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

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

It's good that the time zones have realigned. That's perfect.

We're going to start with six-minute rounds, starting with Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentations and for bringing these matters to the committee.

As Minister Fraser noted, as a fellow Nova Scotian, I share—we all share—the desire to make sure we have “effective representation”, to use the Supreme Court term, for all Nova Scotians.

As a fellow Nova Scotian MP, I have no doubt that you were all aware of the process the commission undertook for public consultation and, like in other provinces, residents had the opportunity to share their views with the commission in written format and/or to speak at the in-person hearings or go to a virtual hearing.

All residents of Nova Scotia had ample time to share their views with the boundary commission during the consultation process in the spring, which ran for several months. The commission vigorously advertised their locations and the times and dates of the nine in-person public hearings and one virtual meeting.

I know that I—and I'm sure you, as responsible MPs—also promoted the date, time and location of the one hearing that was held in my riding in Bridgewater, which, by the way, is an hour and a half from each end of my riding, yet I had 25 people in my riding show up for it because of the profile we gave it. That's a much further distance than all three of you had for this hearing. In fact, in my case, for Shelburne County, radically, it was being suggested that it be moved to another riding, yet those residents, an hour and a half away, came to the meeting.

There were over 1,000 written submissions that were given by Nova Scotians to the commission, in addition to the public hearings. On the claims that your constituents were not aware, I find that inconsistent with what the commission actually did and what was the process that they followed in all 10 hearings. I'll try to make a statement here to go through all of this. There's a lot you've brought forward.

In fact, of note is that the one held in Antigonish was roughly 40 minutes from the population centre of Pictou County, and the one in Truro was roughly 40 minutes from Pictou County. My constituents had way more distance to travel than yours did, Mr. Fraser.

Ms. Diab, the one in Sackville was only 15 minutes from your riding, and a little further from the riding of Halifax and the others, yet there were lots of representatives of those communities at those ridings.

Mr. Battiste, Eskasoni is only a half-hour from Sydney, and Membertou is only four minutes from where the hearing was held. Therefore, Mr. Battiste and Ms. Diab, you didn't go to the public hearings to hear anything, and, Mr. Battiste, you didn't attend the virtual hearing. Ms. Diab did. I don't believe either of you even wrote a speech.

My colleague Dr. Ellis, from Cumberland—Colchester, who saw absolutely no change, like you proposed, Mr. Battiste, took the time and effort to appear before the commission.

Now you're asking us, as parliamentarians, to interfere with the neutral process of a commission chosen and vetted by the Speaker. It seems very strange to me that you would want to rewrite this open process. The commission laid out its challenge for the public in the first report and in the second report. The massive population increase in the Halifax Regional Municipality was their primary concern—and, Ms. Diab, your riding receiving the highest one, way above the 25% limit—and the continual erosion over decades of the population in Cape Breton and trying to balance those two issues.

In my view, the commission restored the historical wrong done to all these ridings in the 1996 and 2003 redistributions, and you're now petitioning again. From Confederation until the 1996 and 2003 redistributions, in my riding, St. Margarets Bay, the bay was always split in two on the Lunenburg county line, right through the middle of the bay, separating the eastern part of the bay from the western part of the bay. It was that way from Confederation until only 20 years ago, so you're incorrect. Also, they have very different histories, with Huguenots on one side and foreign Protestants on the other. I actually live on that bay.

Before the 2001 redistribution, Mr. Fraser, Antigonish County, as part of the municipal area known as the “strait area”, was historically part of Cape Breton ridings. In fact, from 1969 to 1997, Antigonish was part of Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, meaning that Antigonish was part of the strait region. This seat was held by Allan MacEachen, former deputy prime minister, with that community in it, and he was able to represent it very well. I think you would agree with that. As well, there was Al Graham, former Liberal senator, now deceased. The reuniting of old industrial Cape Breton also corrects an historical wrong where, for many decades, we had one population in that riding, an urban riding and a rural riding. The urban community interest of the new Sydney—Victoria balances the rural community interest of the other new riding.

In terms of the indigenous population, Sydney—Victoria has 10% indigenous population, and Cape Breton—Canso has 7.4%. In the new riding, it's essentially flipped so the new Sydney—Victoria has 6.7% and the new Cape Breton—Canso riding has 10%. If you were able to represent it well before, I don't see the difference. The relationship and the percentages of the populations in those two ridings are basically the same.

At the public hearing, a former NDP MP supported the change in Sydney—Victoria, as did the former Liberal mayor of the area of Cape Breton.

I think there's a challenge here in claiming that the commission did not hold hearings, that they were not public and that people didn't know. I believe that's a false claim.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to cut your time at 6:07. You've received your full time.

For all MPs who, I'm sure, are glued to their TVs, I just want to make sure, Mr. Perkins, that the whole concept and the conversation, which you shared, are part of the process. It's in the act. Public consultations take place, and a report is filed with the House of Commons. That report is then sent to committee. We have 30 days for MPs to look at that report and then we have 30 days for objections. I was concerned when it came to objections, but it turns out that objections can be for or against. They don't all have to be against.

We are entirely following the process. PROC did not ask to do this work, but within the act we have to do this work. We take our work very seriously here.

For MPs who have taken the time to follow the processes, you get five minutes. If you choose a substitute from among your committee members, you don't have to get 10 signatures, and you don't have to follow the process. You get six minutes if you get the first round. That's what I've just learned.

You will not get time to respond to that, which I regret, because usually we have a really good exchange at this committee. Hopefully you will have an opportunity to do that. I will try to provide you some time to ensure that you can counter some of the conversation, because this is a discussion. On this committee we have an obligation to report back to the House with what has been provided to us, and I take that very seriously, as I'm confident all members here do.

With that, Mr. Fergus, you have up to six minutes.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the comments of my House of Commons colleagues, and I would like to thank them for their presentations.

This morning, we have had some great presentations from Mr. Williamson and my other three colleagues.

For folks who are watching us at home, all members of Parliament were provided guidance in terms of what types of questions we should be asking.

These are all very important questions, and I think that many of them have been answered by your presentations this morning. In terms of what your rationale was and whether your objection has community support, all three of you have spoken to those things. As to what the demographic consequences of what you're proposing are, these are all issues that you have very cogently laid out in your presentations.

I was particularly taken with Mr. Battiste's use of the term “catfishing”. I did not know what that meant so I had to go look it up. When I took a look at that, I saw that it is a process of luring somebody into a relationship using a fictional persona. In other words, what you were saying—and what all three of you were saying—is that there was an initial proposal by the Nova Scotia commission, which was pretty much acceptable to a large number of your populations, and as a result, no one was particularly bothered by it. Then, after those consultations, they introduced something very different from what was originally proposed, which, of course, then set people's hair on fire and they didn't have an opportunity to come back and let the commission know because that public consultation process was over.

Mr. Fraser, where are the representatives from the cities? Where are the representatives from the indigenous and the historical Black communities in Nova Scotia? How do they feel about the changes in your riding?

Mr. Battiste, what effect does splitting up indigenous communities—historical Mi'kmaq communities—have in terms of their representation in the House of Commons?

Ms. Diab, about the notion of procedural fairness, how does that affect the demographics within your riding and within your larger communities?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Chair, how much time do we have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have a minute each.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay.

There are 10 municipalities in my riding today. One of them is the Halifax Regional Municipality, which has a very small share of the population in a big geography. All other nine municipalities have registered their objections, both with the process and with the outcome.

The Town of Westville, to address Mr. Perkins' comments, described the process as “fatally flawed” and said that it did not give a proper opportunity for their input. In fact, the room booked was too small to accommodate the people who showed up. There was a signal sent to folks who did not submit anything in writing that they initially wouldn't be given the opportunity to speak. Municipal representatives have indicated to me that they didn't have the opportunity and, had they shown up, they didn't think they were going to be let into the room. It was not about how far away they had drive.

The message at home is, if you think Arisaig and Ingonish belong in the same riding, you're crazy, particularly when that breakdown was not put to people initially at the time of the commission. There was no consultation held in the new proposed Pictou—Eastern Shore—Preston riding, which is inappropriately named, in any event, and people did not feel they had input. It was not because it was too far to drive, but because of the rules that were laid out, signalling to them that they would be excluded.

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

In my case, in Halifax West, again, what was initially proposed is totally different from what the outcome is. What was initially proposed, people were ready to live with.

I want to agree with my colleague. When you propose big changes like this, do it at the beginning so that people realize and are able to make submissions. There wasn't one in-person submission in Halifax or Halifax West, which, population-wise, is the largest riding.

Particularly to Mr. Perkins and St. Margarets Bay, I was shocked by how many people have contacted me. I've heard from the Head of St. Margaret's Bay/Boutilier's Point Recreation Association, the Bay Community Centre, the HRM district 13 councillor, the Seniors Association of St. Margaret's Bay board president, the St. Margaret's Bay Chamber of Commerce president, the Twin Bays Coalition, the Healthy Bays Network chair, the community enterprise centre's president, the community enterprise centre's volunteers and the St. Margarets Bay tourism association. I've had two letters. I've heard from Gary Burchell, lobster fisherman and boat tour operator; Rob Futter, resident of Glen Margaret; Yvon and Wendy Madore; the Indian Point Young Naturalist Club; the St. Margaret’s Bay Stewardship Association; residents of Glen Haven; the St. Margaret's Bay Housing Coalition—several people there—and Bluenose Engineering. I can go on.

Some of them told me in the email—I don't know these people and I don't know the groups, because I don't represent that area—that they've copied Mr. Perkins, so he knows.

This is all coming down now. They told me they've taken an ad and put it in...I don't know what local paper you have, because I'm not in that community. They're letting their community know, because they are scared to death.

According to the letters I received, they want to be in that community. They call themselves South Shore—St. Margarets, and the St. Margarets people want to stay in South Shore—St. Margarets.

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

In answering Mr. Fergus's question, yes, the zero changes initially to the riding, I think, was the reason why they had such poor turnouts in the Sydney area, with just a handful of people showing up. What if that handful of people showing up are allowed to come to a presentation and say that we should keep all of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality the same, but exclude the largest Mi'kmaq community of Eskasoni?

I feel that creates the suspicion that the commission should have said, “Okay, let's hear what Eskasoni feels about it”, because Eskasoni has deep ties economically to Sydney, Membertou and the areas of Wagmatcook that are being taken out of this. That is why they all feel like this process is very suspicious.

If you ask indigenous communities if they knew this was even possible, they didn't. Because I'm the first Mi'kmaq ever to be elected, these processes under that would have....

I'm sorry. That's my alarm.

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

When I get another turn, I want to talk about the immigrant population.

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

It's just so—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

No. That's the beauty of sometimes being interrupted.

I was going to let you finish your thought, but with that, we're going to go to six minutes with Madame Gaudreau.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's true that we could talk about this for a long time.

First of all, I would like to tell you that, last summer, I had the pleasure of visiting you as part of my work, and I loved that. That was, of course, before Fiona. I've been thinking a lot about the people in your community. So I dare to talk about your ridings. That was a little aside.

I would like to focus on one aspect of your initial remarks, namely the service provided to our fellow citizens. I mention this because I think that, in Quebec as elsewhere, this will be a challenge linked to population movements.

If we care about the service that a member of the House of Commons provides to their constituents and their community, what should our commissioners consider in terms of outcomes?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you for your question.

If I may, I'll answer you in English.

The criteria are laid out in the legislation. Population equity is one of the criteria. The legislation permits a 25% variance. It seems that the commission made a decision to pursue a smaller rate of variance. You can exceed 25% in extraordinary circumstances. I would suggest Mr. Battiste's submissions indicate extraordinary circumstances to include indigenous peoples in the process.

The change to my constituency is from a variance of 16 point something per cent to 13 point something per cent, not a meaningful change. Where they failed, in my view, is on those other issues: serviceability of ridings and communities of interest. What I'm very concerned about is that there's very little commonality between the rural issues in the small towns and rural communities that I represent today—around the fishery, around agriculture, around the mining sector and around small town needs—and those of suburban Halifax. They are beautiful communities, but they have very different economies and different needs.

By engaging people in the process to understand what the needs of communities are and to ensure that a member of Parliament's time will be deployed in a way that will effectively serve their interests, I think we could have come up with a much better and more successful map that accommodated feedback from first nations communities, from African Nova Scotian communities and from the plethora of municipalities that are outraged at the proposal.

I have taken up too much of my time, so I'll now share it with Mr. Battiste.

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

When we look at this and we look at Indian reserves, those are under federal jurisdiction. They get all of their services from the federal government—from housing to social development to education, all of those. We've seen provincial boundaries that have taken into consideration francophone communities, Black communities, ethnic communities and indigenous communities. Only one of those has a constitutional status that directly links it with the federal government. Provinces are taking into consideration language rights, and they are talking about effective representation. The federal government had a responsibility to look at indigenous communities and indigenous representation based on the constitutional status of indigenous people.

They said they were going to have an open process and that anyone could come. It was proven that the duty to consult had not been met under the Mikisew Cree case in the west. They had an open forum on Parks Canada, but the communities needed their own distinct consultation. That's why Mikisew Cree failed.

The legal case is already there for our saying that this is a duty for which we are responsible. I feel that this committee is responsible for overseeing this commission and saying that they didn't turn their minds to indigenous issues, and in the era of reconciliation and UNDRIP, that's wrong.

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

For Halifax West, I talked about St. Margarets Bay, but let me talk about the newcomer immigrant population. Halifax West is the most ethnically and linguistically diverse riding of the province and has been for decades. They are decimating that or desecrating that. I don't know the English word.

The law allows plus or minus 25%. In fact, currently Halifax West has over 25%, but what they are doing now is bringing me even lower. Even doing what we're proposing is still well within any numbers, if you want the numbers. Even the communities themselves—newcomers and cultural communities—have no idea. They would have no idea that they are supposed to go out and make representations. A lot of the stuff didn't affect them anyway.

I think all three of us are on the same page here. I'm sure they did their best, but that's kind of what we got. We're asking for them to go back and look at that based on what we now know is their final product, which was not envisioned in their original submission. It's all a learning curve for everybody. I'm sure that, as a result of that, 10 years from now it will be a bit different. I don't think most of us realize that you should object or file things if you agree. Certainly most people would not. Indigenous people would not. Minorities would not.

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

In conclusion, I understand that, given the demographic modulation and according to the criteria to be prioritized, the desire was to prevent the movement of the population, but never at the expense of the communities of interest.

That's what I see. You'll see it soon; it's the same thing in Quebec.

So I hear you, I'm listening, and I thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

This is really good. I think it's nice when people do the work and come here well informed and engaged. There's no shortage of time that we need to fill up. I think we make our points, and then we can have more rounds of questioning, because I know that more people want to jump into this exciting conversation.

Ms. Blaney, you have up to six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

My first question, through you, is for MP Diab.

I'm trying to understand the solution you're proposing. Perhaps you could clarify. Is it to extend the boundary of South Shore—St. Margarets into the city of Halifax or somewhere else?

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

In relation to that side of the boundary, the residents want to leave it as it now exists. They want the status quo. I've listed for you the over 19 submissions I've received so far. Right now the status quo is well within the population numbers, but they're also saying that their community of interest is best represented with their namesake of St. Margarets Bay, and that's South Shore—St. Margarets.

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

I have no more questions, Chair. Thank you.

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

It's still within the population size of plus or minus 25%. In fact, it's even much less than that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Excellent. Thank you for that. That was great.

Mr. Perkins, you have up to five minutes.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I'll start by saying that I'm still surprised at your surprise at the fact that there would be change out of a consultation, that when more than a thousand Nova Scotians wrote, and many more participated in the live hearings, it wouldn't result in a change. Of course it would. That's the purpose of consultation.

If you attended the in-person meetings, you would have heard the commissioner say that this was the beginning of the process, the starting point, that they were looking forward to community input and would change based on what they heard in the community input. That's exactly what they did.

Ms. Diab, there are lots of quotes from those public hearings and from two former city councillors as well who went and said that this part should not be in South Shore. The historical boundary, just so you know, is between Halifax County and Lunenburg County. That line goes right through the centre of St. Margarets Bay. That has existed as a county line for about 300 years. That's the line that was changed in the 1997 to 2003 redistribution, after being in since Confederation, because they are historically different but they are also municipally different.

There are a lot of quotes I could go through from those hearings. I have them here. I know that you weren't at the hearings, so you wouldn't have heard them. I know that you've received a few letters.

With regard to the issue raised about the plus or minus 25%, there is flexibility. In the initial proposal, all of the ridings were below a 10% variance, which came out when the consultation was on. The variance in the new proposal has widened in response to that public consultation, from almost 18% under in Sydney—Victoria to now only 10% over in Halifax West. The numbers, as you can see in the report, are all very different. That was the response to that.

With regard to Larry Uteck, the challenge there, as you know and we all know, is that it's the fastest-growing part of the province. That was the primary issue for the commission to face. It was the growth of that area through Bedford and how it causes a domino effect with the boundaries in the rest of the province.

First, I'm wondering if you could comment on the issue that consultation with over a thousand Nova Scotians apparently wasn't enough consultation, and that this consultation shouldn't have resulted in some sort of change. I don't know why not, when everybody at those hearings in Sydney said there should be a change. I think it's a great thing that they had so many people turn out. At the one in your riding, they didn't have room.

The commissioner also said that all written submissions have equal weight to the ones in person. All of your communities, and all of you as members of Parliament, had the opportunity to do that. Some of you chose not to do that.

Could you comment?

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

Let me start out by answering that, first, on the one thousand submissions, we're not privy to those. We have no idea who they came from, what they said and what they didn't say. As you know, none of this was made public. That's one.

Two, St. Margarets Bay, the area that you represent, and I'm here to voice their concern, is the most beautiful place in Nova Scotia, as far as I'm concerned. They all are, but my God, it has Peggy's Cove. It has so many beautiful places. Who would not love to represent that area? The reason I am here, though, is that I was really surprised by the people who contacted me during Christmas and New Year's, in December and January, when they found out this was happening. They were literally...and I don't know these people. They were saying, “You are our only hope. Do something.” That's why I'm here. I'm here to voice their concerns.

On the immigrant population, yes, they don't know that they can do this or not do this. When you're happy with what you're seeing, you're not going to pose any.... Even me right now, I don't.... I am here to voice those concerns and I've provided what I have.

Go ahead.