Evidence of meeting #72 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 area.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Yes, and my argument today—I acknowledge that—is that there is a community of interest that we need to balance.
In terms of representation, what I've also said in here, and the commission may or may not take this as a relevant point, is that I think the people in the northern part of the city of Kingston would have a bigger say because I think elections in Kingston and the Islands are expected to be much closer than in Lanark—Frontenac. So they would have a larger voice in the next election.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Yes. We don't know whether the commission considers what will happen on election day.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Yes. I put it up there, and I understand the commission will decide what they decide.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
They're looking at a fair representation, which is what's behind these changes in the first place.
Am I done?
Conservative
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Right. But let me add this point: the commission was willing to do that in their first proposal. So it's certainly not out of the question, because the commission already was willing to do that in its first proposal.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Yes, in the initial proposal, the commission had Kingston and the Islands at 116,996.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
No, the initial proposal was to leave the boundaries of Kingston and the Islands unchanged, which is what I'm arguing for today. So the commission was willing to tolerate that higher population of 125,000 in its initial proposal.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
You're saying that in this round they're taking it down to 116,000.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Right. What they reported to the House of Commons was 116,000.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Menegakis.
Mr. Christopherson, welcome to the committee.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair. It's always a pleasure to be back here with you and colleagues.
Mr. Hsu, with regard to Hamilton, one of the questions you're asked before making a presentation here is: have you talked to your colleagues about these proposed changes, and if so, do they agree?
Did you talk to the members of Hamilton?
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
What I'm doing today is reflecting the testimony, information the committee has already gathered. I'm not offering any new information. I am simply taking advantage of this opportunity to tell the committee that people who have been in contact with me support the second of three proposals. I want to go on the record with that. I'm not making any new arguments, and I'm not bringing in any new organizations or groups to support that proposal. I'm just stating that I want to be on the record supporting what the commission has on its existing record.
NDP
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
The question is, did you consult with the area MPs? I happen to be one.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I'm not bringing in any new groups and I'm not bringing in any new information. I'm simply going on the record supporting one of the previous proposals of the commission.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay. Let me just run something by you. For the information of members, there are five MPs in the Hamilton area: three NDP, two Conservatives. We have had a united position on the boundaries from the beginning. We sent in letters on the first submission, which is the one that Mr. Hsu doesn't agree with, and we concluded that the commission got it right. It wasn't perfect, but it was the closest we were going to get. We thought it was in the best interests of Hamilton. We took that position, and when the commission held the public hearing, we made the mistake of thinking everybody agreed with us. Of course, you know what happens when you assume, and a few people came out and complained, had an objection. The commission then completely revised everything. It was radical. That's the way I put it. I went to the next hearing when they put that second proposal out there. My colleagues sent in a second round of letters saying we were in favour of the first one. I personally went. I spent a lot of time on the presentation and made the case to the commissioners of how the first proposal reflected the best interests of Hamilton, our community of interest.
The commission agreed with us and in fact they said afterwards:
The Commission learned that the parts of the electoral districts of Hamilton Centre and Hamilton Mountain originally assigned to the proposed electoral district of Ancaster in fact do have a significant community of interest and identity with the communities of Ancaster, Dundas and Westdale. The Commission concluded that the approach it set out in its initial Proposal, with a few minor adjustments, was the best solution for the City of Hamilton.
So here is my question. The commission had two goes at it, two full-fledged goes at it. The first one was accepted by all of us who are elected and most of the community. The second one caused a huge uproar. We made the case. We pleaded with them to go back to the original proposal. They did.
Can you now give me a reason why all of us MPs, Hamiltonians, the commission, and this committee should overturn what looks to be as close to a community consensus as you can get?
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
People came to testify to the commission and the commission revised it. Did you call it “drastic” or “radical”? I can't remember the exact word.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
So some people came to the commission and gave their arguments. The commission listened to them, and I understand it did get changed back, but at first they made these radical changes. I'm here simply to go on the record as being in support of the second proposal and the testimony that caused the commission to change its first proposal and accept the second one.