Evidence of meeting #76 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 proposal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
No one's ever accused you of that.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thanks, all, for the testimony. I'm trying to understand one particular thing.
Mr. Hayes, you said that you would like the commission to reconsider the low population requirement that Canada has in legislation, the 25% below. You want them to reconsider. They said they won't.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON
They didn't tell me that, and I haven't seen that in writing, sir. So....
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It said: “For the reasons outlined earlier in this Report, that option was no longer possible. ”
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON
I don't think they outlined that specifically. What did they say? Maybe you can relate to me specifically what they said about invoking the extraordinary circumstances rule. Why is it no longer possible?
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Thibeault, you had some comment about this idea of AMK getting another special exemption. You said that the commission had made some comment to that end.
Can you enlighten the committee, and maybe Mr. Hayes as well?
May 9th, 2013 / 11:30 a.m.
NDP
Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON
Sure. What I mentioned at committee was that when we were looking at the original proposals brought forward by the electoral boundaries committee, we asked for that special exemption for AMK.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON
This is the one Mr. Hayes is asking for. We were told outright that it would not happen, that Kenora has that exemption due to extreme circumstances, and that they would not be looking at that at all. That was said numerous times because a colleague and I were there. I can't speak for my colleague, but I did hear it numerous times.
I'm sure that Mr. Angus, along with Ms. Hughes, could also state that. That's part of why I thought it was important to outline that my friend, Mr. Hayes, was not at those meetings, because he could have brought that forward as well at that time.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Hayes, you mentioned the idea of political interference. When Mr. Thibeault, Mr. Angus, or Ms. Hughes made that intervention, to talk about a special requirement for AMK, was that political interference in your view?
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Absolutely not. They were at the riding, they were at the hearings. They had a choice to be there and could say what they wanted. I'm not suggesting that there was any political interference. All I'm saying is that I chose not to go to the hearings, because it was supposed to be a grassroots hearing and it was supposed to be non-political. So it was my choice, purely.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right, I just wanted to make sure. You're not insinuating, then, that the interventions of your colleagues were political interference.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Of course not. Any insinuations that are made are in the report. Those are not my insinuations, and I don't know what's behind the insinuations in the report of the boundaries commission. I have no idea; I have read what you've read.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, and it would take incredible insight to divine what the commissioners are actually thinking at any given time when they write a report. This committee is going to get no further along that path than anybody else has.
The challenge I have is that you've indicated that there isn't a domino effect if we were to make these changes you're suggesting. I'm not sure how that's possible. Your colleagues have spoken in exact contradiction to that idea. Just to set expectations right for my colleagues: what we do is hear your testimony and then try to report it back to the boundaries commission as best we can. Our experience has been that, the more compelling the testimony, the more unified the testimony, the better the chances that the commission hears us. Divided testimony, contrary testimony, opposing views from the members of Parliament—these all make the argument weaker. It doesn't seem like we can arrive at any potential consensus amongst you today.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON
I think we have arrived at a consensus: we all agree that Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing should have been status quo.
The boundaries commission has said they will not invoke the special clause, but I have not seen it anywhere in writing. What I'm asking the committee to do is to ask the boundaries commission to invoke the special clause. That's what I'm asking because I have not seen it legislated. All we've done is heard it verbally. I have gone on record as saying that, if they choose not to invoke the extraordinary circumstance rule, then so be it. I accept the decisions that have come forward from the boundaries commission. To me, it's very simple.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON
We asked for the status quo for AMK because every riding in northern Ontario was being affected by these changes to AMK. They have stated through the commission that they will not invoke that special status. If they do not invoke that special status, we're happy with the way things are. The work that the boundaries commission has done works for almost everyone in northern Ontario.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You see, this is where I'm confused because, Mr. Hayes, it is in the report. It was more than verbal. It reads.
For the reasons outlined earlier in this Report, that option was no longer possible. As part of its decision to retain 10 electoral districts for Northern Ontario, and after accepting a population for the electoral district of Kenora that is substantially below the maximum negative variance permitted by the Act, the Commission was determined to create nine additional electoral districts, each with a population falling within the maximum allowable negative variance.
They're saying it in black and white, not verbally.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON
But they're not saying that they won't consider invoking the clause again.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON
I don't believe that. You're a lawyer; I'm not. I believe you're a lawyer, anyway. It's a question of interpretation.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I take that personally, sir. I am not a lawyer. No offence.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Yes, I just want to state for the record that I too am not a lawyer.
