PROC Committee Report

Report on the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Saskatchewan 2022: Conservative Dissenting Report

This Dissenting Report reflects the views of the Conservative Members of Parliament who serve on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (“PROC”): MP John Nater (Vice-Chair of the Committee, Perth-Wellington), MP Luc Berthold (Megantic-L’Erable), MP Blaine Calkins (Red Deer-Lacombe), and MP Michael Cooper (St. Albert-Edmonton).

Introduction

Three Notices of Objection were submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (PROC) in response to the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Saskatchewan by MPs Daniel Blaikie, Warren Steinley, and the Honourable Andrew Scheer. We respectfully disagree with the conclusions in the Report of PROC to support the objection put forward by MP Blaikie and set out our observations in this Dissenting Report. We agree with the conclusions in the Report of PROC to support the objections of MPs Steinley and Scheer, however, we wish to offer our observations regarding these objections.

The Blaikie Objection

MP Blaikie encouraged the Commission to establish a central urban riding in Saskatoon, spanning both sides of the South Saskatchewan River, as proposed in the Commission’s initial proposal. 

We respect the decision of the Commission in its report to disband the establishment of a central Saskatoon riding, and instead maintain three Saskatoon urban ridings (the “Final Proposal”). 

The Final Proposal Reflects Community Input

The Final Proposal reflects the feedback that the Commission received during the consultation process. At the public hearing in Saskatoon, most presenters spoke against a central Saskatoon riding. These presenters represented a cross-section of the community, including: a community association president, business leaders, representatives of downtown development organizations, members of immigrant communities, Indigenous peoples, including the Chief of the Saskatoon Tribal Council, who represents seven local First Nations. 

By contrast, it is our observation that MP Blaikie’s objection is motivated by partisan considerations, not reflective of the feedback from diverse voices received by the Commission. For example, four presenters who spoke in favour of a central Saskatoon riding at the public hearing in Saskatoon were affiliated with the NDP. MP Blaikie is an NDP MP, who notably is not from Saskatchewan, and acknowledged at PROC that he is not a “subject matter expert” on Saskatchewan.[1] At PROC, MP Blaikie said that he was motivated to put forward the notice of objection based on feedback that NDP headquarters had received from some individuals. 

We acknowledge that individuals with partisan interests have every right to make submissions to the Commission. However, this objection appears to be supported primarily by the NDP, without evidence of broader community support. This diminishes, in our opinion, the overall weight and credibility that should be attached to it.

The Final Proposal Connects Communities of Interest

The Final Proposal, in our opinion, better connects communities of interest within Saskatoon than the initial proposal that included a central Saskatoon riding.

Having regard for section 15 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. E-3, and the need to consider communities of interest, the Commission decided that a better community of interest or identity is achieved by not extending beyond the city limits of Saskatoon.[2] The Commission was able to draw three ridings situated entirely within city limits of Saskatoon as reflected in the Final Proposal. 

By contrast, the drawing of a central Saskatoon riding necessitated, based on the Commission’s initial proposal, the drawing of a hybrid urban-rural riding (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) consisting of the northern suburbs of Saskatoon, along with a significant small town and rural component. It also resulted in Saskatoon-Grasswood extending outside of Saskatoon to include part of the RM of Corman Park. 

We note that MP Blaikie, in his submission to PROC, cited what he characterized as an “important principle” in creating ridings “where the kind of significant community of interest that exists between urban and rural areas is well respected.”[3]  Ironically, a central Saskatoon riding resulted in the establishment of the type of urban-rural riding that MP Blaikie has advocated against. 

We also submit that a central Saskatoon riding would separate communities of interest. This includes, as acknowledged by the Commission, communities of interest that span Circle Drive. It would also have the effect of separating Indigenous communities of interest. At the Commission’s public hearing in Saskatoon, the Chief of the Saskatoon Tribal Council, Mark Arcand, noted that Saskatoon’s Indigenous population is concentrated on the west side of the South Saskatchewan River. Chief Arcand presented data to illustrate that a central Saskatoon riding would dilute the Indigenous population, which is currently concentrated in the riding of Saskatoon- West. The Commission’s Final Proposal keeps Indigenous communities of interest together within Saskatoon-West. 

As noted, a central Saskatoon riding would span both sides of the South Saskatchewan River. The ripple effect of a central Saskatoon riding would likely result in at least another Saskatoon riding cross the South Saskatchewan River. For example, in the Commission’s initial proposal, Saskatoon-Grasswood traversed the South Saskatchewan River.

The South Saskatchewan River runs through the middle of Saskatoon, creating an east-west divide.  The Commission observed that the South Saskatchewan River continues to “influence travel and commercial and social activity.”[4] The Commission further observed that the South Saskatchewan River is a “historic and natural boundary for electoral ridings.”[5] There are also significant socio-economic, housing, and demographic differences between the west and east sides of Saskatoon.

The Commission acknowledged, based on the feedback that it received during the pubic consultation process, that this placed communities with significant social, economic and housing differences together in both Saskatoon-Centre and Saskatoon-Grasswood.[6] This issue is generally resolved by respecting the natural boundary of South Saskatchewan River, as reflected in the Final Proposal. 

A Central Saskatoon Riding Creates a Negative Ripple Effect

A central Saskatoon riding unhelpfully requires significant adjustments to not only ridings within Saskatoon, but also outside of Saskatoon. This is evidenced by the drawing of the hybrid urban-rural Saskatoon-Wanuskewin riding in the Commission’s initial proposal. This in turn likely had a ripple effect that resulted in significant adjustments to multiple other ridings that the Commission later addressed in its report, based on public feedback. Based on this public feedback, the Commission redrew the boundaries of several ridings outside of Saskatoon and Regina in a manner that generally reflects current boundaries. A central Saskatoon riding would likely upset this.

We submit that minimal disruption to existing boundaries is preferable, where possible, especially given that there were significant changes to electoral boundaries during the previous redistribution. General continuity is preferable, as it takes time for electors to adjust to major changes, including establishing a familiarity with their Member of Parliament. 

The Steinley and Scheer Objections

We respectfully encourage the Commission to favourably consider the objections of MPs Steinley and Scheer.

The adjustments proposed by MPs Steinley and Scheer, between Regina-Lewvan and Regina-Qu’Appelle, can be described, as a “swap.” The effect of this is to provide continuity by keeping 5,275 constituents in Regina-Qu’Appelle and 5,771 constituents in Regina-Lewvan in these respective ridings.[7] This is consistent with section 15(1)(b) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which provides that the Commission shall consider “the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province.”  The section of North Central Regina that, based on the Commission’s report, will be placed in Regina-Lewvan, has been part of the Regina-Qu’Appelle for thirty years. 

MP Scheer has also reasonably proposed keeping the communities of Wynyard and Ituna in Regina-Qu’Appelle, based on strong ties to other communities situated in the riding, including Fort Qu’Appelle. We take note that the Commission moved Wynyard and Ituna into Yorkton-Melville, so that Yorkton-Melville’s population would approach relative parity with other ridings. Although Yorkton-Melville is -9.11% below the electoral quota, we note that it is well within the plus or minus 25% of the electoral quota under the Act.[8] The relatively minor population loss to Yorkton-Melville that would result from this adjustment would still place Yorkton-Melville reasonably within the range of other rural ridings from a population standpoint. For example, Souris-Moose Mountain, is -10.68% below the electoral quota, and Swift Current-Grasslands-Kindersley is -10.12% below the electoral quota.[9] 

We respectfully submit that the connection that Wynyard and Ituna have with Regina-Qu’Appelle, from a community of interest standpoint, are compelling and will not materially impact the population of Yorkton-Melville relative to population parity with other ridings.

Conclusion

We respectfully submit that the Commission should maintain the Final Proposal for Saskatoon. We also respectfully encourage the Commission to look favourably upon the objections of MPs Steinley and Scheer, which are minor, targeted, and will not have an impact the boundaries of other ridings.

Respectfully submitted,

John Nater, MP, Vice-Chair Perth Wellington

Luc Berthold, MP Megantic-L’Erable

Blaine Calkins, MP Red Deer-Lacombe

Michael Cooper, MP St. Albert-Edmonton