HANSARD
NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ESTABLISHING AN
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION
Thursday, December 1, 2011
HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA
7:00 P.M.
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ESTABLISHING AN
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION
Hon. Ross Landry (Chairman)
Mr. Gary Ramey
Ms. Michele Raymond
Mr. Leonard Preyra
Mr. Jim Boudreau
Hon. Michel Samson
Mr. Andrew Younger
Hon. Christopher d'Entremont
Mr. Keith Bain
[Ms. Michele Raymond was replaced by Mr. Maurice Smith]
[Mr. Andrew Younger was replaced by Ms. Kelly Regan]
WITNESS
Mr. David Hendsbee
In Attendance:
Ms. Kim Langille
Select Committee Clerk
Ms. Moira MacLeod
Report Writer
HALIFAX, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2011
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
7:00 P.M.
CHAIRMAN
Hon. Ross Landry
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will now call this committee to order. Welcome, this evening. We have one representative speaking tonight so far, Mr. David Hendsbee. I'd ask Mr. Hendsbee to come to the main chair there, please, sir. I don't really have to tell you, but I will, you have to speak directly into the microphone and say your name.
We're going to do some introductions here. I want to point out, as you're well aware, that this is not in camera. This is a public meeting and anything said will be recorded. Anything not wished to be said, we don't say. It's as simple as that. You know your way in and out of the building so we're okay that way.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: I'm glad to see I wasn't locked out either.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Welcome and thank you for coming. I'll get some introductions and I'll start to my left. We'll start with Ms. Regan.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The floor is yours, sir, welcome.
MR. HENDSBEE: My name is David Hendsbee, my address is 1 Chamberlain Drive, Westphal-Lake Major, Halifax Regional Municipality here in Nova Scotia My occupation is I am the municipal councillor for District 3, Preston-Lawrencetown-Chezzetcook. In a past life I was also a member of the Legislature for the constituency of Preston, from 1999 to 2003.
Good evening and thank you for this opportunity to address you all. Once again it is that time for the review, 10 years since the last time that the province reviewed its boundaries. I'd like to point out that those past reports and past recommendations are just that, in the past. Now we have an opportunity to start anew and to really strategically assess governance in our province to well into the future.
1
The elections list has been started whereby one source can be built upon even further and Elections Nova Scotia, with its access to the federal data bank, primarily from income tax filings, various provincial sources, be it the health card or motor vehicle registrations, from liquor ID control cards, and other data from other program registries can compile and maintain one general list for all elections - federal, provincial, municipal and school boards. Also, Elections Nova Scotia should control all the election-day workers, from the returning officers to the poll clerks and even enumerators if they are needed, because I believe voter registration should become a mandatory function, no more politically appointed or selected workers in any of the polls, regardless of what level of government it is. Let's take the partisanship out of this past practice of patronage.
With respect to voter parity and redistribution, I believe the province should adopt the municipal district boundaries within the HRM territory. Let it become 16 MLAs instead of the 18 plus the three-part portions of the 23 who now serve the region. Congruency will help simplify the electoral process for those within the HRM area, one boundary, one list, et cetera. This would also help the electorate to better understand and to know exactly who their MLA and councillor are without trying to determine which constituency or district they reside in. This is a practice similar to Ontario MPPs or similar to our MLAs and the MPs from Ontario who have the same federal and provincial boundaries in their elections and I think we can follow that kind of example here in the HRM context with the province.
Also, I think the province should take the next step to electronic balloting and give the people the option of how they want to vote. This will also bring about greater voter participation too, and that has been experienced at the municipal level.
If you intend to redistribute the seats of the current 52 of the House of Assembly, then you'll probably have a greater concentration of those within HRM. Therefore, the Nova Scotia Government should probably take the step, like in New Brunswick, and reduce the amount of MLAs too. A 10 per cent cut would only yield five seats but 47 are still too many representatives for our provincial population base. I would suggest that 43 seats, in total, would be a better target to set and then it could be said that to form a majority government you would have to be in a catch-22 situation, sorry for the pun, but I thought you might enjoy that.
A reduction in the number of MLAs would require a serious but a necessary re-evaluation of the special seats with Acadian and African Nova Scotian constituencies. Please note, I say constituencies and not communities because all parts of the regions of Nova Scotia have diversity in them now. Selected areas and designated seats are something of the past so we should not repeat that practice. Great gains have been made by many individuals in other parts of the province without the provision of division. Those are my remarks for you tonight. If you have any comments or questions, I would be free to entertain any.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. d'Entremont.
HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: Thank you very much, David, for popping in this evening to say a few words. I'm just wondering how - because you have a little more intimate knowledge in this as well, being the previous MLA for Preston - how can we represent minority groups like Acadians and like the African Nova Scotians if we're not necessarily attaching ourselves to any specific constituency?
MR. HENDSBEE: I think we can do that now through the departments that we have. We have the Office of Acadian Affairs. We also have the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs. We also have other departments with other agencies within them. I think that becomes more of a departmental function. Electorally, we see the successes of other candidates outside the selected seats for the Acadian and the constituency of Preston seats. Leonard Preyra is a good example for the South End of Halifax. We've seen Howard Epstein - you could say he represents part of the Jewish community. We have also seen Percy Paris elected in the Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank area. So I think that having specially designated seats, in my opinion, is something of the past.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Smith.
MR. MAURICE SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You really went too fast for me. I missed what you were saying about the federal riding. Were you saying that there should be only the number of - I missed that?
MR. HENDSBEE: I said in Ontario they have an example where the federal and provincial boundaries are the same. I was trying to use that example as perhaps we can use that in a provincial/municipal context here in Nova Scotia. So where in Ontario they have the exact same number of seats for the MPPs and MPs, we should probably look at the same here in regard to redistribution of the seats of the MLAs within the HRM territory only. But beyond HRM, I think you need another boundary configuration. Perhaps you may have to join a couple of districts or a couple of counties together to keep the number base's population parity close to the same.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ramey.
MR. GARY RAMEY: Thank you for coming in, Mr. Hendsbee. I just have a couple of quick ones here. We had a presentation from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation where the suggestion was made that we take the federal seats in the province, 11 seats, and split them into three parts. Three times 11 gives you 33, and you're suggesting 43. Are you saying 33 would definitely be too low?
MR. HENDSBEE: I think that might be excessively low, yes. I think that if you look at the population base you should look at some kind of reasonable amounts between the federal, provincial, and municipal constituencies. Right now, I thought the recent URB decision to cut the municipal council of Halifax from 23 to 16 was a little drastic. I thought 18 would have been a more palatable number, a workable number, plus it also would have it almost on par with the current amount of MLAs, with the redistribution of some of those outer seats - like Chester-St. Margaret's, Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, and Guysborough-Sheet Harbour. The question is, should we go beyond those municipal boundaries as we did there in those three areas?
MR. RAMEY: May I have a supplementary?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you may.
MR. RAMEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The second question I have is, we currently have seats with very substantial numbers of voters. We might have 6,000 or 7,000 in one, and I think in some of the seats - I don't know if it would be in Ms. Regan's or in Ms. Whalen's, but I think we're up to well in the 20s - 22,000 maybe?
MS. KELLY REGAN: We both have over 19,000.
MR. RAMEY: Okay, so over 19,000. So we've got this huge fluctuation in size. Do you have any comments on that?
MR. HENDSBEE: Well, that's a challenge that you're going to be trusting your commission into doing. I may perhaps want to suggest, why not empower the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board to do that? They've done a recent exercise at the municipal level, so why can they not do it at the provincial level as well? That way you can also be seen as taking the partisanship out of appointing an electoral commission to do it. You can have them as a sanctioned body already doing electoral boundary reviews. They're familiar with the need for voter parity and some equity and equality there. I know in the past they looked at the Saskatchewan model of having a 25 per cent plus or minus variance to a mean average, but I think the tighter you can get to that, to be less than a 10 per cent variance, should be a better parity for representation.
MS. REGAN: Councillor Hendsbee, you talked about how you think we should have mandatory enumeration. I actually agree with that, simply because I think that part of the reason participation has gone down is because the lists that are maintained are not all that accurate. I think that doing mandatory enumeration would eliminate some of that. I'm sure there are dead people and people who've moved away who are still on lists, for example. Is there a particular reason why you suggest that we should have mandatory enumeration?
MR. HENDSBEE: I said mandatory registration, not mandatory enumeration.
MS. REGAN: Oh, okay.
MR. HENDSBEE: I believe that it should be incumbent upon the voter to register. I don't think we need to go out and seek them. I think that they as a citizen should have the bound and rightful duty to vote, and I also think we should encourage the voters. I think they should be given a tax credit once they come in to vote. Once they get a ballot, once they mark the ballot or vote electronically, they should also be issued or be put on a list for a tax credit that they can apply against their provincial tax income receipts. That way also maintains your database, because for them to use the tax credit they have to file their income taxes. That's how the federal list was initially compiled, and therefore continually perpetuates itself. Those who vote get a tax credit, they use the tax credit, they file, and that gets on a registry to vote.
MS. REGAN: But you do have to tick off something when you file your taxes to say that your information can go to Elections Canada, correct?
MR. HENDSBEE: I personally believe that electoral registration should be a mandatory function. I don't think there should be - it should not be voluntary, it should be a mandatory function.
I won't go as far as they do in other places, like Australia, where voting is mandatory and you fine people, or you could be fined for not voting. I'd rather see an incentive to encourage people to vote, via a tax credit.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boudreau.
MR. JIM BOUDREAU: Just a quick question, Councillor Hendsbee, with regard to your 43 seats. I'm just wondering - what rationale do you have behind that number? I know Mr. Ramey went in that direction but I'm curious just to find out where that 43 came from.
MR. HENDSBEE: Well the population of HRM represents roughly 40 per cent of the province and if the municipality is going to be having 16 seats, that represents 40 per cent. I thought if you doubled that, it would be, of course, 32 plus a few more, that would be 80 per cent. It would be about another 40 and I figure from 43 it will give you some latitude in regards to drawing the lines. So I think 40 seats would give you parity with the HRM boundaries but I think you should have at least some latitude for the diversity in the regions, to some degree, so I thought that 43 would be a closer number. That way they are closer to parity with the municipal seats, i.e. the MLA seats within the HRM territory.
MR. BOUDREAU: Okay, thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Preyra.
MR. LEONARD PREYRA: Just a comment and a question. Thank you very much for coming here and we certainly would benefit from your experience, both as an MLA and a councillor for the district that you spoke of.
The comment really relates to the Terms of Reference of this committee and the Boundaries Commission. It's essentially a Boundaries Commission and not an electoral reform commission. It's not really looking at reforming the Elections Act, it's more revising the boundaries in light of census information and population shifts, so it has quite a narrow term of reference that is defined by law.
I can say that Mr. Doiron is here from Elections Nova Scotia and I'm sure he's taking notes and he would be very happy to entertain suggestions for improving the voter registration system.
The voter registration system as it is - if I may comment on it, Mr. Chairman - is a live one now. It is constantly being updated and, in fact, doesn't require a lot of action on the part of the voter, except on election day when you can register, but it's already there and I think electronic voting is already provided for, as a pilot, in the upcoming election, so you may see what you're looking for anyway.
In terms of boundaries, I know you're not promoting the idea of a protected seat. You talk about a protected seat but really the seat that you represented and the area you represent, in fact, is not really a protected seat, it's just an affirmative, gerrymandered seat that is designed in a way to produce a certain outcome. The fact that it hasn't produced that outcome suggests that it's not protected.
Would you support that we gerrymander certain boundaries, to allow for, let's say African Nova Scotian or Acadian, to make it more likely that we'll get that result but not necessarily narrow it down to the point where the number of voters in the seat is so out of proportion from the variance? Would you accept the idea of playing around with electoral boundaries to try and get a more representative Legislature?
MR. HENDSBEE: No, and I think that's a unique question, coming from you personally, sir. You represent a diverse community from the South End of Halifax and I think the South End of Halifax, through its own diverse population, chose the candidate they thought to best represent. But it's not just the person's character but it's also going to be the political platforms those Parties represent so I don't think that a person's colour or their origin should matter. I think it should come down to the content and their character.
MR. PREYRA: Well I think it would be fair to say that one of the consistent themes we've had in this last week of this committee is that there are certain groups - African Nova Scotian and Acadian in particular, and Aboriginal peoples - who would be in a unique situation and because they constitute a distinct population or culture, heritage, people, whatever term you want to use, are very concerned about the preservation of that identity and they feel, among other things, that the best way to protect that identity is to have members in the Legislature who not just represent them but understand them and speak the language and have lived the culture and share the tradition. What do you feel about that?
MR. HENDSBEE: I think that if you want to try to enable a model such as that, you might have to change your electoral process and go by representation by population. You know, rep by pop - not in a district boundary, but perhaps at large. You would have to totally change your electoral reform and get rid of the boundaries and have rep by pop. I think a lot of the political Parties across the country have been asking for something like that in all levels of Legislatures, in the Parliament - have a different type of vote instead of a "first past the post" process.
It might be necessary - if you want to have a first past the post, you may need preferential balloting. If you don't achieve 50 per cent plus one of the vote, then you should look at the last person - get the electorate to decide who is their first-choice candidate and their second- or third-choice candidate and then use a preferential balloting process to determine who should be the ultimate winner with 50 per cent plus one.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Samson.
HON. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Hendsbee, if I understand correctly, you're suggesting that the Preston seat as it currently exists should not continue?
MR. HENDSBEE: As it currently exists, no. The population base is far smaller than the neighbouring seats beside it. I think that Cole Harbour and Preston could co-exist as one seat if they wished to, with regard to how the boundaries get redistributed, or the Eastern Shore or Dartmouth East. I could say the same thing about Richmond, Clare, and Argyle.
Should they have their distinct, small, populated base status, or should they be looked at being merged collectively as one seat? Across the province we have that - as an example, in Guysborough County where the African Nova Scotian communities within Guysborough represent one municipal seat. They're not connected geographically together, but they are within the same electoral boundary of Guysborough. Would Clare, Argyle, and Richmond accept that, being considered a tri-Acadian seat? Or would you want to have the people in those constituencies vote on, I want a person from the Richmond-Strait area, I want somebody from Clare-Argyle or the Shelburne or Digby region to represent them - not based on ethnicity or the origins but more the geography?
MR. SAMSON: You indicated in response to a question from Mr. d'Entremont that it wasn't necessary to have minority representation in the Legislature because we had the Offices of Acadian Affairs, Aboriginal Affairs, and African Nova Scotian Affairs. You've been a member of government before. You do realize that government decisions aren't made by those offices, right?
MR. HENDSBEE: Sure.
MR. SAMSON: Okay. Decisions as to creating schools, such as the new school in Chezzetcook, are not made by the Office of Acadian Affairs or any other office. They're made by government. Decisions on funding for programs are made by the government, not by these offices. Do you not have any concerns that removing representation from within government and within the Legislature would be seen as having a negative impact on these specific communities?
MR. HENDSBEE: I believe an elected officer being appointed to be the minister would have to have that oversight, regardless of the background. We've had non-lawyers be Attorney General. I think of Mr. Gillis being one of the best examples from Antigonish, an example of a non-lawyer representing that profession, that issue, whatever. I would think that the constituencies where those communities reside, they would have to depend on the availability and the resourcefulness and the determination of their elected official. So whoever the elected official is for the Chezzetcook region would have to bring those concerns of the Acadian communities in Chezzetcook to that department to bear.
MR. SAMSON: I've heard a number of people talk about the fact that Preston is not working, and I completely disagree with that. At the end of the day the riding was created to enable and to empower the African Nova Scotian community that was located there, to try to create winning conditions to elect someone from that community. But it's never a guarantee.
My predecessor in Richmond County was not Acadian but because of the strong Acadian presence in his riding, he certainly had to pay very close attention to the Acadian community, as I'm sure you had to pay close attention to the African Nova Scotian community when you were the MLA for Preston because of the strength in their numbers.
In my own experience, in my five elections in Richmond, all of the other candidates who have squared off against me were not Acadians, so had I not won, there would not be an Acadian in Richmond County. The creation of these seats was never meant to be a guarantee and there's nothing to say that someone who's not Acadian could not get elected in Argyle or get elected in Clare. It never was meant to come with a guarantee but in Preston it certainly gives that community the choice of who they want to represent them but also the ability to hold that representative accountable because of the strength in their numbers in that specific riding. So I'm just curious, are you still involved with the Progressive Conservative Association in Preston and does your presentation reflect the views of the Progressive Conservative Association in Preston?
MR. HENDSBEE: No, this is my own personal opinion.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, so this is not an issue that was discussed?
MR. HENDSBEE: No. The local constituency association in Preston has no knowledge of my presentation.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, thank you.
MR. HENDSBEE: I should also say in regard to your comments - how about the other half of your population base? You, being a male, also have to represent the females in your constituency as well. So, we can get into a gender debate as well. So to the men in the House, they also have to do the work that the female constituents also require.
MR. SAMSON: I guess if I could just add on that, you would realize that minority language rights are protected in the Canadian Charter and that there are actually charter guarantees that are offered to the minority language communities. I think that's a bit of a different case than what you present there but, anyway, we'll agree to disagree on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not so sure how I want to frame my question because there are a number of things that I've heard here tonight and I just want to get your opinion because of your diversity of experience and get some clarity on the point that was just made by Mr. Samson.
I want to try to frame it in the sense that, in the area that I represent, I represent a large Black community, a significant number of people of that colour, and I never really thought of it in the sense of saying that I would have to be distinct or supported directly by the community. I just felt that if I'm representing the community, I represent everyone, but I'm also having trouble understanding - we had a tremendous presentation by the Acadian community. They've championed their points of view and articulated it in a way that is second to none that I've seen in some time in committees and things that I've been involved in.
We have to be able to form direction on where we need to go for the next decade and so when we look at geography - and I'm coming to a question here - framing geography. There has been a lot of discussion about 25 per cent, should that change? When I think of the point that Mr. Samson just made about him winning his seat, I couldn't help but reflect by saying, yes, well, if he's the best candidate and the people believe in him, he's the one who should represent that community. So do you think, in your experience or knowledge, that whether someone is Acadian or not that they would be discriminated against, or whether they're African Nova Scotian, or whether they're First Nations, that they would have equal opportunity, provided that the platform you raised and that they themselves have the strength and convictions to put their views out there appropriately to be accepted by the community?
So I've bundled a whole bunch of things that I'm trying to grasp, of what I've observed over the last week, that in much of the Acadian perspective, they added that in the cases of the diversity is to add seats to the overall process and I think I've captured a lot of what was said here. The other part was the cultural significance of the uniqueness of the Acadian community. I did try to approach the issue with a couple of the speakers, not overly, just in a few cases, of saying about the uniqueness of the First Nations and about the African Nova Scotians.
One of the things that we're going to be toiling with is that dynamic, and then the multiculturalism of the city and how we balance out that same uniqueness because each of those three groups that I've just mentioned, and a wide group - and you did allude to Mr. Preyra's background and the community that he represents - so you, as a city councillor, as an observer, and having some rural exposure in being a previous government person, and I hope I've captured fairly some of the key points that were mentioned in the last week of how we go ahead with that, because it's different today in what we're being asked to do than in the previous 10 years, for the seats.
I think it's a unique set of circumstances, especially when I think the overall population is asking us to be leaner and meaner. That's one of the key points that I think I grasp from what you were talking about here tonight and what the URB had said to you about your seats. I've said an awful lot but I hope I've captured a multitude of issues here. I'd just like to get your personal view and feelings in regard to those issues.
MR. HENDSBEE: I have a great admiration and respect for the diversities of the communities that I have represented - Preston, Lawrencetown, Chezzetcook. I have the African Nova Scotia community, Acadian community and the traditional communities, plus the new citizens who come into the area.
Being an elected representative, I try to do my very best to represent what I believe is a greater interest for the whole district, or the whole constituency, at any one time. With regard to trying to have those - I won't say guarantees - but an opportunity to have representation in the House, I think perhaps the political Parties may want to look at re-evaluating its processes for nominations, perhaps. If they want to encourage broader representation, perhaps it's that process that should be reformed and not the boundaries themselves.
Everybody has a right to run as an independent, but we all know that the political functions at the provincial and federal levels are dominated by the Party system. I think if there's a desire and a want and a need to have representation for the diverse communities, then I think it should be incumbent upon the Parties to encourage that, not necessarily by a boundary, but it should be by the doctrines of the Parties.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any more questions? Thank you for coming in and giving a different perspective and your personal view and I understand that's what it is; you're not representing council, you're not representing any political Party. That question was asked.
MR. HENDSBEE: I've had a long history of making comments and representations to the electoral boundaries process in this province for the last number of times it has gone through it. I'm sure I will do it more times in the future, as long as God gives me life to live.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's hope he does. Thank you for coming in. Do we have any other persons who would like to come forward to speak? I will now take a 10-minute recess. Thank you.
[7:32 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[7:33 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right now what we have set up is Thursday and Friday of next week, Thursday 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Friday from 9 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. We're probably going to need more time so we'd look at the Monday if that's where we're at. I'm hoping that we can get some kind of a structured framework and get a copy of what was done before and then look at what's different now and what we heard.
MR. SAMSON: I'm just curious, just to keep the presentations fresh as to what we heard, why would we not do this Monday and Tuesday in order to try to get this done. Not knowing how long this is going to take us, I think we're moving further towards our deadline to have these discussions. I would certainly suggest that Monday or Tuesday.
MS. LANGILLE: It has to do with the translation of all the French documents.
MR. SAMSON: Okay and that's fair enough. I think we've heard the presentations and I think at least to start off the preliminary discussions, I don't necessarily feel that it's necessary to have those directly in front of us. We've heard the presentations and have a general sense of that, therefore, I don't see that as a reason to hold up having these discussions starting on Monday and going into Tuesday and then seeing what more we need after that.
MR. PREYRA: I don't know what the problem was, but there was a problem with Monday and Tuesday, wasn't there?
MR. CHAIRMAN: On Mondays my schedule can be accommodated, but Tuesday is probably too difficult. The big issue that was discussed earlier today had to do with the translation and the other documents. I can see where we can do a lot of work without those documents, and I don't disagree. Mr. Boudreau.
MR. BOUDREAU: I understand what Mr. Samson is saying. What he is saying is - I don't know, my preference would be to have the documents to go through them again, personally. That's just me. I'd like to have the opportunity to review them again. I know I've taken notes and so on, but there are things that would be nice to refer back to. But again, that's me.
MR. PREYRA: I know there are no rules around this, but there are quite a few members who came and went on this committee, so we don't all - I know Mr. Samson has been there, and Mr. d'Entremont and Mr. Ramey. There may be something said for everyone seeing all of that, but I agree with you. I'm quite happy to move on Monday and Tuesday.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. d'Entremont first and then back to Mr. Samson.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: I'm just looking at what time on Monday, if we were to do it on Monday, because quite honestly, I can't be here until probably three o'clock. So it'd be tough, that's all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a long day Monday. I know my first meeting is at seven o'clock in the morning in New Glasgow. Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: Look, Monday night we're all going to be here. We can certainly meet. I guess at this point, Mr. Chairman, it's going to be up to you to come back and tell us where we're going with this and what needs to be achieved. So I think Monday, if we can at least meet, whether it's for a half an hour or an hour, whereas we can at least say, here's what we need to determine, are there any points we can agree upon to start off with? Then if there are points that create further discussion, we can move forward.
I certainly think on Monday night at least setting a framework, because this is not a process that most of us have been involved with. I was involved with it 10 years ago, so it's a bit new for everybody else, in that sense.
The other big question that has yet to be answered - I've raised it a few times - is we're still waiting for some indication from government as to how many people we'd like to see on the commission and how we're going to go about naming the commission. Is government going to do that on its own? Is there going to be participation from the other political Parties, as far as nominating people? That still hasn't been answered, and that's going to take some time. We want to be wrapped up by December 12th. If that's the case, and people need to be - I'm trying to determine if we actually need to have the commission named as part of our final report, and if that's the case, we need to have people in place by December 12th. So we have 11 days left to find people. As I've mentioned before, there are not many out there who have the specialization or the knowledge or the experience in redrawing electoral maps. It's something that's quite complicated, so I guess the quicker we can get an indication from government as to how this is going to work . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: The issue on the table here, there's two things. We can either have just a subcommittee meeting on Monday, or actually, I hear your point - which is better, to have just a subcommittee or have a whole meeting on Monday night? Mr. Preyra.
MR. PREYRA: Well, I think given Mr. Samson's comments, and I agree with him, it may work if we do have just a steering committee meeting and have a sense of the issues and the agenda, and maybe then adjourn until Thursday, go to our caucuses and come back. That might give us a couple of days.
MR. SAMSON: You're getting late with Thursday. That's my only concern, that time is going by. Our own personal commitments are going to get busier and busier as each day goes by. That's why I certainly suggest that the more we can get done early in the week, the better. If we can meet on Monday and set a time frame - I think you might have said that Tuesday might be an issue.
Again, I don't think it's going to take that long. Look, let me be frank. You guys are the majority government, so we can all sit here and hold hands and say that this is going to be done by consensus and that, but . . .
MR. PREYRA: Oh no, we want to do the right thing. We want to let the process flow, too.
MR. SAMSON: I don't doubt that you want to do the right thing, but at the end of the day you have the majority. In this case you need to give us a sense of where you're going and how you want this to look, rather than us sitting here trying to guess. So there is some added responsibility on the government side to . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to come back to your points there Michel in a minute. Sorry to interrupt, I want to get Gary, then Chris and then I'll come back to you because there's a point I want to make in regard to - before we lose all the key points you're saying there. So Gary.
MR. RAMEY: My point was simply that somebody's going to have to write the report and I know who it is. My point is that person has to write the report, so if they have to have the report in at a certain time, it has to be completed and all signed and delivered, then they need to have the information they need in order to write the report. It's not fair to have the person get the information a day before it's got to be finished, or something, so that's why I guess I'd agree with Mr. Samson that we have to move fairly quickly, in fairness to the writer as well.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: I think the added issue on top of it is - how long is the House of Assembly going to be sitting? Right now that seems to be the thing that is in the way but my guess is we're going to get maybe until Tuesday, I don't know if we're getting past it. So let's see where all that cards fall but, ultimately, I think maybe a few minutes on Monday would be fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I get back to Mr. Samson I think there is a consensus that we should meet Monday to start with. That's the first thing, so if we could set two hours for Monday that would be a start. In the meantime one of the things that I'm also hearing is to get a position of where our caucuses sit on the overall perspective. I can say it's pretty safe that we came into this room with a pretty open mind, so as direction, going from one direction or the other, how do we take from where we were 10 years ago and what's different today in the environment. We know, hearing some of the presentations, that there are some significant issues and we know that there is a majority out there who would like to see us reduce the seats rather than increase the seats, but we need to have discussion around those issues. We need to know where each Party sits in that regard. Would everybody be comfortable if we met on Monday, for sure, for two hours?
MR. BOUDREAU: What time? (Interruption)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Six o'clock, 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., is that what you're saying?
MR. SAMSON: Or 7:00 p.m., it doesn't make a difference. The House is going to sit till 10:00 p.m., so 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. if that is easier for you.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: We're not going to be late.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're not going to be late Monday?
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Don't think so, depends if they call it at two or not.
MR. PREYRA: Even if we're not late we can set the time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well let's set it at 6:00 p.m., we can always bump up or play with an hour, one way or the other, but 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Even though I have to drive to New Glasgow at 5:30 in the morning and then come back, and then have the day in the House, the way Question Period is going, it probably won't be too hard of an afternoon.
Are you open to meeting on Tuesday as well then, if we meet in the afternoon? I suspect the House is going in at noon that Question Period will be over by two o'clock.
So if we look at 2:00 to 4: 00 on that day, does that sound reasonable or do you have a different suggestion, anyone?
MR. PREYRA: I think Tuesday's too soon given what - you know Monday will be a pretty broad-ranging meeting with too many things on the agenda that will have to be caucused.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Wednesday is a busy day for all of us I'm pretty sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So Wednesday will be out. So Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday? They met for nine and half hours last time, 10 years ago, that already puts us at roughly around the same time.
MR. PREYRA: I think Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday might be better.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the next question is, and Michel I'm sorry I didn't get back to you there, Mr. Samson. I went around the table there the last time you were speaking.
MR. SAMSON: I guess just for you guys to know the Terms of Reference consists of a page and half - is what the terms of reference were. They're very broad and it's not something that I think we're going to take hours and hours to settle on. The question is what's different from what was there last year, which I think was probably similar to what was there 10 years before that? The redrawing of boundaries is something that there is a science to it and there are certain elements that you put in there, so I don't see it taking the amount of time that's being feared here. I think as you indicated Mr. Chairman, we are members of Parties and those Parties will give instructions. I think at this point, again, in light of the fact that it is a majority government, it's incumbent on yourself as Chair to give us an indication of what the instructions are from your Party and from your colleagues as far as what you wish to see as we move forward. If there are issues with that, we can discuss, and if there are extra recommendations that we want to make, we can make those as well. But I would again suggest that it's a bit incumbent on the government to - I don't know if I can say show your hand - but at least give us an indication of what it is that the government wants to see moving forward on these recommendations.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm not so sure about the government, but I know I'm going to make some recommendations about what I heard here this week and what I've seen, but I'll reserve that for the time being. I think the discussion that we had prior to the start of this year, some of the information, is that we want a fair, equitable process that takes in geography and acknowledges diversity, but whether the diversity means a particular isolation of a group or a matter that the environment has changed today - I'm not sure of those questions. We need to have some conversation in regard to that.
Mr. Preyra, you wanted to make a comment.
MR. PREYRA: I just think Monday, Wednesday, Thursday sounds . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday.
MR. PREYRA: Well, I was thinking Monday, Wednesday, Thursday.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Wednesday doesn't work for anyone.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it doesn't work for anyone that day. We're just jammed up that day for everything.
MR. PREYRA: Monday, Thursday, Friday then, I think.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't want to do it on Tuesday?
MR. PREYRA: I don't think Tuesday. I think Tuesday is too soon, especially since the meeting on Monday will be late.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't want to argue with you, I just want to ask . . .
MR. PREYRA: I don't know how the other caucuses function, but we will probably want to have a full discussion in the caucus of this issue, and there are a number of pretty significant issues.
MR. SAMSON: I'm not suggesting that Tuesday would be a final decision. I'm saying give yourselves Monday night, Tuesday to work out any other issues, and then you can look at whether it's Thursday or Friday to hopefully be able to make some final decisions after you've had the chance to caucus.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll tell you what. We'll keep our times the way they are, because then we've blocked some times, we've got some structure. We'll talk to the caucuses and we can cancel or move things around at the last minute. How do you feel about that? Okay.
MR. SAMSON: Yes, and I would just add, Mr. Chairman, that I would encourage the members to look at Pages 4 and 5 of what our clerk gave us for what the recommendations were last time. From your comments, Mr. Chairman, I think there's concern about setting numbers and everything else.
I should point out to you that the recommendations last time were not very specific at all on that but just provided broad considerations to keep in place. For example, last time, 10 years ago, there was nothing in there that said that the four protected ridings should be maintained. Instead, it simply said that there was to be consideration for minority representation, particular representation of the Acadian and Black peoples of Nova Scotia - nothing more. The only specific number was it actually did say a 52-member Legislature.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to have a meeting privately together as a group. Do we have a consensus that we'll set that structure up for now and we'll change it? At least that way we've got a structure. Ms. Langille.
MS. LANGILLE: I just want to make sure that I have the dates and times right. So we're doing Monday, 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m.; Tuesday, 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m.; nothing on Wednesday; Thursday, 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m.; and Friday, 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. Is that correct? And these will all be in camera meetings?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, in camera.
MS. LANGILLE: And they will be here? (Interruption) Yes, they will.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you very much.
We'll now adjourn this meeting.
[The committee adjourned at 7:49 p.m.]
