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

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 48 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

As it is our first meeting and we're still in January of 2023, I wish everyone a happy new year. I'm containing my excitement—but I have so much—to be doing this again with all of you.

The committee is meeting today to begin its study on electoral boundary reports. We will begin by considering the draft reports for Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador, and then pause. I understand that we've all gone through the two reports. There are no changes and we can pass them as they have been provided to us.

I see a nodding of heads. That's brilliant. We will proceed.

Thank you to the analysts for doing tremendous work, as always.

We also need to pass the three budgets for the studies. I'm going to make sure that we're okay with the budget expenses. It's about $1,500 each. You don't have them. We'll circulate them. It's the budget that we would normally pass, as we usually do. We should really talk about the food that we receive, but today is not that day. Are we okay?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That's perfect.

We should also welcome Miriam. Miriam will be the clerk who will be supporting our committee moving forward. We will have a bit of duplication for a bit. I really do want to thank Justin for his leadership in bringing us to this point.

Justin, I gave you a shout-out in the House yesterday. I really do appreciate your being available. I don't work nine to five and you have been available to me outside of nine to five, so I really do thank you. You should never be a stranger to PROC. I understand that we're going to have you for this month before you're really gone. Please don't go away too quickly.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Luckily, we get to keep Andre and Laurence. Welcome back to our analysts.

Now, we will actually proceed to hearing witnesses and colleagues to discuss the reports. First, we will start with New Brunswick, followed by Nova Scotia. Let's be efficient, as we usually are at this committee.

Today, I would like to welcome Mr. John Williamson to our committee. Mr. Williamson and I once sat beside each other at a committee, and it was a great conversation.

Mr. Williamson, I understand that you've been provided with six questions that the committee would like you to address. Hopefully, you can do that within your comments. I see that you've come prepared. Use your time as one of our honourable colleagues. You will have up to five minutes to share the comments you'd like to share. Any questions of those six that were provided to you that you might not hit upon we'll try to get within the question-and-answer round.

With that, I will pass the floor over to you for up to five minutes. Welcome to PROC.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate being here today.

I'd like to, first of all, thank members of this committee for hearing me today. I also want to recognize the New Brunswick commission for its work in the redistribution process.

Although I am bringing forth an objection today, I want to note that I think the commission did a very good job respecting our communities of interest, creating ridings of a reasonable and comparable size, and listening to citizens with recommendations for the 10 proposed riding maps.

The crux of my objection is that I don't believe the proposed new name of “Saint John—St. Croix” accurately reflects the whole of the riding outlined in the report. The current name of New Brunswick Southwest should continue to be used, as it has almost continuously since 1997.

I state this because most of the communities in the riding will not identify with the “Saint John—St. Croix” label. Within the riding there are multiple communities that do not lie near the St. Croix River, nor are they part of Saint John.

These include areas like Belleisle, Apohaqui and Studholm in the east of the riding near and towards Sussex; as well as St. George, Maces Bay and and Blacks Harbour in the east of Charlotte County, which is in the southern part of the riding; plus Tracy and Fredericton Junction in Sunbury County, which is south of Fredericton; as well as Gagetown in the northeast of the riding.

Moreover, some of our province's oldest communities to the south, namely Campobello Island, Deer Island, Grand Manan Island and White Head Island—four important islands—are also completely overlooked by this new name. They should certainly be represented in the riding description.

Meanwhile, the name New Brunswick Southwest accurately reflects the whole of the region being represented, including the additions. I believe the name New Brunswick Southwest should continue to be used. Most of the regions lying within the proposed boundaries of Saint John—St. Croix are already being represented under the name New Brunswick Southwest.

The two major areas that are being added, Burton Parish, which is to the east of Fredericton, as well as the west side of the City of Saint John lie westerly and southernly of areas that are already part of New Brunswick Southwest. I believe you've been handed maps that will illustrate this. It might not be obvious, but the additions are there. The rest of the riding is the same: New Brunswick Southwest.

It's for these reasons that I contend that it is appropriate in this case to continue to use New Brunswick Southwest. It's a name that is known province-wide. It is known by the voters who fall within both the existing as well as the proposed new riding.

As well, I'm just going to quote, to end this, from page 11 of the commission's own report, which noted “that the Commission had sought to retain the current riding names wherever appropriate”. I believe it is more than appropriate to maintain the name New Brunswick Southwest because of its history and its accuracy. I also think it's a name that people understand. They live within it, and it represents them.

I will turn briefly to some of these questions. Obviously there's no demographic impact here. I have talked to a number of mayors and councillors about the name. I think there's broad agreement that New Brunswick Southwest has worked very well to include the many communities that make up this large rural riding, and it could continue to be used.

On that note, I will end. I look forward to your questions, if you have any. I hope you will consider my request and that you support that we maintain the name New Brunswick Southwest.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Williamson, we thank you for that presentation and for taking the time to appear in front of this committee and to share those comments.

I will just note for colleagues that the map that was referred to as being shared is not entirely in the two official languages. As you know, I've been consistent on that stance. Until something is entirely in two official languages, we will not circulate it to this committee, but we will—

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

It is in the two official languages. Some cities just don't have translation, but you can see that Bay of Fundy is baie de Fundy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

What is the country that is south of us?

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

Okay, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm pretty confident that when we.... It's a point. I think as a country with two official languages, it is something that we just need to be consistent on.

We appreciate it. We can circulate it around. We'll make sure it's in two official languages so that people can see it. I just don't want committee members to wonder why, so I will provide you with that reason.

We will now go into six-minute rounds. Obviously, we're amongst colleagues, so we can be a little bit more informal here as long as we make sure that one person is speaking at a time and that for the purpose of interpretation we don't interrupt.

We now get to start with Mr. Perkins.

Welcome to PROC.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be here and a pleasure to hear from our colleagues.

Mr. Williamson, I don't know if you know this or not, but I was born in Saint John, New Brunswick. Even though I represent a Nova Scotia riding, I have some familiarity with it.

Obviously, in terms of the renaming of your riding as proposed by the commission, the province of New Brunswick contains both the city of Saint John and the river of Saint John. In their trying to figure this out in their naming, do you think perhaps they got confused? Were they thinking it was just the river, and therefore they'd name part of the river since that's a dividing line now in their proposal? Was that part of the confusion?

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

You're onto something. There is, of course, the Saint John River, but New Brunswick residents are quite specific. We refer to Saint John as Saint John. Given that the commissioner's report is proposing to have Saint John the city represented by two members of Parliament, the understanding, or I think the perception out there, is that it's referring to the city of Saint John.

To finish my thought here, New Brunswick households and individuals are quite specific. When we talk about “the river”, we're referring to Saint John River. The St. Croix River is called “St. Croix” by the community. There is no confusion. Everyone knows what it is. It's the river that separates New Brunswick from Maine. If you say “Saint John” to a New Brunswick voter, they'll assume that you mean the city, not the river.

Even if the commissioners meant the river, I still think my objection holds in that there are still large parts of this riding that are far from the river. In particular, that's in the east of the riding: Sunbury County, which is south of Fredericton, as well as those four islands that I mentioned in the Bay of Fundy.

I'll also point out that even a reference to Saint John River is contentious, as currently there are campaigns by indigenous and other groups to rename the Saint John River as Wolastoq, which is a traditional indigenous name. In my opinion, it would not be wise for the redistribution commission to get involved in this debate on either side. Even renaming it Saint John to mean the river, I think, is entering a debate that is currently ongoing in the province.

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

We have a St. Croix River, a Saint John River, a city of Saint John, but no town or village of St. Croix. There's a lot of confusion in the media too on this, and the commission.... Is that part of it or...?

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

First of all, it's pronounced “St. Croy”, although this riding was briefly referred to as, originally.... Just for a little history lesson, Saint Croix Island is the place where Champlain spent his first winter, but now, in the local dialect, it is referred to as “St. Croy”. It would tug on my ears to hear this riding referred to as “St. Croix” in the House of Commons, so that is another danger.

I know that could happen, because briefly this riding was referred to as St. Croix—Belleisle, but every time the Speaker recognized former member Greg Thompson, he asked for the member from St. Croix—Belleisle. I always wondered who this member from Quebec was until Greg stood up, of course. That is why Greg promptly reversed the name when he was a member of Parliament to get it back to New Brunswick Southwest.

Let me address what I'll call a bit of confusion about what actually makes up New Brunswick Southwest. In the local media, when these maps were released, the media really just referred to the area between Saint John and St. Croix as forming New Brunswick Southwest. It was a bit infuriating for me, knowing that the riding includes much more geography than that, but I also noticed that reporters kept referring to only Charlotte County and Saint John as being part of the new riding, which is false.

I do worry that the name being proposed inaccurately describes what is this large rural riding, whereas this part of the province is referred to either by its current federal riding name, New Brunswick Southwest, or even informally as southwest New Brunswick. “Sou'west New Brunswick” is what you heard in the docks, so again, this name is accurate from a cultural point of view and a geographical point of view. “New Brunswick Southwest” also accurately includes all of the voters, all of the communities and all of the municipalities that currently make up and will make up the new riding after April 2024.

Thank you for your questions, Mr. Perkins.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for that fruitful exchange.

Ms. Sahota, you have up to six minutes.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thanks for presenting here today, Mr. Williamson.

Your reasoning is understandable. I can understand why you wouldn't want to create confusion for the residents of your riding of New Brunswick Southwest. On the name, however, the electoral boundaries commission argues that this is a more historically appropriate name.

My first question is about what you would say in response to that and whether you think it would be appropriate to have the commission give their reasoning.

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

You could certainly ask them. I of course would never shy away from that discussion.

Look, there's no doubt that the names St. Croix and Saint John are historically significant—St. Croix because it is the boundary line between the United States and Canada, and Saint John because it's our country's first incorporated city.

These are important historical places and, as I said in a previous answer, Saint Croix Island is important not just for this riding but for all of Canada, and for French-speaking Canadians in particular, being the first settlement ahead of even Quebec City. It is an important part of our country's history, but that doesn't mean it accurately reflects this riding. Saint Croix Island, at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy, is recognized by Parks Canada for that settlement. Saint John is its municipality. While I think these are important historical places, I don't think that automatically means we should apply them to a riding.

What I've learned about this riding, to give you a sense of it, is that it covers approximately 10,000 square kilometres and its largest municipality has about 6,000 people. The riding is really a lot of small communities. Grand Manan has 2,000 people. Campobello has 900 people, and White Head has a couple of dozen. I could go on, but you can understand that once you get past the three municipalities of 6,000, the size falls to 2,000 and then just hundreds. It has many communities, and as I travelled the riding, particularly when I first started, the thing that kept coming back to me was that people struggle a bit about why they're part of New Brunswick Southwest and not Fredericton, not Saint John, not Sussex or whatever.

“New Brunswick Southwest” is a name that I think binds people together. These symbols are important. I do worry that if we adopt the name “Saint John—St. Croix” a large number of municipalities are just going to feel that they're not represented by the label. While that won't make a difference in terms of representation and how I vote, I think it does have a symbolic value that's important.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Williamson.

As many MPs do, it seems as though you know your riding very well, and of course you want to be inclusive and represent that riding. Your arguments are very familiar to me, because these arguments were also raised with Bill S-207, brought forward by MP Shanahan regarding Châteauguay—Lacolle. Very similar arguments were made because Lacolle didn't happen to be a part of her riding. There was debate in the House, and there was a vote after that debate. You voted against her being able to change the name of her riding.

Why would that be? I think it's so important to be able to identify your riding appropriately, but in that instance, you felt it wasn't appropriate for the member to change the name for very similar reasons.

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

Are you asking me?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Yes.

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

What are you asking me?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I am asking why you voted against allowing for that name change when it was based on reasons very similar to the ones you're giving here today.

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

I think the member you referenced had an opportunity to pocket the win. There was an agreement amongst our whips that it could be carried in a voice vote. The member, I think wrongly, rejected that and compromised that deal, so she took her bill to the whole House. It was not a whipped vote on our side, but our caucus did vote as one.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

You're correct. Your caucus did vote as one. Also, the NDP and the Bloc voted nay in that instance. I'm sure throughout this process we're going to hear a lot of people bringing up name changes, and I think it's very important to be able to allow.... From what I understand, the member was not aware that, just previous to her decision on whether to call for a recorded vote or a voice call, this agreement had been made. She was not informed.

Is it just politics, then, or is it important to be able to accomplish the goal of having constituents able to identify themselves as being included in their riding? I think that should be the end goal. Right now we're also using parliamentary resources and parliamentary time to discuss this very important issue, and I'm sure others will come forward. I just don't quite understand why that wasn't allowed for.

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

I'm not familiar with the discussions that went back and forth between the House leaders and the whips on that. My view has always been that in Parliament, if you're afforded an opportunity to take the win, you take the win and you pocket it. You don't go to Parliament needlessly to put forward a bill that could have been passed quickly and efficiently. That was the decision of either the member, the whip or the House leader on the government side—I don't know who. That's not up to me, but I voted with my colleagues and, it seems, all opposition members on this.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

But it was not a—