SELE Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, June 12, 2003

¹

1545

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.))

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance)

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

Mr. Brian Masse

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

º

1600

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 023

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, June 12, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1545)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I'll call this meeting to order.

[Translation]

This meeting of the Sub-Committee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment will begin with Brian Masse as a witness.

[English]

    Brian, I'll turn it over to you.

    Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to present before the committee.

    I know your work has been ongoing; I appreciate the scheduling issues that have made it very difficult to accommodate me, and I apologize for that.

    Nevertheless, I'm here to object to the proposed Ontario electoral boundaries, specifically the reduction of the number of seats in northern Ontario from 11 to 10. Although I'm from southwestern Ontario and I have a constituency that's smaller in terms of geographical area but larger in numbers, I believe the reduction to 10 seats in northern Ontario will impede democracy, and I want to be part of those who object to that reduction.

    I think you'll hear some of these remarks from the floor as testimony from other individuals. They'll be commenting as elected officials in some respects, but I wanted to put the remarks on the record anyway to help contribute to the discussion. I concur as well with other people who believe 12 seats for this electoral division would be more appropriate.

    The government has long dealt in some manner with northern Ontario as a distinct region. I was part of the recent northern Ontario trade mission to Detroit with Minister Mitchell as part of the federal government's initiative in that area. I had an opportunity as well to participate with business people and other groups and organizations to advance Ontario-Michigan trade.

    That also gave me a better opportunity to understand some of the difficulties those areas face communicating with government. That's why special strategies have been put in place to do so, and I support and applaud the government for doing that. FedNor and other organizations are important to draw out the distinctness and to encourage trade in the area. I was pleased to participate in that.

    In essence, both the federal and provincial levels of government recognize their distinct responsibility and mandate towards northern communities in some manner, yet with these proposed boundary changes those communities are being asked to identify themselves across traditional social, economic, and cultural patterns of interaction and will have to do with less access to their MPs or to their MPPs in provincial matters. That's my biggest concern, the key element in my objection, constituents having access to elected officials and elected officials having access to their constituencies.

    With the proposed boundaries there would be an average of over 83,000 per riding. There's already an average of 76,000 in northern Ontario ridings. While this is much lower than in my own riding, which is about 118,000, those 76,000 or potentially 83,000 are spread over a much larger area and represent a variety of social, economic, and cultural communities.

    My riding, for example, has a much higher number than what's there, but I don't see that I have a disadvantage with respect to other MPs or MPPs who have to represent smaller numbers because of the geography. Quite literally, if traffic is good, depending upon the time and day, I can cross my area in 15 to 20 minutes.

    Now, there are other issues I have to deal with that go with the larger numbers and volumes, but once again, I feel it's bad for democracy for these areas because of the large areas where the population is spread out. That face-to-face contact is important.

    I know a number of different people here have more experience than I do in terms of representation. I have seven years between city council and my experience here in Ottawa. What I can tell you is that lack of access impedes democracy and at times also creates some of the conditions for the frustration people experience when dealing with government.

    Often, having that interaction on a daily basis or at least knowing the access is there gives them confidence. Even when you can't help people, the fact is that if you can sit down with them, talk about problems, and reach them, then you're going to be able to have some type of quality in connection to democracy. I think that's important because we're watching our numbers decline. It's similar to what's happened in the United States, where they actually have, I believe, less than 50% of people voting, and I think that's dangerous.

    Having less access to MPs is one of the biggest concerns I have, especially when we have situations like that of Gilles Bisson, an MPP from northern Ontario. He got his pilot's licence to be able to reach his constituents. That's something I've never had to do.

    Ironically, during this trade mission I went on I had to fly back from northern Michigan in a seven-passenger plane, and not having been on one before, I can tell you it was quite the experience. I can only imagine the other experiences people have to go through just to be able to reach their constituents, and I know people in many other parts of Canada have to do these things.

    Once again, lack of access to transportation is something that impedes democracy. I believe that when you're out of touch, it's not healthy.

    Even if people don't agree with your politics or don't agree with the decisions you make, if you actually sit down with them face to face or if you are somehow able to be in touch with them, they are at least going to feel somewhat comfortable or feel that there is some type of message they can convey. That's really what I think is killing the spirit of democracy.

    I know that you're not here to discuss budgets; that's not part of your mandate. But there is a reality that when you have these larger areas, it makes it difficult for elected officials to get around. It does create a problem for them.

    There are issues where technology can be a benefit, no doubt in our reaching out to more people. We do know that in northern communities in Ontario and also in other parts of Canada where you do not have the population density, you cannot get some of this technology in. High-speed Internet and other types of technology, imperfect means for reaching people at the best of times, have not even been rolled out to certain areas at this particular point in time, so I don't believe the technology is necessarily going to improve access. Once again, it's still completely different than actually having the physical presence of an MP in your area.

    It's not just about discussing problems, it's about being there to celebrate community events. It's about being there to celebrate the achievements of people in their community, which restores, once again, public confidence in democracy. A lot of times, I think we all know, even if you just show up at an event, people feel good about that, not just because you've invited them to a party but also because their elected representative is there. But when you have these larger areas and you have a reduction in MPs, I think we're pulling away from the connection.

    One of the things about the distance between communities that exacerbates this problem is the difficult weather, with highway conditions that can impede you in getting out to the constituency bases. I have heard stories and I've had testimony from people calling into my office, concerned about this issue and asking me to come forward. They feel this also limits the time during the year when they can get access. Sometimes when the weather is good you can get across quicker, but other times you can't. That eliminates the ability to connect with people.

    The bottom line is that travel between communities is often prevented in the north during the long winter. Our weather has more in common with that of the prairie provinces than with Toronto's, yet Saskatchewan and Manitoba will average slightly over 74,000 people per riding after this redistribution while northern Ontario will have about 83,000 per riding. Staying at 11 ridings would make the average population in northern ridings 76,000; once again, I would prefer it to go to 12, but at least that's something reasonable. I would like to request that the power in the current legislation to deem circumstances extraordinary be used to allow the north to retain 11 ridings.

    The proposed riding of Greater Sudbury--Manitoulin will be larger than 16 European countries, including Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Timiskaming--Greater Sudbury will be larger than six European countries. The current ridings of Timmins--James Bay and Kenora--Rainy River are much larger even still. I can probably give more examples of the sizes and I have some here, but I'm not going to go through that. It's not important.

    I'll just summarize by saying that it's about connection to democracy, and I don't think people should have a problem. It's not an issue of cost efficiency that should be looked at, it's an issue about revitalizing our democracy, and at the end of the day I think this makes it worse. We need to have more inclusion, but this is going to make it more difficult in a pragmatic sense for that representation to happen. I don't think it will serve people very well by going to lower numbers in northern Ontario.

    With that I'll conclude my remarks.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

    Any other questions?

[English]

    Scott, you wanted to know about Andorra and San Marino.

    Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): I was listing off some of the 16 countries I suspect were also included in there: Vatican City, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Malta, and Liechtenstein.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: They'd also fit in there.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I said that because I want to start off by registering my absolute, total, complete disagreement with this presentation.

    Look, parts of the north have huge areas, and that's a problem; they deserve to have some recognition for that. But parts of the north do not. Looking at the map, up there I can see several ridings surrounding Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury and the one that's just around North Bay; they're smaller than some ridings south of Lake Nipissing. Thunder Bay could be drawn to be smaller than ridings in the south.

    A one-size-fits-all solution based on northern-ness rather than based on size is inappropriate. It's unfortunate that the legislation talks about northern or larger ridings; it should only have referred to larger ridings. The fact is, if you were being strict about being north, then you would realize that a good chunk of these ridings are south of the 49th parallel, so I think a one-size-fits-all solution for the north is inappropriate.

    I take your point about people not having access to high-speed Internet in northern areas because of problems with phone links. That's also true in my riding, which is south of Lake Nipissing. It's a riding with 138,000 people, and there were more votes cast in my riding than anywhere else in the country in the last election. A vote in my riding is worth one-sixth of a vote in Labrador. I don't see why those people deserve less representation, particularly when some of them are very poor. We have some of the poorest townships in Ontario. Many people have to use party lines and therefore don't have access to high-speed Internet either. The idea that problems of this nature exist only in the north is simply incorrect.

    You know, there are travel problems all over the country. I was down in Perth--Middlesex for that endless byelection campaign we went through, and there were days you couldn't drive down the roads there because there was snow blowing across them. That's true in many ridings.

    In my riding, on Highway 7--which I drive every day to get home when I can--there have been 20 accidents in the past five years as a result of it being inadequate. Again, this is in a large riding where a vote is worth one-sixth of what it is in Labrador and substantially less than it is in northern Ontario. That's a consideration.

    It's a problem trying to get through to your constituents, and I respect that. There are a number of solutions. You can have more than one riding office. I do. You can have a 1-800 number so people can reach you toll-free. I have that because we also have long distance in my riding, and some of the poorer people in my riding are in the remote areas where they have to use long distance to get to my office.

    What I'm saying is, these are not necessarily exclusively northern problems. I accept, when you talk about the very large ridings in the north, that they should be made smaller. They are being made smaller although they are not being made smaller by quite the amount you're suggesting, and I frankly think that's a good thing.

    Now, as I mentioned, there is a way of helping somewhat with these very large areas. The cities in the north could with their hinterlands have southern-size population ridings in order to allow the very large areas up in the neighbourhood of James Bay and around Lake Superior to have physically larger but less populous ridings. That would be what I would suggest as an appropriate alternative to this one-size-fits-all northern solution.

    Thanks.

    The Chair: Did you want to comment?

    Mr. Brian Masse: Through you, Madam Chair, I'd just correct something for the record. If you check my comments--I just want to make sure it's clear--you'll see I didn't indicate that those problems were exclusive to northern Ontario. In particular, I mentioned that it was the case across Canada in terms of Internet technology and connecting to people.

    By all means, I understand and appreciate that. Just because I'm advocating not having a reduction here does not mean these things don't happen elsewhere. I know this for a fact because my colleague from Churchill has to have three constituency offices and goes through a whole series of things you have well noted too.

    I understand where you're coming from with regard to a sixth of the vote, but I don't see it that way. I think that each area has special circumstances to deal with. I'm not sure whether you had a higher or a lower voting rate than anyone had anywhere else, but I still believe no matter what that we have less physical access to representatives. It's not a good thing, in my opinion, and I don't have a problem standing by the assertion that whether it's by increasing the number of members or whatever, there has to be some reformation that way. I really believe that face-to-face contact is better than phone calls, better than e-mail, and better even than a webcast with constituents, which I've done before. To be able to shake someone's hand and see them instills public confidence.

    In our democracy we're watching the voting go down and down. Is it just because of the way of things and politics in general? I think it's access to people; that's just the experience I've had in my years.

    The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you.

    I'd like to come back to a more mathematical solution. If we don't reduce it by one riding in northern Ontario, how are you going to accommodate the increase in population in the Metro Toronto area?

    Mr. Brian Masse: That's a good question and I don't have the solution for that, I really don't. That is a problem that is out there, that's for sure, and this committee is far better versed in the overall picture than I am. I've been requested to bring these concerns about this particular northern element forward to make sure they're reviewed in full discourse with due diligence. But it's a good question.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

    The Chair: Just to clarify, I'll say that this committee has to deal with all these various suggestions. Some people came before us and wanted to switch their boundaries here, there, and everywhere.

    One of the things we decided as a committee was that we were going to ask the main committee to reconstitute us in September to look at some of these broader issues that were not part of our mandate but that have really driven us nuts as we've looked at these various ridings. One of the things we've talked about is looking at two different quotients for remote areas versus urban areas so they're not trying to force some very bizarre groupings and some massive ridings in the north.

    In most of our deliberations I think we've given the nod to putting more people into a dense urban area, recognizing that it is easier to service and that there is more opportunity to bump into your MP and for MPs to be seen at events. I think that would be consistent across most of the decisions we've made for various provinces and will probably make for the next two we're doing. We get that.

    We're also very concerned about the process of consultation. Those will be some of the things we talk about in the report to the government we're going to do, probably in the fall. It's a problem and we hear you.

    I only have to tell you one other thing. In some of those areas the winter roads are better than the summer roads. In fact, there are only winter roads; they can travel by road only in winter. That's our southern bias coming through, our not knowing that in the north they like winter roads. It certainly is a huge problem.

    Then of course you get to Nancy Karetak-Lindell and Nunavut. I was with her when she went to Grise Fiord. She'd never been there. There are 175 people. It's extraordinarily expensive to get to, but we, a group of MPs, had put together a trip up there and we got to introduce her to her constituents.

    It's impossible. Her travel budget would never support seeing those people, and they have every right. It's in our interest from a sovereignty perspective to have people living out there, yet they don't get the same level of service. It's impossible to deliver. They do get melted ice cream and frozen drugs, however; they have other issues.

    Anyway, I think we all hear you and we'll try to make some recommendations on that. Your comments will be in the report, and I don't think you need to support them. We're concerned.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I just wanted to ensure that they were thought of. It sounds to me as if you have many other barriers here that clearly go beyond even the mandate, because as you pointed out, travel costs and whatnot are some of the arguments I'm using here in terms of that contact.

    I wish you luck.

    The Chair: I would be interested to know if they have a higher voter turnout than some of the urban centres do, though. Maybe we can get that at some point. It would just be fascinating to see, because I think some people in the further reaches actually care more.

    Mr. Brian Masse: You see, in my area I don't need support for travel as much as I need support for translation of languages. It's just a matter of what area and what tools are available to members of Parliament.

    The Chair: Yes, and it's a matter of what people are used to. I get the supplement in my budget because I have lots of population. Different people have different arrangements.

    Anyway, thank you very much.

    Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]