SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
Hon. Michael Baker
There is just a matter of a few pieces of business. The first one would be for the benefit of people who have not been at the earlier committee meetings, the proceedings here are being recorded today and will be transcribed for the benefit of the committee members in doing their deliberations. Also for the benefit of the members of the public, these proceedings are obviously public meetings and are open to any member of the public, and comments are public comments.
Unless there are any further comments, I would ask our first presenter to come forward. Our first presenter by my list is Ms. Yvonne Atwell, listed as a private citizen but Ms. Atwell, of course, is a former member for Preston. Ms. Atwell.
MS. YVONNE ATWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. First let me say that the position that I'm taking today and the information that I'm providing is my own personal information, that I have not consulted members of my community around this position in any kind of a formal way. While I have not consulted people formally, I have had many informal discussions with some members within the community who think as I do. I just want it to be clear that I'm not representing anyone other than myself.
I also want to make it clear that the Prestons, the Black community in the Prestons is a rural community. It is not a suburban community of the Halifax Regional Municipality, even though it's classified as such. It is my understanding that suburban communities have services such as regular transportation, sidewalks, services, a number of small businesses, good roads, and a number of other things which the communities of Preston do not have. So it is a rural community.
I'm not going to go into the history of those communities, because by now everybody should have a fairly good idea of how those communities came into being and what their status is today. In terms of politics, I think Black representation, as county councillors, went back as far as the 1950's and continued on into the 1990's. Basically they represented the areas of Preston in the early days of the 1950's. At that time as well, you have to understand that a significant number of people who were living in the community of Preston, the Preston township, the majority of the population was Black. The Preston township ran from Porters Lake to what we now know as Tacoma Drive, at one point in history. There were land grants to those communities, and in the last 30 years we have seen our land deteriorate, we have seen it taken away, we have seen areas protected by the watershed, we have seen highways that have run through the community, and a number of other things.
So we can look at how urbanization over the last 50 years, in terms of development, has affected the Black communities of Preston, with a growing number of subdivisions in Lake Echo, Porters Lake and Westphal. The boundaries of the community were really important when there was a decision made in 1991 to establish the new boundaries presently known as Preston. In 1991, the boundaries were changed to "encourage" local participation. I use the word "encourage" very loosely, because I am not sure what was meant by the word encourage, but that's what it was about. This meant that for the Prestons, the fact is that two-thirds of that riding was middle/upper-class white people and one-third of that riding was mostly Black people who lived in poverty.
Those communities, also the political lines ran along partisan politics, mainly Liberal and Conservative. Even though the communities were consulted in terms of two issues, one was around the fact that people needed to know what was meant by local participation and how that would be encouraged in terms of the whole picture. Then there was discussion concerning a designated seat for those Black communities, and there was a lot of debate around that. Finally the notion of a Black provincial seat was thoroughly rejected, and the notion of the Black Preston seat was rejected as well.
The answer was no from the Electoral Boundaries Commission, because it was felt that the local people who lived in the Prestons had a good opportunity to win those seats. In 1993, of course, during that first election where there was much excitement in the community around the opportunity for those who were interested in running for that seat in Preston, and at that time we had four people who ran - three who were Black by the way, and one independent. It looked as if that would be a reality for some time to come. However,
during the election of 1993, and then when I came in as MLA for 16, 17 months, and the election was called and that seat is now no longer in the hands of the Preston communities.
When I look at what that means in terms of representation, it's difficult for me to understand what was meant when the notion was made that this was to encourage Black representation. How do you do that? How do political Parties encourage small numbers of people, by which the boundaries were changed to encourage representation, maintain that? It is felt by many in the community that the seat is lost to the Prestons now, and that in the next election the possibility of having three White males running in each Party is very possible.
Therefore, in my opinion the boundaries changed as they were to encourage Black representation has failed, because the community itself did not take the time to analyze what that meant for them, they did not bring an analysis to the table, the political Parties did not have a thorough understanding as to what that meant in terms of politics in this place. As we can see, it is very difficult for people of colour to be able to run for political office in Nova Scotia and win; it is very difficult.
When we talk about an in-depth analysis from the electoral democracy - and this is from people in the community as well as from the Black communities themselves - nothing has been done. The process around candidate selection and all of those things have never been looked at. There is an assumption that because the opportunity was there that that would last forever. Based on my own experience, I know and understand how difficult it was to be able to do your work as a politician in that riding. Being a Black woman, I was constantly bombarded by individuals who did not think that I had the qualifications or the strength, and was actually told that two of you had a chance, it's time to go.
[3:45 p.m.]
My position here is that there has already been a precedent set for looking at designated seats in the Province of Nova Scotia. The Aboriginal community, I believe, has been offered a designated seat, it has been on the books for some time, even though I don't believe they have accepted the offer. My position today is I am coming as somebody who, I feel, has a fair bit of understanding of how the political system works to say that if there is no consideration for designated seats for Black people in this province, we will continue in the state that we're in, with our concerns not being addressed.
But I want to be clear, I am not talking about individual concerns who go to their MLA and ask for assistance. I believe that every member of the Legislative Assembly has a duty to do their job and I believe they do them to the best of their abilities. However, when we look at issues that are unique to the Black communities of Nova Scotia, those communities have been around for almost 400 years, and we look at some of the conditions in terms of justice, education and health, we have to ask ourselves, what is this about? Do
I not have the right to see myself reflected in all levels of society? Do I see myself reflected in this House? Do I have an opportunity to see myself reflected in this House in a real way?
I was here and I experienced racism in this House at the same time. Do I not have the right to encourage my children and my grandchildren, to help them understand that they have opportunities within Nova Scotia that are built on fairness, justice and equality? Do I not have the right to see reflected in all levels of society, including the bureaucracy of government, to see deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, directors, senior policy people - I don't see them. If they're there, I don't see them.
I think I have the right to be represented in this place because we live in a democracy, and because I don't see that I have to ask the question, why? Why did the opportunity that was set up to encourage representation within the Black community of Nova Scotia - how did it fall apart?
I personally believe that people forgot about us. There was a lot of hoopla. The purpose and the reason why the seat was designated in the first place was a selfish one, as far as I was concerned. It was developed and designed for an individual who some people thought would be there forever. Given the political climate, none of us are there forever. They're all temporary, part-time jobs.
I guess that because many people in the community did feel that when we ran for partisan politics, when we're in elections, the representation would always be from the community and that the political system itself would help grow and develop and nourish that. That didn't happen.
So I am asking this committee, I am suggesting or recommending a couple of things. Number one, we need people to be able to be part of the composition of the commission when it's set up, and I am suggesting three people. I am also suggesting that that group look at designated seats around the province, which could be three. I did hear some talk about less seats, and that's okay because maybe those less seats can be filled with some of these other seats.
We need to revisit - and I think this should be in the terms - to seriously revisit the need for designated seats within the Black communities of Preston and other communities around the province, southwestern Nova Scotia or whatever. The timelines must be some time before the next election.
It is difficult for people to understand when I promote the fact that the African-Nova Scotian people of this province need to be represented. Their issues need to come to the forefront and they're the ones who can do it because they understand those issues. It is difficult for people to understand what that means to me and my community and many others in terms of what happens in this place: how policy is made, who gets to set it, who is at the
table, who has the time and the energy to deal with those issues. Those are very important to us.
Racism is still alive and well in Nova Scotia, as we all know. Our history shows that and indicates that. We still live in denial about those issues, but they are here. We need to address that and I would seriously like to see those recommendations go forward.
I just want to finish with a quote. I usually use this quote. I was in South Africa at the World Conference Against Racism and Racial Discrimination for a couple of weeks in August and September. The President of South Africa, President Mbeki, gave a very powerful speech. I am going to read a little bit from that because I think it's really important for us to understand where we are in our communities and what the political landscape is willing to commit to. This paragraph reads, ". . . no professional qualification is required to understand that the divide between the North and the South, between the developed and the developing worlds also coincides with the divide between white and black, broadly defined. These are obvious facts that, in truth, should require no debate. In today's world, in which both the left and the right in politics loudly proclaim their commitment to social justice there should also be no debate about the urgent need for each and all countries consciously to focus on the elimination of the racial disparities that are so evident everywhere." Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your presentation. Interventions from members of the committee?
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Yvonne, thank you very much. Can I just ask, because it wasn't clear to me, what you're meaning here by a designated seat? It wasn't clear to me whether you were talking about adjusting the boundaries of the existing Preston seat or whether you're talking about some kind of arrangement as now exists in Section 6 of the House of Assembly Act for the Mi'kmaq people? Or was there some other model?
MS. ATWELL: Well, there are several models. The model that was used in Maine, where I think there are several individuals who are non-voting members in the Legislature, that model has been quite successful, I think, in terms of them being able to bring the issues to the table or being in the room and being able to speak on some things. I think they're non-voting members.
I haven't ironed out all the details, but I believe personally that the Preston area, the East Preston, North Preston, Cherry Brook area, needs its own representative in whatever capacity. I haven't worked out the details because I am not sure what they are right now, but I am sure they can be worked out. There are other communities around the province that need the same kind of representation. Southwestern Nova Scotia, for example, which does not have that kind of political representation where its issues and concerns in a political forum - I am not talking about the individuals - in a real political way are being addressed. No one addresses the global picture in our communities about the roads that have never been paved.
It's been patched and yet you can see the disparity when you go one mile into Lake Echo and you see perfect roads, not a hole, and every year there's work done. How do you address that with your MLA who has so many other issues as well in terms of the whole? What does that mean?
The community says, well, it's because we're a group of Black people living in this community. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. But who do you have the discussion with in which people, your MLA truly understands what that is about? What is that experience of seeing that year after year, of seeing your community shrink year after year, and not being able to have the dialogue and seeing people affected by that? Seeing people who constantly can't get promoted on jobs and all of that stuff - who really understands that other than people who are embedded in that stuff?
I don't know what model to use. I am sure that wouldn't be too difficult because I am sure there are all kinds of models that we could think of. I, personally, would like to see it.
If the boundaries want to be changed, give the Preston people an opportunity to see themselves reflected in this society.
MR. EPSTEIN: This committee which you are dealing with today, in fact, won't be drawing boundaries. That's not part of what we're doing.
MS. ATWELL: No, I understand.
MR. EPSTEIN: If I may suggest, I think that probably at least part of what you're saying today should be repeated to the Electoral Boundaries Commission when it's set up. I hope you do that.
Can I ask as well about your comments about the composition of the commission? Again, it wasn't clear to me whether I followed what you were saying. Were you about to suggest three names of people that we might consider?
MS. ATWELL: I don't have any names at this point, but I think it should be a consideration that we don't just look at people in metro. The concerns of people in other rural parts of Nova Scotia, particularly in those small Black communities that constantly live on the fringe, have something to say. I just don't want that to be overlooked when you're developing the composition of the committee. And I have no idea what the committee looks like. I don't know how many people; I don't know any of that stuff. I am just throwing that out for consideration.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, got it. Thanks very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Other interventions?
DR. JAMES SMITH: If I may, Yvonne, thank you very much for your presentation. You made the statement, and I think it ties in probably with more recent questions here from Mr. Epstein, that it's not in the hands of the Preston community. The seat has evolved now that it's not in the hands of the Preston community. How would you ensure that? How is the easiest way? Is it strictly boundaries or are there other ways that you would want to see that done? We've talked a bit about a designated seat, and so you feel personally, and you qualified your comments earlier that these were your personal feelings, that the community has lost representation currently. What other means, other than boundaries, would you see that addressed?
MS. ATWELL: Actually, I don't. Right now, I don't see any other way. When I say lost representation, I am not talking personally about me or Mr. Adams or any of that. I am talking about the fact that the idea around the seat in the first place was to encourage Black representation in that community. So it was assumed that you would always have at least three members from the community who were Black to represent that community. So then people vote the way they want to vote. That's the way you work it.
That hasn't happened. I doubt if it will ever happen again based on what's there right now. It's about the concept of what the seat was supposed to be. Now it's just like any other seat. You can go anywhere in the province and the same thing can happen. There is, you know, talk and conversation around the fact "that they had their chance." So this is why the word "encourage" bothers me because I don't know what was meant by that word, other than the fact that the constituency was made smaller. I think there are some 8,000 or 10,000 people there who voted. It's a small, very workable riding.
[4:00 p.m.]
However, county councillors, it's not reflected anymore and that used to be as well. As the community gets larger, as more people move toward Lake Echo, Porters Lake, and Westphal, and those communities shrink, we have less opportunities.
I am just suggesting that perhaps it is time to look at something different and something that is concrete and real to the people of Preston and other parts of the province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Yvonne, thank you for your presentation and welcome to the Red Room. When the seat was originally created in 1991, I understand the primary rationale was to give Black community members the opportunity and you have articulated that. I know that Mr. Adams won originally and you won provincial elections in the Preston riding. I am just wondering, did any one thing in your mind - as a private citizen, as you are listed as on the presenter's itinerary here - happen in the Preston community to somehow make the electorate look at things perhaps a little differently?
MS. ATWELL: Well, I don't know if you want to hear it but racism is a word there and we can't deny that. When the seat was established, where Mr. Adams won that seat - but not by much - there were four of us running. There was a Conservative, I ran as an NDP, there was a Liberal - who was Mr. Adams - and then there was an Independent candidate who couldn't get on a ballot, other than as an Independent and he came in second. So I am saying, what is that about, and that was in 1993. In 1997 - when I won - it was very difficult for the Conservative Party to find a credible candidate.
Sometimes I think my winning that seat was not so much a win for Yvonne Atwell, as it was to defeat Wayne Adams. He was part of government, he was a minister, blah, blah, blah. In the 1997 election, there were other kinds of dynamics happening, but the basic dynamics around that, the way that was co-opted in my world - and I was told by people that you had your chance, we had a Liberal, an NDP, we have had two Black people and now it is time to do something different. So that is the only word I can give it because the support, basically, in those communities was not there. My experience in those communities was horrible but I continued to do my job.
This is not about me, or sour grapes, which I know people will want to say. This is about what is right, what is just, what is fair and what is correct. You get tired of not seeing yourself in the places they say represent you. How do they do that? How many of you know where Preston is - do you know? How many of you drove through the community, went to the church, went to a community supper at the hall, simply because you wanted to, without being invited, without even being asked. How can you represent it? How can you have a Premier who won't even show up except during elections? It is those kinds of things that make you think, well, you can't tolerate anymore because you know and understand what they are. I am saying this because I believe - and I say this because I also talk about the fact that - the community thought, in their naive way, that this was a way to maintain that seat. So at the beginning, in 1991, people did not want a designated seat because they figured well, we are going to end up with somebody from our community anyway, it doesn't matter which Party because that person is always going to be someone. And that didn't happen.
MR. TAYLOR: Yvonne, are you advocating then that in some new type of designation that only Black candidates would offer in the seat?
MS. ATWELL: Yes.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Thank you. I believe our presence is still not required at the House, so we will continue. The next presenter is Peter McCreath who is also a former elected member, a former member for the South Shore, federally. Welcome, Mr. McCreath.
MR. PETER MCCREATH: Mr. Chairman, thank you and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to address you. I would like to address four issues that are, I think, germane to the concept of representation. I recognize you are in a preliminary stage here and I want to make it clear that I don't represent anybody but myself, though I am sure there are literally thousands of Nova Scotians who would agree with everything I say, as they always do.
First of all I want to talk about the basis for representation. I guess, in a sense, I want to strike a similar note to the previous speaker in the sense that we traditionally think of representation as being on the basis of geography, geographic distribution, and on the basis of representation by population. I think there is a long-standing tradition and one that needs to be explored by the commission when it comes together and begins its deliberation. That is the concept of community of interest in defining representation. It is certainly germane to my own district and I will speak to that a little later.
I think we need to ensure there is reasonable balance among these various factors and that they all be taken into consideration. I know that, for example, on the subject of population, there is a range that quite often takes place and I think we need to balance, in particular, the differences between urban and rural representation. Obviously in urban areas there tends to be a greater turnover of population and that has its challenges for elected representatives and for candidates seeking election. At the same time there are challenges of representing large rural ridings - I know the Minister of Tourism and Culture would be able to speak to the challenges of a large, rural area - so that we have to balance the implication of those in providing representation.
In rural areas you may have several centres, town and villages. Canada Day is a very different experience for a rural member than it is for an urban member, who might have one Canada Day celebration to attend, whereas a rural member may have to drive a couple of hundred miles and sing O Canada at least 10 or 15 times during the course of the day. I guess what I am saying is that those factors ought all to be taken into consideration and given some reasonable balance including, in particular, this concept of community of interest, which I will come to.
The second issue I want to mention is an issue that has been in the press. It is one of the issues that really caused me to come here today and that is the size of the Legislature. It would be my position that the present size of the Legislature - 52 seats, give or take one or two - is a reasonable size. I would not agree with the suggestion to significantly reduce the size of the Legislature.
If you look at provincial Legislatures across the country - some would point to the example of Ontario, where they have matched their provincial Legislature with the federal Parliament and I believe they have 103 seats. Well, in Nova Scotia that would mean that we
have a Legislature of 11. Heavens, that is not even enough for the Cabinet, so you would all be Cabinet Ministers - maybe that would be a good thing, I don't know.
On the other hand you have Prince Edward Island, which has 28 members in their Legislature. What is really significant is the number of people that is reasonable to represent when you come to this place. Ontario - the new provincial members in that situation - represents an average of 87,000 people. It is virtually the same as the federal Members of Parliament represent, except in Prince Edward Island. One wonders what staffing benefits are available to support the efforts that they make. Prince Edward Island on the other hand, each member represents roughly 5,000 people, so you have the two extremes there.
If you look at the provinces that most closely approximate Nova Scotia, it is interesting to note that Manitoba, with a population of 1.1 million people, that their MLAs represent on average 20,175 people. That is followed by Saskatchewan, which has a population of just over 1 million. Their members represent roughly 17,500. In New Brunswick, the average member represents 13,765 people. In Newfoundland, the average member represents 11,128 people. So, if you look at where Nova Scotia is today - with 52 members and a population of about 942,000 - the average member represents 18,000, a hundred and a few people. I would suggest to you that actually, it is really quite well in the median range and an argument can be made that the number is appropriate.
The average federal member represents about 100,000 people and I had the privilege of serving - all too briefly - as a federal Member of Parliament and I had five Nova Scotia provincial ridings in my district. I can tell you the challenge of representing a large riding is something. But I should tell you also, that I had a full-time staff of five people working for me, providing services to those people I represented. So the issue that needs to be looked at as well is not just the issue of how many members are there, but what is the level of support available to support what they do?
You can look at another extreme, representation in the HRM City Council - Mr. Epstein could perhaps speak to this better than I - but the size of those seats and the lack of support completely to elected members, and it is supposed to be a part-time job, it is positively ridiculous. I take my hat off to those who have the courage, the temerity, or the tomfoolery to undertake the task.
I think the proposal to reduce the number of members of the Legislature does not make sense. If you reduce the number of members, does anybody seriously think that the people who have pushed for the reduction in the size of the House are then going to support increasing the financial commitment that is made, to provide support to members to handle these larger districts? I somehow doubt that that would be the case.
My third point has to do with the level of support to members and it is my view - having observed this - and I have to, of course, exempt my own member, who does an absolutely outstanding job. But I have to say, in my opinion, the level of support which you as MLAs receive, is totally inadequate. What you have is a resource that enables you to have a part-time staff and a part-time office. I would suggest that from all the resources of the government, that it would be a very good investment in democracy to ensure that every member of the Legislature has the resources to provide a full-time office with a full-time staff person. You would probably like and could use more, but the fact of the matter is, during business hours, Monday to Friday, constituents should be able to make contact with the MLA's office and have their concerns attended to.
I would also suggest - and correct me if I am wrong in believing this does not exist but - MLAs should have toll-free service where their constituents can call them, whether they are here in Halifax, or whether they are in the riding and that should be a service that is available. I think this is important when the House is in session, and particularly for those from further away who don't have the opportunity to be home as much. I think it's important for those with additional responsibilities, be they Leaders of their Party or the Speaker or Whips or ministers who are forced to be away from their districts a lot more; it's particularly important there.
Finally, in concluding, Mr. Chairman, lest you should run away to vote and I don't get to finish, I want to say a word about my own district, and I want to speak to this community of interest. I have been in Hubbards for a long time. For those of you who don't know where Hubbards is - you all know where Hubbards is because you've all been to a lobster dinner at the Shore Club, I'm sure - we are right on the county line between Lunenburg and Halifax Counties.
We have been passed back and forth in federal districts and in provincial districts, we have been passed back and forth from one riding to this riding to that riding to this riding. Somebody in their wisdom, a few years ago - I believe it was the redistribution of 1991 - created the Chester-St. Margaret's seat. The old Lunenburg East seat was no longer able to justify having its own seat by virtue of population, that is the Municipality of Chester, so they lumped the rest of St. Margarets Bay in with it.
There is a marvelous community of interest. We are always lumped in with the tail end of the urban section of Halifax, Armdale, Fairview. Nothing against those areas, but they would overwhelm by virtue of population, such that the rural area tagged on in the west, which had far more community of interest with the Municipality of Chester, we simply would get lost in the shuffle.
I guess I'm here to tell you that I believe it has worked very well for the people in my area, in the St. Margarets Bay area, in my own community of Hubbards, being aligned with the Municipality of Chester in a seat called Chester-St. Margaret's, which runs from Peggy's
Cove all the way around both sides of St. Margarets Bay, one of which is in Lunenburg County and one of which is in Halifax County. It has worked very well, and I would urge you, and whoever takes on this task of doing the actual commission, to think seriously about this community of interest, which is what we are.
We're not urban. We're more rural than urban; we're sort of rural-suburban, but at the end of the piece what we are, both halves of our district, is we're a lot alike. We're in the zone of the average in terms of population; we're a growth area. On both sides of our area it's growing, so it has the potential to be a district that could be the same for some period of time. That's a privilege that has been enjoyed by many parts of this province, not so much in the urban areas, but it's a privilege that they have had. You can have some consistency in representation, unless, of course, you keep voting different Parties in, and then you have some change - and that happens - but it's worked for our community, and I would urge the committee and indeed the commission to maintain that Chester-St. Margaret's seat; it has served us well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Interventions from members of the committee? One question I had arising out of that, Mr. McCreath. You made the observation about the Chester-St. Margaret's riding, I was wondering what your views would be, generally, about the degree of change that might be desirable. Do you believe that in general terms the existing ridings represent 'community of interest' in Nova Scotia?
MR. MCCREATH: That, Mr. Chairman, is somewhat of a loaded question. I can't, obviously, speak definitively about all areas. I think we're going to see an increasing focus of population in the metro area. We have created this monster called the HRM. We have horrendous transportation problems with respect to that, and I am not sure we are far-thinking enough as to how we solve them.
I think we are probably going to see an increasing pressure from the representation-by-population principle on increasing representation there. I think that what needs to take place is to move cautiously in modifying these boundaries in different areas. I suspect the challenge, on the other hand, in the rural areas is going to be the risk as populations relatively become smaller in rural areas, even though it's probably still growing in most areas, there's the risk of creating ridings that are simply too large, so you then get back to the issue of what's the total number that you play with. It seems to me that any dramatic change, more than two or three seats one way or the other, would probably not be wise.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Estabrooks.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Good afternoon, Mr. McCreath.
MR. MCCREATH: I understand I owe you a debt of gratitude, Mr. Estabrooks.
MR. ESTABROOKS: I also heard your lectures on George Brown and rep-by-pop many times. This is sort of revisited. I want to thank you for being here. I don't want to get into particulars of boundaries when Mr. Chataway and I share a boundary, but I am going to ask the permission of the chairman to present to you a resolution that I introduced in the Legislature congratulating you on the publication. I hear it's out of print already, the Life and Times of Alexander Keith.
[4:15 p.m.]
MR. MCCREATH: Many people are interested in my words, Mr. Estabrooks. (Laughter)
MR. ESTABROOKS: Actually, most of the time you did make some sense. Anyway, Peter, thank you so much. I would like to present this to you, if I could.
MR. MCCREATH: Promise me a Senate seat and I'll come back again. (Laughter) Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and thank you . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Epstein has a few comments.
MR. MCCREATH: . . . Mr. Estabrooks, I listen to his speeches more than he listens to mine. For those of you who don't know what we're talking about, we used to teach in classrooms next door to each other in what is now his riding, which he does an excellent job of representing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It must have been a very interesting school.
MR. EPSTEIN: I actually do have a question for you, if I may. It was a very thoughtful presentation, and it was particularly interesting because you looked at some of the underlying practicalities of being a representative, either at the municipal, provincial, or federal level. That's an important factor. I think you're right in pointing out that if the number of seats were to be reduced that there would instantly be a call for greater resources for the MLAs in order to do their jobs because of the increase in the size of the constituency.
What this leads me to wonder about is this - well let me link it to one of the earlier presentations we had. About a week ago in Sydney we had a political science professor, I think a David Johnson, come and speak very strongly in favour of an overriding principle of trying to get equality of population, as nearly as you can, in the constituencies. When he was met with the issue of the problem of servicing large rural areas he pointed out that on the one hand when you urge, as he was, equality of population you are speaking to a matter of principle. When you talk about the difficulties of servicing large rural ridings, you are dealing
with a matter of practicalities, and there are ways of dealing with practicalities. You can add staff, as you pointed out, or there are modern methods of communication and so on.
I guess it wasn't clear to me where exactly you come down on this. On the one hand you started out saying that you thought equality of numbers, if I followed you, was a very important principle, and then you said on the other hand there is a practical difficulty in having large rural ridings. Do you see these as incompatible?
MR. MCCREATH: I actually added a third. I guess they aren't. If I leave you with one message today, the message I want to leave is that there is no one principle upon which this should be done. I would argue there are at least three, the representation-by-population factor, the geographic distribution factor, and the community-of-interest factor. Ms. Atwell spoke to that issue, I thought, very eloquently in her remarks, a different concept of community, perhaps, than what I was speaking of.
I recall, for example, when they did the redistribution and created the Clare and Argyle seats, the effort was to create a community of interest. In fact, if you will recall in the early 1990's when there was a rejigging of school boards they actually created a school board that was Clare and Argyle with Yarmouth in between, because they were responding to the community-of-interest consideration. As rural ridings get larger, obviously you have a multiplicity of communities within it. I guess what I'm saying is, as much as possible those who are charged with looking at electoral boundaries should consider what is kind of - for lack of another term - a logical piece of geography that fits together cohesively, so that the person who is challenged with representing those people doesn't have to constantly speak with a forked tongue because the interest of one is at conflict with the interest of the other, that you could speak on behalf of your community because there's a certain cohesiveness in it.
You are never going to get perfection, and it seems to me that you have to consider and balance; it's a juggling act between those three criteria, and they all have to be there. Just on the rural issue, people want to talk to their MLA sometimes, and the more constituents you put in the district, the more challenging it is for that MLA to be able to talk to every person that wants to, and every constituent, every elector, every citizen, has a right to talk to their elected member about an issue. There are many problems that can be solved by a good constituency assistant, and often that's all a person wants to get the problem fixed or sorted out, or to know that they have been treated fairly.
Ultimately, people have a right to talk to their elected representatives. When I look at the United States and see congressional members who represent 600,000 people, I ask myself how many of those people - and as you know they have a much greater tendency to re-elect incumbents in Congress than is the case in our country - ever actually meet their congressman. To me that's a sad comment on a representative democratic system.
Just one last point. If you look for another extreme, at the State of New Hampshire they have, I believe, 450 members in their provincial House of Assembly because every community has a member. That's an extreme that I don't think I would advocate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, if I could, on that note of Live Free or Die from New Hampshire, we will move to the next presenter. We have three other presenters and I think that we would, first of all, like to thank Mr. McCreath for coming forward and sharing your views with committee. Thank you.
Our next presenter, if he's present, is Hugh Pullen. If Hugh is here, could you please approach and offer your comments.
MR. HUGH PULLEN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies, gentlemen. I have neither the experience nor the eloquence of the two previous presenters, so I felt compelled to write out what I had to say and I have given the recording secretary a copy of this. You will note that in my presentation I refer to various other works. I regret to say that my secretarial skills do not rise to mastery of footnotes in Microsoft Word, so you are going to have to bear with that although I did give the draft that I got this from to the recording secretary, and presumably what I have to say will appear in Hansard with substantiation.
I am Hugh Pullen of the Peninsula South Community Association, which is essentially the residents' association of Halifax, south of the line, Quinpool Road and Cogswell Street. We've been around in our current configuration since 1996 when the old Ward 1 and Ward 2 Associations combined on the formation of HRM.
The Peninsula South Community Association is pleased to have this opportunity to make a submission to the Select Committee on Establishing an Electoral Boundaries Commission. As this is only the second such commission in Nova Scotia, its work is essential and important to the Nova Scotia community as a whole. We are in general agreement with many of the principles and conclusions of the March 1992 report of the Provincial Electoral Boundaries Commission, Effective Political Representation in Nova Scotia.
Now to turn to the composition of the Provincial Electoral Boundaries Commission. We agree that the commission should be "broadly representative" of the population, non-partisan and made up of Nova Scotians with a wide view, understanding and experience - and I would like to emphasize experience - of what is best for the province as a whole. This would include those with experience of the issues facing all of our differing communities, but most particularly those of the growing urban areas.
We are in agreement with the terms of reference shown as Section (1)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the 1992 report. As to Section (1)(v), minority representation including in particular Acadian, Black and Mi'kmaq voters, while this is a most laudable goal, it must also be
appreciated that to the extent such representation leads to unusually small constituencies, it means the under-representation of other Nova Scotians, including those minority group members not living in such constituencies.
We feel the implementation of Section (iv) or (vi), the population rate of growth projections can be improved, starting with the use of the recognized census prepared by Statistics Canada. In 1991 the Provincial Electoral Boundaries Commission used the 1986 census supplemented by an entitlement system they developed in-house. The Statistics Canada 1991 census had been taken that year but no data was available when the commission began work. Consequently, it is difficult to follow the impartiality of population representation in their document.
The following extract, from Page 20 of the 1992 Report of the Provincial Electoral Boundaries Commission is an example, "The most current population figures for Nova Scotia are the June 1, 1991 county estimates released by Statistics Canada on December 10, 1991. These figures . . . are projections derived from the 1986 census and should not be confused with the 1991 census. However, such projections by Statistics Canada have proven to be quite accurate in the past and provide the most up-to-date figures available. These numbers give Nova Scotia a population of 899,900, with an average of 17,300 for 52 electoral districts. In comparison with the 1986 census, the population of the province went up 6,100 outside of Halifax County (+1.1%) and grew by 20,600 inside Halifax County (+6.7%). Unfortunately, separate estimates are not available for municipalities or smaller areas."
It appears the commission was intent on reporting before the end of 1991-92 fiscal year, as their initial report was filed on March 6, 1992. To me such haste seems unnecessary. Section 5(3) of the House of Assembly Act states, "No later than the thirty-first day of March, 2002, and, thereafter, within ten years after the last change in electoral districts made pursuant to this Section, and at least once in every ten years from the thirty-first day of March, 2002, an independent electoral boundaries commission shall be appointed and issued terms of reference by a select committee of the House . . ."
There is no date by which the boundaries commission is required to report other than that from the limits of common sense. In order to ensure that the latest information is available to this commission, it is imperative that the data of the 2001 Statistics Canada census is used, not only because it will be the base for the next 10 years but because it is neutral information, uninterpreted and clear for all to see. Statistics Canada will issue the results of the 2001 census in eight releases beginning in March 2002. The relevant information releases, as far as I can see, are March 2002, population and dwelling counts, occupied private dwellings and collectives; in December 2002, language, mobility and migration; January 2003, citizenship, immigration, birthplace and birthplace of parents, ethnic origin, visible minorities and aboriginals.
[4:30 p.m.]
In a province where six counties are increasing in population and 12 are declining, according to the 1998 Nova Scotia Government figures, it is essential that the most accurate and current information is available, even if the process is extended, and we recommend you make this clear to the new boundaries commission. We agree with the 1992 report that all contacts with the commission be part of the public record, including transcripts of the public hearings, letters and submissions, and that individual or private submissions or meetings with the commission not be allowed. Further, that Party standings and partisan implications are not to be part of the deliberations of the commission.
These important principles were adopted by the commission in 1992, and they should be set out in the terms of reference. The commission should be directed to decrease the number of seats in the House and to achieve, as nearly as possible, allowing for minority seats, equity in representation. It was recently stated that while Nova Scotia MLAs represent an average of 18,126 people, the average Canadian province has one MLA for every 34,916 people.
In order to achieve fairness, the commission should be given clear direction on the population deviation to be considered. While a plus or minus of 25 per cent would be an improvement over the present deviation, we would recommend that the commission strive for a plus or minus of 18 per cent variation. A recent commentary noted that "Australia, a country with similar geography, limits riding variations to plus or minus 10 per cent" and the population of the U.S. electoral districts rarely varies by more than plus or minus 5 per cent.
MR. PAUL MACEWAN: Is that in the Senate?
MR. PULLEN: I think that's the representatives.
MR. MACEWAN: I think it is too.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a trick question.
MR. PULLEN: As in the House of Representatives.
MR. MACEWAN: I know.
MR. PULLEN: The Nova Scotia electors list for the 1999 election records that the smallest non-minority constituency had 6,310 voters, while the largest had 17,739 voters. This is clearly unfair. While wholesale disruption of county boundaries is not desirable, the commission should not be bound by them.
Finally, Donald E. Blake in a recent study, Electoral Democracy in the Provinces, sponsored by the Institute for Research on Public Policy in Montreal used several measures to show that the population of constituencies in this province varies more than in any other. While recognizing the large area of some constituencies and the differing role of rural and urban MLAs, we would point out that in an era when Nova Scotians have significantly increased access to all modes of communication, including 1-800 numbers, and grandparents e-mail their families regularly, geography is becoming a diminishing factor in successful communication.
We agree with the 1992 report that "The commission was of the view that the point of political representation is to represent people, not land." The present discrimination against the urban voter must be addressed. There are many ways to serve constituents, but only if each constituency's voice is equally heard in the Legislature will the province come close to having the policy direction, dialogue and discussion needed to address the concerns of our growing urban areas. The present government proposal to use the regressive property taxes of senior citizens, people on fixed incomes and others in growing urban areas to subsidize other property owners in other areas would never have seen the light of day in a representative House of Assembly.
The Peninsula South Community Association encourages the committee to provide the commission with terms of reference which will enable the province to begin to move ahead with electoral reform so that it can no longer be said that "On average, Nova Scotia appears to be the least democratic province with the lowest score on most indicators." Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Pullen. I would open up to questions from the committee. If there are none, actually I have a couple of questions. I will wait my turn as Chairman to impose. Mr. Epstein has one first.
MR. EPSTEIN: Very good presentation, nice and clear. I wondered if you had a particular number in mind when you were thinking about the possibility of reducing the number of MLAs?
MR. PULLEN: I would have to say no. What I do have in mind, my sense - and I am by no means as experienced as most of the other people in this room - is that there is too much government in this province. They stumble over each other. We have three levels and they compete.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I've noticed that.
MR. PULLEN: Is that really necessary?
MR. EPSTEIN: I have to point out to you that although this committee exists to give instructions to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, in some ways, the Legislature has already chosen not to put into play the question of the total number of seats. The instructions that we as a committee were given by the Legislature as a whole were really to maintain the 52 seats.
MR. PULLEN: I understand that. I sit here as a breath of fresh air. (Laughter)
MR. EPSTEIN: This is true, perhaps, on the other points that you've made.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to ask a question, if I could. There was a statement you made, you said that with communications today - and you used many different advantages, 1-800 numbers, e-mails and so forth - that geography is a diminishing factor. I would just point out that I represent a riding that is three and a half hours away. I think that I waste one day a week just travelling to Halifax and going back. Obviously, there are many events that I can't make in my riding that I have to do on weekends. I am just making the point to sort of put it in perspective. On my weekends I have to do a lot of work and the bigger the riding is the more unable I am to basically serve it properly, though you talked about telecommunications as being communications, there is also other communication, and that is the personal meetings with people, many community meetings and so forth. That is the balance on the other side.
Since you had made the comment, I felt I should also comment and make my views somewhat known. I think there is a balance between the two. I don't know what the numbers are and so forth, but I just want to point out, as someone who lives in Halifax and for someone who lives in HRM, you are in a situation where you are coming to and going home at night, you can attend those meetings. For us, it's virtually impossible, it's a seven hour drive just to go home and come back. I have done that before, but I try to avoid it as much as possible.
The other point is that you used averages, people representing Nova Scotia, and you said 18,126 versus the Canadian average. I think if you look at the Atlantic Provinces, our average is probably very much in line or better than some of the other Atlantic Provinces. If you take out some of the more populous provinces, Alberta, B.C. and even Ontario, then Nova Scotia is probably more on average. Although I appreciate you did your research, and you are saying that Nova Scotia is disproportionate, I can't comment on that without doing some review. Those are two of the points I wanted to make.
Are there any other questions? Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Pullen, you were here for Yvonne Atwell's presentation, and you quote in your statistics the 6,310 voters. You heard her presentation relative to the Black community that she feels is suffering not from systemic racism but other factors that would
in some way inhibit representation. Do you have any thoughts on that matter? The small number you mentioned, 6,310, on Page 4, would be the Preston community, I would think, or is it another community?
MR. PULLEN: The 6,310 voters is the County of Victoria.
DR. SMITH: Would you favour the communities of special interest? Do you see this average of being equal even across the country as important? How would you weigh that as a balance?
MR. PULLEN: This is going to sound as if I'm ducking, but if you look at the definitions of the current constituencies, you will see that each one shows the number of Aboriginal reserves in that constituency. I suspect this may be one of the Mi'kmaq's problems, how do you do this? How do you recognize the minorities without giving individual members a second vote? What you have here are people who, in fact, are living in a community with their neighbours, but they do have an extra axe. So, either you vote with your neighbours or your vote is collected from all the members of your self-proclaimed community and they all vote separately. It would be an administrative nightmare on election night. I have to say I don't have an instant answer to this. I wish I did.
DR. SMITH: One final and this may be a little unfair, but we met earlier this week with the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and their concerns were about the lack of female representation. They mentioned some communities that had addressed this, in Scotland particularly, that looked at the job of MLA as a workplace environmental issue, and that the current workplace environment would be negative for a younger woman, particularly one with family, with dependant children.
How do you feel about the composition, of all the males that we see? Do you have any suggestions about that? Do you see that as important?
MR. PULLEN: Do you really think the males dominate the world?
DR. SMITH: I didn't say the world.
MR. PULLEN: When you go home are you dominated or not? (Laughter) The problem is, sir, after you have sliced the cake every which way, we live in a people society. Surely that's what we're striving to get. In my lifetime, in this city, there have been some considerable advances since I was a small boy. I sincerely hope they continue, but really, at the end of the day, what you contribute is what counts. We all try to contribute the best abilities God gave us. It wasn't all equal at the start and it's not all equal at the finish, but in the meantime, we all try to do our best. What I've found in my lifetime is to try to be polite to your neighbour, and that's it.
[4:45 p.m.]
DR. SMITH: It's a very polite answer, Mr. Pullen. I was looking for maybe some suggestion as to how we address the gender inequality in representation. In 52 members, we have two females, I think, no . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have three in our caucus and there is one . . .
DR. SMITH: Yes, four. We have zero.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pullen, I would just remind you, you did make a comment as to why there was such haste in 1991 and 1992 for the redistribution. I vaguely remember the discussions at that time, there was considerable demand for redistribution. Before the subsequent election, the government of the day moved to have the re-examination. You made mention that they should have waited for the census. The point of the matter was that at that time they wanted to have these changes in advance of the election to follow. These changes are very difficult to make literally a month before an election. It was done in a manner that would allow for the changes to be, first of all, understood by the voting population and to have them in place for the next election.
That is just to clarify. I remember, and I am sure Mr. MacEwan was there at the time and so was Dr. Smith. I am not saying anything about your recommendation about waiting for the census, but that is just to clarify why it happened at that time. Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you for the presentation, very broad-ranging. I am a little bit concerned. First of all, I would like to say I agree with you. If possible, I think it's very important that the Electoral Boundaries Commission have the most relevant census information. I think that's an extremely good point. You speak of the present discrimination against the urban voter, and that it must be addressed. Then a little bit, conversely, you speak of reducing the number of MLAs and yet still providing for minority representation. That formula would be very magic if you could come up with it. It seems like on one hand you are requesting that the commission look at the fact that the urban ridings are, for the most part, population wise, larger, not giving any consideration to territorial. In fact you made the comment in there about land and people. That's an old comment that's been around for a long time.
I think it's important that the constituency's voice is heard. Anything we can do as a committee to improve that would be appreciated by everybody, but it's a difficult mix, I would suggest, or a difficult request to somehow continue providing for the minority representation, reduce the number of MLAs and somehow eliminate what you perceive to be discrimination against urban ridings.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacEwan.
MR. MACEWAN: The House itself has already solved this question of how many seats there will be in the new Legislature, because they have passed a motion unanimously calling for 52. That's the pie we have, not for us to carve up but for the commission to carve up into 52 seats. It's pretty difficult to get absolute equality and absolute parity in this type of matter. I know that people like to refer to the United States House of Representatives, as your group did. They completely failed to look at the parallel United States Senate. We have all followed the campaign, say, of Hillary Clinton to get into the Senate. She is now one of two senators representing the State of New York, population 22 million. She sits in the Senate alongside two senators from the State of Vermont, population 800,000, if that; two senators from the State of Rhode Island, population less than 1 million; two senators from the State of Rhode Island, population less than 1 million; two senators from every state in the union, whether it's Alaska or California. That is certainly not representation by population.
MR. PULLEN: Should we have an Upper House in Nova Scotia, sir?
MR. MACEWAN: It used to sit right here in this room, but I am not proposing that and we are not going to do that at this time. No, I am just saying it's hard to achieve absolute equality in these things. If we did get ridings that were absolutely equal, there would probably be a dozen representations that would come forward right away saying this isn't right; that isn't right, this isn't fair, that isn't fair. I know that; so do you. We'll do the best we can. You make good points.
MR. PULLEN: I would just make the point that the character of this province is indeed changing. Every 10 years the change becomes apparent. I guess I have one request, can we please use the 2001 census?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for making your meaningful comments. Our next presenter is no stranger to this facility, Dr. Ed Kinley.
DR. EDWIN KINLEY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the patience of the committee. This must be like school ending, when you're anxious to get out. I appreciate the opportunity, and I will be brief. I would like to pay respects to Wayne Adams and to Yvonne Atwell, being Black representatives, having been elected. I appreciate her comments and so on, but I do want to pay respect to them. I have a great respect for anyone who puts their name forward to run for office and, having got in there, to go through it. It's not easy, and I think the salary scale should be raised a lot. This issue has been brought up, and I certainly support that. I think that's an important part.
What we're here for, really, the boundaries review process, is important. I think it should be considered as part of an ongoing process of, perhaps, parliamentary reform in Nova Scotia. It's an important part of it. The representative part of this legislative function is important, and I have read the material from the last commission report and so on. I know
a lot of thought has gone into it. The question of starting with one person, one vote I think should be the starting point, but once that's there I do recognize the questions of geography and communities of interest and so on which have to be dealt with. I think that in Nova Scotia we have made an effort to do that.
In terms of your striking the commission, I would ask that one of the members of the commission be from metro so that the interests of the metropolitan area are well represented in the commission's deliberations. I think, in terms of the mandate to the commission, we have to recognize the process of urbanization. We do recognize the communities of interest and the geography factors and so on; they have been well described and debated. But I think increasingly in Canada, and certainly in Nova Scotia, we are becoming the most urbanized country on Earth. It's interesting because we are becoming so urbanized. We do have this huge country, and we are going to be faced, increasingly, with this problem of balancing off the question of the proportional representation by population versus the communities of interest and the geography and so on.
I do think that it should be in the mandate specifically. I think the mandate to the committee, in addition to recognizing these other things, should be that assessment and consideration of the urbanization problem should be part of the committee's mandate. This is going to continue to grow. It's going to go across the province and it's going to go across Canada. If we consider this part of the process of parliamentary reform, we want to attract voters. Voter turnout has gone down, and I think it's so important for all of us that the democratic system does prevail. It's more important than ever as time goes on that our democratic institutions do reflect the people who put them in there, that they are relevant, and that people have faith in them.
This question of boundary redistribution is complicated, but it's part of that whole system. I think we owe it to everyone to make it as worthwhile and as effective as possible so that our institutions are as representative as can be. I would just say my recommendations would be that a member of the commission be from the metro area and, secondly, that in their mandate we include the principle of urbanization, which, as I say, is growing continuously and going to become more important every year.
I just have two other comments. First, the question of the Senate comes up. I think the Senate issue is so different from what we're getting at here. I would certainly support an American-style Senate which is elected and representative of something and has some authority. I think Senate reform is another part of this parliamentary reform process that we're not concerned with here. I think it's not quite relevant to put it on the table when we're talking about seat representation here in Nova Scotia.
The other comment, perhaps, would be in terms of effective representation for rural areas, and it applies, of course, to urban areas as well. I think effective representation and effective decision making at the municipal level, perhaps, are things that could be addressed
to look after some of those issues. If the municipalities were to have different taxing powers, if they weren't just relying on the property tax, if somehow the taxing powers and the other authorities of the municipalities were added to, then the people would be more - municipal government is much closer to the people than the provincial government. That is some way of addressing the concerns of government representation. Those issues are very close to the people, and if we could make that more effective, and if they had a better tax base, then that may address some of these concerns.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Dr. Kinley. Any questions? Perhaps I should, at this point, remind honourable members that the Lieutenant Governor is coming here at 5:05 p.m.
MR. MACEWAN: The House is finished and the Lieutenant Governor is on her way to give Royal Assent to the bills.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions for Dr. Kinley? Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: That was very interesting. I just wanted to make sure I understood your words correctly. When you talked about recognizing urbanization and the fact that it's likely to grow, I take it that you are directing our minds to the desirability of relatively equal constituencies not only at the beginning but at the end of the coming 10 year period. Is that part of what you're saying?
DR. KINLEY: Well, I think that's relevant. We have to pay attention. I don't think we should have any fewer seats. I think there are lots of things for people to do. I wouldn't recommend cutting the number of people down at all. I think it becomes a more important factor all the time; the urbanization thing has to be part of the equation here. At the same time, we can't ignore the other things we've been dealing with over the years. I think it's very relevant here now because it's just going to increase, I am sure, in the next 10 years, and it is a 10 year cycle, which is a long time.
MR. EPSTEIN: What will increase is the movement of population . . .
DR. KINLEY: The urbanization, right across the country.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Dr. Kinley; we appreciate it. We have five minutes. There is a presenter, Duncan Dauphinee, if he's present. If you would like to do it, if we have enough time, we'll get it down now rather than making you wait. Mr. Dauphinee, if you want to make your presentation, if we have to come back . . .
MR. DUNCAN DAUPHINEE: I have a very brief one.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please approach and make your presentation.
MR. DAUPHINEE: First of all, I want to say thank you for permitting me to squeeze into your busy schedule, and I promise not to be too long.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dauphinee, we appreciate your coming. Don't worry about the time.
MR. DAUPHINEE: However, my purpose is I want to particularly focus on the Chester-St. Margaret's riding down there. We have our boundaries that begin at Peggy's Cove and run through down into New Ross, Lunenburg County. If you were to measure that we have 100 kilometers or 60 miles from one end to the other. That is one part of the problem. The other side of the coin is that we, in St. Margarets Bay, are becoming another bedroom to Halifax, as a matter of fact our population in St. Margarets Bay is growing by two to two and a half families per day, 365 days a year. We have something like 14 subdivisions. The population is just exploding there.
[5:00 p.m.]
More than that, in District 23 we have another, greater problem which I would like this commission to take into consideration, and that is the fact that the Village of Hubbards, where the dividing line is for Lunenburg and Halifax Counties is causing a lot of concern to many of the residents down there. The concern is, one, the assessments being placed on ordinary properties, households and business, and the other is the taxation on those properties.
I also feel that the rate at which St. Margarets Bay is growing, perhaps this commission would take into consideration maybe realigning the overall district itself and putting it back as it was, I believe, in 1991. That would, perhaps, eliminate a lot of the problems. It would also give us an opportunity to have representation in an expanding area of which the utilities themselves are rapidly disappearing in a sense that they are trying to keep up with road conditions, utilities, and so on and so forth.
We have a varied mixture of businesses involved, from fishing on one end to Christmas tree cutting on the other end. I am concerned about that because our representatives, our MLAs, can't always address these problems. Yes, they can solicit help from other departments, including the federal government, but being somewhat involved myself I know some of these problems, and I have worked with some of the fishermen and been involved when the Swissair incident took place.
We have varied concerns there. What I would like to see is, perhaps, the district being given consideration. I would like to see the overhauling of and the review - perhaps a better word - of the area itself. The situation is that it is a necessity at this particular time. I am glad, and I appreciate the opportunity of this commission reviewing some of these concerns. I would like to recommend that, perhaps, the study be given more in-depth, because I have just
touched on some of the items. In view of the time, I just want to leave it on that basis, but I would be happy to meet with any of the representatives on the committee or commission at a later date.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I should point out again that it has been well said, particularly by some of our members, that the commission will be holding hearings, and they will be considering specific ridings. I think, Mr. Dauphinee, it would be good for you to repeat those submissions to the commission once it comes forward. We are here to develop the terms of reference.
Mr. Epstein had a question.
MR. EPSTEIN: I have two points, I don't know if they are questions really. One was to just put on the record that the phrase that Mr. Dauphinee used about District 23 refers, I think, to a municipal district, the HRM district that covers most of the same area that is Chester-St. Margaret's - for anyone reading the transcript. The second point is just to express a hope that when we do appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission perhaps it will read the transcripts of what we've done here, since several of the presentations we've had address quite clearly things that are going to be within their mandate, like the actual boundaries of districts rather than something that we, ourselves, are going to make recommendations on. I guess some of Mr. Dauphinee's comments would fall into that category.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Your comments are a matter of the record. We appreciate, very much, your coming forward. We apologize for the shortness of the time here, but I think you got your points across very well. Thank you very much.
With that, members, we will stand adjourned as we have to go into the House for the closing of it. The committee will reconvene at 7:00 p.m. I am not sure if we have presenters, but we shall endeavour to see at that time and make a decision.
We stand adjourned.
[5:05 p.m. The select committee recessed.]
[7:05 p.m. The select committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I would like to call this meeting of the select committee to order. My understanding is that there is no one from the public this evening who wishes to make a presentation, I believe that to be the case. (Interruptions) No, Mr. Hendsbee is not a member of the public. (Interruptions) I think those folks - you folks are not here to make presentations to the committee? No. You may if you wish, yes. We will wait a couple of minutes. I just wanted to talk about our meetings for next week in anticipation that if there is somebody who wanders in a couple of minutes late, we'll be here.
HON. RODNEY MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there is a letter, from Sheila . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that should be in the file folder. From one of the councillors, you mean?
MR. RODNEY MACDONALD: Yes, Sheila K. Fougere, Councillor for District 14, Connaught-Quinpool, HRM.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it will be provided to staff and it will be copied for the members of the committee for the meeting.
The dates that I have here are potential dates, subject to confirmation here this evening. I had suggested Monday evening from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., on the theory that that would allow members who are from out of town to use their Monday as a constituency day or part of Monday at least and still allow us to have our deliberations. Then, depending on what happens on Monday, I think we maybe should give ourselves a day's time before we come back again, because I think on Monday evening, I am hoping, we can start to flesh out what some of the questions are, at least, and begin to, even if we don't have our respective Party's answers to those questions, start knowing what the questions are. Some of the questions are going to be trying to process and all those kinds of things, but I think Monday evening's meeting, in my view, should focus at least partly on what are the questions, so that we can get down towards Wednesday, Thursday, in particular, in answering the questions.
Again, on Wednesday and Thursday, I was going to suggest from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday and 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Thursday. Then on Friday I have 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., in case there are last-minute items that we need to deal with. It may be that we only spend an hour signing a report, if we have an agreed-to report, or whatever on that morning, but we need to meet that morning, I think, to put the finishing touches, hopefully, on the document. (Interruptions)
My experience with one other select committee was the actual preparation of the document and then getting it signed at some point the next day. Do those seem to sound like reasonable times? Okay. That's fine, we have confirmation. As I said, as the notes indicated, we will have a light supper there for people on Monday evening in case they don't get a meal on the way into town. (Interruptions) It means something to eat but it's not necessarily as much as you want to eat for the whole evening. (Interruptions) That's right. That's fine.
We are five minutes over time, and there don't seem to be any takers. Unless anyone has any other business, I think we are adjourned until Monday at 5:00 p.m. The location is going to be the Dennis Building, across the way. (Interruptions)
We stand adjourned.
[The select committee adjourned at 7:09 p.m.]
