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

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is our second meeting for this study and I'm enjoying it. I'd like to thank you. Your comments are very constructive and relevant.

Based on everything that's been presented, I have a question that won't be easy to answer.

Of course, we can agree on the logic that there should be consistency between federal and provincial, and that we should maintain an easy-to-understand structure to avoid voter confusion, because sometimes they get confused.

I have only one question. Given the arguments that you've just made, can you quickly tell me what the commission's reasons were for butchering the electoral districts or changing the boundaries in ways that, according to you, don't seem to make sense?

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

It's tough to guess what their motivation was. I think the massive change they made with northern Saskatchewan had an effect on the other ridings in the south, because of the massive disparity now...with what they've drawn in the northern map. I think they were trying to get awfully close to voter parity, after making such a monumental change and departure from long-established principles in the northern riding. I wish I could develop that thought at great length.

Honestly, when I saw the proposal, I was baffled. Giving Regina-Lewvan that little corner of Regina-Qu'Appelle.... I don't think anybody saw that coming. Nobody even discussed it at the hearings. Nobody would have thought it would even be on the table. I don't want to speculate on why they did it. I can tell you only that it caught everybody by surprise.

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

Sometimes I think it was just an oversight. I think they tried to keep the numbers close. They drew a line on the map, saw how the numbers were closer that way, and didn't think about removing people from a riding they'd been in, historically, for 30 years.

That's why this is such a good process: When we look at the map, those things come to our attention right away. We can then bring those objections forward. I think the commission can look at that and say, “That makes common sense.” Why wouldn't you try to leave as many people in their ridings as possible?

I'm hoping they accept that.

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

There's been a lot of rightful fuss or even conflict over how people draw lines on the map over the years. I think, when you're looking at population numbers, specifically.... It's easy to look at the map and say, “If we just jut out here, we'll get a better sense of numbers.”

That's why this committee has something to offer. It's not because commissions don't take other things into account. I think this is a point in the process where there's an opportunity for folks to look at what came out of it and see whether, in some cases, that desire to even the numbers out might have trespassed against other important principles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll ask this question of all the panellists, starting with you, Mr. Steinley, since you're to my left.

I'm curious about whether you can speak a bit on the work you've done, in terms of looking at these lines and talking with indigenous communities, in order to see how they feel about that representation and whether it matches the boundaries they see in their communities.

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

For the indigenous communities, that would be the north-central part, which Mr. Sheer has elaborated on quite succinctly. Where you split north-central in half is one of the largest indigenous communities in Regina. I believe he would be able to answer that better. However, splitting that distinct community in half, in our opinion, doesn't make sense. That's why we brought this forward today.

I'll let Andrew elaborate on that a bit more.

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

Linking back to the tail end of my last comment, I don't think anybody saw this proposal to split north-central coming. There wasn't a lot of communication on it. I think most people in that area who were at all aware changes were coming probably just assumed that north-central would be kept whole, whether it was within Regina-Qu'Appelle or Regina-Lewvan. To be honest, nobody was floating the idea of moving it to Regina-Lewvan, until these maps were tabled.

As Warren indicated.... I don't want to repeat it. Perhaps I'll just stress that the urban services offered in indigenous communities are all centred around north-central. The Indian Métis Christian Fellowship is there. They have the alternative measures program, all kinds of housing initiatives, urban reserves and the North Central Family Centre. These are all institutions and organizations that provide outreach and services. They're within that very distinct area. Therefore, there would be a natural inclination to want to keep that whole.

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

Again, it's no secret to anyone around the table that I'm not from Saskatchewan. I'm not trying to tell folks in Saskatchewan how their lines should be drawn. What I'm here to do is to relay a message from many people in Saskatchewan, and indeed Saskatoon, who made representations to the commission. I think they deserve a voice in this process. They clearly didn't find another MP or a local MP who was willing to carry their message to this committee. I'm here to carry that message on their behalf, because I think that notwithstanding the fact that local MPs may be comfortable with the commission's second round, folks who live in the area who nevertheless don't like the second version ought to have a voice in this process. I'm just here to pass on in good faith what we've been hearing from people in Saskatoon who believe that there should be a Saskatoon centre riding that's organized around the idea of political representation for an urban core.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That was a great spot to end on, so thank you for that.

On behalf of PROC members, I would like to thank Mr. Scheer, Mr. Steinley and Mr. Blaikie for your time. Just as a reminder, anything you provide to this committee will be reported back to the House, and then all of the supporting documents will go back to the commission.

With that, I hope you have a great day.

We're going to suspend and bring on the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Welcome back to our second session today.

I would like to welcome the colleagues who are joining us today to address the “Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Manitoba”. You will each have up to five minutes for your opening comments. The committee would welcome back any minutes that you do not want to use.

We have Mr. Bezan joining us, as well as Mr. Blaikie.

We will start with Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Daniel, why don't you go first? That gives Niki some time to get back online. I have her presentation. If she has difficulty, I can read it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That does make sense. Because we actually have two objections, Mr. Blaikie would be given five minutes, and Mr. Bezan, sharing with Ms. Ashton, would be given five minutes. Let's try that.

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

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

Thank you very much.

Hello again to committee members, who may remember me from the last hour, when we were discussing the Saskatchewan redistribution.

I'm going to make a similar argument, which is about the idea of trying, as much as possible, to have fewer urban-rural split ridings. That is not to say there would be none. However, I think it is a reasonable goal of the redistribution process to try to have urban ridings and rural ridings, without the split, where possible. I think that's a significant division when it comes to communities of interest.

The second proposal for Elmwood—Transcona from the Manitoba redistribution is to go beyond the Perimeter Highway—in Winnipeg, there's a highway that encircles the entire city—and to take in the communities of Dugald...and not quite Oakbank, but going north almost up to Oakbank.

We already have an urban-rural split riding in northeast Winnipeg. It's the riding of Kildonan—St. Paul. There are adjustments being made to the riding of Kildonan—St. Paul in this redistribution as well, and the riding of Provencher, all of which are adjacent.

My simple point is that I think it would make more sense to extend the northern boundary in Elmwood—Transcona somewhat along the river in order to capture a similar amount of population, but within the city limits, and then to take the area outside of the city that the commission is proposing to put into Elmwood—Transcona and assign it instead to Kildonan—St. Paul. Because there is so much population...and you go up street by street on the northern boundary of Elmwood—Transcona and the border between Elmwood—Transcona and Kildonan—St. Paul, I think it would mean very little in terms of population numbers. You can readily move the northern boundary of Elmwood—Transcona to a point that's commensurate with the amount of population that the commission has proposed outside of the city limits.

It would mean that the riding of Kildonan—St. Paul would continue to be an urban-rural split riding. There are certainly similarities between some of the rural communities that are already in Kildonan—St. Paul and the communities just outside the city of Winnipeg that the commission is proposing to include in Elmwood—Transcona. I think it's a pretty clean solution. Instead of having two urban-rural split ridings, you would continue to have one urban-rural split riding and one fully urban riding, which I think makes a lot of sense.

Prior to the riding of Elmwood—Transcona being created, and its predecessor Winnipeg—Transcona, Transcona was included in a riding by the name of Winnipeg—Birtle. When Winnipeg—Birtle was decommissioned, if you will, as a riding, in favour of Winnipeg—Transcona and what now is largely Kildonan—St. Paul, I think that was a very intentional decision by the boundary redistribution commission at that time. It was to recognize that there were significant communities of interest within northeast Winnipeg that were deserving of their own urban representation. To the extent that there would continue to be a rural-urban split riding—because the rest of northeast Winnipeg didn't have enough population to create an urban-only riding—you would try to have one urban riding representing a significant portion of northeast Winnipeg, and then beyond that, have one urban-rural split riding.

I think this is moving away from that decision. I don't see a lot of virtue in creating more urban-rural ridings when there is no need for that. I think the solution here is rather simple.

If there is time remaining, Madam Chair, I'm happy to give that back to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We thank you for your generosity. That is very kind.

I am going to do a quick sound check with Ms. Ashton.

Are you there?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Yes, I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We have an objection that was provided to the committee jointly by Niki Ashton and James Bezan.

I will pass the floor over to you, Ms. Ashton. Combined, you will have up to five minutes.

Welcome.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you very much. My apologies for the delays. We have extremely cold weather here in our region today, and that slowed everything down this morning. Thank you to IT for their help.

Hello members of PROC, fellow colleagues. I am pleased to be joining you today, along with my colleague, MP James Bezan, to present our objection to one part of the proposal made by the Manitoba Electoral Boundaries Commission, namely, the need to reinstate the Little Saskatchewan First Nation and the part of Lake St. Martin First Nation that was removed from the Churchill—Keewatinook Aski riding.

I want to begin by thanking the Manitoba Electoral Boundaries Commission for its hard and thorough work, evident in the report. I also want to note that we appreciate the boundaries commission's overall decision to not expand the Churchill—Keewatinook Aski riding. This was clearly a response to the serious concerns raised and the unanimous opposition of northern, indigenous and rural Manitobans regarding the proposal.

As you may already know, our riding is the fourth largest in the country. It includes 71 communities and is a riding with many challenges in terms of transportation, infrastructure, etc. The boundaries commission report decision to not move forward with its initial proposal reflected an understanding of the realities of first nations in northern and rural communities.

While the overall decision was one that made sense, the boundaries commission went ahead and proposed a problematic change to our riding that had nothing to do with the original proposal. It proposed removing one first nation in its entirety—Little Saskatchewan First Nation—and dividing and removing part of another—Lake St. Martin First Nation—and placing them into the Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman riding.

We object to this proposal on a number of grounds. First, this change was not part of the initial proposal. Therefore, Little Saskatchewan First Nation and Lake St. Martin never had the chance to be consulted on the specifics of this proposal, since it was never on the table. This is in opposition to the central importance of consultation with first nations.

Second, this change will cause confusion and likely lead to disenfranchisement. We must note that Little Saskatchewan First Nation and Lake St. Martin First Nation were part of the Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman riding prior to 2015, but so was the entire Interlake region. In 2015, all seven first nations in eastern Interlake became part of the Churchill—Keewatinook Aski riding. For seven years, much work has been done to inform and enfranchise citizens as to which constituency they are part of, where constituency offices and services are located, etc. Changing that for two of the first nations will contribute to confusion and even mistrust, given that they were not aware that this was even a proposal on the table.

It is problematic that Lake St. Martin First Nation is being divided, according to this proposal. This is a small community that has dealt with major upheaval in the last two decades, namely, the floods that led to the relocation of the community. Most people have moved back only since 2015. To then split up the community as part of this boundary redistribution would be to the detriment of the significant effort made by the community to restore stability and continuity.

Removing Little Saskatchewan First Nation does not make any sense either. Their three neighbour first nations, Pinaymootang First Nation, Dauphin River First Nation and Lake St. Martin First Nation, remain in Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. Reinstating Little Saskatchewan and part of Lake St. Martin into Churchill—Keewatinook Aski would also live up to one of the boundaries commission's guiding values of keeping communities of interest together.

Many people in Little Saskatchewan and Lake St. Martin have close family in their neighbouring communities that remain in Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. The first nations are part of the same overarching regional Interlake Reserves Tribal Council for both Little Saskatchewan and Lake St. Martin. Pinaymootang First Nation, which is the largest first nation in their area, is part of Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, and it is a hub for shopping, medical services, education, etc.

Finally, it is important to note that reinstating Little Saskatchewan First Nation and the part of Lake St. Martin that was removed from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, if it were to be returned, would ensure that the population in our riding would still be under the limit.

As is evident from our joint presentation and joint objection, this is not a partisan issue. This is about respecting first nations. This is a gesture in the spirit of reconciliation. It is in line with the values of the boundaries commission. It is about enfranchisement, and it ensures that constituents, particularly those who are indigenous, who live in northern and rural communities, are treated with the respect they deserve.

We hope this change will be reversed, and I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have 15 seconds.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's indeed a pleasure to be joining everybody here at PROC today.

I'm pleased to make this joint submission objection with my colleague Niki Ashton. I just want to make sure everyone is aware that Niki and I worked on this together. We've also circulated it to Conservative and NDP Manitoba caucuses and had a brief conservation with Kevin just now. I've also talked to Terry Duguid about the changes, and I didn't hear any objections.

This does come down to.... Pardon me, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We look forward to hearing more from you during the question round.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Am I out of time already?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes. You had 15 seconds when your partner passed it over to you.

I will just say that we have to remember to speak a little more slowly, because interpretation is being provided, but that was good, because we haven't done this for a while. I'm sure they're going to ask you lots of great questions.

With that, welcome to the committee, Mr. Maguire. Up to six minutes go to you.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you.

I would be glad to give Mr. Bezan a bit more time, but I agree with his presentation and that of Ms. Ashton, and I have a few questions for Mr. Blaikie, I guess, in regard to his proposal.

We have a number of other ridings in Canada, particularly even in Manitoba, that are already urban-rural. I noted in the report tabled by the electoral boundaries commission that Elmwood—Transcona and Kildonan—St. Paul would be virtually within 100 votes of each other with regard to the population, based on the present report.

You said in your presentation, Mr. Blaikie—and I understand it—that Transcona is growing. Can you give us some idea of what the overall increase in population in Elmwood—Transcona has been in the last 10 years?

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

It has been significant. I don't have the numbers in terms of how much it's grown, but I think some of the rejigging of the electoral map in Manitoba has to do with the fact that there's been significant population growth across the province. Of course, there has been a fair bit of population growth in Steinbach, which is why the boundaries commission has been looking at trying to rejig Provencher.

I think the changes to Elmwood—Transcona have more to do with trying to cut some population out of the riding of Provencher, due to exceptional population growth relative to some other parts of the province, than they do with population growth in Elmwood—Transcona.