[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 3, 1995
.0910 
[English]
The Chair: I'd like to welcome everyone here this morning to the Subcommittee on the Consideration of the Objections Filed on the Proposed Electoral Boundaries for the Western Provinces of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Our first witness this morning is Morris Bodnar from Saskatoon - Dundurn.
Welcome, Morris. Please proceed.
Mr. Morris Bodnar, MP (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Thank you very much.
I represent a constituency that is the southern half of Saskatoon. That would now be split, and a portion of it would go to Saskatoon - Rosetown and a portion to the new constituency of Blackstrap.
The constituency that I now represent, being a major part of Saskatoon, takes in a portion south of Saskatoon, which is a trading area of Saskatoon. The communities taken in are in fact the towns of Allan, Clavet, and Dundurn. Some of these particular communities are bedroom communities for people who work in Saskatoon.
The extension of the constituency to the new boundaries of Saskatoon - Blackstrap would include a large rural portion, which is not similar to the towns that I presently represent. Whoever is elected in that constituency - and I'm not being presumptuous - would have to represent an urban area and a rural area. That's not an easy task in Saskatchewan, because sometimes the interests of both are not similar.
Saskatchewan has 14 seats. The 14 seats are not changing; there will be 14 seats. The population of Saskatchewan has virtually not changed at all, and changing boundaries now is simply playing with boundaries. Changing the boundaries in Saskatchewan and going through redistribution in Saskatchewan is not just a waste time, but also a waste of money.
Extending my constituency and making Blackstrap would result in the constituency represented by Allan Kerpan being eliminated. I don't think that constituency, which borders, should be eliminated because of the demographics.
Trying to make four constituencies out of Saskatoon and four out of Regina, rather than the three and three we have now, can be looked upon as giving too much representation to the cities in our province and too little to the rural areas. The cities will still control those seats because of the population in those cities.
I believe a redistribution is redundant for the following reasons: the number of MPs from Saskatchewan is not changing; the population of Saskatchewan has decreased from 1986 to 1991 by approximately 2%; and the current population of Saskatoon - Dundurn honours the new electoral quotient. All Saskatchewan constituencies honour this particular quotient.
In Saskatchewan, therefore, changing boundaries is playing with boundaries. The end result will not be a suitable result, because if we go beyond Saskatoon - Dundurn, if we look at the north part of Saskatchewan, if redistribution goes through, more than half the province will end up in one constituency. That isn't right.
The effect on me personally, apart from my comments on redistribution, is negligible. Losing part of Saskatoon and picking up a rural area electorally makes no difference to me, but my personal feeling on this is that it's a waste of time and money. The only change in population in Saskatchewan, as has been said once before, is when its one hundred head of cattle move from one pasture to another, and that's not a reason to go through redistribution.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bodnar.
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): Mr. Bodnar, were any of the ridings in the 1993 election outside the parameters of 25% -
Mr. Bodnar: My understanding is no.
Mr. McKinnon: We had a witness yesterday who agreed with the commission's approach in another western province, in that you try to localize urban ridings and not incorporate any rural components. Did I hear you say you would agree with that sentiment, or would you not agree with it?
.0915
Mr. Bodnar: I would tend to agree with that, because the interests of the urban area and the rural area may not be the same. This redistribution tends to go the opposite way. Of course you can represent them, but you may be compromising one for the other. I'm not sure that's the right approach to be taken when you represent a constituency.
The Chair: Mr. White, please go ahead.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Bodnar, I'm curious about the methodology behind the change in Saskatchewan. Did the ridings end up more equally distributed in population or are they sized the same? What's the mentality behind the genius?
Mr. Bodnar: I'm not sure what it is. I do know that the north part of this province, which is going to be over half the province, is shaped the way it is because it was felt that the aboriginal community should more or less be in one seat so that they perhaps can have this aboriginal voice rather than having in it the city of Prince Albert. That may have thrown the whole thing off in redistributing the whole province, then.
As well, because the two major urban centres are Saskatoon and Regina, perhaps it was felt splitting them into four rather than into three, as they have been split, is better. I don't feel that is the proper way of going about it, splitting them more and then taking in more rural area so that the MP represents a smaller portion of the urban and more rural, but splitting it four ways.
That's the only thing I can determine from the way it was done, but I do know it was felt that the north part should be more of an aboriginal community. I'm not sure the new constituency, which is more than half of the province, can be represented by an MP. I cannot see an MP representing that area well. It's just too large.
The Chair: Mr. Bodnar, is the new area that would come into your riding particularly agricultural, or aboriginal people or...?
Mr. Bodnar: It's all small towns/agricultural. That's all that is added to my constituency, nothing else.
Again, I would also mention that the name itself is deceptive. If we just call it Blackstrap, no one in the rest of Canada knows what it is. It's a small artificial lake or reservoir that was formed south of Saskatoon. They call it Blackstrap. The name itself should be changed to Saskatoon - Blackstrap so that people at least know generally the area represented.
So I would suggest that even the name Saskatoon, if it's going to be redistributed, should be added to the name. Just like Saskatoon - Rosetown, Saskatoon - Humboldt, there should be Saskatoon - Blackstrap.
The Chair: There are no other questions. Thank you, Mr. Bodnar.
Mr. Bodnar: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: We will move on. We have Mr. Hart.
You have seven minutes, with a total of eight minutes for questions. If it's appropriate, we could have someone move your presentation appended to the record.
Mr. McKinnon: I so move.
Mr. Jim Hart, MP (Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt): I don't have my remarks with me. Is there someone who can take this spot while I run back to my office?
.0920
I did have some written comments, but it appears I have left them at my office. Is there any chance I could adjourn this for just five minutes to get my remarks?
The Chair: Could we just have a blanket motion that any documents presented to the committee be entered as an exhibit to the committee? Then we won't have to do it every time. It's done as a blanket motion.
Mr. McKinnon: I so move.
[See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. Hart: Is it possible to get an adjournment for five minutes so that I can have one of my staff members run over and get my comments?
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned for five minutes.
Mr. Hart: Thank you.
.0922
PAUSE
.0927
The Chair: We will now reconvene and listen to Mr. Hart.
Mr. Hart: Thank you very much. I apologize for the delay.
Colleagues, members of the subcommittee, the communities that now constitute the federal electoral district of Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt have grave concerns about the proposed new riding of Okanagan - Coquihalla.
Having reviewed the printed concerns of all the town councils to be affected, having met with and heeded the very real concerns of the various citizens, and considering the geographical logistics and the serious lack of commonality between the south Okanagan and the distant Fraser Valley, I am left with no alternative other than to side with my constituents and state that this proposal is flawed and unreasonable.
One of the most stated and obvious objections is the commonality of the family of communities that makes up the south Okanagan. As you may or may not be aware, these communities all share a common waterway. That is to say, the Okanagan Lake flows into Skaha Lake, which flows into Vaseux Lake, which flows into Oliver Lake, which flows into Osoyoos Lake. These are all in the same valley, all in the same watershed and all within a short 80-kilometre distance.
The communities of Summerland, Naramata, Penticton, Okanagan Falls, Kaleden, Vaseux Lake, Oliver and Osoyoos are not just common to the same waterways but are all within throwing distance of each other going north and south.
East to west also binds outlying communities such as Midway, Rock Creek, Boundary, Keremeos, Cawston, and Hedley. All of these areas are dependent on each other for shopping, business, air travel, schooling, agriculture, tourism, water quality and more. For instance, the nearest commercial airport used by all the communities is Penticton. The nearest college facilities to be found are in Penticton, with satellite programs in only some of the communities.
.0930
These agricultural communities are bound by their very nature. It would be prudent to mention how the south Okanagan Valley, involving all of these communities, stood in solidarity during the U.S. apple dumping, or how Osoyoos and Oliver backed the infrastructure program proposed for Summerland knowing that what is good for Summerland water treatment is good for Oliver and Osoyoos waters, which in turn is good for tourism up and down the valley.
All of these south Okanagan communities continue to work together to improve conditions for the yearly influx of pickers, who come primarily from Quebec and Ontario. In addition, it must be noted that all the above-mentioned communities rely on the south Okanagan, and primarily Penticton, for government services, both federal and provincial.
From east to west, or Grand Forks to Merritt, the cattle, mining and forest industries face the same problems consistently. After all, they're pretty much faced by the same desert conditions: dry and hot, with the altitude of the mountains supplying excellent timber stands for harvest and mineral deposits to be mined.
On either side of the Okanagan Valley ranching is a way of life and has been a huge factor in the growth of Grand Forks, Merritt and the surrounding communities. It is difficult in the extreme for the people of Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt to understand what possible commonality they could have with the good people of Hope.
After all, Hope shares no communication links, for instance, radio stations, or printed publications with this constituency. They share none of the agricultural interests and are very much part of the mighty Fraser River system.
What could possibly make sense in taking a tiny stretch of one of the greatest salmon rivers, especially considering all the controversy over the salmon fishery, and all the other issues involved with this particular river system and dropping it into the laps of a constituency that is obviously out of touch with these issues? Obviously, the town of Hope needs to be connected with a constituency much more in line with its own environment.
Further to this, it must be noted that Hope is a three-hour drive from the city of Penticton on a clear summer's day, but from September to June the Pennask Pass and Coquihalla are often snowed in during high mountain storms and are left impassable or turn a three-hour drive into a dangerous, long and difficult journey. There is no reason why anyone would be travelling to Hope from the Okanagan, other than perhaps to visit a relative or en route to Vancouver.
This is how little the valley, even as far west as Merritt, has in common with the good town and people of Hope. As much as it would be my pleasure to represent Hope, it should be clear to all that it just makes no sense.
It should also be clear that there is a community of commonality and geographic continuity with the current configuration of Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt. Just the common theme of letters from the proposed affected communities demonstrates the strength of these communities together and shows their common disdain for the proposed changes. Here's an example of the Canadian people striving to stay and work together while we meet here and discuss breaking them apart. This is despite their long and colourful history together.
They are bound by a desert climate; they are bound by tourism; they are bound by similar access to government agencies, education and business. They are bound in friendship, goodwill and a spirit of cooperation that can only be achieved by the closest neighbours. Even the best intended of relationships falls prey to the reality of the distance of Hope, and indeed Hope is a distant neighbour.
I would like to conclude by drawing your attention to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The act states that:
- the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral
district...and...a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or
northern regions must be taken into consideration by the commission when new boundaries are
drawn.
Oliver, Osoyoos, Midway and Grand Forks should remain tied to the south Okanagan family. Hope should remain tied to the Fraser Valley as a matter of common sense and realistic thinking. I would remind this committee that my goal is to be able to offer the best representation I can to my constituents and that I would strive for that goal under any boundary changes. But it is only too obvious that cattle, fruit and the desert have little in common with a good town on a major salmon river.
Thank you.
.0935
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hart.
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Hart, I'm barely familiar with your area, since I come from three provinces away, but do I sense that the boundaries of your present riding are more in line with the economics...? Is there the fact that the watershed is also a common boundary?
Mr. Hart: Yes, that's correct. It's also interesting to point out the communication links run north and south in my riding. The only daily newspaper, the Penticton Herald, services the communities of Summerland, Penticton, Oliver, Osoyoos, Keremeos, and Cawston. With the radio stations, again the links run north and south, with Okanagan RADIO covering the same communities. CHBC television covers the same communities. To remove Oliver and Osoyoos, as well as the historical value of the commonality that they've experienced...but the communication links are also a dramatic illustration to show that there are ties to those communities.
Mr. McKinnon: Will the population change that much in terms of your total?
Mr. Hart: No, it doesn't appear that the population will change that much. They're just redrawing the boundaries.
Mr. McKinnon: As you go west from your current boundary over to Hope, how much in terms of population do you pick up?
Mr. Hart: I'm not certain of the population of Hope.
Mr. White: It's 5,000.
Mr. Hart: That's not a lot.
Mr. McKinnon: Where is Hope?
Mr. Hart: It's in the Fraser Valley East riding.
Mr. White: Jim, how far over do you go from the Coquihalla? Is it straight down the Coquihalla?
Mr. Hart: It's straight down the Coquihalla.
Mr. White: You don't pick up Cache Creek along that way, do you?
Mr. Hart: No.
Mr. White: How far north would the new boundary go?
Mr. Hart: The new boundary would take me to Peachland, which currently is included in Okanagan Centre.
Mr. White: There must be then a riding that gets swallowed up in this exercise. There must be a loss of a riding in the Okanagan.
Mr. Hart: There was a riding that was getting swallowed up on the first redrawing of the maps, but that isn't the case now, at least not in our region.
Mr. McKinnon: Total representation in terms of numbers -
Mr. Hart: There are two extra seats, I believe.
Mr. White: My riding and another riding.
The Chair: You are talking about the links north and south, Mr. Hart, and the commonalties. What about the aspect of the schools, hospitals, and the people?
Mr. Hart: That's very much a part of it. The major hospital, for instance, is the Penticton Regional Hospital, which does service all the communities in that Okanagan region. That's another link. The major area would of course be Penticton; that's therefore the major employer of the communities of Oliver and Osoyoos, as well as the surrounding areas. There are many links: airport, communication, economic -
The Chair: If there are no other questions, I thank you, Mr. Hart.
Mr. Hart: Thank you very much.
The Chair: We'll move on to John Cummins from Delta.
.0940
Mr. John Cummins, MP (Delta): The constituency I'm talking about is Delta, located in the extreme southwest corner of the province of British Columbia. This map shows the current electoral boundaries in Delta.
The proposal before you is to take a chunk of Delta and this whole area, move it into the Surrey North riding, and add a chunk to the Delta riding. In other words, we're talking about adding a piece of Richmond to Delta. So this is added and that would be subtracted from the Delta constituency.
I've gotten ahead of myself, because I wanted to point out to you that Delta is essentially an island, if you will, unto itself, in that it's bound by Boundary Bay in the south, the American border here at Point Roberts - a small piece of land on the Strait of Georgia - by the Strait of Georgia in the west, and by the Fraser River in the north. Access to the city of Richmond from Delta is through the Deas Island tunnel, which comes through here.
If I'm in Ladner and I want to get over to Steveston, which is a business district in Richmond, I've got to drive out of Richmond, over the freeway, through the tunnel, and all the way back here. It's about a 15-mile drive, and it takes a good hour just to go from one end to the other.
This area of Delta, which is going to be removed, is historically one of the early settlements in Delta. In a sense it could be considered the heart of Delta. It's one of the oldest fishing communities in Delta. The people there have an attachment to the municipality of Delta, because that's where the municipality started. It started in North Delta and in Ladner.
In essence, this is going to yard out the heart and soul of Delta and attach it to a Surrey riding. It doesn't make any sense at all.
The issue is that the municipality of Delta, provincially, is represented by two MLAs and one MP. I think what we're looking at here is splitting it.
The law says that the commission should consider the following in determining reasonable electoral boundaries. It said that it should consider the community of interest or the community of identity in...or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, and a manageable geographic size for districts and sparsely populated rural regions of the province.
The question then is what effect does this have on Delta? The existing riding of Delta has a population of 92,629, and the existing riding of Delta takes in a little chunk of Surrey. This is actually a piece of Surrey that is within the current boundary of Delta. The population in 1991 of the Delta riding was 92,000. The B.C. Electoral Boundaries Commission found the electoral quotient to be 96,531.
With regard to the second part that I just mentioned, which was about the law, Delta is both rural and urban. It is natural and appropriate that Delta be on the low side of the electoral quotient due to this rural-urban mix.
The city of Delta's planning department yesterday reported to me that the working number for the population of Delta is now 95,000. In other words, it is fast approaching the electoral quotient for British Columbia.
.0945
I've mentioned to you the community of interest in Delta, and I pointed out the significance of Ladner and the Annieville area - especially the Annieville area, which is going to be ripped out of Delta and put into the North Surrey riding. I think there are other issues of significance here.
Delta is a community that is surrounded by water. The Pacific migratory bird flyways use the river estuary, Boundary Bay, and the agricultural lands of Delta in a critical and symbiotic relationship. The importance of the estuary and the bay as a critical fish habitat for fry migrating to the ocean creates a single attitude towards their boundaries. In other words, we focus on the Burns Bog area and around Boundary Bay and on all of these things, and we look more to the Strait of Georgia than people in Surrey do.
The historical pattern of Delta, then, is unique and confined to its boundaries. Separating Delta, dividing us with a barrier significant to the Fraser River, will not serve the best interests of our community.
The Fraser River is not only a physical barrier, it is a barrier of substantial psychological impact. It is one of the great rivers of North America and is literally thought of and treated as such by the residents of Delta. It separates us quite significantly from Richmond.
As I pointed out to you, to get from Ladner to Richmond is a short dirt journey; as the crow flies, it is a little more than a mile in most areas in the Delta. But the reality of it is that in rush hour you can look at upwards of an hour to get from Delta, because the only access is through that tunnel. If there's a blockage at all in the tunnel, it's murder. To try to go to a meeting in Richmond, an early morning meeting or a supper meeting, you've got to leave a couple of hours in advance just to get there because of the traffic problems.
So tacking that side of Richmond on to Delta is simply not an appropriate solution to the problems facing the boundaries people in the lower mainland.
I'll try to move through some of this material. I'll leave a communication with you on this issue.
As far as the Delta community goes, we are bound physically, as I indicated to you, and that's also true when you look at the newspapers that service the community. Delta has two community newspapers. We share two with Surrey up in the north end of the riding. If we were to add Richmond to the Delta constituency, we would have to deal with three more newspapers. People in Delta don't do business in Richmond, in the area that's being tacked on to this constituency. I might as well have an area in Randy's riding tacked on to mine as to have that portion of Richmond.
We're prepared to do it, if that's what results. But I don't think the public of Richmond would be well served because of the barrier provided by the river; it's not only a physical barrier, but also a psychological one.
The other point I want to make is that Surrey is a fast-growing area and does not need the 12,000 people from the city of Delta, who will be moved into that North Surrey riding if this boundary goes through. I don't think the revised proposals deal with the dramatic population growth in Surrey, but they do cause damage to the riding of Delta. Wreaking havoc on Delta with no obvious benefit to Surrey does not make sense to me.
Delta works as a constituency, and let's not destroy that constituency. It makes sense to leave it in place, and I think the change leaves no one better off. Delta's a community experiencing modest growth, whose population of 95,000 fits well within the electoral quotient of 96,000, and I think it should be left well enough alone in these changes.
If there are any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cummins.
Mr. McKinnon: You've alluded to population growth areas. If the commission were to look at all the strategic growth areas besides the two you've mentioned...are there others that you're aware of?
.0950
Mr. Cummins: In Delta we have basically three population centres - Ladner, Tsawassen and North Delta. Each of these communities is surrounded by some of the finest agricultural land in Canada. That land is protected by the agricultural land reserve in British Columbia. You can't build on it.
Any growth in Delta requires an increase in density in these separate communities. Very little urban sprawl can take place because the agricultural lands are protected.
So Delta has a reasonably stable population. The growth that you see results from increased density. In North Delta there is some increase in density as older housing is replaced by low-rise apartment buildings and that kind of thing. So the density is increasing gradually.
In this area in Tsawassen, there is some growth. Some undeveloped land is experiencing modest growth.
Part of the problem with growth in Tsawassen and Ladner is the tunnel and the difficulty people have getting through it to do business in Vancouver. Every morning there's a line-up and every evening there's a line-up going the other way. It's very difficult to transit.
That's why it will be very difficult to service this area from Delta. It's cut off. In the original proposal they were going to take a chunk of Richmond and tie it to Vancouver. There are three or four bridges that would connect this part of Richmond to South Vancouver.
The lines of communication there are quite easy, but down here we have one - the tunnel. It doesn't make sense.
Mr. McKinnon: Do your projections currently meet the electoral quotient that you referred to?
Mr. Cummins: If Delta stays the way it is, we're within about 4% of the current electoral quotient. In other words, leave Delta alone. It's an identifiable community both from the physical point of view and the mental point of view.
It's an island unto itself. Water surrounds it on all sides except the side with Surrey. It's a community unto itself. If there are problems elsewhere, those problems should be addressed elsewhere.
The boundary commission, in its wisdom, has seen fit to jig the boundaries and to disregard the physical boundary of the Fraser River and the difficulties of communicating across it and make these changes. It's basically ripped the heart out of the north end, the oldest part of the community of Delta, and placed it in another constituency.
These people don't identify with Surrey, they identify with the fishing interests in Ladner and the river. They don't look to the city of Surrey, either for business or spiritually.
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, the population in my riding, which is just east of you, is about 200,000. With all of the objections to this whole exercise, how does the population get smoothed out?
I think the quotients are too low. I think we could all stand to have fewer MPs and that sort of thing. If Delta didn't make a move and Surrey didn't make a move, and Similkameen - Okanagan didn't move, how would we spread that out?
Mr. Cummins: All I'm saying is that we want Delta to stay the same. We don't want to lose part of Delta. Leave the municipality of Delta whole. If we have to move into Richmond to make things work, we will. All I'm saying is that it's difficult.
If we do move into Richmond, the population of Delta - the municipality of Delta plus this chunk of Richmond - would be about 114,000. I think that would put us about 20% above that quotient, which isn't unreasonable. We're prepared to do that.
But don't cut into the municipality of Delta. It violates the requirements of the law, which says they should consider community of interest. If community of interest isn't violated by taking this chunk of Delta out of the federal constituency of Delta, I don't know what is.
.0955
So we're quite prepared to service that part of Richmond, but leave Delta municipality alone. Let's not ignore community of interest.
That's the basis of this presentation.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Mr. Cummins: We'll leave with you a copy of this. If you have any further questions in your deliberations I'd be only too happy to answer them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cummins.
We'll move on with Mr. Keith Martin, Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca.
Mr. Martin, the format of the meeting is a seven-minute presentation and then a total of eight minutes for questions.
Mr. Keith Martin, MP (Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca): I hope I won't need to have anywhere near that amount of time.
My riding is Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca on Vancouver Island. Essentially what's being proposed is that the top part of the riding, in the southern part of the Cowichan Valley, is going to be removed and annexed onto the riding north of me, Nanaimo - Cowichan. In the process I'm going to lose 15,600 people. It's a relatively static population. What I'm going to gain is the area west of Highway 17 in the Saanich district. I'll be gaining 22,200 people. What that is going to do is to put my numbers up to 98,661, which is above the elected quotient of 96,531.
I'm going to argue, on two grounds, why my riding should not be carved up. First, I'll bring to your attention chapter E-3, subsection 15(1). I'm sure you've heard this from about a dozen other people, but I'll read it anyway. According to the rules governing the electoral boundaries redistribution:
- (a) the division of the province into electoral districts and the description of the
boundaries...shall proceed on the basis that the population...in the province as a result thereof
shall be as close to the electoral quotient for the province....
What is going to happen with the annexation of the western part of the Saanich district, another area that's extremely fast-growing, is that in short order my riding is going to balloon out of proportion to the other ridings that are in the same area in southern Vancouver Island.
I will have enough growth within my riding to be fairly consistent with the existing ridings if we leave everything alone. If we add the area west of it, it is not going to take that into consideration. So I believe the redistribution has simply not taken into consideration the future demographic projections for southern Vancouver Island.
.1000
The second reason I'd like to argue that we should not change my riding comes from paragraph (b) of the same part of chapter E-3 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which says:
- (b) the commission shall consider the following in determining reasonable electoral district
boundaries:
- (i) the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral
district in the province, and
- (ii) a manageable geographic size...
Furthermore, the Province of British Columbia is expanding the north-south highway right through my riding, which is going to greatly increase the flow of commerce and individuals and social interaction between the southern part of my riding and the north part, as it exists now. The area that's going to be annexed to it is going to have no involvement in this whatsoever.
So those are the two primary reasons why. One, this electoral boundary redistribution does not take into consideration projected population growths for the area. Two, it doesn't reflect the movement, both currently and historically, of people and commerce in the north-south corridor.
The annexation of the Saanichton area simply does not make any sense whatsoever. That area should be left with the riding immediately east of me in Saanich and should not be annexed onto my riding.
I'd be happy to entertain any questions from anybody.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. McKinnon: Growth areas - we're hearing a lot about this. If you were to guesstimate how long you would take to get yourself up, using your present boundaries, do you think by the end of the next election period - and we're assuming in 1987 or 1988 there will be an election, and then 2003 - you would be up to the present quotient if no change took place?
Mr. Martin: Very much so. A lot of high-density areas, Mr. McKinnon, are being built, have been built and are continuing to be built, particularly in the View Royal and Esquimalt areas - not so much in the western communities. A tremendous amount of high-density building is going on and will continue to go on. They are also going to expand the sewer system in the western communities, which is going to greatly increase the density in the very short term.
So certainly before the next election my population will greatly exceed the population quotient. That's going to continue on and on. Again, southern Vancouver Island is one of the fastest - if not the fastest - growing area in all of Canada, with absolutely no sign of that changing.
As well, the infrastructure that is being built within my riding is taking that into consideration. In fact, it is making it very attractive for even more people to come into my area.
Mr. McKinnon: I know I shouldn't be asking this question, but are any of the new seats being proposed for British Columbia on the island?
Mr. Martin: No, not that I'm aware of.
The riding immediately north will have, with the new riding boundaries, about 100,000 people. The riding immediately east, which I would be picking up, would also have about 100,000 people. Those two areas are not anywhere near as rapidly growing as mine is. Mine are going to vastly surpass that in the future.
I hope I don't have the same problem Mr. White does, with 200,000 people in my riding. It would greatly change the character of a very beautiful place.
.1005
Mr. White: The difficulty in British Columbia has been my riding and Surrey - White Rock, which are both overpopulated. There are three ridings in Victoria altogether, aren't there?
Mr. Martin: There's Victoria, there's Saanich and there's mine, Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca.
Mr. White: I'm at a loss as to why they would redescribe the boundaries like this. It seems to me they would go north, would they not, rather than an east-west expansion if they were going to redraw the boundaries altogether?
Mr. Martin: That's correct. As you point out, they should be going north, because that's the natural movement of commerce. The riding immediately east of me, Saanichton, is not going to grow as rapidly. It is primarily a retirement area with a lot of agriculture and a lot of areas that cannot be built up into high-density areas, whereas mine can and will be built up. So it makes sense to move in a north-south direction, not east-west.
Mr. White: One wonders where the people who redrew these boundaries in British Columbia really came from, because they don't make sense.
Mr. Martin: No, not at all. I would like to have some reasoning as to why they're trying to carve up my riding in a fashion that simply doesn't make any sense at all.
The Chair: I have a very brief question. One of the things that has come up in the committee is accountability to constituents. If in fact you inherit a number of other constituents who weren't yours, it will be those constituents who may well vote you in and out of office. Does that have any concern for you?
Mr. Martin: If I understand correctly, Madam Chairman, are you saying that the people I am losing versus the people I am gaining have a bearing on whether or not I get elected?
The Chair: It would mean, then, that these new people you're inheriting and the people you are losing...then the whole aspect of accountability for a member of Parliament. You wouldn't have been able to work with those people. So it would be almost like running as a new member.
Mr. Martin: That's quite true to an extent. The north and east ridings are both held by Reformers who won by very handy margins. But you're right that in terms of an individual such as me, they would not know I have the historical context of working for the people in the north part of the riding through this period of time. Picking up a new area - you're right; I'm an unknown factor, to a degree.
If things were going to be redrawn, it would make more sense to do it immediately after an election, not six or nine months before an election takes place, which is likely what will happen if this goes through. I think it does a great disservice to the people, regardless of where they come from, to redraw the boundaries immediately before the election. They haven't been able to have that interaction with a member of Parliament to know whether or not they like them. I don't think it's fair. A better time to do that would be immediately after an election. Then they have a period of time to assess the individual representing them.
The Chair: Very good. Thank you for your presentation.
The meeting is adjourned.