Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll call our meeting to order. We're still waiting for one of our witnesses to show up, but I'm sure he can come during the presentation by the others.

We have a very busy meeting this morning. Apparently, we are in public and may or may not have a video recording; we just don't know. So be careful, because you may be on camera.

We are here pursuant to the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario, to look at their report. We have a full panel here today for the Scarborough area of Toronto.

Members, all of you will get five minutes. Watch for my one-minute signal. At the end of that, we'll have questions and answers from the committee.

Madam Sitsabaiesan, would you like to go first for five minutes, please?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission has had a very challenging task, and I sincerely appreciate the work that the commission has done to consider and support the concerns of the constituents of Scarborough—Rouge River and residents across Scarborough.

As a member of Parliament, I believe it is my role to listen to the people I represent and to be the aggregate voice for the community. I did just that by engaging in a public consultation process when it was made available by the commission. Many Scarborough—Rouge River and other Scarborough residents did also, and I'm pleased that the commission heard their concerns as well.

The commission's initial proposal split Malvern and Morningside Heights, two vital communities within the riding of Scarborough—Rouge River. This proposal prompted considerable concern, not only from individuals in those areas, but also from people all across Scarborough.

Malvern and Morningside Heights are two communities of great interest, and they enjoy a mutually beneficial and extremely positive relationship.

When the electoral boundaries commission presented the first map, constituents from across the riding contacted me to share their feedback and ideas. Approximately 25 residents took time off work to attend the public hearings. Almost 10 more wrote submissions to the commission.

Residents are extremely grateful to the commission for listening to their concerns and for creating this new map that keeps communities of interest intact and provides fair representation for Scarborough.

In the public hearing, the commission heard that Malvern is a vibrant and diverse community of interest. However, it is also a community that experiences challenges with poverty, crime, and gun violence. Sadly, residents were shocked by two shootings just this past weekend.

As a result of the disproportionate concentration of poverty and violence in Malvern, the City of Toronto identified it as one of 13 priority neighbourhoods.

Community activists, youth workers, and local representatives have been working for decades to build a sense of community and continue to fight for funding for community support, services and programs to engage youth and create a safer community. In turn, the excellent work and efforts that residents, community agencies, and service providers have accomplished to build this community would be eroded if it were split in half as per the original proposal.

In Malvern there's a community health centre, a recreation centre, high schools, shopping centres, and a major public library, all accessible to the residents of Morningside Heights directly to its north.

Moreover, many agencies have service centres on both sides of Neilson Road, the previous westerly boundary, which would certainly create confusion among residents as well as creating funding challenges for service providers.

Furthermore, Malvern and the communities south of the 401 do not share many common interests or needs, so it would be nonsensical to combine these communities. Residents of Morningside Heights, a growing and developing community that is predominantly a residential neighbourhood, rely on the community services and support centres in Malvern for their needs, including child care, immigration services, and youth-engagement activities. Therefore it is very important for these communities of interest to be kept together.

Additionally, Mr. Chair, if separated from Malvern, residents of Morningside Heights would have to rely on the City of Markham for service delivery. This is problematic due to the severe transit needs that exist in our neighbourhoods, and it could make many services inaccessible to my residents.

As a resident and representative of this area, I agree with the concerns expressed by the residents and my neighbours in this area. I also believe that dividing Malvern and Morningside Heights between two electoral districts could weaken the abilities of all levels of government and members of Parliament to address the problems associated with poverty and crime and to work with individuals and agencies who are trying to deal with these issues.

Since we agree with the community that it is necessary to keep Malvern and Morningside Heights together, we have developed an alternative proposal that meets the needs of Malvern and Morningside Heights to remain united and that retains six ridings in Scarborough in order to maintain the integrity of the communities.

During the public consultation phase, I approached the member for Scarborough—Guildwood about making suggestions for changes, and he did not have any objections at that time.

Additionally the member for Pickering—Scarborough East attended the public hearing where I made my submission to reunite these communities, and at that time he also had no complaints.

I am therefore confused as to why there is an outcry from these members when we have reached this point in the process.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I would like to once again thank the electoral boundaries commission. I appreciate that their task is difficult, and I agree with the current map they have proposed, as it is fair and takes into account the voices of the residents of Scarborough—Rouge River and Scarborough as a whole. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Harris, you have five minutes or less.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for having us today.

It's a new experience to be on this side responding to rather than asking questions. I'm sure that down the road it will help me in my task when I'm on the other side.

My family has lived in what's now called Scarborough Southwest for over 90 years, ever since it used to be a part of Toronto Danforth. Every decade ridings change, demographics change, population bases change. Under both proposals put forward to date, my riding is the one that would see the least amount of change.

I'm before the commission in order to present the holistic approach required for Scarborough. When you look at changing one riding, you have to look at the ridings next door. We were very pleased at the beginning of the process that the commission looked to have six full ridings in Scarborough instead of five and a half, thus correcting the stopgap measure put in place a decade ago, because we believe that to have six full MPs will bring more effective representation to Scarborough.

The initial proposal raised some concerns, mostly by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, that we sought to address. Unfortunately, what impacts Rouge River spills over to the rest of Scarborough and, certainly, we want to be able to see Scarborough a safe place for all the residents.

We had several residents in my riding raise concerns about the divisions being recommended in other areas of Scarborough, which is what led me to appear before the commission as well as to make proposed changes to the boundaries. As I said at the beginning, my riding wouldn't change very much one way or another.

However, there is much confusion for residents in the northern chunk, called the Ionview neighbourhood, which has been part of Scarborough Southwest for 10 years now. Up until last November, the local legion, the Dambusters legion, a very famous unit in the Second World War, still believed they were part of Scarborough Centre because they keep flipping back and forth between ridings.

The first proposal would have had them return to Scarborough Centre, leading perhaps to more confusion for residents. This is why we proposed that maintaining the status quo for Scarborough Southwest, where this riding wouldn't change, would also allow changes to happen in a more holistic approach in the rest of Scarborough, to ensure that the best representation and ideas were brought forward.

We had over a dozen residents go before the commission to propose changes and make submissions. I'm very thankful for people taking time out of their busy days to go before the commission, because the boundaries do matter, in terms of the representation that we members of Parliament are able to give our residents.

The commission was certainly tasked with a difficult challenge in trying to redraw the lines for Scarborough. We recognized that no matter how we looked at it, in order to keep the outer boundaries for Scarborough as a whole at Victoria Park, Steeles, the Rouge, and then Lake Ontario, unfortunately, one riding might have to cross the 401, another logical boundary that does exist. Hopefully, 10 years from now, the population will change so that doesn't have to happen any more. But we know that sometimes interim measures need to be taken and that the commission is not tasked with looking at future growth when deciding riding boundary lines.

I'd like to conclude by saying that I certainly agree with the new proposal. I think it provides better ridings and alignment of communities of interest. What is being proposed in the new Scarborough East riding would keep the waterfront and the bluffs together as a community of interest. It would reconnect Malvern and Morningside Heights. It would create the new Scarborough—Wexford riding, which more closely aligns an old Scarborough Ellesmere riding that used to exist with areas where communities of interest already align. As it’s a well-established community, I believe that if a riding has to cross the 401, it is the logical place because lots of commerce and travel have taken place across that boundary in that area for over 50 years. A natural alignment exists there. Even the old Scarborough—Agincourt riding, when it was much smaller, used to cross the 401 and go south, so there's certainly an argument to be made that this can happen again.

Certainly, I'm very pleased with the process and with the job the commission has done. They actually responded to the public concerns that were raised at the meetings and then redrew a map based on the submissions that had been made by the public.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

As you can see, Mr. McKay is not here yet. He apparently is speaking in the House and won't be joining us for a while yet.

Mr. Chisu, five minutes, please.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Esteemed members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to speak today on the report phase of the redistribution of electoral boundaries for Ontario.

I am here today to express my concerns regarding the latest redistribution of the electoral ridings in Scarborough that have been made by the electoral commission for Ontario.

For the record, I am a professional engineer, and I continue to apply engineering principles when a problem needs to be resolved. The principles are simply common sense. Engineers define, analyze, and investigate problems so that solutions can be developed, tested, and verified. These processes apply to all engineering problems. An engineering problem is any challenge you are faced with that makes you apply your knowledge of engineering principles. For example, how do we fix this process? How do we make a better product? How do we design this competency to apply engineering knowledge?

I followed with interest the work of the commission. I was extremely satisfied with the work done and the proposal made initially with the new riding of Scarborough East, with the right balances in place in terms of representation by population, communities, and surrounding boundaries, both inside Scarborough and the interaction with surrounding municipalities.

That said, I will concentrate on the issues relating to the initial and the latest decision of the commission regarding the riding of Scarborough East.

The initial proposal of the Scarborough East riding, being from the northern boundary of the city of Toronto—Steeles—to Lake Ontario was a careful proposal, taking into consideration same communities of interest and the new vibrant community developments north of Highway 401, very similar to those to the south of Highway 401.

Moreover, it was including the entire part of the newly created urban national park, Rouge Park, which soon will be the pride of Scarborough, the city of Toronto, Ontario, and Canada.

Another notable aspect of the riding was its interface with the Pickering—Uxbridge riding in the east, which is a natural interface taking into consideration major transportation issues that need to be addressed urgently in the eastern part of the GTA.

The only objection I had, as a private citizen living in West Hill, Scarborough, for more than 30 years, and making a submission to the commission at its meeting on November 14, 2012, was to change the name of the new riding to Scarborough East—Rouge Park in order to emphasize the new jewel and pride of Scarborough, which is unique in the world: Rouge Park.

The latest proposal of the commission surprised me. How did the few submissions at the hearing of November 15, 2012, most of them openly political, influence the decision of the commission so radically as to come up with a totally new version of the map for Scarborough, with no clear line of thought, consideration, or logical process—for example, making a decision that Highway 401 is a boundary between the riding in the east end of Scarborough, while in other parts of Scarborough denying it?

In conclusion, I am asking that the commission maintain its initial proposal for Scarborough East riding, with the suggested name change. I am confident that other minor adjustments to the other ridings in Scarborough can be made to the satisfaction of all stakeholders involved.

Finally, I believe this boundary change will better reflect the characteristics of our community and result in stronger representation based on a united voice of constituents expressing shared needs and interests of the eastern portion of Scarborough. I also believe this boundary change will lead to a stronger interest of people with roots in Scarborough to be involved in the political process.

For the record, I have also the support Raymond Cho and Ron Moeser, two long-time councillors from the east end of Toronto.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chisu.

Ms. James, for five minutes, please.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'm very pleased to participate in today's meeting and to present my objection as the member of Parliament for the electoral district of Scarborough Centre.

As an individual who was born and raised in Scarborough, and who still lives there raising my own family, I am deeply concerned about the negative impact these latest changes will have on the majority of residents, established communities, and natural historical boundaries, not only in my own riding of Scarborough Centre but also to Scarborough as a whole.

Therefore, although I represent Scarborough Centre, I'm here to speak on behalf of all of Scarborough. There are essentially two areas of Scarborough that need to be addressed by redistribution.

The first is Scarborough—Rouge River, which has the largest population, with a quotient deviation of over 27%.

The second area is Pickering—Scarborough East, which is a split municipality riding with different council bylaws and non-connecting transit on both sides of the Rouge Valley.

It is easy to determine that the requirement for boundary review in Scarborough should largely be focused on these two existing ridings, both of which are in the northeast and eastern area of Scarborough. The aim of the commission should be to cause the least disruption in the remaining well-established electoral districts, where little or no change was even necessary.

The first proposal in 2012 did exactly that. It achieved it by separating Pickering—Scarborough East's population so that it remained in a Pickering riding, and it put the Scarborough population solely in a Scarborough riding. It did this by splitting Scarborough—Rouge River to create a new electoral district in the north, called Scarborough—North, to accommodate the growing population.

It did this by combining the remaining portion of Scarborough—Rouge River with Scarborough's east side, which also borders and includes the Rouge River Valley, to form Scarborough—East.

I want to note, for the record, that the unique nature of this natural environmental area, and the prominence of the future national park, adds to the logical creation of the proposed electoral boundaries in the first proposal. In fact, it is the only area of Scarborough in which the creation of a single riding made up of communities both north and south of Highway 401 actually has any merit.

Lastly, it left the four remaining Scarborough ridings, the ones that were farthest away from the areas that needed to be addressed, almost the same or with only minor boundary changes.

This proposal presented in 2012 was overwhelmingly logical. It had the least impact on the greatest number of Scarborough residents, well-established communities, and historical boundaries. In contrast, the new 2013 report stage maps are overwhelmingly illogical and lack any real merit. The reason is that the focus shifts away from the northeast and eastern ridings and completely divides three well-established electoral districts of Scarborough. This is where little or no change should have occurred, as it simply was not necessary. Those are the ridings of Scarborough—Agincourt, Scarborough Centre, and Scarborough—Guildwood.

Scarborough—Guildwood has been completely obliterated and no longer exists. This change moved constituents and communities either east or west into new ridings. Scarborough Centre and Scarborough—Agincourt have been divided, split almost exactly in two, so that the west half of each has been combined to create a brand-new electoral district named Scarborough—Wexford.

The new riding of Scarborough Centre has the highest population growth. I emphasize that this is anticipated because of the continued construction of condos in and around Scarborough Town Centre and the Civic Centre. In a short time, it will be overpopulated.

The new riding of Scarborough—Wexford is both north and south of Highway 401, a major highway that divides both areas. It should be noted that there's no real connection between these two communities north and south of Highway 401, with respect to demographics, issues, or common interests. Whereas in the first proposal, with the creation of the Scarborough—East riding, which ran north and south along the Rouge River Valley and the future national park, there was commonality.

The 2013 revised proposal will result in the most significant changes, which will effect all of Scarborough, with the greatest impact on the majority of Scarborough residents, well-established communities, and historical boundaries, which is the complete opposite of the original proposal in 2012.

Mr. Chair, may I ask how long I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

One minute.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay.

In closing, I want to stress how strongly I object to the 2013 report stage boundary redistribution changes. I respectfully put forward the following counter to your proposal, as well as a recommendation to this committee and the commission.

My recommendation is to reinstate the first proposal boundary redistribution map 2012 for Scarborough. I have a few minor revisions that I'd like to present and I'm hoping someone on this committee will ask me to elaborate on those changes.

As I have specified in the documents that all of you have before you, there are two boundary changes. One is to respect the community of Bendale and reunite South Cedarbrae with Guildwood. The other one, I wish to stress, is to keep Scarborough Southwest exactly as it is today, with no boundary changes whatsoever.

I look forward to any questions from the committee.

I also want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to appear before the committee today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, very much.

Mr. Karygiannis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If you can give me a nod when there is one minute remaining, I would appreciate it.

I'm here today to object to the latest federal electoral boundaries that the commission has proposed, which would mean that those parts of the riding of Scarborough—Agincourt south of Finch Avenue and west of the CN tracks, parallel to Midland Avenue, would be removed and assigned to a new riding south of the 401. This is shown on map 2, which we'll be distributing to you.

Over the past weeks I have communicated these changes with my constituents by letter and by automatic voice drop. I also held a town hall meeting in the area most affected. In response I have received over 700 e-mails, 448 voice responses, and 300 questionnaire responses. Approximately 100 people attended the town hall meeting.

Mr. Chair, as a matter of fact, we were communicating some of that to your clerk, and your clerk said, “Enough, we don't want...”. However, for the committee, we've brought it along and we'll leave it with you.

The overwhelming response was not in favour of the commission's proposed changes. In fact, Mr. Chair, we received responses from seven people who supported the proposed changes. I have also received letters opposing the significant changes to the riding of Scarborough—Agincourt from the provincial members of Parliament, the City of Toronto councillors, and the school board trustees—all of them—who will be affected by these changes. This proposal has not been received with much enthusiasm in Scarborough—Agincourt. In fact, many have asked me why these radical changes are being made. The proposed changes to the riding boundaries present three major issues:

One, the abandonment of Highway 401 as a boundary between communities of differing interests.

Reference is made in the commission's report to where the highway can or should be breached. The response of many of my constituents is that Highway 401 is a major piece of infrastructure that forms the southern boundary of their community of Agincourt.

Two, the division through the very middle of north Scarborough's oldest community—Agincourt.

The Village of Agincourt was officially founded by John Hill with the establishment of the Agincourt Post Office, which opened in June 1858. Its original location was on Sheppard Avenue. The community also served north Scarborough's agricultural community. Agincourt's electoral voice has always been found in the Scarborough riding north of the 401. However, the commission's proposal aligns part of the Agincourt community with the community of Wexford, which is south of the 401. The links between these two communities are very weak. See map 2.

The commission's proposed boundary along the CN tracks divides present-day Agincourt's community institutions: the Agincourt Mall, the Agincourt library, and the Agincourt GO station, which are assigned to Scarborough—Wexford.

Three, the isolation of some 7,500 residents outside the riding's proposed eastern boundary in neighbouring Scarborough—Rouge.

The commission's proposed changes to the northeastern Scarborough—Agincourt boundary include McCowan Road, McNicoll Avenue, and Middlefield Road. By using McCowan Road in particular, the approximately 7,500 residents, who live east of Woodside Square, would be electorally isolated and situated with 95,000 constituents in communities far to the east on the other side of the CP marshalling yards in the proposed Scarborough—Rouge riding. See map 4.

The suggested boundary also severs school catchment zones, commercial areas, and residential communities. The effect of this new eastern boundary is to isolate voters. Isolation gives way to marginalization, and to be marginalized is to be less than engaged. The commission has heard no call in support of these changes from the residents east of Woodside Square and no call that they will be isolated from their immediate neighbours in the community.

Now to conclude, the effects of the commission's proposed changes are at odds with the lay of the land and communities of interest. It has been my intention to put on the record today the clearly negative community impacts that arise from the suggested new riding boundaries.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You're under four minutes, Mr. Karygiannis. That's great.

We will go to questions by members.

When Mr. McKay comes, I feel we should probably give him his five minutes. He will be walking in blind to what's happened.

We're going to go to a seven-minute round to begin with. Members at the end of the table, please keep your answers as short and succinct as you can. It will be up to the members asking the questions who they are asking the questions of.

Mr. Lukiwski, you have seven minutes.

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

I think I'm going to cede the first question to Mr. Reid.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm sorry. I'm afraid I didn't look down.

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

No, that's fine.

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

Sorry. We did have a change here.

I'm going to take Ms. James up on her invitation to give us a further explanation of the details. I know you have a written presentation that includes, among other things, an actual list of riding populations and your suggestions.

If you could guide us through that, I would be grateful.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Yes, thank you very much. I appreciate having the opportunity to elaborate on that.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the first proposal made sense for all of Scarborough, specifically for the western side, where it should not be divided in the manner that it was in the second proposal. My suggestion was to reinstate the first boundary maps with minor changes. The minor changes, if you look at the attachments that I have presented to you, have to do with the most eastern side of the border of Scarborough Centre and Scarborough—Guildwood.

In the first set of boundary maps presented in 2012, McCowan Road to Bellamy and Lawrence up to Highway 401 were part of a community called Bendale. It's one of the most historic areas in Scarborough and includes a very famous area called the “Ben Jungle”. In the attachments that I have presented, I have a letter from the City of Toronto historic museum indicating the historic reference and nature of that, as well as the surrounding area, which is the Bendale Thomson park, so there is certainly backing to my argument.

The boundary revision that I am presenting in this counter proposal is to keep that section of Bendale within Scarborough Centre. In order to take something away from Guildwood, I need to return something back to Guildwood, and that's the very corner of my riding currently, which is called South Cedarbrae.

South Cedarbrae is bordered on the north by McCowan Park, a green space with part of a river or stream flowing through it, and it's a natural boundary right now with regard to Elections Canada polls. South Cedarbrae as a whole exists currently in Scarborough—Guildwood. It's also closer to Guildwood proper. South Cedarbrae has a Cedarbrae Mall, the Cedarbrae Collegiate, and so on, so it makes sense to actually reunite that bottom portion with Guildwood. That boundary change has been discussed with the member from Guildwood proper.

The other change that I'm proposing is the boundary change with my south border on Eglinton Avenue with that of Scarborough Southwest. To sum it up in a nutshell, Scarborough Southwest is the furthest riding away from the area that needs to be addressed on the northeast and eastern edge. Scarborough Southwest, which is the riding of my colleague a few seats over, I believe should stay exactly as it is today. Therefore, I propose that the boundaries be reinstated as they currently are.

Those are the two significant changes—well, minor changes—with regard to boundaries.

There is a third proposal that I'm putting forward in that counter proposal that has to do with the naming of the Scarborough East riding.

May I continue?

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

If you don't mind, I'd just like to go back and get the details.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Sure, absolutely.

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

When you talk about minor changes, you're talking about minor changes from the proposed map? That was the first map that came out last August?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

It was the first proposal in 2012.

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

Okay.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

It's a very slight boundary change to respect the historic Bendale community, a vibrant community with several community associations—

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

Okay. Now I want to get you to actually lay that out for the benefit of people like me.

For the Bendale area, you are proposing moving the boundary from.... I'm using the August map. They would have had the boundary between Scarborough Centre and Scarborough—Guildwood, north of Lawrence Avenue, running along McCowan Road, and that splits the Bendale neighbourhood. You're suggesting that it be moved to Bellamy Road?