SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
Hon. Michael Baker
MR. PAUL MACEWAN: It's the most recent census that we have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the most recent census of adults 18 and over because that is effectively what it is, a census of adults 18 and over. At least it helps people compare information based on the most current information we have available. I guess there are a number of things - and there is no strict agenda of items this evening - I felt that we should meet this evening and at the very least pose or some of the questions that would need to be answered at our Wednesday meeting.
I was hoping that rather than vote and make an actual decision on a particular item tonight, at least we would know the kind of questions that each particular caucus might be seeking to have answered. In answering those questions, we will pretty much be writing the report, in effect. Obviously the first question that I came to - and this is in no particular order - was the number of members on the Electoral Boundaries Commission itself. My recollection - and I certainly stand to be corrected - is that we've heard numbers from 6 to 12, I believe, in the presentations. Is that correct? My recollection is that the largest number we heard was 12 and the smallest was 6. Mr. Taylor.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: I believe one gentleman suggested three, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Three, oh, that's right. Okay, fair enough, you're right. That was in Port Hawkesbury, wasn't it?
MR. TAYLOR: No, I believe it was over in the Red Room.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Was it? Okay, there we are. We have our range then, three to 12. Mr. MacEwan.
MR. PAUL MACEWAN: I would like to speak on this question, if I could, Mr. Chairman, because in terms of what kind of commissioners we're going to be able to get, a heck of a lot depends on what we're prepared to pay them. I know the best labour is free, but you as a lawyer know that most lawyers don't work that way.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I've heard rumours about that.
MR. MACEWAN: If we're going to get three commissioners, 10 commissioners or 100 commissioners, it depends on the quality of the individual that we're going to be able to recruit, much more than the number I should think. I don't know what the mechanics are for doing this. I know our committee has the power to appoint commissioners . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's right.
MR. MACEWAN: . . . do we have the power to set salaries or to negotiate them? Let me just pull a name out of the air and recommend former Premier Russell MacLellan. Now I think the answer I'm going to get from him is going to depend on that question, what does it pay? Is it is worth my time to go hammer and tongs at it for four or five months, the best four or five months of my life, if it doesn't pay anything?
HON. NEIL LEBLANC: It's a lot better than when he was in office. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I was going to say, I've seen him since he left office and he seemed to say that was the best four or five months of his life. (Laughter)
MR. MACEWAN: I think I've said enough to make my point, because if you can't address this matter I don't really know how we can proceed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. LeBlanc.
MR. LEBLANC: Actually, I agree with Paul. What I would like to know is what we paid last time. The last time there were six. What are the expectations for a time frame? I think the level of the time frame of when we expect them to report, which will be another question I am sure the chairman will put forward, will make a difference. If you keep it open-ended, people believe democracy can be carried on to the nth degree, more and more
hearings, more and more debate but, eventually, a lot of times if you set a timeline this will probably get done reasonably, no matter what, especially if we pick people who are competent and who are able to serve.
Do we have, within our resources of the committee, what those remuneration levels were, so at least we would have an idea? I guess I am making the point to staff that we should get that so that we understand the parameters. I think committee members would at least like to know that information.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a good question.
MR. MACEWAN: I remember signing a requisition when I was Speaker authorizing the payment of, I believe it was $25,000 to a Mr. White from Truro. This was the fee he charged for acting as a commissioner to set members' salaries and benefits. I was never told in advance that this man was going to look for $25,000; my deputy brought it in to me for my signature. I said, what if I don't sign it? He says I guess we'll find out what will happen next. There was no negotiation at all. I got a bill, I had to pay it. I don't know if that's the way we want to proceed, but that's a precedent that could be drawn on. Also he had an assistant who billed around the same amount, and we've had more recent bills for a commissioner who actually brought in a report saying, do nothing - that was his report.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Internal Economy Board, as I understand it, has the ability to set the resources for the committee. I think, technically speaking, the actual setting of salaries for the commissioners would be within our purview as part of the terms of reference for the commission. Certainly the resolution talks about the Internal Economy Board providing funding for this committee as a committee of the House, but the Internal Economy Board would therefore fund this committee, the staff and all the costs involved in the committee, but I believe this committee actually sets the terms of reference for the commissioners. Clearly the amount to be paid to the commissioners would be part of those terms of reference.
MR. MACEWAN: Some of you honourable gentlemen here are on the Internal Economy Board. What would your opinions be - and counsel to the board - what would you consider an appropriate course of action?
MR. LEBLANC: This type of conundrum here, as to . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I just interrupt you, Mr. LeBlanc. I don't want to interrupt free flow but, I think for the sake of Hansard, if I could identify members before they speak, not because it's really necessary for our purposes but because I think it drives the people at Hansard completely right round the bend. So, Mr. LeBlanc.
MR. LEBLANC: This is a technical question that Paul brings up; it's a fair question. I was looking at the resolution - Jane had it right there, I am trying to put my hand on it. I don't have it. Can you show that to me again, please? - it goes at the end, it says under Paragraph (10) "That the Legislature Internal Economy Board be authorized to provide the Select Committee, its members and staff with such facilities and funds as are required to carry out their duties and as are provided for by and pursuant to Section 80 of the Public Service Act."
I also sit on the Internal Economy Board, and when requests come forward we look at them and we will make a judgement on them. It doesn't mean its carte blanche, it doesn't mean that whatever gets brought forward would get done. This committee is a select committee, a little different than most committees that come forward. They may want to travel in their capacity to perform their duties, and we would either authorize that expenditure or not. This is a little more of a technical one, and I think it's important that we understand exactly what we are going to recommend. Do we have the authority to set wage levels here or is that for someone else to do? Do we ask someone to serve without knowing what they shall be paid?
Those are all questions that maybe the legal counsel could get some clarification on for the members so when we have a subsequent meeting we would know. Today, I think we could debate this until the cows come home, and I don't think it's going to serve any purpose.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the question of whose authority it is to determine those levels is a very good question, but I think that maybe we can't answer this one today and we will have to deal with that on Wednesday.
MR. MACEWAN: I just wanted to raise it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a very good question.
HON. JANE PURVES: Because it would affect the number of commissioners.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would affect the number, yes.
MR. MACEWAN: Not for the quality and the work they do.
MR. LEBLANC: Mr. Chairman, another point. How many meetings are they going to hold? We had different recommendations, every county - I had all kinds of them coming forward. That will affect how many meetings they have, what duties are expected, whether people will take the job. Those are other things. Anyway, I'm getting off the topic. Please continue.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no. That is not off the topic. Ironically, that is exactly the topic because the number of commissioners and, of course, our mandate, both electorally and through the resolution of the House, said that it is to be broadly representative of the population of the province. I'm challenged to think how you can pick three people who would be broadly representative of the population of the province. It seems to be a challenge to me that I am sure others can think of, but that gets to the problem, a single commissioner, for example. I mean, theoretically, that's within our mandate; you could pick a single commissioner and authorize that person, but it's pretty hard to see how one person could be broadly representative of the population of the province. That's the other balance on which we have to deal; the number has to be sufficient to represent diverse interests.
MR. MACEWAN: Michael, the precedent is six. We have only done this one time before and that was the number, six. If we want to deviate from that, either up or down, we should have good and solid reasons for doing so.
MR. LEBLANC: That's good reason.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyway, for the moment, I guess the other issue deals with the issue of appointment. We have a very narrow timeline. I am open to suggestions, but my suggestion is that we have as an upper limit, as suggested by somebody in the public, 12 people. That was the upper limit; I am not suggesting that we are going with 12 people. Go ahead, Brooke.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I know everything will predicate on the remuneration, or a good deal of it will, but I think it's important that as a committee we reach a consensus on a number that we have in mind, irrespective of the way - I don't think six is workable, quite frankly. It's an even number. I don't know whether you are looking for a motion or anything; I think we should possibly look at nine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Epstein, then Mr. Corbett.
MR. TAYLOR: I just wondered if I could finish, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, I didn't realize I cut you off.
MR. TAYLOR: When I suggested looking at the previous commission, with all respect to the commission, we find that the urban areas, the metro areas, are certainly represented, as they should be, but they are represented quite well, Mr. Chairman. I find that there is only one representative, if you remove the minority representation consideration, from rural Nova Scotia, or there was, at least on that previous commission. If we are going to be conscious of minority representation, which I understand we probably will be, then I would like to see the commission expanded to at least nine. That's my rationale.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Epstein, then Mr. Corbett.
[5:30 p.m.]
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: We seem to be deep into discussion of the points already. I wondered if we could hear your list of possible questions before we end up . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're trying to answer the questions before I get to them. Okay. Question number one was the number of commissioners. I think we can take from the corollary to that question which has been posed by Mr. MacEwan, the remuneration and number of other obligations of those commissioners. I include in that, meetings and those kinds of things.
Another question which was posed would be, in rough terms, what minority and other interests should be, ideally - whatever group would ever completely encompass a population of 900,000 - what significant interests should be represented in that body, however big it is.
The next question I had, of course, was to some extent connected to the remuneration and other duties, which is the timeline. What is the timeline for reports? The process, as I understand it, involves a preliminary report, a final report and passage of the bill to implement the report by the House. Again, allowing for the fact that, I guess my reason for asking that question is, obviously, I assume we would be trying to get it enforced for the next general election and all political Parties need to do some retooling as a result of redistribution, whatever redistribution should happen, because that is going to dramatically affect their internal organizations. Timelines would be a very important issue that we need to talk about.
Another question, just by way of going through the list of questions, would be - on the number of people on the committee - the process by which we are going to generate names. I guess that was my other question. I had a suggestion there, but I am very much open to anybody's better suggestion, which is that whether it's nine or 12, each caucus would come forward with a list, not assuming necessarily any one individual but with the name of one person for chair and a list of nine or 12 or whatever the number would be of suggested people. We have to winnow this down very quickly. Whether we are winnowing it down to three or one or 12, we need to have some method by which we can move this process along.
MR. MACEWAN: It's going to be a tough job, you know, to come up with nine names, from each caucus, of people we think might serve. We haven't checked out that far yet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that's time for our networks, and I will leave it at that, to do some networking. We have networks, within our contacts of people in different parts of Nova Scotia. There is no other process that you can use within the timelines. To be brutally honest, last time it took five to six months, about six months, to go from the beginning of the
process to the final report. If you allow five to six months, six months is pretty much what would happen. That doesn't allow much time, given that one of those months is December and that a lot of hearings will not be taking place in December.
Even if you hit the ground running in January, a bill would need to be passed in the House in June before it would be readily implementable. If the bill is not passed until November, which would be this year's precedent, it's not going to give political Parties in Nova Scotia much time to readjust themselves. I guess that's why I was suggesting that we need to have a process for coming up with the names.
Then I guess the question I was looking at was issues that would be raised from the terms of reference last time. That's not to say that we have to use the same terms of reference, by any imagination, but the issues that had been raised, and I have no comprehensive list - one issue that is obviously there is the issue of deviation. We might as well talk about deviation.
MR. MACEWAN: Both right and left.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What?
MR. MACEWAN: Right and left. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I took a navigation course, and I think the deviation in Nova Scotia is around 23 degrees, but I don't think that was the kind of deviation they were talking about. The question is whether or not we specify - remember, last time there was no deviation specified. Then the question of if there is a deviation specified, whether that applies to all ridings within the deviation or whether or not deviation applies to ridings which are not subject to some other overriding concern. I am just posing the questions because I think that's clearly a question that has been raised by all the presentations.
MR. MACEWAN: We had a majority report from the Supreme Court of Canada on that issue and I think that their ruling, as I recall it, was 25 per cent plus or minus was all right.
MR. DWIGHT RUDDERHAM: They didn't say what was . . .
MR. MACEWAN: I have it here somewhere . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: They didn't say what was . . .
MR. MACEWAN: I have it here somewhere.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling is here, the schedule of Provincial Electoral Boundaries.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That was the case. That's right. They said 25 per cent was acceptable - they never said what was unacceptable - I think that counsel perhaps can reflect on that.
MR. RUDDERHAM: They never said any number at all. Basically, what they said was, you can deviate in a substantial way from voter parity, but you have to have a good reason.
MR. MACEWAN: They upheld the Saskatchewan Elections Act. That was the bottom line. The majority did.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, counsel correct me if I am wrong, we're talking about electors, not population. Or is that a good question?
MR. RUDDERHAM: I think it's a very good question. I think that's an issue for this committee as well because my reading of the previous commission's report is that they dealt with population. I had some of the staff members provide me with an actual copy of the report. I had been reading the opinions given by the Department of Justice in the past and I just had a few minutes to quickly go through it, but my understanding of what the Supreme Court of Canada said is voter population, not population. They keep referring to voter population. I am going to take a closer look at it and see if they specifically address the issue, but I think an issue . . .
MR. MACEWAN: The whole decision is in this binder.
MR. RUDDERHAM: Yes. Actually I think what's in that binder are opinions from the Department of Justice.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, there were opinions done in the 1990's from the Department of Justice, but we do have the actual case brought here tonight.
MR. RUDDERHAM: I am going to go through that and see if they specifically refer to it, but it seems to me that the Supreme Court dealt with voter population as opposed to actual population numbers.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is right, I think we need to look at it because one of the issues I have always thought of was that it was equity of voting that you were measuring, not some abstract equity of other people.
MR. MACEWAN: When dealing with the Elections Act, you're dealing with electors - those who vote. People who don't vote are not part of the picture, like British subjects, or whatever.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, they are voters today.
MR. MACEWAN: I am just taking it as an example.
MR. CHAIRMAN: They count today.
MR. LEBLANC: There was a timeline on British . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that they would not be voters after a complete cycle of the next election. So, whenever the next House is elected, during the term of that House they would still be electors. So, for example, if there were a by-election during the term of that House, they would continue to be electors. But the following General Assembly - so that when the 58th General Assembly, elections for the 60th General Assembly - the British subjects would not be electors.
MR. MACEWAN: By that time they would not be electors indeed because they would have died off, I would think. They are mostly war brides.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will leave it to others to ponder that. In any event, deviation and all its myriad facets are, I think, one of the questions; meaning, whether we specify deviation at all. If so, what percentage and does it apply to a group of ridings or a group of categories that are protected categories, whatever those categories would be.
Another issue - I am just trying to go through the - while there is no question the House of Assembly Act provides for the Mi'kmaq seat, is there any mechanism for solicitation of that opinion, if it's to be set out in the terms of reference? Mr. LeBlanc.
MR. LEBLANC: I am just looking at the number of meetings destined for the people who would serve on this commission. My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, there were a considerable number of meetings that took place last time on this. If we had an understanding of what was expected, whether there was an interest, before you start the whole process, it begs the question - do you have all the meetings or do you see whether or not there was an interest to hold those meetings before you hold them. It's just one thing or another - that would help define how much people would be expected to contribute towards it. I am just saying that for consideration, maybe at the following meeting people at least could be predisposed to speaking about it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have 18 counties and in theory you could have as many as 18 meetings on each cycle or you could have, what we did, which was you could pick five or any number fewer than that or more than that. But it does certainly limit the group of people that you're going to be able to attract to serve as commissioners because of the time commitment. Anyone with a real job may have difficulty . . .
MR. MACEWAN: Retired school teachers are very good for this type of work.
MR. LEBLANC: Retired MLAs? (Laughter)
MR. MACEWAN: Well, I am not retired yet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're only a pen stroke away. (Interruption) He qualifies on both accounts.
MR. LEBLANC: Mr. Chairman, another point, if I could. We talked about the fact of meetings and I am harping on this because I have listened to what people are saying. My recollection is that they'd had a considerable number of meetings and after the preliminary report, they went all the way around again in those ridings and had their meetings one more time. This is the question that I am asking - do we do them regionally, so at least perhaps - do you go to each county? Those are questions that I think are valid. If you're going to do two sets of them, do you try to have some in some areas and the next time a little over to reduce the number of meetings? I am just asking the questions, I don't know what's the right thing to do here, but I think those are the things that when we do talk about it, if you think about it ahead of time, hopefully, it will speed things up when we talk about it subsequently.
MR. EPSTEIN: My recollection of the House of Assembly Act is that it requires two sets of hearings. I think it requires the Electoral Boundaries Commission to hold public hearings, generate a draft report and then hold a second set of hearings concerning its draft report.
MR. LEBLANC: That's true, but it doesn't say that you should hold it in every constituency or every county and then go back a second time to that county. The process is as such, I am asking the question that the committee consider what is the appropriate number of meetings that they should hold - do you hold 18 twice? Or, do you hold nine and then another nine and maybe a small deviation, so that perhaps the number of meetings would be somewhat reduced? It may mean that people have to drive a little bit, but those are questions that I think we should at least consider and that may speed up some of the work. It may attract some other people who may not want to serve if there are an excessive number of meetings.
MR. EPSTEIN: I agree with that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Just by way of observation, in some ways, once the preliminary report has been prepared, it is comment on that preliminary report that is more incisive in some ways than the abstract discussion. That would be just an observation.
Now, if you look at the terms of reference for the last time and of course they have the primary factors to be considered by the boundaries commission, and it goes through a litany of those factors, one to six. I guess the question for next time is, should any of those items be deleted and are there additional items that should be added? I guess that would be the question I would ask.
MR. MACEWAN: Where is this list?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you have your booklet open, it would be in the terms of reference for the Provincial Boundaries Commission. It's Part II of the Recommendations. It's in your white booklet, Mr. MacEwan.
So I guess what I am saying is, for the next meeting we should look at those six items that are enumerated there to determine whether or not we believe those six items should be included in determining effective representation and the kinds of issues involved. Are there other items that should be added to that list or . . .
MR. LEBLANC: I was reading this, Mr. Chairman. Number (vi), population rate of growth projections. I read this and I was surprised to see that. It's asking the committee to say, how much do you think the population growth is going to be? Well, I thought that this boundary commission was to work at the point in time today. It is supposed to know, this is what the situation is today and in 10 years we will review it. What this is saying is that it's today, plus what you think is going to come. Personally, I have a concern with that because you're asking him to speculate as to how much growth there will be and how much, you know, like we're not going to decide tonight, but I am just pointing out that that was a contentious one that I looked at. I am sure we'll have more debate and we're not going to decide tonight. But I would just point out that if you read through all the minute details, there's quite a bit, and that's why I thought we were reviewing it every 10 years.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: We'll probably engage on that issue, I guess, when we get to it. I wonder if we've got the complete list of potential questions at this point?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No.
MR. EPSTEIN: The complete list as you're suggesting it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no. I was simply saying those were questions to be addressed as well the next time, those issues that, you know, they talked about the items to affect representation and I guess the question is whether or not there should be items deleted from that list or other items added to that list.
MR. EPSTEIN: No, I followed where we were. What I was asking was, you started out saying you had a list of questions that you wanted all of us to think about before Wednesday, and I wonder if we're through your list at this point?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, not quite yet, but we're getting there. And there may be others that I am sure other members will have. Then I guess I will break the rest of the questions down as to look at the issues that were dealt with by the last - for example, they determined in here there were other factors, like the county boundary lines, those kinds of issues. We heard in Port Hawkesbury, particularly, about the importance of the Strait as it pertains to boundaries; I guess the list of other items that are directly raised in the previous set of recommendations.
MR. MACEWAN: Well, we're free to make any recommendation we want on where we vote.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. MACEWAN: But there are some types of issues that I think might be unduly restrictive to so freeze the hands of the commissioners we appoint that they can't do anything if we made all the decisions for them, or close to that. I know that there's a point to be made about Port Hawkesbury. They tell me that the crossing of the Red Sea isn't particularly popular in that part of the world and I understand, but should we be telling the commissioners, you know, you cannot cross the Red Sea? I don't know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the question.
MR. MACEWAN: If we start that kind of micromanagement, where does it end?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not an advocate for or against at this point. I am simply posing the question, really, because that is a question that was clearly posed to us. Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, you're still offering possible questions for us to ponder?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you've got some yourself, Mr. Taylor?
MR. TAYLOR: No, I am just thinking that obviously it's our clear mandate to establish terms of reference. We're having difficulty with numbers and pay, remuneration for the commission, but I really think we should go over these terms of reference, the previous terms of reference, on a one by one, case by case basis. If there are additional ones subsequently, then we'll deal with the additional ones because really, as you indicated earlier, time is drawing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and I think that's really what I was trying to say, that we need to go through - basically each one of those items is a question, almost.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacEwan.
MR. MACEWAN: I think what we ought to do is look at the terms of reference that were laid down last time and see, one by one, whether we want to support those or bypass them. Because, you know, for example, 10 years ago there was a very strong move afoot led, I believe, by the Reverend Darryl Gray, who had a mastermind of how a new seat was going to be set up for himself, and the Premier was all in favour of that. The result was Preston, which elected Wayne Adams and then Yvonne and now David, but not Reverend Gray.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. MACEWAN: That was a dream that came true, although not quite the way it had been dreamed.
MR. TAYLOR: So you're not going to try to massage one for the Reverend Darryl, are you?
[6:00 p.m.]
MR. MACEWAN: I am not going to massage one for Reverend Gray this time at all. The point is, do we want to say anything about that? Do we want to say that Preston should stay the way it is? Do we want to put our nose into that? I don't know. I mean, Yvonne didn't seem too impressed with the results of the Preston experiment, but looking at its voting record, in terms of who it elected, it elected two Blacks and one White. It elected one member of each Party. It elected two males and one female. That seems like a pretty good batting average for a constituency, in my view. Now is it a total failure? I don't know. Some might say politics in my riding is a total failure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I know some of those people. (Interruptions)
MR. MACEWAN: I am just saying that as an illustration of the point.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, if we go through them one by one, we will get to those types of concerns.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that's a good point because I think the item, for example, that says " . . . minority representation, including, in particular, representation of the Acadian, Black and Mi'kmaq peoples of Nova Scotia," is one of the things that was in the terms of reference last time and when we get to that, we can have that discussion.
MR. MACEWAN: I would like to see those Acadian seats protected personally, just to express an opinion there. Vive l'Acadie.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So I think that pretty much went through my list that I can think of at the moment. Maybe things will come to me. Are there other members who have other questions that they believe should be posed? I guess, in no particular order, does anyone have any other suggestion? Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: I don't have immediate questions, but I have some data I would like to share with the committee. I think it would be useful if we started with some data.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MR. EPSTEIN: I have two things I would like to hand out. (Interruptions) Frank and I have this already. The first is an extract from an article by political scientist Donald Blake. You may recall that this paper was referred to by one of our presenters, I think it was Mr. Pullen, last week. It turns out, when I checked it in the library, to be a March 2001article published by the Institute for Research and Public Policy. What I've pulled out of that essay, which is called "Electoral Democracy in the Provinces," is Table No. 2 and you will see what he does is set out what are the actual distribution or redistribution rules that are in place in each of the provinces. It's a fairly current article, so it's useful background information because it addresses one of our key questions, which is the percentage deviation, and it also gives information about the kind of commission that is to be set up in each of the provinces. He also gives information for Canada federally. So this is a starting point that would help us think about what prevails elsewhere. The second thing I want to hand out is this.
MR. MACEWAN: This chart is not entirely accurate, Howard. It has Nova Scotia down as ad hoc.
MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, I see that.
MR. MACEWAN: And we do it every 10 years.
MR. EPSTEIN: Yes. No, no, I see, and it may indeed be that there are some changes to be made. In any event, here's the second item.
MR. CHAIRMAN: He didn't write it so . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: No, but I did generate the second item. So if you find errors, be sure to let me know and we can correct them. The second item gives us this. It looks at the three provincial elections that have been held since the last redistribution. It gives, by each electoral district, the number of eligible voters plus the percentage deviation from the provincial average for each of those three elections. So what you can do is follow any constituency and find changes and you can find the percentage by which there actually is deviation. So if you start at the top with Annapolis, you find that in 1993, it was 12 per cent over the average; in 1998, it was 11 per cent over the average; and in 1999, it was 10 per cent over the average.
This, in fact, seems to be quite typical of a lot of the constituencies in that there seems to be kind of relative stability in terms of how they relate to the average. On the other hand, there are still a fair number of constituencies where there are very striking deviations, and if you just go down to Argyle, which was clearly created for a special purpose, you will see that in 1993, it was 45 per cent below; in 1998, 46 per cent below; and in 1999, 46 per cent below. If you ignore some of the ones that perhaps were created for a special purpose, you can look at something like Halifax Bedford Basin. We see that it started out at 29 per cent above, went to 38 per cent above and then was 41 per cent above. Very striking numbers indeed, and this is not a big surprise. Everyone knows that. If you look at Queens, it started out at 22 per cent below and then for the next two elections remained at 26 per cent below.
So each constituency, you can look at the numbers here and find what the percentage deviation is. This seems to be crucial information and I would ask everyone to think about this before the next time because, although it's not our job, of course, to draw the lines, what we do is give instructions to those who are going out to draw the lines.
The third thing I have is a memo to the committee from Frank and myself that makes suggestions by way of draft terms of reference for the next Electoral Boundaries Commission.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just say yes and we can be out of here, right?
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, the Chairman, as always, is exhibiting his wisdom. This is quite right. On the other hand, I think it would be a good idea if everyone did read it. That would be fine. You will see what we have done is we have looked at the terms of reference that prevailed a decade ago and have, in making some suggested changes to it, I think addressed most of the questions, apart from the administrative side of the committee. But in terms of the mandate of the committee, I think we have addressed most of the questions that the chairman posed.
So we put this on a table as what we hope will be a focus for discussion and we hope that the other two caucuses will also think about their positions and put them in writing for
preference so that they can form some focus for discussion. I throw this out there for part of the background information that people should have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Epstein. Are there any questions or comments either about this information or other matters? Mr. MacEwan.
MR. MACEWAN: I would just like to say this. I think it is admirable to advance your propositions in formal form, in writing, if you can draw them up and so on and so forth. I am not favourably impressed by these because it deviates from the existing number of minority seats that we have in Nova Scotia. We have three of them anyway for the Acadian - Clare, Argyle and Richmond.
MR. EPSTEIN: It is not clear that Richmond is such a seat.
MR. MACEWAN: Well, that is not what the MLA for that area tells me, but anyway . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: I am not surprised he is of that view, but it is far from clear that it actually is such a seat. I am going to stick to my position.
MR. MACEWAN: If we had those three and we have the riding in Preston, that adds up to four.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for the purpose of Hansard, please, one at a time because that will create a problem. I am not trying to cut anybody off.
MR. MACEWAN: This would deviate from four and take it down to only three, meaning that only three seats now would represent the minority communities rather than four, which is a step backward for them. To that extent, I would like to see four, at least the status quo, if possible.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Epstein, I am sorry. I went out to get these glasses. Your deviation, is that using population or voters?
MR. EPSTEIN: It is an interesting point and I am not sure that it actually matters which one you choose, because it would depend of course on the age profile of the population in any particular area. There may be big swings in the age profile, depending on what area of the province you are in. If that is the case, if there really are such large variations then I think it is really, well I still don't know if it is all that crucial, and I didn't check to see what the Supreme Court of Canada said and that is not going to determine it.
I don't know that it matters all that much and I will throw into the mix something that occurred to me when Neil was speaking earlier. What happens if the voting age were to be
changed? I mean, if you start doing it by saying well, let's just look at people age 18 and older, what happens if you take it into your heads next year to suddenly say we are going to adopt the NDP policy, which is that people 16 and older should have the vote? Then if you have set your Electoral Boundaries Commission with instructions to think about that and then you change the rules after, you may adjust it. Why does it matter? Are there such huge variations?
MR. TAYLOR: I believe there are. If you look at the demographics across Halifax County for example, there is certainly a larger senior population in eastern Halifax County than there is in western Halifax County, according to the statistics that they have.
MR. EPSTEIN: My recollection is that the provincial average of residents over age 65 is about 13 per cent, and I know that in my constituency it is in fact 19 per cent. So I have a larger number of seniors and presumably a larger number of voters, but I still don't see it as a huge factor. That is all.
MR. TAYLOR: Well, maybe it isn't relevant, I think it is . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. LeBlanc.
MR. LEBLANC: We are getting too far into this.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are getting into the discussion, but . . .
MR. LEBLANC: We will have this debate when we go further, but I tend to think that those are the types of statistics that if the staff could take a look at it, I wouldn't mind knowing. I think that if you look at the decision, I have asked some questions in advance, that it was talking about voters and if it is talking about voters then we should adhere to that. I want to do some research, if that can at least give us some information for everyone's benefit and when we have a debate on this issue, then at least we will be informed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I just throw out one observation, just for your benefit, Mr. Epstein? If you look at the numbers for the Lunenburg riding, one of which I am quite keenly familiar, you will notice that in that riding it was 7 per cent above and then in 1993 and 1999 it was 6 per cent above, and then you have this anomaly of 4 per cent above in 1998. That is a result of the snowbirds all being away in February and March. So that speaks to that seniors' population.
MR. EPSTEIN: In fact, one of the things that is very striking about Halifax Citadel as well is the amazing sudden loss of about 5,000 voters last time, which clearly speaks to enumeration practices; that is students in that case.
MR. MACEWAN: We are going to make a decision about whether we want these commissioners to project future population growth. I don't know that we should do that because we don't know. The loss of jobs you would think might lead to population loss; it doesn't necessarily happen that way at all. I believe that in the Town of New Waterford right now the birthrate there is one of the highest in Canada - the member representing New Waterford can correct me if I am wrong - I think that is the truth. You may lose coal mines, you may lose steel plants (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hebb.
MR. HEBB: If I might, I would suggest on your last one on county boundaries that you add, as a corollary, consideration of municipal boundaries, because, for example, in the last redistribution the line runs between the County of Antigonish and the County of Guysborough, but the municipal boundary was subsequently changed. I forget which way it went, but part of one county was moved into the other municipality. We subsequently had an amending Act and changed the electoral boundary to follow the municipal boundary because, in fact, some people had voted in the wrong constituency. Everybody assumed that . . .
MR. LEBLANC: That was the one change that was done in the House, that was the . . .
MR. HEBB: That was the one change that was done, but I believe there are other examples in the province where it doesn't actually follow the county, so it may be that it is not just county boundaries you might want to think about, but municipal boundaries.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, there is municipal and I will throw another one that has been raised to me as a question and that is school board boundaries because there is one area in the province, and that is Queens County, Queens County provides all of the services to an area called Maitland Bridge; in fact Maitland Bridge goes to Queens County for everything. The school buses come from Queens. All services effectively are provided by Queens County, even if it is in contract to Annapolis County, simply because they are a long way there. So, of course, you have the issue of not only municipal, but you have other school board kinds of areas which reflect - the community of interest for Maitland Bridge, Annapolis County, in fact is I think arguably Queens County. I am just following on that same point.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, do we know whether or not the recommendations of the commission are binding? Have we received some legal opinion? I am just looking at Page 57. The recommendation of Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley is that Millbrook Reserve and Truro Reserve, blah, blah, blah, be included, but the fact of the matter is they are in Truro-Bible Hill. I am just wondering if that was done before? Okay, Gordon.
[6:15 p.m.]
MR. HEBB: The House of Assembly Act requires a bill to be introduced implementing the recommendations of the commission. It doesn't tell the House what it has to do with it once that bill is introduced. On the previous occasion what happened is when the bill went to the Law Amendments Committee, the Law Amendments Committee held hearings. Rather than the Law Amendments Committee itself dealing with the hearings, transcripts - and I think maybe even the chair of the boundaries commission sat in, sort of as an ad hoc advisory committee to the Law Amendments Committee. The same people were asked to give their recommendation to the Law Amendments Committee as a result of the Law Amendments Committee hearings. Then the Law Amendments Committee, rather than giving its own opinion, accepted those recommendations. That's how the bill was amended for further proceeding through the House. But there was no obligation to do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. LeBlanc.
MR. LEBLANC: In essence, picking up what Brooke is saying, it is expected, since all three Parties supported the resolution, that we will support the legislation once it's tabled. In essence, what you are telling me is that we wouldn't have to but it is expected that because we are part of the process we would accept the recommendations.
MR. MACEWAN: But the House could amend it.
MR. LEBLANC: I know. I am not arguing that. The process is that it would be tabled; what we do with it subsequently is, of course . . .
MR. TAYLOR: The process . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right.
MR. LEBLANC: The last time we still respected the process because, actually, we had the commission involved in making this recommendation to the House, in a sense, through the Law Amendments Committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question I have, and it's a question about the Law Amendments Committee, it's a good question to ask, although we don't have to answer it today. If you are really simply having another Law Amendments Committee hearing to give people an opportunity to - if there is no meaningful consideration going on because the only people making a decision are the people on the commission who have already made their final report and have already had - why have a final, final - it seems to me to be a rather redundant process. I believe that the Law Amendments Committee process should be a real process with the potential for actually hearing from people, but I say that is for another day.
I will say that there does come a point when - why would you hold another hearing and then only take advice from the people who made the decision that the public was coming in to speak against, criticize?
MR. HEBB: I think one difference - I'm not positive about this, but - is I don't believe that the commission held two stages of hearings the last time around. In fact, there were still only two sets of hearings, the commission's hearings and the Law Amendments Committee's hearings. You now have the commission holding two sets of hearings. So . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no. That's wrong. (Interruptions)
MR. LEBLANC: I think they held two sets . . .
MR. HEBB: Did they hold? I am not sure about that, but . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I would be very reluctant to hold hearings and have people come in, and basically - without telling them what you are really doing is wasting your breath. If you are just simply appealing to the same people who have already made the decision, you are in fact appealing to yourself. It seems to be kind of a . . .
MR. CORBETT: Workers' compensation all over again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it does. Déjà vu all over again, isn't it, Mr. Corbett? Anyway, are there any other questions?
I guess one of the other questions is - and it's a moot question this evening, but my understanding is that the last time the committee went in camera to deal with its deliberations. My suggestion would be that for the purposes of our next meeting it would be in camera, simply because at some point we need to have some frank discussions. I think that was the form that was followed last time with respect to the committee's deliberations. Any people . . .
MR. MACEWAN: Now what do you mean by in camera? Do you mean that the legal counsel . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I think we mean the public is excluded. That's my understanding of what in camera is.
MR. MACEWAN: This, then, is in camera.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is not in camera.
MR. MACEWAN: The door is open.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right; door open or door closed is the basic difference.
MR. MACEWAN: It's being recorded.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think both are recorded for the benefit of the members, but the in camera one is not open to the public. That's my understanding of the difference.
Are there any further items before we adjourn? We will resume on Wednesday at 2:00 p.m., I believe. If not, I guess we should be prepared to advance our respective positions with respect to those items and any other items.
MR. MACEWAN: It may be rather difficult on Wednesday for me to come in here with a list of nine names who have said that they will serve no matter whether it pays or not and no matter how much time it takes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any suggestions would be kindly appreciated, if we are going to advance this process. Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: If staff discover some of the information that was requested about what it cost the last time, what people were paid, what the total bill was, how many meetings were actually held (Interruptions) that could be circulated in advance . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: My suggestion is, and I'm going to put staff to the gun, that time is of the essence, and I would suggest that that material be prepared and provided to the respective caucuses by the end of the working day tomorrow, at 4:30 p.m. (Interruptions) And any other information that staff feels would be useful. I think we are all under a time pressure. Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I'm not clear, the next meeting is Wednesday. Are we then going to finalize - we obviously have to have a number in mind, and we do have. Are you telling me that we're going to decide on the number based on the remuneration? I think we should have a consensus tonight on a number. Obviously - I know the Minister of Finance is here - we have to be conscious of what they're paid, but I really think it's important. We have a mandate as a committee. I think we should reach a consensus on the numbers for the commission.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. LeBlanc.
MR. LEBLANC: Can I make a suggestion? We don't have that information, but you brought up some good points, Brooke, about the fact that maybe nine would give a little better representation. I remember the last time some people were saying that maybe certain areas of the province weren't weighed properly, their representation. You are suggesting nine; why don't we plan on nine? When we have the information next time, at least we will be
planning for that. I am picking that number because I don't know the information, but it seems to be reasonable, listening to what you're saying. If there is something that we would change, at least we could go back, but at least we could do some planning along those lines. (Interruptions)
MR. TAYLOR: Could we have some debate on it maybe, Mr. Chairman, just before we adjourn? Is it okay to do that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine with me.
MR. EPSTEIN: I think we are going to have a tough time finding nine respected and non-partisan people to serve on a commission, but we could all work with that number and see where we get.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. So we are going to work with nine for the purposes of discussion. If you could just try to attempt to identify a potential chairman and eight other members. Does that seem reasonable? We can work up or down, but it gives us a number.
MR. LEBLANC: It's easier to work down than work up.
MR. TAYLOR: We are going to try to work with nine.
MR. LEBLANC: Suggestions.
MR. MACEWAN: If that's the consensus, I have no objection to it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Great.
MR. MACEWAN: I'm not against nine. I am against the loss of an Acadian seat, against nine commissioners (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're against the loss of an Acadian seat on the mainland, Paul. (Laughter)
MR. TAYLOR: Do you want Millbrook Reserve, Paul? (Laughter) (Interruption)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Cape Breton Nova and Millbrook. (Interruptions)
MR. MACEWAN: That would enlarge your riding. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, just on Mr. Epstein's draft here, which is very informative and very useful. Before it has wide distribution or further, it is obviously the voters; we're clear on that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's one of the questions (Interruptions) We will get an answer, further opinion by 4:30 tomorrow. (Interruptions)
MR. EPSTEIN: This table that I've distributed is based on registered electors and the data was taken out of the report of the Chief Electoral Officer. (Interruptions) For all three years.
DR. SMITH: It's a very useful document, but it is something that we can verify that it is what it is; it says what we think it says.
MR. EPSTEIN: You're welcome to check the data, Jim. Have fun. (Interruptions)
DR. SMITH: I'm not questioning Howard (Interruptions)
MR. CORBETT: Same thing as one of your patients used to say: can I have a second opinion?
DR. SMITH: No, but is it something that could become a working document of the committee? I guess that's what I'm saying. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DR. SMITH: And can we accept it as that. (Interruptions)
MR. MACEWAN: . . . overlaps that or this overlaps that. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for example, and the sheet that was prepared by staff on a county basis was simply because one of the numbers that didn't readily break - without going to the poll boundaries, you couldn't break out the numbers for counties. That's why that number was broken up.
MR. EPSTEIN: Anyone can make a mistake in inputting data. If anyone finds errors, I would be happy to see corrections. That's fine with me. (Interruptions)
DR. SMITH: Brooke's question was what is it, or what is it representing? I think that's what it was. As long as we clarify that and have it as a working document for the committee, I think it's great.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, with that, I think we stand adjourned. (Interruptions)
[The committee adjourned at 6:25 p.m.]
