Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 49 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee is meeting today to continue its study of the reports of the federal electoral boundaries commissions.

In the first hour, we will hear from our colleagues opposed to the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Saskatchewan.

In the second hour, our colleagues opposed to the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Manitoba will have their turn to speak.

Usually, we go through the chair, but since we're among colleagues, we will have good, respectful dialogue among ourselves. I hope I don't need to interrupt.

I will remind everyone that we have professional interpretation and translation services, so we'll have one person speaking at a time. Please be mindful of the speed at which we speak.

I want to welcome our colleagues today.

We have Mr. Warren Steinley, who is no stranger to this committee, as well as Mr. Andrew Scheer, who we also have serving on this committee, and Mr. Blaikie, who has made a couple of appearances.

It's nice to see the three of you in the hot seat. You will have up to five minutes for your opening comments. We will keep that tight so we can maximize our time for questions.

We will commence with Mr. Daniel Blaikie, followed by Mr. Warren Steinley. Mr. Andrew Scheer will bring it home.

Mr. Blaikie, you have up to five minutes. Welcome.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm very happy to be here today to speak to the proposals for the boundary redistribution in the province of Saskatchewan.

I figure I might as well start off by acknowledging that I am a Manitoba MP. I'm not here to pretend to be a subject matter expert on the province of Saskatchewan, but this is a process for MPs, and only MPs get to provide feedback at this stage in the process. As members around this table will know, there are MPs from only one political party in Saskatchewan. Some people feel more comfortable giving their feedback to members of other parties, so we have indeed received feedback from folks in Saskatchewan who felt it was important to have their views represented at this table. That's what I'm here to do today.

I will be focusing my remarks particularly on the proposal for the city of Saskatoon. The boundary commission's original proposal proposed three ridings for the city of Saskatoon, including the new riding of “Saskatoon Centre”. I think many folks in Saskatoon are excited at that prospect. Over the course of a number of boundary redistribution hearings, some folks in Saskatoon have argued that there's a significant community of interest among folks who live in the urban centre of Saskatoon, which has traditionally been carved out and then included in ridings that extend beyond the city borders into parts of rural Saskatchewan.

I'm here to ask the committee to consider looking at the original proposal by the boundary commission, which created one urban riding in the centre of Saskatoon, because I think there's an important principle. I think all of us are familiar with the very real divides that can exist from time to time between urban Canada and rural Canada, which indeed can sometimes be exacerbated by politics. I think that's an important divide to try to overcome.

However, one of the questions is whether it's best overcome by creating ridings where one representative has to try to represent those concerns at the same time, or whether it makes sense to have representatives who are able to speak to properly urban concerns and properly rural concerns and then try to mediate that. That's as opposed to having an election and perhaps having rural folks feel that the person who truly speaks to rural concerns didn't get elected and so they don't have a voice, or, alternatively, having urban folks in an urban-rural split riding, where a more rural representative was elected, feeling that their concerns aren't getting the kind of representation they would like to see.

I think there's an important principle there that's recognized in the guidelines. Of course, there are many guidelines that boundary redistribution commissions have to consider. One of them, and I think it's quite important and stands to reason, is that where they can, they should try to create ridings where that kind of significant community of interest that exists between urban areas and rural areas is well respected. I'll be speaking to that more general point again in the Manitoba section of this meeting.

That's really what I'm here to argue today. In fact, the commission itself recognized many of these arguments in its original submission. It recognized that significant communities of interest belong together inside the city of Saskatoon. That's why its original proposal included those things. I know the commission heard from folks who disagree, but it also heard from folks who thought the original proposal was a very good idea.

I'm here to communicate on behalf of those who felt that finally having a properly urban riding in the city of Saskatoon was a good idea, continues to be a good idea, and is something that the boundary redistribution commission should follow through on.

I'm happy to answer to the best of my ability any questions that committee members may have.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We appreciate the one minute and 10 seconds that you gave back to the committee. Thank you so much.

Go ahead, Mr. Steinley.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's a pleasure to be here in front of my colleagues to discuss the boundaries commission.

What I see is a simple change, to make sure we have people who have been historically in two ridings stay in those ridings. I sent a paper with my presentation.

The section of the guidelines that this affects is subparagraph 15(1)(b)(i):

the community of interest or community identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province

This is what I'm basing my objection on. We should take into account some of the historical context. This is not a domino effect. This presentation and this appeal affect only the ridings of Regina—Lewvan and Regina—Qu'Appelle. Quite frankly, it moves about 5,500 people from Lewvan to Qu'Appelle and then those 5,500 people back from Regina—Lewvan into Qu'Appelle.

You're basically having 11,000 people staying in the ridings they have been in—in some cases, like Regina—Qu'Appelle, since 1993. These people have voted in this riding. They've been in this riding. They live in the riding. Really, I think it might be one thing that the committee just overlooked.

I believe it doesn't affect the spirit of the boundaries commission in what the intention is. As MPs, we get to know our constituents quite well. If we have the ability, as the PROC committee, to put forward a recommendation to ensure that people can maintain and stay in those ridings, I think it's something we should look upon favourably.

I'm going to answer the questions that were laid out for me.

I have talked to my colleagues about this, and my colleagues in Saskatchewan have looked favourably upon this objection. They are all in favour of it.

This objection wasn't made at the boundaries commission because it's based on the second map. The first time we've had an opportunity to bring this forward is as MPs at the PROC committee. Obviously it is a new map, and there were changes made from the original commission's submission before that.

As I said earlier, there is no domino effect on every other riding, which I think is very important to take into consideration. This does not make more work for the boundaries commission in Saskatchewan. It is a simple trade between Regina—Lewvan and Regina—Qu'Appelle.

Does the objection have the support of the community? Yes. I've lived in the community. I know the people in these communities. If you're from Regina, you know that there is a difference between NOD, which is north of Dewdney and...south of Dewdney. It's a big thing in Regina. A lot of people in the area who would come back to Regina—Lewvan are actually.... It's called Lakeridge and Lakeridge Addition. They shop in the same areas. They go for coffee in the same areas. Their kids would go to school in the same areas as well. They're part of the same community associations.

The same is true of the people who would go back into Regina—Qu'Appelle. They'd be part of the same community associations and their kids would go to the same school. As I mentioned earlier, there is a historical reference. People have voted in that riding since 1993.

Finally, the rationale is that it's easier for people to vote where they've voted before. It's basically an objective place where you're making the lines. It's about six city blocks where people live that we're asking to be changed. I think it's something that can be done quite easily.

I very much look forward to answering any questions that committee members may have. I believe it's a common-sense solution to a problem and people will feel comfortable voting where they have voted before.

Thank you very much. I look forward to the questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much. You've provided us with a minute back.

Mr. Scheer, we'll go over to you.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I want to address three topics. First, I'd like to spend a few moments to provide a counterpoint to what my colleague has laid out for the committee in terms of blended urban and rural seats.

I want to flag that in Saskatchewan this has been a matter of debate in the last three electoral boundary processes. I would note that in the 2013 process, Saskatchewan was the only province that had a dissenting report from the boundaries commission, precisely because many voices felt that the move away from the blended urban-rural ridings into urban-only ridings actually wasn't reflective of the nature of the province.

In the case of Regina—Qu'Appelle, on the last rural-urban blended riding in the province, I just want to talk about those linkages between communities, which are so important.

In terms of the changes Mr. Steinley has just laid out, I want to signal my support for his proposal.

If you look at the two maps I've distributed, the first page is the proposal that the commission has tabled with the House of Commons. The back page is as they exist right now.

If you look at the bottom left-hand corner of my riding of Regina—Qu'Appelle, right around Saskatchewan Drive and Elphinstone Street, the commissioner is proposing to put that into Regina—Lewvan. Just a few blocks to the west is a major north-south road called Lewvan Drive. That really is a community divider. It's three lanes in each direction. It's a high-traffic road. All the community and neighbourhood associations are split by that road. There is no spillover from one to another.

In that southwestern corner of my riding is an area of Regina called North Central Regina. It is very uniform in that area. The construction of homes was all around the same era, and there are very similar demographics from one street to the next in terms of who lives there. Just across the street in the Lewvan riding, it's a completely different neighbourhood. It's a completely different demographic and a completely different price point in terms of the homes you would see.

It really doesn't make sense to take that little corner part of North Central out of Regina—Qu'Appelle. North Central is bigger than the area they're putting in, so they're dividing North Central up and splitting it between my riding and Warren's riding.

As Warren mentioned, this community has been in the same riding for well over 30 years. It's very cohesive, too. There are several schools in the area that co-operate with each other and support each other. There are indigenous organizations that provide a lot of outreach and services in that area. If you walked around the area, it would never be obvious that you were moving from one community to another, but under the proposal, in fact you would be moving from Regina—Qu'Appelle into Regina—Lewvan, whereas when the divider is the Lewvan, it's very clear. If you cross Lewvan Drive on Dewdney, it's very obvious that you're leaving one neighbourhood and moving into another neighbourhood.

In terms of voters being in the riding that they have historically been in for many years, it doesn't make sense to give Regina—Qu'Appelle more of Regina—Lewvan in the north and then to offset set that by giving Regina—Lewvan some of Regina—Qu'Appelle in the south. It would make far more sense to leave that corner of North Central in Regina—Qu'Appelle and move fewer voters from Regina—Lewvan to Regina—Qu'Appelle. That would cause the least amount of disruption.

The proposal that the commission has made has the effect of more people being moved from one riding to the other. I can't emphasize enough the fact that they would, under this proposal, really divide a very distinct community in Regina into two different ridings, when there is a much more natural divider just a few blocks to the west.

If I can draw your attention to the second set of maps in the rural area, this is the proposal for Regina—Qu'Appelle's rural component. As you can see on the first page, the communities of Wynyard and Ituna have been excluded from Regina—Qu'Appelle.

When we were at the boundary commission hearings, all the submissions were aimed at including Wynyard and Ituna in the same riding as Fort Qu'Appelle. Fort Qu'Appelle really acts as a hub in the rural part of my riding. It is the largest centre outside of Regina itself, and it has everything—grocery stores, doctors' offices and things like that.

I'll wrap up there. If members want to have me dive a bit more into the rural component, I'd appreciate the opportunity to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I appreciate that, Mr. Scheer.

We are going to start with six-minute rounds, beginning with Mr. Redekopp.

Welcome to PROC.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank PROC for the work that it's doing on this. It's an important piece of the boundary redistribution puzzle, so thank you for your work here.

I also want to thank the Saskatchewan commission. They did a lot of hard work, and I just want to make sure they get a shout-out for everything they've done.

It's quite normal for a Winnipegger to have an opinion about the Saskatchewan Roughriders and possibly even tell us everything that's wrong with our team, but I really was quite surprised to find someone from nine hours away who thought they knew best how to organize our riding boundaries.

I'm grateful for your concern for my constituents and our constituents. I have some questions for you, but first I want to clarify a couple of things.

For your benefit and for all of our benefit, I want to talk about the process for a minute.

Mr. Blaikie, you mentioned in your letter a lengthy public consultation process that occurred before the first report was done. I want to clarify that, because it's actually not true. Before the first report was done, it was really just special interest groups and insiders who knew about the process who were able to submit before that first report was done. I was one of them. We submitted as MPs, so we knew about the process, but I would not call that consultation.

Of course, the commission in Saskatchewan was faced with a big problem. The population of Regina and Saskatoon had grown quite significantly compared to the rural area of the city, so the first proposal did include a major redrawing of the Saskatchewan map. Every riding was affected, some in a very big way. Saskatoon was significantly changed. Changing Saskatoon actually caused every other riding in the province to be affected because of our large rural ridings that are so interconnected and intertwined.

At this point came the very lengthy public consultation process that you mentioned, so that was after the first report. It was very well done. There were 15 meetings that were vigorously advertised. They were all across the province. They were very well attended, with a wide variety of witnesses.

I want to point out that in Saskatoon, there were 24 presentations, I believe.

Four of them were in favour of Saskatoon centre, as you indicated. One was from a former provincial NDP candidate. One was from some NDP EDA president. One was from an NDP nomination candidate. The fourth one was from the NDP candidate who ran against me in the last election. There's a bit of theme there, if you can tell.

The other 20 presentations made in Saskatoon argued against Saskatoon centre, and they came from a wide variety of people: a community association president; members of the immigrant communities; business leaders; community and downtown development organizations; the chief of the Saskatoon Tribal Council, who represents seven local first nations; religious leaders; MPs and others. I'll briefly explain a bit of their logic.

First, based on all the information received, a major redo of the map was undertaken by the commission. Again, every riding was touched. It mostly reverted back to the initial starting point, actually, but it took a lot of work to get there because of the changing population bases.

The process was lengthy and detailed, as you said, but the result was an overwhelming rejection of Saskatoon centre and all the domino effects required to make that happen.

Finally, Mr. Blaikie, I don't believe you were part of the lengthy consultation process in Saskatchewan, so I would like to provide some insights—again, for all of us here—into why the commission decided the way it did.

I don't presume to know why they did what they did. I wasn't a part of the commission, obviously, but I was intimately involved in the hearings, and I understand Saskatchewan intimately. I've lived there my whole life.

The first area I believe they looked at was community of interest, so I'm glad you mentioned that in your opening remarks. People from Manitoba and outside Saskatoon probably don't understand. I don't know if you have a copy of this map. There is one that I've given to the clerks to hand out, if they wouldn't mind doing that. It's very simple to see how Saskatoon is divided by the river down the middle. It creates an east side and a west side. That's a real, major label that people use to describe themselves—you're either from the east side or the west side. It's completely ingrained into our identity in Saskatoon.

The river, right down the middle as you can see, is a natural barrier. It restricts travel, except for major artery roads and highways. It's also a major social, economic and demographic barrier, with significantly different histories on either side. That is why, in 2012, the commission, when faced with the same question, rejected the idea of crossing the river. It didn't match the way the city was.

The other strange thing about this, when you look at this map, is that it allowed.... What was left over was part of the riding. It went together with this part down in the south, and it went together with this part in the east, a very strange collection of leftover bits and pieces caused.... It was one of the effects of having the centre riding, so a very strange thing.

The second area they considered was the testimony from the tribal chief, Mark Arcand, and others. He said that the majority of Indian and Métis people live on the west side of the river.

They presented census data that proved that point. He said that Saskatoon centre would dilute indigenous representation, as the indigenous population is mostly on the west side. I'll paraphrase what he said: Most people who live on the east side haven't spent time on the west side, so how can they speak for indigenous people? The boundary that they've proposed cuts right through the centre of that indigenous population.

Finally, I believe they looked at the at-risk population, which, again, is centred on the west side of the city. It has services for that population on both sides of the boundary that was proposed, so it really didn't make sense.

I hope that helps everybody understand a bit better the process that happened in Saskatoon.

How much time do I have left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have 20 seconds.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Blaikie, part of the issue here is to consult with colleagues in Saskatchewan. Did you consult with colleagues? If so, I'd be curious to know if they agreed with you.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

First of all, I appreciate the question. In the future, I would appreciate time to give an answer.

No, I've not engaged in an extensive consultation in the way that the commission did.

I think I'm out of time, or I might have more to say.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

With that, we will go to Mrs. Romanado for up to six minutes.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I'd like to thank my colleagues for being here with us today and for presenting.

As an MP from Quebec, it's always helpful for me when my colleagues who are from Saskatchewan explain a bit how this affects folks in their ridings. I really appreciate that.

I want to follow up a bit on what my colleague, Brad, was just talking about with you, Mr. Blaikie. He asked you if you had any consultation with other colleagues in Saskatchewan. I also want to know if you have reached out to people from these ridings. You were mentioning specifically the creation of a potential Saskatchewan centre, or Saskatoon centre—my apologies.

[An hon. member]

There's a big difference.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

There's a big difference, absolutely.

Has there been any outreach in terms of...? Have you received feedback specifically? You didn't provide it in a briefing note to us, so we'd just like to know what kind of feedback you received. Did you receive letters, or did you receive emails? What was it that you received that is prompting your presentation today? Could you elaborate, please?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Sure. The reason I'm here today is that we received feedback as a party. There were folks who reached out to the federal office who were concerned when they saw the revision of the initial proposal by the boundaries redistribution commission. As I say, that's a natural thing for folks to do. Some folks don't feel they can reach out to their own local MP to talk about those things, for various reasons, so they reach out to people in the political universe who they are more comfortable talking to. They reached out to the federal office of the NDP to explain their concerns, and I'm here to relay those to the committee.

You can even use some of the boundaries commission's own arguments to mitigate in favour of the idea of having a Saskatoon centre riding. For instance, in its own report, the boundaries redistribution commission said—

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I don't want to cut you off, Mr. Blaikie, but I have read the report, so I am versed on it. I just wanted to see, with respect to your specific objection....

I also want to ask my colleagues, Warren and Andrew, the same question. Did you also receive any feedback with respect to the possible creation of Saskatoon centre? Could you let me know if you heard anything about that?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

In terms of Saskatoon, no, not me personally. I was involved in and present at the hearings for Regina, so I didn't have the opportunity to weigh in on that.

In terms of the proposal I've put forward, this is reflective of the testimony that was made at the hearing. I'm quite confident that what I'm advocating for today would be reflective of what the people who attended those hearings in Regina and in the rural part of my riding were asking for.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Steinley, it sounds a bit like it's not a simple swap in terms of numbers. It seems like there were areas that could have been chosen to move versus others. In terms of the math, you provided us with a little information with respect to how many people would be affected and so on. In terms of support, I'm assuming, as Mr. Scheer has said, that you've received support for the argument to favour what you're proposing.

Could you provide us with any additional information? Have you talked to mayors or citizens' groups that have also supported this recommendation that both you and Mr. Scheer are providing to us?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Yes. We had contact from people in the north part of Regina—Lewvan, who were questioning why they wouldn't have the same MP they had before, but also the same MP as neighbours across the street.

As Mr. Scheer said, Regina—Lewvan is a big dividing line in Regina. Being part of the same community associations, part of the same school groups and part of the same SCCs—school community councils—they didn't understand, then, because they are so tightly knit, why they would vote for a different MP, especially, as I said, because part of the community here is Lakeridge 1 and Lakeridge 2, and the demographics are very similar.

As Mr. Scheer said, to move people and cut North Central in half.... We just want to put a lens on that for the commission, which they may not have thought of because they were focusing on the numbers. It keeps the numbers very tight. Mr. Scheer gets 5,275 voters back and I get 5,771, and they would be very close together for the total amount within the ridings as a whole.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Okay. I'm not sure if any of my colleagues here also have some follow-up comments. I don't want to hog all the first round. Let me look at the room. No?

With respect to Mr. Redekopp's proposal regarding the river, again, I have not had the chance to visit all of.... I am going to have to come and visit you. We should maybe have a trip.

With respect to the river you were mentioning, Mr. Scheer, you were also mentioning a bit about the road that's near the airport, which you said is like a boundary. Am I understanding correctly the map that you provided? Is there is a street called Lewvan Drive?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Lewvan Drive, yes.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Could you elaborate a bit about its being a natural boundary? Is that correct?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

It is. I'm trying to think of an equivalent. It's like Bronson Avenue, maybe, or the Airport Parkway. It is the biggest north-south arterial road. The speed limit in some places.... I usually go a bit faster, but I think it's 70 kilometres an hour most of the way, and in a few spots it might even be a bit higher. It slows down in some of the residential areas.

The reason I talk about speed limits is that it's not just like a regular road, with traffic lights every couple of hundred metres. There are lots of streets that don't cross Lewvan, because it's such a major artery. It really does act as a separator. Basically, when my colleagues are talking about the river in Saskatoon, it makes a lot of sense that it would have the same effect there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's excellent. Thank you so much. I look forward to a trip to Saskatchewan.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for six minutes.