Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2013

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

No, not at all.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

You're not?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

No.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Okay.

And she's not objecting to that change of the boundary either. Is that correct?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

As far as I know, she's not.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Okay. That answers my question there.

Essentially, as I understand it, unless she says otherwise, there's no dispute over where that particular line should fall. As that's the only line you have between you, that answers my question.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It sounds like we've come to a good agreement on that.

Are there any further questions by any member? We've gone a full round, and I'll give one-offs if there are any other questions for Mr. Sandhu.

We're missing some of our witnesses today, so we'll try to adjust our schedule as we go.

Mr. Sandhu, thank you for coming today and sharing with us. I'm sure the committee will take into account your testimony.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

I know you have a tough job. Good luck.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's a long, tough job, yes.

Thank you very much.

Before I lose all my committee members, we have two other tasks today. We have another set of witnesses. They will be coming as soon as we can get them here; we've asked them to come earlier. We also have to do some committee business at the end of the meeting today.

If it's all right, we'll suspend for....

Yes, Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Just for a quick point of clarification, with regard to the documents submitted by those who won't be appearing, are we going to discuss that today, or will that be when we discuss the full report?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're going to give some guidance today to the analysts on the writing of the B.C. report. The documents given in lieu of testimony will be accepted as testimony. It will be their views.

So they'll have them also, but if you wanted to....

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Okay. I understand our general pattern is not to editorialize but to report—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Right.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

—but there's a clear contradiction between two of them. My point is do we discuss that and draw attention to it, or do we just literally plunk that down in the report?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I think we will discuss that as we give guidance to the analysts as to how to write the report. The committee will have to come to an answer on what you've just asked.

Is there anything else at the moment?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

When will we discuss that, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're going to get to that at the end.

We'll suspend for a moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll call us back to order.

Thank you, Mr. Weston and Mr. Strahl, for being here. Some witnesses didn't attend this morning and we were hoping you would come in a little early so we could get started. Thanks to both of you for being here.

We are continuing our study on the redistribution commission's report from British Columbia. We'll have five minutes from each of you and then we'll ask you all some really hard-hitting questions.

Mr. Strahl, would you like to go first?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to share my perspective on some changes that could be made to improve the electoral maps in the Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon area.

First, I would like to congratulate the commission for the changes they made with regard to the community of Chilliwack following the first draft of maps. The first set of maps had unnecessarily divided the community. There was widespread concern across different levels of government, all political parties, and many citizens in Chilliwack. We were all pleased to see that the proposed riding of Chilliwack—Hope now keeps Chilliwack whole. In my opinion, this riding should remain as is, without amendment.

The remainder of my intervention concerns the proposed riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, much of which I currently represent in Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. The current riding has 29,999 square kilometres and includes many communities that are sparsely populated and remote. The new riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon will share many of the challenges that I currently face in trying to represent a large and diverse riding; however, given the population realities in the Lower Mainland and the Interior, this will always be an issue for these communities and the MP representing them.

It has been a concern of mine since my election that the communities of Pemberton and Whistler have been in separate ridings. Pemberton and Whistler are the definition of communities of interest. Many people who live in Pemberton work in Whistler, and many more rely on Whistler for their economic well-being. I have always stated that Pemberton and Whistler should be united in one riding, even while running in that community in the last election, which presents some messaging challenges, as I'm sure you can appreciate.

I read Mr. Duncan's and Mr. Lunney's submissions to this committee from earlier in this week. I'm in agreement that the community of Powell River should be returned to the riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. As a result of that increased population, I believe that Whistler, Pemberton, and SLRD area C should remain together as communities of interest and be added to the riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

Not only does this keep those communities of interest together, but there is great interest in the community of Lillooet, to the west, in expanding their burgeoning tourism and wine-growing activities, and they are actively working to establish themselves more strongly as a community linked with the Whistler region in order to bring that about. Bringing them together in the same riding will also be a positive for that community. Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has the room to absorb this population. This would stop the domino effect immediately without affecting other ridings in the Lower Mainland.

Having those communities of Whistler, Pemberton, SLRD area C, and Lillooet together in one riding will allow for a regional service hub, in which an MP from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon can justify setting up a regional office, which should address some of the issues regarding representation. It is often simply impossible due to population constraints for every community of interest to remain in the same riding, and the challenge for the commission is to ensure that there are regional commonalities. I believe that Whistler, Pemberton, SLRD area C, and Lillooet being brought together as regional communities of interest is a move in the right direction, and so is bringing Powell River back to the Mainland.

I believe that should the commission move to make both of these changes, they would, while not perfect, greatly improve the ridings on Vancouver Island and the Mainland without disrupting the work that the commission has done in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Weston, please.

We have five minutes for you. I won't read off your riding title because that would take the rest of your time.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was told when I first became MP that I should never use the name of my riding, because I would eat up half of my speaking time. Thank you.

I think this is perhaps the most difficult presentation I've made as a member of Parliament, and maybe you will all identify with this when I say that this really cuts to the core of our role as representatives of our communities and the individuals there. So it's no coincidence that I'm wearing several pins today in representing the various communities and communities of interest in the vast sprawling West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky riding.

My colleague has just said there's no perfect answer, and I would echo those words. I commonly call the area I represent the most beautiful place on earth not just because of the mountains and the waters and the islands but also because of the very innovative, entrepreneurial people who have increasingly identified themselves together. We've come together with annual best practice meetings. Much of what has happened in the riding has spurred my national health and fitness initiative, which is gaining steam. It is an amazing honour to represent this place.

In terms of common identities, I would say that the commission did a very good job in its report in identifying the different communities of interest throughout British Columbia, but also in the riding that I represent. One thing that it did—and I would bolster its conclusion—is to keep the city of West Vancouver whole. It might have been tempting, given the populations, to try to divide that, but it avoided making that mistake. Dividing West Vancouver would have drawn a line between people who share schools and community centres and other things. Keeping West Vancouver whole is something that I would recommend to this committee.

Secondly, we've heard a lot about Powell River and the Sunshine Coast. Powell River and Sunshine Coast have expressed a strong interest to stay together as a community of interest. John Duncan made a very articulate presentation in repeating the words of local leaders who identify as a community of interest. Although it's challenging to represent Powell River—we have four offices, one in Ottawa and three in the riding, and I believe in the 40th session of Parliament there were only three other MPs who had to operate that many offices—I would say that there's a strong community of interest between Powell River and the Sunshine Coast. I agree that there would be a strong preference to bring it back into the riding that I currently represent.

That creates a population issue. My colleague has spoken about Whistler and Sea to Sky. There's also a community of interest there, and my family is perhaps representative, having houses in both places, West Vancouver and Whistler, which is common for people who live in and identify with both places. I would say it would be my preference that Whistler remain, but I can see that we have to make some difficult decisions.

Given the very strong statements that have come from Powell River and that part of the Sunshine Coast, this committee has a difficult decision to make. I can only say that I'm also reluctant to have any part of the community that I presently represent leave, because it is an amazing honour to represent all of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski, will you start, for five minutes?

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

I will, only because you asked nicely.

Good morning, both Mark and John.

Mark, I have to say right off the top here in the interest of full transparency—but I'm sure this won't be surprising to you—that several of the members of this committee, from both sides of the aisle, I might say, were referring to you as Chuck a day or two ago.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Oh, yes.