Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 27th, 2023

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

No, there isn't, and in fact there's widespread support from the MPP, the city councillor and the residents' associations.

I didn't get to that part. I got cut off.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Okay. Ms. Zahid, I have the same—

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Yes, people would like to see that Scarborough Centre.... Many community organizations, community leaders have written letters to the commission in response to the name change and these new proposed boundaries.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

That's very good.

Ms. Lantsman, I think you mentioned that everyone was on board in your area.

Mr. Coteau, I have one question. Do you know who's organizing the group Save Don Valley East?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Yes. That's made up of about 40 different community members. They've had three public meetings and they meet every Sunday. There are about 40 members. In addition, they've held a public consultation.

In regard to the name changes you just asked about, I disagree with both of those changes. Forty-five percent of Don Valley East is going into Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, and Mr. Oliphant's riding is taking a big chunk of Don Valley East.

No one has been consulted on that issue. I would say that the people of Don Valley East in general would disagree with the name changes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Do you know who is leading that charge on Save Don Valley East? Do you have a name of somebody there?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

We have a gentleman right here who is joining us, Mr. Alim, and there are several other people who are part of a committee. They're made up of Conservatives and Liberals. It's a very mixed community group.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I have a couple of concerns about that group. Their web page is asking for donations, and I'm not sure whether that is allowed by Elections Canada, in terms of a redistribution. That would be a question.

The other thing is that they're collecting names, addresses and phone numbers for everyone who signs up, and from a privacy point of view, I'm not sure—

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

It's a separate, community-based group. You'd have to speak directly to that group. They're independent of me and my office. They've done everything themselves, and it's based on volunteers.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

That's great.

I want to talk to Mr. McKay. In terms of all the changes, you mentioned that your changes have sort of integrated with Ms. Zahid's and Mr. Oliphant's and that whole area. Since none of these really violate the quota, have you heard from anybody who would object to the redistribution that you three are suggesting?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The number of people who have objected have been relatively minor in one sense, in part because there's been no opportunity to react. It's a ping-pong effect here, where Mr. Coteau's riding disappears, Madam Zahid's riding gets pushed to the west, and my riding gets further pushed to the west.

It basically chops the riding in half and moves the Guildwood part of the riding over to the Rouge Valley, so the community of interest that has been in existence for 20-odd years now all disappears, and we're left with what I would describe as a butchered riding.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

There was a lot of discussion about racialized communities and Muslim communities from the witnesses who came to various public hearings.

Ms. Zahid, you talked about the schools and the difficulty for parents. Could you explain that further? The municipalities aren't changing, so people would have the same school boards in their areas. The federal area just affects the voting.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

In regard to the comments you said in the beginning, that many of these Scarborough witnesses were heard in the initial proposal by the commission, I just want to bring to your attention that these changes were not proposed. The majority of the changes for the Scarborough ridings were north of 401. Those changes have been addressed, and significant changes have been made to Scarborough Centre in the second proposal.

In regard to the schools, the proposed boundary by the commission is along Midland, and in that case, the catchment areas for the three schools will be divided. Those schools are on the east side of Midland. If the proposed changes are at the trustee level also, the trustees on the east of Midland will be different from the trustee on the west of Midland. The parents will be voting for a trustee in Scarborough Centre—Don Valley, but their kids will be going to a school where the trustee would be from Scarborough—Woburn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair, and thanks to all the colleagues who are here today. I appreciated your opening remarks.

Mr. Coteau, I have a couple of questions for you. One of them is around the process, and I think Mr. McKay has spoken to this as well. We've heard quite a few times in this committee just how the commission's process in all the provinces has followed what I think they're mandated to do, but that there are deep concerns and probably some pretty significant flaws in that process.

One of our members, Jaime Battiste, was here. He called it “procedural catfishing”, which was an interesting term that I hadn't heard before.

You have an initial proposal, and you have an ability to weigh in and react to that. Then, when the second proposal comes out, if it's significantly different, there's no real process for consultation left, other than MPs coming before this committee.

Mr. Coteau, what would you say are the flaws in the process, and how could we address those quickly? Then I'll get Mr. McKay to comment on that as well.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

One of the recommendations we actually make in the submissions—and I think everyone has a copy—is for this committee to do a study on the current process.

I think in the future this would be something we should aim to avoid, but in regard to this specific situation, imagine going out and doing a consultation like this and talking about a completely different area, and then getting a final report that says something so different. We were asked to consult on expanding our riding, and then we found out that the riding was being eliminated.

We're here to uphold democracy. We're here to speak on behalf of the people of our communities. Imagine that what I get is three minutes and my community gets absolutely no opportunity to talk about a significant shift in their electoral boundary that has existed since the 1970s. These are old communities. The people there love their community. Technically, they don't live in Scarborough, but the riding they will be part of now is going to be called Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East. It's completely different.

I hope in the wisdom of this committee moving forward you can look at this for the long term, but when it comes to this specific issue, all we're asking is that the commission do what they have the power to do. In the legislation they can continue consulting. They don't have to do just one consultation. Use the power of the legislation and recommend that they go out there and talk about these new maps. It is in the legislation, and they have the ability to do that.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks for the response, sir.

Mr. McKay, do you want to comment?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Ironically, you have what should properly be before this committee sitting here. Mr. Oliphant's suggestions are of a relatively minor nature, but you're one step ahead of yourselves.

If in fact the difference between the first proposal and the second proposal is so substantive that the second proposal bears no relationship to the first proposal, then this is a deeply flawed process. That's what our essential objection is to what's being proposed here.

I understand the limitations of this committee, but if in fact there is to be a review, this would be the time to do it. I don't know what authorities the committee has, but when the second proposal of a riding is some order of a 25% or a 30% or a 40% change, a dramatic change, it should presumably be tossed back to the electoral commission to make a public justification for what its second proposal might be.

In all three of our cases, I'm sure you would hear from the public about the current proposal.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. McKay. I appreciate those suggestions, and I think we've heard that kind of a common theme throughout, but I think you've given some additional thoughts that build on that.

Mr. Coteau, Don Valley East is being proposed by the boundaries commission to be completely split up. How would that impact the residents' representation in the House of Commons, in your view?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I grew up in Flemingdon Park. It's across from the science centre. It's an economically challenged neighbourhood.

I want you to picture this. In the last decade, the riding has.... If this proposal goes through, it will have been moved three times, in three electoral districts. In 2015, the great, healthy riding of Don Valley East was cut in half to create Don Valley North. We dropped from 120,000 to 90,000. Now, the proposal is to split it into three. This riding has been split five times, essentially, in the last decade, and communities like Flemingdon Park, which are challenged....

They keep moving them around without any opportunity for them to weigh in. It disrupts our entire support system. For example, the police division, the catchment area for the hospital, the catchment area for not-for-profit organizations that are doing work, our school districts.... All of those maps have to be changed again. It doesn't allow for stability within the community or long-term planning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Good afternoon everyone.

I find it interesting that Ontario is doing the same thing. At first, I thought only Quebec was looking into the process, the criteria and communities of interest, but I see that there are others. I'm very happy to see that, and I have to say I understand your position.

That said, I'm still hopeful. Some might say I've only been a member of Parliament since 2019, but I'll leave politics when I lose hope. Until then, I have to say that there is obviously a step missing. When you're presented with a proposal like this, you can't help but wonder if you blinked and missed something. In the end, you weren't involved.

I heard you say repeatedly that you have letters of support and everything to show that there has been consultation. I am hopeful that the commissioners are listening. I hope that you will be able to send the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs all of the information you have gathered and that it will be somehow carried over from the first stage, which was a bit of a surprise, to the final report.

From what I'm hearing, we really need to prioritize to prepare for the next redistribution process in 10 years. I think we need to look at the criteria and maybe even the weighting. We keep talking about the electoral quota. There have been several attempts to change it over the last few decades, but it's not going to change. That means we have to accept the reality and consider communities of interest. You said it about Ontario, the representatives from British Columbia said it, and Quebec said it loud and clear. I think that's where we're at.

I'll give you the rest of my time to respond to what I've just said. I don't think there's any question these issues need to be addressed.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you so much.

I agree this committee has an opportunity to make a recommendation—to study this issue further and make changes so it doesn't happen again.

However, right now, the commission has the ability to continue its consultation. I want to say that we're not here to fight the commission. It's a big task and we appreciate the work it does, not only in Ontario but across the country. It has a big job to do.

However, in the spirit of consultation and proper democracy, we're asking the commission to use its legislative authority to continue consulting—to go out there and consult on these final maps. Let people in Don Valley East, Scarborough—Guildwood and Scarborough Centre have just one official opportunity to have their say, so their voice is not muted and disregarded, and so democracy will prevail. I'm not recommending that you.... I haven't said, “Make sure Don Valley stays exactly the same.” I'm saying, “Allow people to be part of that process and let them have a say.”

Thank you so much.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

If I can add to it, I really agree with what you have said. I'm speaking today on behalf of the over 100,000 people of Scarborough Centre whom I represent here in Ottawa. I don't want any procedure that would be unfair to them.

In the first proposal, where the significant changes were being made, people were provided the opportunity to go out and speak. I was at the submissions, which were held in the Scarborough Civic Centre, and I heard people speaking about why it is important for Scarborough to maintain Victoria Park as the defining line and why it is important to have six strong ridings in Scarborough.

Why are significant changes being made in this proposal when my constituents, like the people in Don Valley East and the people in Scarborough—Guildwood, have no opportunity to go out and speak? In just three minutes, I cannot speak on behalf of everything.

Thank you.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

In addition to those comments, let me talk about the law of unintended consequences, which we—you—will not be able to address. Scarborough—Guildwood receives roughly $100 million in Canada child benefits. If it's not number one in the country, it's close to number one in the country. It's a relatively impoverished community, particularly north of Kingston Road. The Guildwood part is more affluent. With this proposal, you chop off the more affluent part and you add to it a less affluent part.

Now, maybe that's a good idea, and maybe it's not a good idea. I don't know that turning the riding that is number one in the country for the Canada child benefit into an even more needy community, with greater needs and less representation, is really a good idea, and, as my colleagues have said, there's been no opportunity to say otherwise.