Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 9th, 2013

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

No. That is what I asked the commission, but as I said, it removed two communities and that will affect Thunder Bay.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

In that case, Mr. Thibeault and Mr. Angus, why would you not say that you support Mr. Hayes and that you want an exemption for your riding?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

The problem is that the boundary commission was clear. So, at this hour I would love fantasy but I'm living in reality.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

No, but—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Kenora has an exception. Kenora has a population 40% smaller than my riding, and I have numerous fly-in communities. But they said they would not made a second exception.

With the fact that they've already moved communities out of Algoma and moved them over to Thunder Bay, we are dealing with a cascading effect.

We support the boundary commission. We understand their parameters, so we're not asking them to rewrite the rules they engaged in. We're saying that given that this was their mandate, we accept their recommendations.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I understand.

So, if the committee wrote in its report that you prefer what the commission has proposed, unless it is ready to revisit it's rule that no exceptions should be made for Madam Hughes' riding, would that be fair? Would that represent what you think, or not?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

We all, at all of our sessions, asked for the status quo for AMK, because the way the commission divvied up AMK when they brought out their propositions—so much so that we had Coniston, which was on the east side of the City of Sudbury, in AMK—it really changed the way we could represent all constituents in northern Ontario.

We asked that at every single commission meeting. They said that they would not look at any other status quo propositions or proposals.

What they've proposed now is the best option for all of northeastern Ontario.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Hayes, if the commission is not willing to revisit its view that one exception is enough, and Madam Hughes will not have an exception, what are you proposing then?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I'm probably not going to go there and interrupt everybody with the cascading clause, because as far as my constituents and I are concerned, the excess population, if it were required for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, should have come out of Sudbury, because the Sudbury area had the larger population.

That was proposal that everybody was fighting, and I accept that fight. So I'm not going to fight that.

What I'm asking the group here to do is to ask the electoral boundaries commission to revisit and invoke the extraordinary circumstance rule. That's what I'm asking to happen, to leave my riding as the status quo.

As you've heard, all of the members asked for the status quo for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, and that's what I'm asking for too, the status quo for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Your colleagues are saying that it's very unlikely that the commission will change its mind.

If the commission doesn't change its mind, should the ReadyMap that the commission came out with be the one?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

If the commission doesn't change its mind, sir, then this is done. I will accept the decision. I don't believe I would have a choice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have four seconds, three seconds—

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope I've been helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You did very well.

Mr. Armstrong, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will quote from page 8, paragraph 3, lines 11, 12, and 13, of the report:

The advice received at those public hearings, combined with the inappropriate involvement of at least two Members of Parliament, persuaded the Commission to conclude that the status quo, with a few minor boundary adjustments, is the best solution it can achieve for Northern Ontario.

Mr. Angus, I think you mentioned that one of the people they said had acted inappropriately was you.

Does anyone know whom they're referring to, or what they're referring to in that? What specifically did they say was inappropriate?

That's kind of unprecedented. We haven't heard any evidence from any commission like that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I can only go from what was in the report. There were two references to me.

One was my suggestion, my firm belief, backed by the mayors of Timiskaming...the farm community moved along Highway 11...and wasn't connected to Sudbury.... He said that was one example.

The second one was the ability to serve constituents in the northern part, given the size of the riding.

The third one he referenced was when he said that all of the mayors in the north supported it, and Madam Hughes actually said that they don't, because the mayors didn't support it.

I can't speculate beyond that, but what I find interesting is that he accepted the objections, because there were over a thousand objections made based on similar arguments. I think Justice Valin did the right thing; he heard the suggestions.

I don't know what was inappropriate about mentioning the Highway 11 corridor. This is the whole discussion we've all been having here, and I think we're all in agreement on it.

But we think they did a good job under the circumstances, because northern Ontario is obviously a very difficult piece, given its vast geography and its vast differences in some areas in terms of cultural, economic, and historic ties.

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

So your contention, Mr. Angus, is that when they talk about inappropriate involvement they are referring specifically to your testimony? There were no other actions taken by any other MP other than that testimony they would refer to as inappropriate?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

All I can refer to is the report of February 23, 2013, where he laid out what he thought were the examples of inappropriate behaviour. The Highway 11 corridor is an agricultural corridor that connects Val Gagné, Matheson, Cochrane, up to Kapuskasing, down through Timiskaming, and that there is no connection over to Sudbury....

To be fair there is a bit of a rural belt around the Sudbury area. What I contended with Justice Valin at the time was that we do not have any real historic ties agriculturally. And we are actually in a boom.

You might not be aware of this, but northern Ontario's booming right now in agriculture, and it's coming out of Timiskaming and moving up through Matheson. I had actually presented two maps showing the differences between agriculture in the proposed riding and agriculture under the present riding. You could see that if you cut the line, the northern part would become much smaller agriculturally, and it wouldn't be politically connected. That was the concern we raised.

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

But, Mr. Angus, many MPs testified to the Ontario commission, but this is the only reference in the report that someone acted inappropriately. If it were just testimony that you made, I would point out that many MPs also provided testimony to the commission these same commissioners did not agree with. How do we reconcile the fact that there was a reference to inappropriate behaviour of MPs just in this particular area?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Again I think it's interesting. If you look at the report he references that, and he references the issue of service to constituents. He said that to him was inappropriate.

I think the problem for Justice Valin....This is why this needs to be put in context. In 2004 during the last boundary ridings adjustment, we had a member of Parliament who told the communities not to get involved, that it would get fixed at the last stage, and there were no submissions made, and Timiskaming disappeared as a riding. When the new riding boundary proposal came in that Timiskaming would become part of a much different riding, people were very upset. When Justice Valin came into the region, we had a very large turnout. People were very organized because they had been through this before.

I think he thought that he was coming to try to fix the solution. He was certainly surprised by the response from all the mayors, all the agricultural groups, all the citizens and, at the end of the day, he agreed. This is what he said, that he listened to those objections and he agreed with them. I think this is the measure of a good report, that when you hear from people that there are serious problems with a recommendation, you listen to them.

He listened, and at the end of the day I think it's unfortunate that he felt it was inappropriate to talk about issues of services to constituents, but within the 2004 electoral guide for involvement, it says that it's expected that MPs will participate. MPs will have strong opinions, and I certainly have strong opinions about the farming community of Timiskaming.

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

So what you're contending is that it wasn't your testimony, but the attitude and the intensity with which you protested?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I can't speculate. I'm only going on the evidence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Armstrong, thank you. Your time is up. I thought I was invisible there for a second.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh1

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Cullen.