Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 18th, 2023

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

First, there's no reason to dramatically redraw Vancouver Quadra, because it's within the population numbers. It does have some growing development and will continue to grow appropriately, so it's not necessary.

Second, as I've been saying, it is very dismissive of the rights of indigenous people for them not to be consulted. Had they been consulted, I know they would have said absolutely not to fragment their lands, interests and activities into two different ridings.

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

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

The truth is, for my riding, it's not going to be profound. I empathize with my colleagues, because I think there are profound impacts on my colleagues, not so much for me.

To me, we do this every 10 years. This is an opportunity to get it right. It's not that anything terrible is going to happen to Vancouver Kingsway. It's just that something so much better could happen, so much more logical.

I'll just hold this map up and show you. This is Kingsway. Kingsway used to have this piece here. In 2015, they removed that piece and just kept the boundary at 41st. For some reason, instead of going into Burnaby, now the boundaries commission has moved this piece here.

I guess this kind of picks up the question from our Bloc Québécois colleague. This part here is historically South Asian. If you go up Main Street, you start getting into what has historically been called Punjabi Market, which starts at 47th Street, whereas this riding goes to 49th Street. It starts dividing Punjabi Market, which I think is a problem for my colleague in Vancouver South.

My proposal is to just add this piece here to Vancouver Kingsway, which has the benefit of actually aligning the western boundary of Kingsway with the east-west divider of Vancouver. It just makes so much more sense.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you.

I think the main objective of this redistribution is to better represent the people of our community. The distinction between Vancouver and Richmond is that they have two different municipal structures and they pay different taxes. I think it's important to know how we represent these communities.

Vancouver Airport, although it's named Vancouver Airport, is also part of Richmond Centre. I think there's underlying population growth in Richmond as well, because there will be a lot of development happening in the next decade, and there will be representation of not just Canadians but also immigrants, newcomers and tourists. These people were not considered when the report was done, during the pandemic.

I have heard from my constituents and Marpole residents that it is very important to have the representation reflect the historical boundary, which will also better represent them in the community they live in. It's important that we be mindful of that. Of course we want to work out the numbers, but the numbers are not accurate at this point, because, according to the city report, the population between my riding and Steveston—Richmond East is 230,000, and if we have an equal split, the numbers would be the same as well.

That's why, with the ripple effect that was caused by the proposal initially, my colleague and member of Parliament Parm Bains went to the commission to share that concern, and that's why they made the changes to put the riding of Delta back to being on its own, as well as keeping Richmond by itself. Now, with that ripple effect, I've been given, in addition, the area of Marpole.

Thank you.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'll keep it very brief.

If you look at this map, this is the city of Vancouver here, as you can see. I am very concerned that this part of the city of Vancouver is being chopped off completely. That's the reality we're talking about. That's Marpole. I agree completely with Mr. Davies about moving the line from Main Street to Ontario Street. Ontario Street is the natural dividing boundary.

Fundamentally, we need to recognize that communities of interest matter, and I draw the committee's attention to paragraph 15(2)(a) of the act. It says:

(2) The commission may depart from the [prescribed population for each riding] in any case where the commission considers it necessary or desirable to depart therefrom

(a) in order to respect the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province

In this case, Marpole has voted as part of a Vancouver riding for 100 years.

The city of Vancouver has used Ontario Street as the dividing line between east and west for over a hundred years. We are talking about communities of interest. We are talking about historical precedent, and all we are asking is that the commission actually adhere to the rules that they have been assigned by the legislation. That's what all of us are saying. All of us made minor tweaks to the proposal that was made to respect communities of interest, such as the Ontario Street argument that Mr. Davies and I have both been keen on, but in no world did we imagine that portions of the city of Vancouver would just be chopped off.

Those are my concerns. I think we all share the concern that the commission.... They've done very good work. I am not objecting wholesale to everything that's been done. I think we need to be mindful of communities. We need to recognize that they've done great work south of the Fraser, but they should be using the Fraser River as the line that divides Vancouver and Richmond, just as they're doing between Delta and Richmond.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I know, Dr. Fry, you're online, but the timer went off and we need to continue to the next panel. Do you want to say something, really quickly?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I just want to say that I agree with my colleagues from Vancouver. I think what is happening to Quadra is absolutely untenable and I think one of the things to remember is that anyone who lives in Vancouver and in British Columbia knows that Richmond and Vancouver are two different places. Therefore, to just lump a piece of Vancouver into Richmond doesn't make any sense.

Someone has their mike on, and that's why I'm echoing.

As I said before, what they've done is to draw a line through a business district and through somewhere people live and work. They've divided a community of interest, historic communities and indigenous communities, and they don't seem to care—and all of that is for 17 votes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Dr. Fry.

I would like to confirm to you that when there is a microphone on in the room, there's a red light, as you would know, that is shown. There were no red lights on when you were speaking. We continue to try to improve our technical systems around here, but there was not a mike on when you were on, just so we know this.

With that, I want to really thank everybody. This was a very fruitful and exciting conversation for the first panel on British Columbia. We thank you all for your time and attention. If there's anything else you would like to share with us, please share it with the clerk, and the clerk will share it with all members.

With that, I will suspend, and we will return with Vice-Chair Nater for the second panel. I wish you all a good day.

PROC will be meeting from 6:30 to 8:30 this evening on foreign election interference, and we'll see you again then as well.

With that, we will suspend for three minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

We will call this meeting back to order for the second half of our meeting looking at the reports from the British Columbia electoral commission.

Joining us today are Tako Van Popta, Langley—Aldergrove; the Honourable Kerry-Lynne Findlay, South Surrey—White Rock; Peter Julian, New Westminster—Burnaby; and Bonita Zarrillo, MP for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

Each member will have an opportunity to make an opening comment, followed by rounds of questioning.

We will begin with Tako Van Popta for four minutes.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you. I won't take four minutes. My submissions are very, very simple. It's a request to have the name of the proposed riding changed from Langley Township to Langley Township—Fraser Heights.

I stated the reasons in my submissions, which I'm assuming you've had a chance to read. The new riding alignment will include the north half of the township of Langley and the northern little corner of the city of Surrey. For those of you who are not familiar—although most of you are probably familiar—Langley and Surrey are two separate cities. The Fraser Heights district, within the city of Surrey, is now going to be joined together with the northern half of the township of Langley.

We are surprised that the commissioners wouldn't have included the name of the Fraser Heights neighbourhood in the name of the riding. It is logical, and for the reasons set out in my submissions, I think they need to be respected.

I would point out that this has the support of some of my neighbouring colleagues—Mr. Hardie and Mr. Aldag are present—whose current ridings also contribute to the new riding. They completely support the concept that the Fraser Heights neighbourhood in Surrey should be included in the name.

I have support from the mayor of the city of Surrey. She was so compelled by my arguments that she just copy-typed them into her own letter. It shows that it has broad support from the people living in that neighbourhood. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Van Popta.

That's the record to beat now for the remaining commentary.

Ms. Kerry-Lynne Findlay, you have four minutes, please.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the procedure and House affairs committee.

It's my pleasure to be with you today as you kick off your review of the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for B.C.

In my comments, I will provide my rationale for the objection, which I filed with your clerk on March 10, 2023, to the commission's proposed boundary change that impacts the ridings of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and Courtenay—Alberni.

The commission's report proposes what some might think is a small change to the boundary between the two ridings, moving the municipal district of Lantzville from the southern riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith into the northern riding of Courtenay—Alberni. However, according to the mayor of Lantzville, Mark Swain, the proposal represents a significant and unwanted change for his residents.

The mayor wrote a letter to the commission to outline his concerns with the proposed boundary changes, wherein he provided compelling rationale for his position that this committee should consider.

He wrote:

Lantzville relies on partnering with the City of Nanaimo for infrastructure, safety, policing, recreation, services, sewer, and water. Additionally, Lantzville residents participate in many cultural activities, major holidays, and festivities in Nanaimo and are closely connected. Lastly, we are very concerned polling stations will be moved further away from the District of Lantzville creating a potentially inequitable situation for Lantzville voters.

The mayor went on to suggest that the commission could consider changes to the southern border of Nanaimo—Ladysmith to accommodate the inclusion of his population, which isn't that large, in the existing riding. Specifically, he suggested that the commission could look at moving a community like Saltair and surrounding areas into the riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, as their community of interest aligns well with the city of Duncan, which, if you know the island at all, is heading south and is firmly in that riding.

The mayor sent a copy of his letter to a representative from each party in British Columbia in hopes of securing non-partisan support for his position during this committee review. The letter was sent to the Liberal minister from Delta, the NDP member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the Green Party leader from Saanich—Gulf Islands and me.

I was born in Ladysmith and raised in Nanaimo. I owned property in Nanaimo until about two years ago. I maintain close family and community ties throughout Vancouver Island, but specifically in the area we're talking about. I was therefore honoured to receive the letter from Mayor Swain and am proud to act on behalf of his citizens.

I recognize that the other members copied on the letter are not here to join me in filing an objection, yet it is my hope that their parties will support the mayor's common-sense, non-partisan request.

Mr. Chair, on a personal note, I'd like to thank you and the members of the committee for the important work you're doing to strengthen Canada's democracy, from redistribution to your ongoing investigations. It is my hope that your work will lead to the necessary changes that will restore public trust in our electoral process and strengthen our democratic institutions.

With that, I'm hopefully quite prepared to answer any questions you may have.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Ms. Findlay. That was well under time as well.

Mr. Julian will be next. He has voluntarily opted to take about two minutes.

Mr. Julian, the floor is yours.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I'm now under pressure, Mr. Chair.

It's very good to be back at procedure and House affairs. It's good to be back with you.

The first version of the commission's boundary redistribution proposal for New Westminster—Burnaby and the Tri-Cities was unbelievably bad. The community pushed back in hearings throughout the Lower Mainland. The second version is much better, but, inexplicably, the boundaries commission has proposed the splitting apart of three key neighbourhoods in a number of ridings. That's what I wanted to speak to today.

First is the community of interest that is the Edmonds neighbourhood. As you know, Mr. Chair, having been out to the Lower Mainland often, Edmonds is at the peak of a hill. It is a very diverse community. Over 100 languages are spoken in that area. What the boundary commission is proposing is a split in that community of interest. Historically, Edmonds has remained together in one federal riding and certainly continues to be in one provincial riding.

Second is the community of interest in the neighbourhood of Maillardville. I know that my colleague will be addressing that. This is the historic French centre of British Columbia. Inexplicably, the boundary commission is proposing wrenching it apart. That makes no sense. Earlier, we had a Vancouver member of Parliament talking about having to relate to two cities. Putting a portion of Maillardville with New Westminster—Burnaby means that member of Parliament will have to be responding to the needs of three cities. It makes no sense. Maillardville is beyond the Brunette River valley and beyond the Brunette rail yards. Maillardville should be with Port Moody—Coquitlam.

Finally, Anmore, Belcarra and the Westwood Plateau are split. Historically, they have remained together, and the proposal is that they would go in Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. Happily, Mr. Chair, all of this is within the quotient as defined by the boundaries commission, so it's a good-sense solution to a problem.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

That's with 10 seconds to spare.

Ms. Zarrillo, you have four minutes. Go ahead.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow up on the comments my neighbour in this presentation made today. That is on the changes that need to happen in the Tri-Cities.

The Tri-Cities are actually three cities and two small villages. They're wholly encapsulated in Port Moody, Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam. We're going to make some suggestions today for that to remain, because we share an RCMP detachment, local newspapers and a chamber of commerce with the start-up Tri-Cities.

I was shocked to see the tabled boundary of Port Moody—Coquitlam. These changes are the opposite of what was proposed and have already had the effect of destabilizing my community. Since this news appeared, I have received calls from not-for-profits in the Tri-Cities and my area. They are worried they will be negatively impacted. For decades, they have had the stability of being part of Coquitlam and have a relationship with their MP. The boundary line the commission tabled splits this community in half; it removes Maillardville from Coquitlam; it affects community business areas; it separates school systems; it leaves local community centres no longer a part of Coquitlam; it separates the Legion; and the local MP's office is now outside the riding of the residents it serves.

Maillardville is the oldest area of Coquitlam. It is the heart of south Coquitlam. The recent proposal does not maintain the community of interest in this historic neighbourhood, and it does not respect the way the community uses its services.

Another major concern is that Maillardville, which is now being proposed, by the commission, to go to New Westminster—Burnaby—this is what I'm opposing today—resides upon unceded Kwikwetlem territory. When the boundary report was tabled, I heard from the chief of Kwikwetlem, who had not been consulted. The new boundaries also mean that Coquitlam I.R.1 would be federally separated from the unceded territory. There was no effort to consult with the local indigenous communities that have stewarded these lands and their watersheds for millennia.

I will mention that we've also learned a lot in the journey since the discovery of the 2,015 children. We know we are on a journey to reconciliation. I want to note that the commission has suggested there should be the naming of Maillardville in a new riding. Father Maillard was an oblate. He is the founding father of Maillardville, but to perpetuate and elevate this name in a new riding, in 2023, when he was also the principal of a residential school in northern B.C., seems unconscionable at this point in time.

Despite the federal boundary commission's stated principle to respect the integrity of different entities and communities, including first nations and municipalities, this commission's most recent report does the opposite in regard to our shared boundary.

On behalf of my community, I oppose the commission change to Port Moody—Coquitlam that removes the very important neighbourhood of Maillardville from Port Moody—Coquitlam, as it does not respect the well-established municipal and first nations boundaries or communities of interest.

Keeping Maillardville with Port Moody—Coquitlam will mean that the commission can amend the arbitrary split of another neighbourhood in Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam: Westwood. The Westwood neighbourhood has been wholly in the riding of Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for a very long time. In fact, all of Westwood can remain in this riding, as it has since 2014, with the changes Mr. Julian and I are presenting today. The integrity of Westwood can be maintained north of Guildford Way and should stay with the current riding of Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, along with the villages of Anmore and Belcarra, in order to keep the quotient the commission requires.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you to all the witnesses who were within time. There was no need for the “beep, beep, beep”.

We'll now go to our six-minute questioning rounds. I believe Mr. Albas is first, with six minutes.

Go ahead.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're vice-chair, I guess, but right now you're chair, so there you go. It's good to be here.

I want to thank our colleagues for coming here to talk about their ridings. I know that there is no bigger honour as an MP than to represent an area. You can sure tell that people care about their areas, and even some of their traditional areas.

I'll start by commenting briefly on the name changes, Mr. Chair, because there will be quite a few of them. First of all, the Conservative members have had discussions, and we feel strongly that we should defer to individual members of Parliament and let them...to say, you know, if we're going to change the name of this riding, and we're going to put that forward, that we believe that it should be supported by this committee, as it's ultimately up to the voters to decide whether or not it's appropriate. Hopefully, other members can agree with it.

To Mr. Van Popta, message received; obviously, this is an important issue for mayors in your area and for you. I congratulate you on your presentation here today.

Second, I just want to address a few issues around indigenous consultations, because that has come up a number of times. Historically, when I was the member of Parliament for Okanagan—Coquihalla, there was the separation of the Shackan Indian Band lands between what was previous to Okanagan—Coquihalla and Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. That was something that was eventually flagged to the process and dealt with. Now the Shackan Indian Band is part of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. They are very happy to have one member of Parliament.

Maybe that is something that potentially the government could look at. I know Minister Murray came in and said it was the government's responsibility. I would just point out—unfortunately, she's not here to hear the comments—that I agree with her. It is the government's responsibility. It's not necessarily the electoral commission's responsibility. If there needs to be a new structural rethink, perhaps the Prime Minister might include a minister of democratic reform or at least encourage his minister of indigenous reconciliation to make that one component of this. You get these things only once every 10 years, and obviously in the census there have been some issues with first nations reserves, so perhaps that should be looked at.

When it comes to the Port Moody—Coquitlam riding, it says the following on page 19 of the report:

Presentations and submissions urged the Commission to reconsider the number of electoral districts it had previously proposed for lands in the City of Burnaby. Presentations and submissions in neighbouring municipalities also questioned some of the boundaries set out in the Proposal. In response to this public input—

I just want to stop and editorialize for a second. There is a tremendous amount of reference in this report to “public input”. Some members have said there was none, and I just want to say that this was not the case.

I'll go back to the quote, Mr. Chair:

In response to this public input, the Commission now proposes to significantly redraw the electoral district boundaries affecting Burnaby and surrounding municipalities.

The proposed redesign provides Burnaby with a presence in four electoral districts, a number reduced from the Proposal. The four districts are: one wholly within the City of Burnaby, to be called Burnaby Central...and newly named New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville.

Maybe I'll start with you, Ms. Zarrillo, with this question, because this has to do with your riding. There was considerable concern raised on the first draft proposal. They went in and appeared to make drastic changes, but one thing has been pointed out again and again and again. First of all, there was uneven population growth. Second, it also says that they tried to fix everything by the feedback they heard, but just because things didn't end up the way some people might have wanted, they certainly listened, and they tried sketching it out.

What do you say to the electoral commission, after reference after reference to public input and struggling to try to make the system work here, where you could have both equality of votes distributed in ridings and what you're presenting here today?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much for that.

I'll start by saying that Mr. Julian and I have a solution for them. When this was presented, if I can talk about Port Moody—Coquitlam, the commission did not present that Port Moody—Coquitlam would lose any of southern Coquitlam. Even the municipality itself splits Coquitlam into north and south, and there was no proposal that south Coquitlam was going to be impacted in any way in regard to any changes.

My neighbour in Coquitlam was affected. There were going to be changes south of the Fraser River. That happened in the 2012 changes as well. What's happened to Port Moody—Coquitlam is because of what happened out in the east side, in the east ridings. That's what happened. Our community of Port Moody—Coquitlam was not consulted with these changes at all. It was news to the chief, it was news to me, it was news to the mayors and it was news to the MLAs. It was news. Unfortunately, what they've done is they've taken the heart of Coquitlam out, and they haven't consulted with indigenous nations. That's totally unacceptable.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Again, I'm not going to state on that, but I will say that in the area of the Okanagan, for example, the Penticton Indian Band actually made representation to the commission, and they were heard. This is a difficult situation. I think, by reading the report, it's balancing those two things together, so I appreciate your submission here today.

Ms. Findlay, again, one of the challenges is where the boundary should be struck. Can you re-emphasize what the importance is of the northern boundaries' being maintained in their current form and what you propose elsewise?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

We are at time, but I'll give Ms. Findlay a short time to give her response. I think Mr. Julian wants to give a quick response, too, so we'll have a short response from each.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Vancouver Island—no surprise—is very north-south oriented. However, Lantzville, being on the northern border, used to just be considered a subdivision of Nanaimo, and it's been part of it forever. As the mayor pointed out, they rely on Nanaimo for infrastructure, safety, policing, recreation, services, sewer, water and cultural activities. It makes a lot more sense to carve—and we're not talking about a big amount—a little out of the south end, which orients itself far more to Duncan, Duncan being the next-biggest city on the island. That's just the way it's been, frankly, forever.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

I have to cut you off, Ms. Findlay.

Mr. Julian, please give a brief response.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I think Mr. Albas is correct that the commission responded to the pretty inappropriate initial proposal, the pizza pie in Burnaby with six different ridings, New Westminster, Surrey, North Fraser, South Fraser. There is strong public reaction. However, carving Maillardville out of Port Moody—Coquitlam and putting it with New Westminster—Burnaby never came up. They never proposed it; it was never discussed. It came out of nowhere.

Happily, though, what we're proposing within the quotient that has been set by the boundary commission is a reuniting of the communities of interest of the Edmonds neighbourhood, of Maillardville with Coquitlam, and of Westwood Plateau with Anmore and Belcarra. We're proposing a solution that meets the quota requirements and ensures the communities of interest of all three of those neighbourhoods.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

We'll now go to Mr. Aldag for six minutes—with some flexibility at the end.