Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 19th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll call our meeting to order.

We have three witnesses today, all from our study on redistribution in beautiful British Columbia. Welcome, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Lunney, and Mr. Duncan. For many of you this will be your first chance at the end of a table. I'm sure Mr. Duncan has been there before. Get ready for a grilling from your fellow colleagues. You each have five minutes, and then we'll ask questions.

Mr. Duncan, we'll let you go first, please.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you very much. Not only are we from British Columbia, we're from Vancouver Island and we support each other very well.

I'd like to thank the committee for your study. Just by way of some history, I made presentations to the electoral boundaries commissions prior to the 1997 election, and again for the 2004 election, successfully, I might add.

I'll go through my presentation according to the questions that you presented to me.

What is the rationale for my objection?

According to paragraph 15(1)(b) of the act, the commission is required to consider the community of interest or community of identity or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, and a manageable geographic size. The boundary proposed by the commission divides the Comox Valley, keeping the town of Comox with Vancouver Island North and moving the city of Courtenay to Nanaimo—Alberni, renamed Courtenay—Alberni. Courtenay and Comox are highly integrated and virtually seamless communities. Dividing them would be completely contrary to the principles espoused by the act.

Powell River considers itself a Sunshine Coast community and has a much stronger community of interest and identity with the rest of the Sunshine Coast than it does with Vancouver Island. There are no governance structures that tie Powell River to Vancouver Island. I refer you to appendix B of my submission for examples.

Vancouver Island North is about four times as large a riding as West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, with two dozen small communities with some long driving times and small ferries. As well, West Vancouver is reached by one direct flight from Ottawa, which typically takes five hours, while Vancouver Island North typically takes eight hours. Adding the complexity of reaching Powell River to a riding already as large as Vancouver Island North is not reasonable.

Does my objection have community support? Yes, it does. Included in my submission to the committee are letters from the mayors of Courtenay, Powell River, Comox, and the Comox Valley MLA. I did discuss this with the Sunshine Coast MLA, who was supportive of what I was proposing, but I did not receive a letter. Essentially, at all levels of government, nobody supports the proposed boundaries.

What are the demographic consequences of the changes that I'm proposing? The changes will provide fairer representation for Vancouver Island, moving from an average of 3.1% over the electoral quota to 0.7% over, as well as for the Lower Mainland, moving from an average of 2.2% under the electoral quota to 1.6% under.

Is there a domino effect to the surrounding ridings? The changes I've proposed would affect adjacent ridings, but the effect is manageable and practical to address. I'd be happy to elaborate during Qs and As.

Is my objection a repeated argument made before the commission or a new one? I presented similar arguments to the commission, but at that time the proposal was different and the arguments were made differently. As well, information is available now that was not available prior to the public hearings. In the commission's original proposal the city of Courtenay was split between Vancouver Island North and Nanaimo—Alberni. I made the same arguments at the time with respect to Powell River belonging with the rest of the Sunshine Coast and West Vancouver, and how it was unreasonable to split Courtenay in order to add Powell River. However, much of the public outcry was focused on the splitting of Courtenay. The commission tried to address this complaint by keeping Courtenay whole, but then split it from Comox.

I also argued that population should not be added to Vancouver Island simply to solve a Lower Mainland problem, but what I did not have available to me at the time was the regional population breakdown that was provided in the commission's report. Their own data show that on average, Vancouver Island ridings are over the electoral quota and Lower Mainland ridings are under it.

Finally, the boundary as currently proposed has a significant contiguity issue that was not present in the first proposal. By cutting out the city of Courtenay, the town of Comox is barely connected to the rest of the riding. They had to be inventive to do that.

Have I talked to my colleagues about these proposed changes? Yes, I've spoken with my colleagues and have received support. You'll see that my submission has been signed by MPs James Lunney, John Weston, and Mark Strahl, whose current riding boundaries would be most impacted by my proposal.

There is a final question that I posed myself. One of the things the commission must consider is the historic pattern of an electoral district. Wasn't Powell River historically attached to Vancouver Island? In the past Powell River was attached to Vancouver Island, but at the time the upper and lower Sunshine Coasts were kept together and the Comox Valley was kept intact.

That concludes my submission. I think I'm just over five minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You're just over five minutes by a bit. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Lunney, for five minutes, and then we'll go to Mr. Rankin.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the issues related to our ridings. My presentation will be brief, but it will complement what Mr. Duncan is saying.

Vancouver Island has the population to manage seven ridings. We have three-quarters of a million people on Vancouver Island. The way I've explained it to people is that with six ridings, we have an elevation at the south end called the Malahat which divides the capital region, which has three ridings, from the rest of Vancouver Island. So you have three ridings in a concurrent pattern below that area in the capital region where half the population of the island has traditionally been, and then you have the three in the northern part of the island. When we were receiving the extra riding, it pretty well had to straddle the Malahat somehow, which is what the current configuration does.

What really complicates things for Vancouver Island is the inclusion of Powell River, as my colleague John Duncan has just pointed out, because in addition to pushing north, displacing the existing representation and what's been in place for quite a while, is the poll to the north.... Basically, my riding just south of Vancouver Island North and Nanaimo—Alberni would be reconfigured. It would take me right out of Nanaimo, or the riding that I represent would no longer include Nanaimo or Lantzville. That would displace about 50,000 voters between the 45,000 that I currently represent in Nanaimo, the larger half, and the Lantzville region, so about 50,000 people at that end, and would add about 25,000 at the north end of the riding. About 75,000 people would have a significant change in their representation or their typical alignment.

I would agree with my colleague that separating Courtenay and Comox which are really twin cities is an unnatural thing to do. The mid-island area, Nanaimo, is the second largest city on the island. It is the hub city. It's also been rebranded as the harbour city, but for years it was known as the hub city, a transportation centre with 86,000 people.

For most of the area north all the way to Deep Bay, which is about 30 kilometres south of Courtenay boundary, all that regional governance is already in the Regional District of Nanaimo on the east side of the island, and therefore the flow of governance to Deep Bay—area H it's called—all the way down is to Nanaimo. The business flow is toward Nanaimo, with the exception of the northern communities.

My recommendation for Nanaimo—Alberni would follow that of John Duncan, which would leave the city of Courtenay intact as part of Courtenay—Comox, and it would roughly follow the southern boundary of the city of Courtenay. Outside the city boundaries would be part of Nanaimo—Alberni. This proposal requires that the solution for Powell River be found on the Lower Mainland. That would allow us to retain a smaller portion of Nanaimo, but at least you would be able to justify calling it Nanaimo—Alberni.

I have a proposal on the map before you that would take the first east-west major thoroughfare off the Nanaimo Parkway, which is the exit called Aulds Road. It becomes Hammond Bay Road, and if you look at the map I have provided, it follows that to a natural pinch point where Pipers Lagoon and the road are very close together. It's a natural choke point for population. There's a high elevation, so you could separate that piece of population.

I've included up to Mostar Road, which is the second road. It cuts across to Hammond Bay Road, and according to my calculation, you'd come out with a population of about 110,000. It would shrink the neighbouring riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, from about 114,000 to 105,000 to the target level, but it would be a shift that brings them both within the targets of the commission.

I would argue, frankly, that Nanaimo has had one MP's office primarily for the last 12 years in the north part of the city, inasmuch as the other one—and prior to my representing the area, there was no MP's office in a city with 80,000 people, because one was up in Qualicum Beach and the other was down in Duncan. People are used to coming to north Nanaimo for their services.

The current configuration would displace 75,000 people, as I have indicated there.

The advantages, the net effect would be...I mentioned the population numbers of about 110,000 for Nanaimo—Alberni. In Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we'd have about 105,000. We'd respect the wishes of Courtenay and Comox to remain together, creating a defined boundary outside the city of Courtenay. It would maintain the natural flow of business and government for most of the residents on the east side of Nanaimo—Alberni, which is towards Nanaimo.

I'll be glad to take any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lunney.

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I am the rookie MP for Victoria, also with my colleague—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's slowly rubbing off. You know that, don't you?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I can continue to say it until the next byelection.

I was recently elected in the byelection which took place on November 26. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to your committee and also acknowledge the very important work that it does as part of our system of democratic governance.

I don't mean for a moment to minimize the challenge you face in trying to finalize new boundaries for electoral districts. I acknowledge the challenge of adding six new ridings to British Columbia, adapting to new demographic changes, yet respecting the historic traditions and long-standing geographic loyalties and affiliations of the areas in question.

Specifically, for my part of Vancouver Island, the Victoria area, I am very gratified that the redistribution committee listened to the concerns expressed by the vast majority of residents who appeared before it. I attended the commission's hearings—I was not yet sworn in; I was simply in the race at the time—but I heard the concerns first-hand, and the commission did too. The point is that the draft proposal for our Victoria federal riding was changed and has reverted to the boundaries that have been in place for almost 90 years, since 1924. We in Victoria like our traditions. We would like to keep things the way they are. We've been around with these boundaries since 1924. It works, and we like it that way.

There was a specific recommendation that had been rejected by the commission, which was that they remove an area of our city called Vic West, Victoria West, and put it in another riding.

The basic reason we succeeded in keeping it the way it is, is that it's inextricably linked to the rest of the city of Victoria. It shares the same working harbour, the same Gorge Waterway, etc. There's a commonality of interest, in other words, that justifies keeping Vic West in the riding. Vic West residents pay taxes to the city, rapid transit. There's a new bridge that's being replaced called the Johnson Street Bridge. Federal government investment in those projects is key to keeping taxes affordable for local residents while ensuring that our infrastructure is renewed. The issues that voters are concerned about in Vic West, such as the Johnson Street Bridge, and the mega marina, the federal harbour, are directly linked to our city. To have taken it and put it in a suburban riding in my judgment would have been a mistake, and I'm so pleased that the redistribution committee accepted that fundamental point.

Mr. Chair, my key point is that Victoria has spoken with one voice on the federal scene. Federal ministers, MLAs, mayors, councillors, have a single point of view, a single contact, with the federal issues that impact all of Victoria.

To sum up, the area is called Vic West, not Esquimalt East, and the boundaries have reflected that reality. In short, we believe this process has worked very well. It's a testament to our democracy. I'm so pleased that the residents of Victoria were successful in being heard and that Vic West remains in the constituency. We accept that no change was warranted and are pleased with the result.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

We have time for some questions for our guests.

Mr. Lukiwski, you're going first. Mr. Reid, I'll put you down.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for attending today.

My first couple of questions will be for John and James. Both of you mentioned in your presentations that you thought Powell River was kind of key to this thing. It also impacts upon a neighbouring riding, and I think that would be Mr. Weston's, who has yet to appear before the committee.

With your arguments and your recommendations as to where Powell River should be located, was I correct in hearing that Mr. Weston is also in agreement with that? You have sign-off from all of the MPs involved. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lunney first, and then Mr. Duncan.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

We've had some discussions among us. I think Mr. Weston will be here on Thursday. It's our view that Powell River can be accommodated on the Lower Mainland. I think Mr. Weston will express that as long as the integrity of the city of West Vancouver is maintained it can be accommodated in the Lower Mainland.

I'm sure he'll be in a position to elaborate on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Duncan on that point.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

That's my understanding also.

What they've done, actually, is taken away Powell River, but put Pemberton into the West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast riding. There's an opportunity to take Pemberton, which is currently in Mark Strahl's riding, and expand, and take Whistler away and possibly a part of the Squamish area, which would retain West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast as basically a coastal riding, as opposed to a coastal and interior riding.

I've had discussions with Mark Strahl, who's affected because Pemberton is part of his riding, with John Weston, and with Andrew Saxton. They all are in concurrence that Powell River doesn't belong on Vancouver Island, and they're all prepared to work with whomever they can work with in terms of adjusting the boundaries. We think it's quite doable without any further domino effect.

If I may, in terms of the domino effect to James Lunney and to the next riding south, it's minimal. The way it's configured right now, James loses where his office is and I lose where my office is. It doesn't make a lot of sense. They are there strategically because it was the place to represent a broad population. So in order to accommodate a Lower Mainland problem, they've created significant issues on Vancouver Island.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

With regard to the arguments you have presented here, have you both, James and John, presented them to the commission? If so, why did they come forward with the map that we see, which obviously is one you would like to see altered? Did they give you any specific reasons for rejecting your arguments?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I think I explained that their first proposal actually split Courtenay, which really made no sense. They said there was a diversity of opinion on this. In actual fact, there wasn't a diversity of opinion. There was one presenter from West Vancouver who suggested Powell River didn't belong in the West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast riding. Other than that, everybody was solidified. All of their commentary in the report had to do with basically trying to accommodate the too large population in the West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast riding. The configuration they've come back with is still, I think, about 7% or 8% above the target. There will be a need to make some adjustments to West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country; there's no question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

There are about 30 seconds left.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

My experience in this is that the last time there was a change in British Columbia, it didn't involve Vancouver Island. So I had a buy on that. Maybe I was a little naive. I was led to believe the MP participation was not a public process, so I didn't make a presentation to the commission; we were busy with other things. Perhaps that was naive on my part. Also, I couldn't see a solution for Powell River. There were still some discussions on how best to manage the Powell River issue. Having had some time to reflect on that, we're hopeful the solutions that are being put forward now are ones which, with the assistance of the committee, the commission will be pleased to reconsider.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks to your witnesses.

I'm struggling a bit with this one. We had a similar case in northern Alberta, where there was a new riding being put in and there were implications. What helped the committee was that the MPs came with a pretty comprehensive domino map, saying this is what the commission proposed, and this is what we see as a better alternative, and they justified it with a lot of the arguments that you're making.

I know the area well and I have sympathies, John, in terms of that Powell River hub. There are ferries and connections, but it would be awkward, certainly, to try to represent and go back and forth.

Here's my challenge. I'm looking at the domino effects that you're now talking about going into other ridings. If Powell River comes out and then goes into West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, you're talking now about maybe moving Pemberton. You also mentioned Squamish maybe then leaving that riding and going into Chilliwack.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

The regional district part of it would go with the new riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

This is where I'm going to have trouble. I'm not questioning what you're saying; I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

There's the new riding there that no one currently represents.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes. Maybe if we could bring up in the map on the left, this Mission.... I want to understand what the domino effects are of what you're suggesting, all in the effort to get Powell River out of the riding. Is that possible?