big part in Regina is in here. Just south of the airport is a subdivision called Harbour Landing. By 2015 it will have over 10,000 residents in it. That population was not included in the 2011 census.

Also, in the northern part of the riding is the second fastest-growing subdivision in Regina. It will have at least an additional 5,000 people by 2015. So this increases the population of that Regina—Lewvan riding. By moving the Cathedral area out it maintains the community of interest. It better reflects the population growth in Regina—Lewvan and I think it would make both those ridings far stronger places if we have to go to an urban-only configuration.

Thank you, Chair.