Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Jan. 31st, 2023

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Chair, one of the challenges I have with the member's argument is that the commission's report and the instance of my consultation, which was held in Antigonish, actually indicates that they heard feedback that residents did not appreciate their proposal, but they had a hard time making it work with the population, so they chose to do something different. They've acknowledged that they've heard something different from what they're recommending.

One of the challenges I have is that in the proposal, which they adjusted pursuant to the consultation that they've acknowledged did not represent their decision, they've significantly exacerbated the problem and have now put out something fundamentally different—and worse—for residents of Antigonish.

Previously, Antigonish was connected to a part of Cape Breton. Now it's connected to almost the entirety of the island, despite the fact that in the report they indicate that local residents objected to the initial proposal, and subsequently they've made it worse.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Turnbull, you have up to five minutes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thanks to the MPs for being here today.

It sounds to me like there's.... I guess I want to say that I understand the comments that were made about the fact that people don't always engage in a process when they don't have an objection. I think that's especially so if you've been historically marginalized and disenfranchised.

I also want to say that I really understood from the testimony you've given that, across each one of your stories here, there seems to be the sense that the first phase, the first proposal that was given, seemed to kind of lure people into a sense of security around what was being proposed. Then something else resulted in the second phase after the consultations took place, and now there's really only this process to voice those concerns.

On Mr. Perkins' point, which I found very offensive, to be honest.... To say that they're now proposing to “interfere”, to use that word I think is just inappropriate, because this is the actual process that we're following, as the chair has said. I think you should feel perfectly confident and comfortable in expressing your concerns here at this committee, and I invite you to do so.

Based on your perspective, Mr. Battiste, is there a systemic bias in this process?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I would say yes, and I would say that all of the literature on Elections Canada's site would say yes. They talk about the historical displacement. They talk about the lack of trust in federal institutions, and we can see why.

The reason Eskasoni is the largest Mi'kmaq community is that we took Mi'kmaq communities from all across Nova Scotia, displaced them from their homes, centralized them into a reserve and hoped that they would die off. They didn't die off. They grew. Now they're the largest Mi'kmaq community.

Then, when you hear a presentation at a consultation that says, “You know, this community maybe has a little too much of a voice in the institution and we should remove them”, it creates suspicion.

Also, the fact that there is a process, as Mr. Perkins talked about, does not change the constitutional nature of the law. It does not change what UNDRIP states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous people concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting or implementing [any] legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Now, I think there's a reason why they put in “administrative measures”. It's because a lot of times the displacement of indigenous communities has not been done by legislation. It's been done by administrative boards. This is what we're seeing in this situation.

I'm asking that this committee look at that and say, never again should an indigenous community be displaced without their consent and without their consultation.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

If I'm interpreting you correctly—and I think I am—that duty to consult must be more proactive and means a lot more than what you've seen in this process. Can you describe what that really means? How would the process look different, in your eyes, if it were to be actually procedurally fair?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I think Ontario got it right when they said that they have to look at historical injustices and give more weight to indigenous representation based on the history of this country. I think that if the commission would have gone in with a mandate or even turned their minds at all to indigenous communities.... They're not mentioned once in this commission report. The fact that indigenous communities, Indian reserves, get all of their services from the federal government, not the provincial governments, shows that there is an increased number of reasons why these federal commissions should take this into consideration, and they just didn't.

The fact that this may result in litigation because of that is something that I think this committee has the opportunity to remedy today, before it goes into that situation.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

In terms of the act—because there's an act that governs this particular process, which is the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act—should that be amended, as well, coming out of this process, in your view, based on UNDRIP?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I think that once UNDRIP passed, it was part of the law immediately. Once we passed Bill C-15, there was an article in there that should have been respected. The fact that it's a new law doesn't change the fact that it is law, and the commissioner should have known that there was a part of this that needed to have indigenous participation.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have the floor, Ms. Gaudreau.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to use my two and a half minutes to give my colleagues an opportunity to speak.

Since the commissioners are watching, in a few words, what are your biggest concerns? What message do you want to send to the commissioners?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I thank them for their work, and I think they were trying to do something important with rebalancing the population. Where I think they missed the mark was that they separated communities that share common bonds. That's going to lead to worse outcomes for people who live in those communities.

Frankly, it makes no sense for me to show up here as a small town and rural guy to say that I should not have suburban Halifax, which tends to support our party. I'm asking to maintain like economies between rural communities and small towns. If we have representatives who can bring a focus to their work to support the needs of their community members that share those common bonds, I believe Canadians will be better off.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I'll say that I thank them for their work, but I'm excited that they, and we, have the opportunity to send a clear message. That message is that the systemic racism and failures in the past to ensure indigenous representation stop today. It stops with this commission. It stops with this precedent that says never again will indigenous people feel like they're an afterthought. Never again will indigenous people feel that they're purposefully being removed, because we make a decision today, at the start of this process with Nova Scotia, that says indigenous representation is important.

If there is a decision that impacts an indigenous community, they have the right to be heard. “Nothing about us without us” is the premise that indigenous communities have stated over and over again. They have an opportunity to right this wrong. I hope they turn their minds to doing that.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I would agree with all of that, and I thank the commission, because their job is very difficult. I would say Nova Scotia has turned the corner. You cannot disenfranchise the diverse communities that Nova Scotia now represents in terms of culture, in terms of languages and in terms of all of that stuff.

This area that I represent right now is the hub of many of them. That needs to be taken into consideration because newcomers also need to be included.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

It was a good use of your time. Well done!

Ms. Blaney, it's over to you.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Battiste, you talked a lot about righting this wrong. In terms of system change, what would you recommend to the commissioner around engaging indigenous voices in a new way?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I would say any testimony that they hear that talks about an indigenous community without them in the room requires them to consult with that community. At the point when the commission heard that they should remove an indigenous community or that they should split Mi'kmaq communities, they had the duty to consult.

My recommendation for this committee to recommend to the commission is that we set a precedent that says any indigenous community that's adversely impacted by a decision around electoral boundaries deserves consultation and deserves to be heard.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

That's all for my questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We will continue with five minutes for you, Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues for appearing.

Madam Diab, you've made an argument about procedural fairness. I would just note that to go from Larry Uteck to Lower Sackville, it takes 14 minutes. Larry Uteck to Cole Harbour, where another hearing was held, is 31 minutes. From Hubbards to Lower Sackville around St. Margarets Bay is 43 minutes. Hubbards to Cole Harbour is 56 minutes. Peggy's Cove to Lower Sackville is 51 minutes. Peggy's Cove to Cole Harbour is 59 minutes. In other words, residents from those areas could get to a hearing in less than an hour. In some instances it would take a half-hour or even 14 minutes, plus of course any virtual hearing.

I would submit respectfully that, on that basis, your procedural fairness argument is rather weak.

Mr. Fraser, you talked a little bit about communities of interest and the connection between Antigonish and Pictou County. I think you raised some valid points in that regard, but at the same time, no federal riding is going to be perfect, or it's often difficult to draw a perfect riding. Sometimes lines have to be drawn at a certain place, and the commission acknowledged that they had heard conflicting input. Some residents supported extending Antigonish into the lower strait area, which encompasses four counties, while others did not. Some of the commonalities, as I understand it—and I would be interested in your input—between Antigonish and the Cape Breton component of the riding include a common chamber of commerce, a health authority that had been in place until recently, a regional hospital, the same public school administration, a community of faith with the head of Catholic diocese in Antigonish as well as a radio station XFM 989 CJFX.

I would just welcome your comments based on my—

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Cooper, you raise an important point. Local knowledge of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton is really important to understanding the point you are articulating. The commission acknowledged that the preponderance of submissions during the consultation were opposed to the attachment of Antigonish to Cape Breton.

In fact I agree with you—there's no perfect riding. It's not perfect now. Antigonish community residents actually want the entirety of Antigonish County to come back into the mainland of Nova Scotia.

The challenge I have with the conflicting evidence you've pointed to is that the commission asserted that they had heard some submissions indicating commonalities between Antigonish and the strait region and Cape Breton. They're not proposing to annex Antigonish only to the strait region. They're proposing to annex Antigonish to the entirety of Cape Breton Island except for Sydney and Glace Bay—if you don't know the map, that's sort of the upper right-hand corner if you can picture it on a map—despite some commonalities that are actually very real. If there was a proposal to attach Pictou County, Antigonish and Port Hawkesbury, I could see a reasonable person saying that maybe that would make sense. Nobody is talking about that, and the population presumably wouldn't think it would work. Otherwise, they might have come up with that kind of a solution.

What they're proposing now is to attach Antigonish not just to the strait region but to all of Cape Breton, except Sydney and Glace Bay, including communities that do not have those commonalities.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

How much time...?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

You're talking about minutes, but you asked the question.

Emotionally—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Well, it is my time. I have a minute.

Okay. Go ahead for 20 seconds.