Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2013

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

I'll go back to the question I posed originally. I know there were a number of members as witnesses who wanted to answer. I still don't understand. I don't know how germane it is to the conversation, frankly, but I cannot understand how the commission, which is made up of some very learned people, could bring forward an initial map based on all of the information they had before them and then dramatically change it for the second map. I'm trying to get a sense of why that happened. We've heard from two of the witnesses. I'll ask Mr. McKay, and I'd like to see if we can get all of the witnesses to respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We could make this happen.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The short answer is, “I don't know”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Keep it short.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

There were witnesses who advocated for a particular set of changes. But, going into the hearing, happy, happy, happy, happy, happy, as happy as he can be, and then unhappy. Coming out of the hearing, it is unhappy, unhappy, unhappy, unhappy, awkward position, and unhappy. It's not that much more complicated.

The second question put by Mr. Dion was whether there's a plan going forward. You asked that as well. Essentially, the plan is what the commission proposed originally. That's probably the least disruptive and hits all of the balance buttons and all of the rest of the stuff, minimal disruption to various communities. There will be tweaks that we would like to propose. But you can't get to there until you deal with the secondary....

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

Can we hear from Ms. James and Mr. Chisu in whatever time we have left?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Yes, thank you.

I agree with my colleague. I can't answer that question either. It's a good question. Who knows?

I have to tell you, when I saw the first boundary maps that came out, it was almost what I expected. It made sense. The areas that needed to be addressed were in the northeast, Scarborough—Rouge River and Pickering—Scarborough East. Those two had to be addressed. The other ridings are stable, historic, well-established communities. In most cases most of them shouldn't even have been touched.

I just want to indicate that my counter proposal, with the slight boundary changes, actually puts the population deviations or the populations even closer in line, so it's even better than the original proposal. It makes Scarborough Southwest happy, and the rest of the ridings happy.

I have to say, though, I was a bit concerned when I read the 2000 report-stage conclusions by the commission. I'm just going to read this. It states:

Finally, the Commission was advised that, if the boundaries of an electoral district had to cross Highway 401, it was preferable that this occur in the more mature and developed western portion of the Scarborough area.

That raises a big question—the most mature and well-established areas.... You would think that established communities with natural historical boundaries, communities that have been bound together for years, and sometimes decades, are the ones that should be left alone. Without population changes, growth spurts, and so on, why touch them? It makes absolutely no sense.

In areas where you have the population growing and newer development and so on, those are the areas that need to be changed. In the northeast and the eastern area of Scarborough, the first distribution maps made perfect sense.

Through you, Mr. Chair, to the committee member, I have to tell you that it raises a big question.

I just want to say that the member for Scarborough—Rouge River said there were 25 residents who appeared before the commission, and 10 who sent letters—35 residents out of 625,698 constituents in Scarborough Centre. And that's changed our boundary maps? What's going on here?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, you still have a minute and a half.

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

Mr. Chisu, and then Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Lukiwski.

I will just tell you that I am puzzled about why the radical changes were made, because the east end of Scarborough, north and south of Highway 401, was developed at the same time. So these communities were growing and getting integrated into the east side of the city.

My constituents only concern is that they don't want to have a riding split between Scarborough and Pickering. When the first division was made, creating the new Scarborough East, it was a logical one, incorporating communities with the same interest, growing up together.

Highway 401 is not a division in Pickering or Ajax or somewhere else, so then it is not a division in the very east end of Scarborough, where the national urban park is just being created. Now, through this latest, you are basically splitting the riding. The south portion of the Rouge Park will have a different interest from the northern part when you would like to combine, to resolve transportation issues and to enjoy the city.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

You're out of time, but I'm going to let Mr. Harris have a very short answer.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you very much.

I just want to state that it should probably be noted that when the boundary commission came up with their initial proposal, the commission had actually asked for an extension on the Ontario boundaries because the commission felt they did not have enough time to properly look at the boundaries for all of Ontario in order to redraw them. There was a lot of thought and consideration put into the initial ones; the commission itself had asked for more time.

For Toronto as a whole, and its the 22 ridings, there were two days of public hearings. So there was a very limited amount of time to speak. And still, I know that just between our two ridings, we had over 40 verbal presentations during just those two days of submissions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We have one more round.

Mr. Menegakis, four minutes, please.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't know if I'll need the full four minutes, but I'll be as quick as I can.

I'd just like to get some clarification, actually. Is it fair to say that when the first set of maps came out in 2012, with the exception of Ms. Sitsabaiesan, the rest of the MPs in Scarborough were relatively pleased with the maps that came out from the commission?

Now, I understand that there is no dispute. All six of you are in agreement with Mr. Harris' riding. Nobody is debating what's happened to the boundaries of Mr. Harris' riding.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

He's a happy camper.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm asking that question now to the members who are here and did not agree with the first set of maps. It was a public consultation. In a public consultation, one would think you wouldn't show up and say, “We like the maps, thank you for doing them”, and then leave. That's why you didn't show up there.

The second set of maps that came out in 2013—seen for the first time in this committee—are drastically changed from the first set of maps. It's the biggest change we've seen. This is why you're here today.

The second part of my question is this. Are all four of you in agreement with the changes that are being proposed by all of you? Is there consensus for what you'd like to see?

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

Mr. Chair, if I may, my colleague said that 40 people who went to speak. Scarborough, itself, has close to a million people. Forty people do not represent Scarborough. However—

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Well, 650,000 is a far cry from—

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

Mr. Chair, I thought I had the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis.

Mr. Karygiannis has the floor.

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

The point is that all of us, when we saw the original proposal, four plus one, we were very happy. The final proposal came out of the blue, totally out of the blue. If you went to the commission's maps, you would have a hard time finding the maps, a very hard time, even a very hard time trying to figure out where it is and where it isn't.

In terms of the original proposal, everybody is happy with it, except my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River. And I'll tell you, it took everybody else by surprise. Forty people do not change 650,000 people's wishes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I don't want to put the cart before the horse here, but the committee has to, in effect, go back to the first proposal in order to respond to your question.

I would suggest that if we do go back to the first proposal, the riding boundary changes between Roxanne and me are relatively easy to negotiate, shall we say, or discuss. I don't think Scarborough East has any real....I don't think we have any objections. I'm just covering off both sides of my community—minor changes with Roxanne, no changes with Corneliu, and no changes with Dan—if we take Roxanne's proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

The consensus reached between my three colleagues closest to me and me was in regard to the counter proposal I put forward to reinstate the first boundary maps with a small or minor boundary revision in order to respect the historic and vibrant community of Bendale, which is historic in nature in Scarborough, and also to reunite South Cedarbrae in Guildwood, where it actually belongs.

Again, the other boundary is between me, Southwest, and Southwest and Guildwood, which is enabling the Southwest riding to stay exactly as it is today. So there really isn't any argument that would speak otherwise to that. Between us and those boundary changes I proposed, there is some consensus. It actually makes the most sense for Scarborough.

Again, I just want to stress that it puts the populations closer in line.