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

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Sure. It's very much thanks to the New Brunswick immersion system that I speak French today, and also because I make an effort here in Parliament.

You're touching on a fairly political issue in New Brunswick.

Where I live, in New Brunswick Southwest, there are very few or no francophones. The south is more of an English-speaking region. Moncton is a bilingual city, and there are Acadians in the north. When there is news from Parliament back home, we want two things, that our name and our region's name be properly pronounced when it's on CBC news in New Brunswick or on any station. I'm talking about something local, but I represent the families of New Brunswick Southwest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gaudreau, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I feel that my colleague opposite didn't have enough time. He surely wants to reply. I'd like to give him my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

No.

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

What do you mean no?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

[Inaudible] Mr. Turnbull, if there's any time left.

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

I had two and a half minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes, now there are two minutes.

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

Obviously. That's all I needed. I wanted to offer my time if my colleague wanted to add anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Are you passing it to him? Mr. Turnbull wanted to go next. It's taking more time.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you for your kindness, Ms. Gaudreau.

Once again, the francophones of New Brunswick, who are historically Acadians. There are also francophones from outside the country who decide to settle in New Brunswick, because it's the only bilingual province in Canada. It seems to me that francophones will be free to move to your beautiful riding and continue to speak their language. I suppose they'll be allowed to continue to refer to New Brunswick Southwest or Saint John—St. Croix. You're not going to object to that, are you?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Oh no, absolutely not! I certainly didn't say that.

Simply put, the issue you're addressing isn't necessary. We're well represented. The New Brunswick Southwest poster works very well for us. There's no confusion when you hear the Speaker of the House of Commons.

However, the vast majority of voters in that riding don't care when they hear “St. Croix”. This isn't a place that affects the vast majority. I can safely say that with “New Brunswick Southwest”, they feel well represented.

This is a big debate in New Brunswick. Yes, the province is bilingual—that's not even up for debate—but being bilingual means that, back home, you can speak English or French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Blaney, you have the floor.

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

I have no questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Blaney, thank you.

With that, Mr. Williamson, I would like to thank you for your time with the committee. We will make sure that your information is circulated in both official languages. If you have anything else to share, as always, let us know.

With that, we will pause really quickly because our next panel is in person and that should not take too much time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

It's great to be back for our second panel on the federal electoral boundaries report. This one is brought to you by Nova Scotia, and I would like to welcome Sean Fraser, Lena Metlege Diab and Jaime Battiste.

Friends and colleagues, you will have up to five minutes for your opening comments. You might hear a beep-beep, which would mean that you had used more than those five minutes. It would be really good if we did not hear the beep-beep.

With that, we are going to start with Minister Sean Fraser.

You have up to five minutes. Welcome to PROC.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thanks very much, colleagues. It's a pleasure to be here with you. I'm here to register my objection formally to the commission's electoral boundaries report for Nova Scotia insofar as it impacts the federal riding of Central Nova and the proposed creation of Pictou-Eastern Shore.

Rick, you'll be familiar with the communities I'm talking about, and perhaps if I could lean on you to let people know what the local dynamics might mean once I make my submissions, that would be helpful.

There are some substantive complaints about rearrangement—

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

A point of order, Madam Chair.

Can we ask our colleague to speak more slowly?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

It's a bad habit on the east coast. We talk too fast.

I have substantial complaints and I have procedural complaints, and I hope you'll consider them in earnest.

On the substantive side, there was a decision made by the commission to separate the communities of Pictou County and Antigonish, which have historical links. There was a decision to annex the entirety of Antigonish County to virtually the entire island of Cape Breton, and there was a decision to extend what's largely a small town and rural community riding into essentially suburban Halifax, which will create difficulties for whoever the member of Parliament will be in the future to effectively represent communities that don't necessarily share interests.

On the procedural side, I was really disappointed, frankly, although I don't think it was a mistake made on purpose, that certain communities including the Pictou Landing First Nation community and important historical African Nova Scotian communities were not given an opportunity to give input, nor were the vast majority of municipalities in the community, which have unanimously indicated their deep dissatisfaction with the process and the result, some of which have actually adopted formal motions. I'm happy to get into that in more detail.

On the substantive side, to people who live there, the separation of Pictou County and Antigonish doesn't make sense. The communities have very similar economies in terms of their reliance on the fishery on the north shore of Nova Scotia, if you can picture the stretch of water between Nova Scotia and P.E.I. In the tourism sector, literally the same organization represents the interests of the Northumberland Strait and the eastern shore of Nova Scotia, which roughly mirror the existing federal constituency now. You'll see that these small towns of somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 or 5,000 people surrounded by rural communities have very similar backgrounds in terms of their social and economic features.

The decision to attach Antigonish to Cape Breton is, frankly, stunning to me when I actually look at the changes that have been made to the map, in particular since great changes to the ridings in Cape Breton were not initially proposed. Additionally, Antigonish residents came out in significant numbers and opposed almost unanimously the initial proposal to extend the boundary from Cape Breton into mainland Nova Scotia, because they felt it would be difficult for a person to represent both Antigonish and Cape Breton. The commission recognized this in the report. They said there was some commentary on the strait region in Cape Breton having commonalities with Antigonish. That's true, but then they changed the map to attach Antigonish to almost all of Cape Breton.

What you essentially have now is communities that are five or six hours away from each other in some instances, that have no real common economy or common political issues and that do not attach themselves to one another. If you ask people in Antigonish, they are very much not from Cape Breton, though they love it very much. It simply doesn't make sense.

On the other side of the riding, I'm from northern Nova Scotia and I cover a big part of the Atlantic coast on the northeastern part of the province. There's a decision to make up the population that would extend it closer to the city. The boundary would become essentially Cole Harbour. Rick will appreciate the nuance of this, being on the other side of the city.

The issues that come up in that part of the province deal more with whether they are receiving municipal services from Halifax, the only major city in Nova Scotia, and whether there are public transit stops available for people who commute to the city for work. The economy is largely driven by people who work in the city but live in the area. Further down the eastern shore, which I represent today, a lot of communities are based on the fishery or traditional primary industry or mining, or agriculture if you go into the Musquodoboit Valley.

I have some problems with the name, as well, that I can get to in questions, but I have only about 30 seconds left.

Very quickly on my procedural objection—and I raised this during my presentation to the committee—there are first nations communities that were not consulted and that are not happy about the result. Regarding the African Nova Scotian community, in one instance I received a letter this morning from Mr. Darrell Samson. A decision was made to draw the boundary in a way that actually separates the largest family centre from a community that very much wants to be in the same riding. It's a beautiful community. It would be an honour to represent them, but they don't want to be in my riding. A decision that impacts them negatively was made without their input. I think we should reject the proposal on that basis.

Madam Chair, I'm four seconds over, so I'll cut my comments there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

There might be a time difference, but I still have four seconds on this side for you.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'll use it to say thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Next we have Ms. Diab.

Ms. Diab, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Happy New Year, everyone. Kwe, marhaba, hello.

I apologize, but my five minutes of opening remarks will be in English.

First, I want to thank the commissioners for their service.

I'm here today to note objections to the final report of the electoral boundaries commission for Nova Scotia.

I've received letters and emails from residents who are concerned about the commission's proposed boundaries. These letters have come from an MLA, city councillors, the chamber of commerce, seniors' associations and many other organizations. I have all the names in front of me. I've tried to send in some of these and others for translation purposes. They keep sending them to me.

Today I'm here to voice those concerns, because at this point in the process it's only members of Parliament who can object to the boundaries. These boundaries matter to people, and they deserve to have their concerns heard. I have submitted a full briefing note to the committee, including some examples of the letters I've received and maps contextualizing data from the 2021 census. Today I will go over my objections in brief.

I have two substantive complaints and one that is procedural.

First, Halifax West is a diverse community of interest. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, in subparagraph 15(1)(b)(i), directs the commission to consider a “community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district” when drawing electoral boundaries.

Halifax West has a well-established community of new immigrants and minority racial, cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic groups. It has been an exceptionally diverse riding in Nova Scotia for decades. Put succinctly, the HRM, the Halifax Regional Municipality, is a pocket of diversity in Nova Scotia, and Halifax West is a pocket of greater diversity within that. This merits protection and meaningful representation.

The proposed federal electoral boundaries divide the community by removing a particularly diverse area that I refer to as the Larry Uteck area in the riding of Halifax West. As you all know, recent immigrants to Canada and minority groups have unique needs from the federal government, so it's essential that this Larry Uteck area remain in Halifax West.

Second is the objection received from the community of St. Margarets Bay. The boundary that separates Halifax West from the riding of South Shore—St. Margarets was significantly altered in the commission's final report. This boundary divided the community of St. Margarets Bay, which is a distinct historical, cultural and societal community and should not be divided. It has existed as one community since it was settled in 1780. I'm now reading verbatim some of what the residents sent me. Residents are concerned that the boundary “does not respect historical patterns of previous electoral boundaries”.

In all of the previous federal riding boundary changes, St. Margarets Bay, from Hubbards to Peggy's Cove, has never been split. Furthermore, the residents are concerned about the fact that their community was divided in two when this move was not required due to population growth. The residents I've heard from have asked that St. Margarets Bay remain united in the South Shore—St. Margarets riding, a riding that is named in part after the community.

Procedurally, there was no in-person hearing in Halifax West to directly ask residents how their boundaries should change, although it was this riding's growth that precipitated changes to neighbouring electoral boundaries. I attended the one virtual hearing the commission held in the province of Nova Scotia and advised the commission that they should keep historical communities of interest united in the federal ridings.

I didn't hear anyone suggest or advocate for the boundaries that the commission proposed for Halifax West. The changes I'm objecting to occurred in the commission's final report and were not present in the commission's initial proposal, so we're simply asking them to revert back to what they had suggested. These surprise changes have violated the principle of procedural fairness for these residents, and they've asked me to use my position as the member of Parliament to make sure their voices are being heard in this process.

To conclude, in my five minutes I have aimed to give an overview of my objections to the commission's final report. More detail can be found in the documents that were submitted and translated in both languages.

Preserving the St. Margarets Bay community and the Larry Uteck community would affect neighbouring ridings but would keep them all within the population variance that is described in the legislation.

Again, thank you very much to the federal electoral boundaries commission for Nova Scotia for all their concerns.

Thank you to the committee that's here. I'm happy to answer questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Excellent. Thank you so much for those comments.

Monsieur Battiste, it's up to five minutes for you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, colleagues.

I'm going to jump right into my objections.

First, I wanted to read a quote from the Elections Canada website something that was tabled 20 years ago. It says, “Aboriginal people can make a strong claim that the federal electoral system perpetuates their exclusion.” It's a bold statement, but I plan to show why that statement is still true today after 20 years. There are improvements that we need. I'm seeking your help to remedy this today.

I have five grounds for my objections. Firstly, there was a lack of procedural fairness for the affected communities. The Mi'kmaq community ties of Eskasoni, Wagmatcook, Membertou and Sydney were not considered. It was done without any consultation from impacted Mi'kmaq communities. The commission did not take into consideration indigenous languages in the same way as other historical minority language communities. Finally, the work is not aligned with the practice of other electoral commissions.

I'm going to get into the procedural fairness part. I really only have the opportunity to talk about three of the reasons why this is procedurally unfair.

Usually, if you're going to make big changes, you do so at the beginning of the process. You say, “This is what we're proposing”, which gives people a chance to have their feedback listened to and gives people a sense of where you're going. The first recommendation in the proposal for Sydney—Victoria had zero changes. There were no changes. Based on consultation with a handful of people, who asked that they make an urban versus rural riding in Cape Breton, this was accepted. It's very strange that they would do so in the second report, without giving the affected communities any chance to know this was coming. I call it procedural catfishing, if anyone understands the “catfishing” phrase.

One of the biggest things I'm looking at is, when you heard the testimony of people saying that we should make an urban area for the municipality, the only place that was suggested to be removed from that riding was the largest Mi'kmaq community of 5,000 voters. It's the community that is my home. I believe that the moment the commission heard that the only region they were being asked to remove from the municipal riding was a Mi'kmaq community, that point triggered a duty to consult.

Article 19 in the schedule of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which we just passed, requires that, when administrative boards make a decision that impacts indigenous communities, the free, prior and informed consent of that Mi'kmaq community is needed. I could go into the laws around consultation, but I don't have the time on this.

What we're seeing here is a decision that the Mi'kmaq community had zero opportunity to weigh in on. I have a letter here from all five Cape Breton chiefs who object to this. If you're looking at Nova Scotia, 66% of the on-reserve population is in the riding of Cape Breton. Besides the idea that there was no consultation, Eskasoni has a deep connection to the Sydney area.

I want to go into what other electoral commissions have looked at. If you look at commissions in British Columbia in the most recent provincial election, they said that they want to follow the principles of UNDRIP as part of their mandate. In Nova Scotia, the provincial boundaries looked not only at Acadian and Mi'kmaq communities, but also at African Nova Scotia communities.

I think the biggest and best evidence of this was in most recent report of the Ontario far north electoral riding commission. It said, “Indigenous representation must be given more weight in light of...past injustices”. There's only been a handful of first nations MPs in the history of this country who live on a reserve. There aren't a lot of indigenous MPs in this country. We're seeing why. It's because of these electoral processes.

I'm here to say that the commission's report is inconsistent with the law and the practice of commissions across this country, and that these changes weren't justified, as my colleague Mr. Fraser has already stated. We have an opportunity today to end that. We have an opportunity today, in this committee, to end the historical belief that these electoral boundary systems and these systems have perpetuated indigenous exclusion.

When indigenous communities look at this, the overwhelming question that I get asked is, “How could they do this?” In the era of UNDRIP and reconciliation, how can a commission, without any consultation or hearing from that indigenous community, remove the only Mi'kmaq-speaking member of Parliament—the only Mi'kmaq member of Parliament ever in the history of Canada to be elected—from his home community?

My timer says I'm up. I'm asking that you guys make the commission look at this, and I'm asking for the precedent to be set today that an indigenous member of Parliament and indigenous communities have the right to be consulted when an administrative board like electoral boundaries makes a decision that adversely affects them.

Thank you very much.