Commissioners,
Thank you for the opportunity to
address you on the important matter of the redistribution of electoral
boundaries.
While I am not here in any official
capacity, I would note by way of background that I am an Anglican priest who
has served in several multipoint point parishes and single point parishes
across the Diocese of Qu’Appelle, which constitutes the southern third of the
province geographically and the southern half of the province in terms of
population. I’ve served congregations
·
in
Oxbow, Alameda, Carnduff, Carievale, Gainsborough, Alida, Carlyle, Manor and
Cannington Manor
·
in
Kerrobert, Major, Coleville, Smiley, Prairiedale, Kindersley, Brock, Eston,
Loverna and Alsask
·
in
Esterhazy, Cotham, Dubuc, Bangor, Llewellyn, Saltcoats, Churchbridge and
Langenburg
·
in
Balcarress, Cupar, Dysart, Kelliher, Abernethy and Katepwa
·
in
Avonlea and Ogema
·
and
in three different parishes in Regina.
I would suggest that this experience
has given me some passing insight into the commonalities and differences
between urban Saskatchewan and rural Saskatchewan.
Early on in the boundary review
process, there were widespread calls from academics, political analysts and
major media to move away from the previous model of having no all urban
constituencies in Saskatchewan. The
argument was simple and straightforward:
·
Urban
and rural voters have different interests and different issues.
·
The
previous practice of having no urban constituencies was an anomaly in that
Saskatchewan was the only province without a single all urban constituency.
·
The
previous practice resulted in distorted electoral outcomes, with Saskatchewan
consistently having a greater variance between party popular vote and party
seat distribution than any other province.
I am very pleased to see that your
commission has heeded that advice. I
think the proposed boundaries make a great deal of sense, and while it has not
been possible to eliminate mixed urban – rural constituencies entirely, the commission
has kept it to a minimum.
Some have tried to argue from history
that the previous mixed urban – rural constituencies are of such longstanding
as to be almost an inviolable tradition in Saskatchewan. I suggest, with respect, that the argument is
entirely ahistorical and actually rather fatuous.
The geography currently known as
Saskatchewan has been represented in the Canadian Parliament since 1887. One cannot speak in any meaningful way of
mixed urban – rural constituencies in Saskatchewan prior to 1968, when the
former riding of Saskatoon was replaced with Saskatoon – Biggar and Saskatoon –
Humboldt and the former riding of Regina City was replaced with Regina East and
Regina – Lake Centre. In other words,
the inviolable tradition of rural – urban constituencies only covers 44 years
of the 125 year history – barely more than one-third.
And more importantly, what was that
former commission’s motivation in dividing the two cities? The answer is stunningly obvious. By the mid-1960s, both Saskatoon and Regina
were too large to constitute one constituency but not large enough to
constitute two. Not to mention that, in 1968, most residents of Regina and Saskatoon were no more than a generation or two off the farm - which is ertainly not the case today.
There are significant differences
between the issues and interests of rural and urban voters in
Saskatchewan. While the arithmetic of
subdividing Saskatchewan’s population into 14 more or less equal constituencies
may not make it possible to adhere perfectly to the principle of communities of
interest, it is absurd to argue (as some have) that the interests of a voter in
the Rosemont neighbourhood of Regina, where my current parish is, are
essentially no different than the interests of my former parishioners in
Carlyle or Coleville or Cotham. The
significant variance in voting patterns alone suggests a significant
divergence.
But the current pattern has served
the interests of one political party very effectively over the past ten
years. That party has doubtless
encouraged many of the presenters who will appear before you to argue in favour
of having only mixed urban – rural seats in Saskatchewan.
Indeed, if they are serious that
mixed urban – rural ridings are just the thing, then wouldn’t a replication of
the existing boundaries leave the seven all rural ridings at a significant
disadvantage? Surely the logical
corollary of their position is to have seven long, thin ridings radiating out
of Saskatoon and another seven out of Regina, each extending to the provincial
boundaries. Instead, they apparently
believe that having all rural constituencies is just fine, so long as there are
no all urban ones. It seems
intellectually inconsistent, perhaps even a trifle disingenuous. The only logical argument in favour of the
current arrangement is an argument rooted in partisan advantage – an argument
which, by statute, the Commission cannot take into account.
You have been appointed to serve the
citizens of Canada and the citizens of Saskatchewan, not to serve the interests
of any political party. You have
demonstrated your integrity by producing a very well balanced set of electoral
boundaries that effectively honours the principle of communities of interest
with as few exceptions as reasonably possible.
While some presenters may suggest minor tweaks here and there, the
overall proposal is sound, reasonable and fair.
I would note one anomaly, though it
is not related to the question of urban – rural ridings. That is the two proposed constituencies of
Lloydminster – Battlefords – Rosthern and Kindersley – Rosetown –
Humboldt. It does strike me as odd to
have two constituencies extending from the Alberta border to somewhere east of
Saskatoon. I would suggest, respectfully,
that the commission might consider maintaining the outer boundaries of the two
ridings but dividing them east and west rather than north and south. I don’t have a specific suggestion, but
something along the lines of Lloydminster – Battlefords – Kindersley – Rosetown
and Rosthern – Humboldt, if you will. As
a former resident of Kerrobert, it strikes me I’d have had more commonality
with both Kindersley and the Battlefords than with either Rosthern or Humboldt.
But that is merely a proposed
tweak. Your overall proposal is very
sound and will, I hope, be finally adopted with very few changes.
Again, thank you for this
opportunity.
