Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 18th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Good morning, everyone. I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 62 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee is meeting today to begin its study on the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia.

Before we start, at the last meeting on Friday, I did not mention—I was mistaken by the week—that Sophia, who had been joining us and learning under our clerk, Miriam, has moved on to clerking a full committee. She's flying, and Miriam has successfully sent her on her way. I'm sure she'll continue watching our proceedings. I told her that she can join us any time, but I did want to give a shout-out to Sophia on behalf of all PROC committee members.

The second thing is that I circulated an email. If we're looking at the timelines and the intent of our committee in ensuring that when witnesses for election interference are available, we prioritize them, we have requested all the extra time we would like through the clerk. We don't get the okay off the bat for all of them; it is a moving target. The clerk continues to work with witnesses and the House to ensure that time.

Looking at translation, and making sure we can submit everything in both official languages, to stay within the act and following the rules, I am suggesting an extension for the four remaining reports. To give a date, we can suggest June 9, which is the last day of the regular sitting time. We will not need to go all that way; whenever we can get them done, we'll get them done.

In this situation, Alberta was turned around really quickly. We'll be doing the draft report for Alberta on Thursday. The Quebec report, which we hoped to have back by Friday—we wanted sooner—may not be totally.... It will be next week.

This is to have the leniency and ability, the flexibility I'll say, in case—we will not use it if we don't have to—we need to go back to the House to ask for that extension.

Are there any comments or concerns?

Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will be brief. We do not support the extension.

Frankly, this committee wasted 24 hours on a Liberal filibuster. That would have been the equivalent of 12 meetings, 24 panels. We could have dealt with this well before today. I just want that on the record. The reason we have to ask for an extension is because of a lengthy filibuster by the Liberal Party to prevent and then to allow Katie Telford to testify.

We don't support the extension, and I'm going to leave it there.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Madame Gaudreau.

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

Madam Chair, I worry about the fine work of the interpreters and the translation bureau. If it looks like it will be necessary, we could give them extra time to make sure we get suitable materials. Who knows? Maybe we'll even be pleasantly surprised and get them before the deadline.

I understand that we're asking for an extension, but that doesn't mean the date won't change. For the sake of quality, though, I think it's important to make an adjustment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you so much for this, Chair.

I also want to be on the record that it was disappointing to see the Liberals filibuster. However, I also recognize how important it is that we continue our work on foreign interference. At this point, if we don't ask for an extension, it means we will be undermining that study. I will be watching closely, but will support it so we can continue the important work we're doing on foreign interference in our elections.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I think this committee has operated in good faith on pursuing multiple priorities at the same time, all of which are important. It makes perfect sense, common sense in fact, to extend the timelines for this important work on redistribution, given the fact that we would have to compromise, as Ms. Blaney said, on other priorities if we were to try to meet the very short timelines we have left to complete redistribution.

I think it's more than fair to ask for an extension and to utilize our time wisely to complete the work we've started. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mrs. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to reiterate that this committee has also sat in every single riding week. While I understand what Mr. Nater said, I also know we have been putting in the extra hours. If he feels that we shouldn't extend the timeline for redistribution, then we can put aside the study for foreign interference.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Having heard all of your comments, I believe that we have agreement to ask for the extensions. I will take the steps necessary to make that request of the House.

With that, I welcome our colleagues to the procedure and House affairs committee.

With redistribution, we've been doing well, so please feel free to speak to each other. If there is a need or a concern, then I will take my chairpersonship responsibility very seriously and let you know.

For our first panel, we have with us today Mr. Don Davies, MP, Vancouver Kingsway; Mr. Wilson Miao, MP, Richmond Centre; the Honourable Dr. Hedy Fry, MP, Vancouver Centre; Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed, MP, Vancouver Granville; and the Honourable Joyce Murray, MP, Vancouver Quadra.

You will each have four minutes for an opening statement. Feel free not to use the four minutes, but you are welcome to them, after which we will proceed to questions from committee members.

I will start with Mr. Davies.

Welcome.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all committee members for the opportunity to appear before you.

At the outset, I would just like to express that I'm both supportive of and pleased by the addition of one additional seat for British Columbia, as well as the decision of the electoral boundaries commission to allot that new seat in the southern interior. While reasonable alternatives exist in the placement of that seat, I believe that the rationale of the commission is strong and sound in this regard.

I appear to express my concerns, specifically about the proposed boundary changes as they pertain to my electoral district of Vancouver Kingsway. Specifically, I believe that it's both inappropriate and unnecessary to place the expansion of Vancouver Kingsway into the area at the southwestern corner of the riding as proposed by the British Columbia Electoral Boundaries Commission in its revised proposal.

The first proposal would have extended Vancouver Kingsway across municipal boundaries into Burnaby. When I appeared before the commission and raised our concerns about that, it erased that proposal and instead popped Vancouver Kingsway into a significant portion of Vancouver South.

I handed out a map that I hope all of you have. I will be referring to that in a few moments. I have extra copies if you need them.

During the consultation process, I submitted and personally presented a proposal to the BC Electoral Boundaries Commission that provided two different options for Vancouver Kingsway specifically, and for all six Vancouver federal ridings in general. Both outlined rational and minimally disruptive boundaries. Both resulted in very close alignment with the provincial population quotient and very close equality of residents between the ridings. Both respected historical, cultural, electoral and social factors. We were dismayed to see the electoral boundaries commission's subsequent map largely ignore our proposal.

I will, of course, accept whatever the final outcome of this process is and enthusiastically represent, to the best of my ability, all residents who may be added to Vancouver Kingsway. However, I must add my voice to those who are concerned that the BC Electoral Boundaries Commission so fundamentally ignored the bulk of the public feedback it received and proposed a second map that contained radically different boundaries from its initial map. By doing so, in my view, it effectively rendered public input meaningless.

For the purposes of this submission, I will focus on my original first-choice plan for Vancouver Kingsway, which addresses the problems with the current proposal and more effectively respects the legislative direction and common law principles of relative equality of voters and communities of interest and identities.

Please refer yourselves to the map. Rather than expanding Vancouver Kingsway south to 49th Avenue between Knight Street and Main Street, I propose that it makes much more sense to keep the present southern boundary of my riding at 41st Avenue, and instead expand Vancouver Kingsway westward to Ontario Street from the current western boundary of Main Street. That's about three blocks west.

Ontario Street is the formal dividing line between the east and west sides of Vancouver. It starts at 000, and municipal addresses extend numerically upward in each direction, designated as west or east. Municipal lot sizes differ on either side of this line, with lots to the west generally being 40 feet or more wide and those to the east being 33 feet, resulting in different property tax interests and community densities.

Historically and culturally, the east and west sides mark a socio-economic division. Many residents identify as “east side” or “west side”. I note that this area has also historically been a part of Vancouver Kingsway, whereas the proposed addition never has. Vancouver Kingsway represented this area historically from 2004 to 2015. 41st Avenue is a major natural historical boundary, and I think confusion would ensue if we crossed it.

I've attached maps that illustrate it.

I hear the timer. I'll conclude by saying that I believe other impacted MPs adjacent to my riding concur with this proposal. I ask for your favourable recommendation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Next is Mr. Miao.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all PROC committee members for this opportunity today to present my opposition to the electoral commission report's redistribution of the electoral boundaries for the proposed riding now named Richmond Centre—Marpole.

The report's boundaries for Steveston—Richmond East had maintained the Richmond municipal boundaries, but to meet the population average, Marpole Vancouver was added to the riding of Richmond Centre.

In the submitted objection document, I have the support of my neighbouring and affected members of Parliament—the Honourable Joyce Murray, the Honourable Harjit Sajjan, member of Parliament Taleeb Noormohamed and member of Parliament Parm Bains—on this proposed option for a new riding boundary. It is also supported by the mayor of Richmond, Richmond and Marpole community organizations, and residents of Richmond and Marpole.

The report points out that there is now public transit access connecting the city of Vancouver community of Marpole with the riding of Richmond Centre on the other side of the Fraser River. It assumes that physically joining these two communities would logically allow the residents of these two distinct communities to interact naturally or to feel connected as one community. This is not the reality, and the TransLink usage numbers confirm that it is these suburban residents who utilize transit to commute to jobs in the city of Vancouver. The usage by those working in Richmond is very minimal.

In the statistics of the City of Richmond, specifically for the riding of Richmond Centre, the community of Marpole affirms the location situation. Richmond is a city accessible only by several bridges and a tunnel. It has the highest population percentage of new immigrants of Asian background. A large majority of them reside in the residential developments within Richmond Centre, which accounts for more than 75% of Richmond's annual population growth.

The 2021 census undertaken during the pandemic had a higher-than-average undercount rate for Richmond Centre. That's because many residents would have been missed because they were not residing in Canada during the pandemic. Since then, many large condo development projects have been completed and occupied, and at least two major developments in Richmond Centre will be completed within the year or next year. This rapid growth has necessitated the building of an additional transit stop.

Marpole sees itself as a distinct community within the city of Vancouver. The City of Vancouver's Marpole community plan expects 30% growth in the next 30 years. Due to this significant growth, the City of Vancouver's parks board is replacing the existing Marpole-Oakridge Community Centre to meet this demand.

As a resident of Richmond Centre for over 25 years, I have seen first-hand how this municipality has changed and grown. Personally, I don't feel any cohesion with the communities along the Vancouver side of the Fraser River, and residents of Richmond like me feel that we have our own distinct and unique local characteristics, culture and identities. I am certain that the residents of Marpole feel the same way.

With this distinct local challenge, Richmond organizations have been formed to meet community service needs, so that the residents in Richmond are not required to leave their island community. Some examples of these organizations are Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives; the Richmond Centre for Disability; and the Richmond Multicultural Community Services society. The community of Marpole also has its own local organizations that serve the distinct needs of the community, such as Marpole Neighbourhood House and Marpole Oakridge Family Place.

I hope these provided objection materials support the conclusion that Richmond and Marpole residents would be better served by a member of Parliament who represents their respective municipalities only. Richmond East—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to have to say thank you.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

No problem. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I appreciate that. We look forward to hearing more through comments and questions.

Next is Mr. Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but was Ms. Fry not next? No. I am happy to speak.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of PROC, for allowing me to have this opportunity.

I wish I didn't have to be here. I'm here largely because the last version of the map the commission put forward looked nothing like the initial proposal, and I share many of the same concerns as Mr. Davies and Mr. Miao. No one in the three communities that have been affected by these material changes had the chance to be here, so I'm here on their behalf and I want to articulate what those three communities are.

First is the Punjabi Market and the historic organizations and entities of the South Asian community. My colleague, Mr. Sajjan, the member for Vancouver South, will speak to those later this week, but those historic institutions have always been together in one electoral district, and now it is proposed that they be separate.

Second, as you heard from Mr. Miao, Marpole, one of Vancouver's oldest neighbourhoods, a historic neighbourhood adjacent to and integrated with the Oakridge community right next door to such an extent that there are organizations there such as the Marpole-Oakridge Community Centre and Marpole Oakridge Family Place, is being proposed to be severed completely from Vancouver and basically joined to the Richmond riding. Marpole is connected to Vancouver. It's where the schools are. It provides the policing for these services and schools, and, as you heard from Mr. Davies, two blocks of east Vancouver are being placed predominantly in a west-side riding.

We let our constituents know on social media. Within 24 hours we had this stack of letters, emails and phone calls. Why? Why did they object? It was because the commission chose to sever Marpole—as I said, one of Vancouver's oldest communities, one that is connected physically to the city of Vancouver—and join it to the city of Richmond, which is separated from Vancouver by the Fraser River, the very same river that the commission noted should serve as the natural boundary between the ridings of Richmond and Delta.

It is our view that the same logic should apply when we're talking about the separation of Vancouver and Richmond. Anyone who has been to Vancouver, who has been to the airport, anyone who knows Vancouver knows that getting from Marpole to Richmond is not easy. With bridges, buses, walking, whatever, it is not actually easy, despite the exhortations to the contrary.

We've heard from so many residents. We've heard from MLAs. We've heard from city councillors, mayors, and members of Parliament. You've heard my colleagues here and others, all of whom are strongly opposed to this decision by the commission. Most important, we've heard from everyday citizens, and I will share with you some of their words.

The Commission must not know of Marpole's deep historic cultural, political and economic ties to the City of Vancouver. Marpole is not and has never been part of Richmond.

I live in Marpole. I was shocked to hear the boundary is what it is. In my opinion, Marpole has nothing to do with Richmond. It is physically separated. It makes it hard for us.

How can Marpole be part of Richmond? We are part of Vancouver.

I strongly resent the removal of our area, and I want you to convey our opinion in the strongest terms. These people don't know Vancouver.

As a resident of Marpole for 60 years, I am outraged at this [proposal]. Whoever has proposed this, whatever group, should be fired immediately! They don't understand Vancouver. This is our heritage and it cannot be handled in this offhand manner as if we citizens don't count. We were given no chance to voice our concerns.

These are just a few of the over 150 letters we got in 24 hours. Many of those have been attached to the submission I made.

What we're dealing with is the fact that had there been a chance to speak to this, you would have had thousands of people submitting their objections and speaking out. They didn't have that chance.

The other thing to note is that the residents of Marpole have an average income of approximately $30,000 less per year than do those in the rest of the city of Vancouver. Those are the residents who access their MPs. Those are the ones who come to us for their services. To say to them now, “You must go to Richmond to access these services, and somebody will have to advocate for you with the City of Vancouver,” is unfair to them and ignores fundamentally the premise of why we do this.

We do this so that votes matter, so that voters' voices count. All we are doing is disenfranchising people by putting them in a riding with which they have very limited affinity and almost no relationship.

My request to PROC is that they take into account what the report has said about other ridings: that the Fraser River should serve as the natural boundary between Delta and Richmond. We believe that same logic should apply between Vancouver and Richmond, and I agree wholeheartedly with what Mr. Davies has said with respect to the line between east and west being Ontario Street. That is how the City of Vancouver sees it. That is how the electoral boundaries commission should see it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We will now go to Minister Murray.

I'm going to Dr. Fry last, because I need to do a sound check.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to participate in the commission's work.

I am objecting to the February proposal for Vancouver Quadra, which basically turns it into Vancouver East Broadway and is a dramatic and radical change to the boundaries. It's not just a move of certain parts of the boundary, but it changes the entire constituency from being a north-south one on the peninsula of Vancouver to being an east-west boundary out to essentially Ontario Street along Broadway. This was done without consultation.

The June redistricting addressed the issues and the challenges that were being faced by the area. That was acceptable, so I didn't connect with the commission at that point. It maintained Vancouver Quadra as the peninsula and added some of Kits Point to bring the Kitsilano community together. Therefore, the fact that it went from that to a radical redraw with no consultation is completely unacceptable.

I will tell you the key reason for that: The community of the Musqueam is being fragmented into two constituencies under this proposal. The map shows that are a number of key reconciliation, land ownership and development opportunities for the Musqueam that would be in one constituency, while the Musqueam community residential area is in a completely separate constituency under the February plan.

Under article 19 of UNDRIP, it says, “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

I have a letter of objection from the chief of the Musqueam Indian Band regarding this fragmentation of their community with zero consultation. I have hundreds of letters from Vancouver Quadra residents. I'm going to read just one of them, because I think this captures it. I'm not sure who it's from, frankly, but it says:

Splitting the area where the Musqueam are located seems to me comparable to building a highway through Vancouver's downtown core (which was thankfully avoided years ago). The UBC area, and the South Coast including the still standing forest of the peninsula is historically, culturally and physically a part of the Indigenous community. Dividing them does not make sense and hampers a meaningful relationship and cooperation with the residents of that part of the riding [whose] efficient representation and understanding of their needs...has been neglected for [too] long.

Separating Arbutus Ridge, Mackenzie Heights, Kerrisdale, Southlands and most of Dunbar from UBC and Point Grey area shows a lack of understanding of how the whole area west of Granville grew over Vancouver's historical development. I think the Quadra riding as it stands in last year's proposal should be valued as a distinct area to be appreciated as is and represented as a natural whole under its present name.

That really captures the fact that this is a very dramatic change to the riding that takes out many historic neighbourhoods. I share the concern about Marpole being taken and put as part of the Richmond riding. I share the concerns of others about that. If that were to be restored, I think that is a part of the redistricting that needs to be done in Vancouver that would protect the Musqueam lands and keep them contiguous with their residential community hub.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

The timer did not go off, and we'll look into that. However, you were awarded 29 extra seconds.

Dr. Fry, hello and welcome. It's really good to have you here. You will have up to four minutes for your opening comments. The floor is yours.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much.

I understand the reasons commissions make changes. I want to suggest that I do not disagree with the changes made, except for one very important change.

Granville Island is a historic and traditional part, where indigenous people used to meet. It connects directly to the west end. What this change has done is to draw a line that divides Granville Island, per se, into two pieces. This is a community of interest. Actually, all of the people in the west end, where the hotels are, come into Granville Island, which is a tourism hub.

I am suggesting that if the line could be rejoined to let Granville Island remain intact and not divided from the communities of interest—the people who work and live there, and the historic areas of Granville Island—it will increase the number of votes in that riding by 17. That's one and seven. This is not going to interfere with anyone else's riding or remove all the boundaries. Granville Island is connected to the west end and not to Kitsilano, which is a small piece of Granville Island. Those of you who have been there know it's like shaving off a piece of Granville Island and sticking it where it doesn't belong. It shows that the people who drew those lines didn't understand Granville Island and the area in which they are now creating communities of interest.

You have letters from the Granville Island Council, which is run by local people. It's part of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They have written letters. A lot of people in that area have objected very strongly to dividing up Granville Island. What has happened is.... Granville Island is a transport hub with the west end, with footpaths, bridges and ways of getting around by water taxi. It is part of the west end. To take off this small slice of Granville Island—which makes absolutely no sense, with only 17 voters in it—is actually breaking up communities of interest, a transportation hub, and the economic and business component of Granville Island. The people who run Granville Island have written a very strongly worded letter suggesting this is the wrong thing to do, because, again, the historic, indigenous.... People used to meet there at all times. The indigenous communities are very closely linked to Granville Island, so there's a whole piece of development there that must stay.

I think it's important to note—and I'm going to repeat this many times—that it's only going to increase my voter turnout by 17 votes, because of the fact that it's mostly a business transportation community of interest. There was an artists' and artisans' hub built there. Granville Island was also brought about by the original member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre, the honourable Ron Basford. The park in Granville Island is named after him. To divide up the park and the whole community makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Dr. Fry.

That's perfect. I think you have made your—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

You have several letters, etc.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Anything provided to our committee, for the information of all of our witnesses today, will be submitted to the commission. We don't get to pick and choose what we pass forward. Everything that comes to us goes back to the commission as we report through the House.

We'll now start with our first round. We will begin with Mr. Albas.