Appearing before the Electoral Boundaries Commission

Here is my presentation to the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Saskatchewan.

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.

September Midday Mass

The tall old priest entered the half-lit sacristy,
fresh from his usual Tuesday morning studies.
The fair-haired acolyte with the bad complexion
was ready, vested, standing in the dimness
quietly.  The old priest noticed he was sniffing
and his eyes were red. A failed romance,
he thought; but keeping his own rule on chit-chat
in the sacristy, vested silently.
The old familiar motions and the prayers
displaced whatever thoughts he might have had;
the only dialogue to break the stillness was
the rote exchange of formal preparation.

Then, in one motion as he slipped his hand
beneath the pale green veil, the other hand
upon the burse, he lifted vested vessels,
turned and followed in the sniffing server’s
wake. Eyes lowered to the holy burden
in his hand, he failed to notice that
the chapel for this midday feria —
on other days like this with one or two
at most — was full of worshippers; until
he raised his eyes, and saw the pews were filled —
but undeterred began the liturgy:
the lessons and the gospel from last Sunday,
his sermon brief, but pointed, on the texts.

It wasn’t till the acolyte began
 the people’s prayers, and choked out words of planes
that brought a city’s towers down, and crashed
into the Pentagon, and plowed a field
in Pennsylvania, that the old priest knew
this was no ordinary Tuesday in
September —
not ordinary time at all,
that day he missed the towers’ fall.

Tobias Haller BSG March 8, 2008
Reposted now annually as a traditional observance

Arise, ye workers, from your slumber.

An end to Gerrymandering?

New federal constituency boundaries have been proposed for Saskatchewan.  This is part of a redistribution which follows automatically based on the most recent census.

Early on in the process, there were widespread calls from academics, from media and from basically anyone with a lick of sense for the commission to move away from the gerrymandered "rurban" constituency model which saw the cities of Regina and Saskatoon split into four separate ridings with vast rural components..  The net effect of the old model was a massive electoral advantage to the Conservative Party.  Indeed, Saskatchewan had the unique distinctions of a) being the only province where there was not a single all urban constituency and b) being the province where the Parliamentary representation was most at odds with the actual election results.

Overall, the commission has done some fairly good work.  Saskatoon will consist of two all urban constituncies and one mixed riding with a small proportion of rural voters.  Likewise Regina will have two virtually all urban ridings, but the third riding will have a larger proportion of rural voters than the rurban seat in Saskatoon.  Indeed, the proposed new Regina - Qu'Appelle is virtually unchanged from the current version except for the addition of the Walsh Acres neighbourhood in Regina and a few minor tweaks in the rural boundary at the east end of the seat.

Regina

As mentioned, the changes to Regina - Qu'Appelle are very minor, much to the joy (no doubt) of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer.  But the changes to Wascana are also very limited, principally in the loss of rural areas.  Long time Liberal MP Ralph Goodale should be pleased - although he may decide not to run again in 2015 since he'll be collecting his Canada Pension and eligible for a very handsome Parliamentary pension as well.  If Ralph (who wins despite being a Liberal, not because of it) were to retire, the seat would likely become a Conservative - NDP marginal with a slight edge to the Conservatives.

The principle change is the combination of the Regina parts of the former Palliser and Regina - Lumsden - Lake Centre seats into the all urban Regina - Lewvan.  Notionally this seat would have gone NDP by a narrow margin in the 2011 election, and that despite the former RLLC having not been a priority riding.  Former Palliser candidate Noah Evanchuk would be the obvious frontrunner for the NDP nomination here in what should be a highly winnable priority seat.

The only point that has been questioned in my hearing has been the choice to carve out the Walsh Acres neighbourhood from Regina - Lewvan to Regina - Qu'Appelle.  Obviously this was to equalize the population numbers, but it does look a trifle odd.  If Walsh Acres were to be put into Regina - Lewvan, obviously a comparably sized neightbourhood would have to go the other way.

Saskatoon

I don't claim to know Saskatoon well enough to say much, though I'm told that there are some odd spots where the proposed boundaries slice through neighbourhoods.  Notionally all of these are competitive seats for the NDP.

Rural

Most of the proposed rural boundaries seem sensible enough, with the exception of the west central region of the province.  I don't see the sense of a pair of constituencies that run from the Alberta border to past Saskatoon.  It would seem to me that splitting that area between east and west would make more sense.  I don't have the detailed census data to suggest a precise line, but the following gives you the sense of what I'm suggesting.

Hearings

The next stage is a series of public hearings.  Here again, Saskatchewan proves unique in that all of the hearings are during business hours, which hardly encourages a broad response.  The hearing schedule can be found here.  Anyone wishing to speak at the hearing must inform the commission prior to September 3, 2012.

Thoughts on St. Dominic's Day



I've has this huge collection of links that I've been intending to post.  Mostly I've been waiting for the opportunity to put them all in the context of a narrative.

This evening, as I put together the service sheets for tomorrow's midweek eucharist, St. Dominic gave me the narrative.

Dominic realized that the people could not be brought back to the Church so long as bishops and priests made the rights of the institution their primary concern. So he adopted a life modelled on today’s gospel: he renounced all property except for the robe on his back and travelled up and down the countryside, preaching to strangers on the road and to crowds in the market-places.

The first five articles - every one of them worth the read - speak to the problem of an institutional church that is confused about the proper focus.  We are concerned with the survival of an institution - preferably a survival accomplished without making any serious change to how we do things.  Christendom is over, and we need to stop pretending it isn't.  We desperately need to change.  The sixth article, writing from a secular perspective, talks about why change is so hard, and how leaders often undermine their own attempts at reform.

Lutheran Pastor Keith Anderson talks about the frustrations of young clergy.

Perhaps the difference is that this cohort of clergy is that they aren’t critiquing an institution we just assume will still be here in ten years. They are calling us out of the cloud of denial - telling us that if we don’t act, it won’t be - and that we have to talk about it.

Bishop Scott Benhase of Georgia calls for an end to the culture of passive resignation.

It is time to give up our excuses for not engaging in God’s mission to make disciples, and, by doing so, to make a difference in our communities.

Washington DC Baptist Pastor Amy Butler calls for the end of the church as we know it.

Our work is not to control the trends of society or to prop up a comfortable model we’ve become accustomed to. Our work is to make faithful disciples of Jesus Christ: to bring the gospel to the world, to nurture people in their faith, to live as good stewards of what we’ve been given and to bring justice and peace to a society desperately in need.

Radical Evangelical Shane Claiborne ponders the possibility that Jesus may actually have meant what he said.

The more I have read the Bible and studied the life of Jesus, the more I have become convinced that Christianity spreads best not through force but through fascination. But over the past few decades our Christianity, at least here in the United States, has become less and less fascinating. We have given the atheists less and less to disbelieve. And the sort of Christianity many of us have seen on TV and heard on the radio looks less and less like Jesus.

Theologian Wendy Daxon, guest posting at Lay Anglicana, questions if the Church is serious about reaching the spiritual seekers.

What other institution does this? When a retailer or manufacturer does not reach its intended market, does it say, ‘We’ve got a tremendous product, how silly are they to reject it? We’ll just keep it on the shelf, gathering dust, not bringing anyone through our doors, because we know how good it is.’ Of course not. A smart, entrepreneurial business venture asks questions, and adapts. It brings in new people on staff, it welcomes new points of view—even uncomfortable ones. Hearing hard truths about why something is not working, and acting on what one hears, is the fastest way to get things working again. And yet, this is exactly what the churches refuse to do.

And finally, in the Ivey Business Journal, organizational consultant Brian Brittain explains why it is so difficult for organizations to change, even when the leadership say they are committed.

The answer or a key leverage point for overcoming this problem lies somewhat deeply or unconsciously within the human psyche. We all make personal and work-related commitments to change. Why do we fail so often to do what we say we want to do? It is because we have secret, hidden commitments beyond our awareness that counteract our espoused commitments. These hidden commitments are often based on false assumptions. It is as if we have one foot on the gas with our espoused commitments and another on the brake with the hidden commitments. This realization came to me clearly while I was recently reading the work of Kegan and Lahey (Immunity to Change).

So read 'em and weep.  And when you're done, go change the Church and the World.

How do you know the "Global South Primates" are fibbing?

It's an old joke.

How do you know (insert name of despised group) is lying?

Their lips are moving.

I've heard it told about assorted professions, various subsets of addicts and most every sect of politicians.

It seems to me quite apropos of the so-called "Global South Primates."

They issued a communique the other day.  Mostly the usual self-congratulatory and self-justifying boilerplate.  And, as usual, a long and impressive list of "Primates present or represented" - including the Most Revd David Vunagi, Primate of Melanesia.

A day or two later, this comment (from the Rt Revd Terry Brown, former Bishop of Malaita) at Thinking Anglicans:

I have asked the Archbishop of Melanesia (who was present at Bangkok) about this “Global South Primates’ Communiqué” and he says he knows nothing about it. He says TEC, same-sex blessings and the Anglican Church of Canada were not even on the agenda or discussed; that the main focus was on mission and resource sharing issues and that in this respect the conference was very good. He says the only statement the Primates signed was a letter to the Crown Appointments Commission asking them to appoint an ABC who could hold the Communion together. Therefore, this “Global South Primates’ Communiqué” is a totally specious document, not discussed or agreed upon by the Primates but put together afterwards by a small group of people (some Primates and their US advisors possibly?) and put on the Global South webpage without the consent of the Primates whose names are attached to it. Notice that those names are only attached as “present” at the meeting and not as agreeing to or signing on to what was written above their names. Most of them do not realize such a statement has been sent out. A similar sort of thing happened after one of the earlier Global South Primates meetings when Primates’ names were added without their permission.

Ponder that for a moment.

this “Global South Primates’ Communiqué” is a totally specious document, not discussed or agreed upon by the Primates but put together afterwards by a small group of people (some Primates and their US advisors possibly?) and put on the Global South webpage without the consent of the Primates whose names are attached to it.

". . . a totally specious document . . ."

". . . not discussed or agreed upon by the Primates . . ."

". . . put on the Global South webpage without the consent of the Primates whose names are attached to it."

As Bishop Brown points out, this isn't the first time the so-called "Global South Primates" have issued communiques with (shall we be charitable?) misleading lists of attendees intended to imply endorsement.

A wise old journalist once told me that Rule Number One for a serious public relations practitioner is "Don't Lie."  There are two reasons for this rule.  First, it's wrong.  But more importantly, it doesn't work - and when you get caught, it destroys your credibility.

You'd think that the so-called "Global South Primates" would know basic moral theology.  Failing that, you'd hope their communications advisor would know the fundamentals of ethical PR practice.

How do you know the so-called "Global South Primates" are lying?

They issue a communique.

Episcopal Church General Convention - Day 8

While Deputies and Bishops still work their way through the budget and some other issues, for the No Anglican Covenant Coalition, it's all over but the shouting. 

I had a worthwhile conversation with Connecticut Bishop Ian Douglas about what happens now.  Bishop Douglas is one of the Episcopal Church's representatives at the Anglican Consultative Council.  As much as I'd love to be in Auckland, New Zealand for the ACC meeting this fall, such is not to be.  Our Coalition hopes there will be a grown up conversation about an appropriate ratification threshold and a reasonable sunset clause.  The Covenant has drained far too much energy from the life of the Communion for so little purpose.  There needs to be a clear decision point at which the thing stands or falls.

I have no responsibilities between now and the departure of my flight on Friday morning.  After 111 minutes on hold with Airmiles, it wasn't possible to move my flight a day sooner.  Oh well.  I expect I'll attend the final Convention Eucharist tomorrow, and perhaps spend much of the rest of the day trying to put paid to this lingering cold.