Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 18th, 2023

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate being here at the PROC committee. I haven't been here that often.

Thank you to my colleagues for their presentations today.

I'll start, first, with Mr. Davies.

Mr. Davies, I certainly understand that you submitted your own submission to the commission and were dismayed by its response. I think it's very important we bear this in mind: “This Report for this region”—this is on page 16—“is much changed from the Commission's Proposal in response to thoughtful presentations and submissions received, primarily on the Commission's choice of river crossings and division of municipalities. Making different choices about those matters has had a ripple effect on almost all the region's...districts.”

When it comes to your area, it says, “Vancouver Kingsway”—this is on page 19—“maintains its boundaries, with minimal change in its southwestern area.”

Lastly, I would say, on the conclusion of the process—and I may bring this up with other members—that, “While not all ideas presented are found in this Report, many are, and all have been considered. The public input has greatly influenced the configurations for the entire province.”

I certainly understand, sir, that you have an issue with what they have described as “minimal change in [your] southwestern area”, but they are balancing a much tougher picture.

Madam Chair, am I asking questions directly of committee members, or do I just make my comments? I don't want to split off, because I was hoping to touch on more than one submission. However, I don't want to pick on Mr. Davies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Would you like him to respond, though?

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

Yes, just briefly.

Sir, they have said that they have tried to accommodate public input, and they've described the changes in your riding as minimal. How do you respond to that?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, I've read those same comments. I think the answer is that, taking that defence of theirs as a whole, I simply disagree. They claim that they've taken into account all the feedback. I can tell you that I put in two proposals that would have contained all six federal ridings within the boundaries of Vancouver and given two different looks at it, and they ignored those completely.

More importantly, I think..., and you're right, Mr. Albas. With respect to my riding, there was minimal change. They changed it from adding a piece to Burnaby to adding a piece to Vancouver South. What I can tell you is that there wasn't a single person who asked for that, that I'm aware of.

The radical changes that they made to my colleagues in Quadra and Granville, though, are really beyond the pale. That's why I say that when the commission puts out its first proposal, I think that's its opportunity to be creative, and then it gets feedback. If it then comes back with a completely radical proposal after the public feedback has been given and without any further opportunity for public feedback, that's where I think the commission is overstepping its bounds, and I think it did so in this case.

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

I think I understand your viewpoint here, and I appreciate that you said the real changes were to ridings other than your own. Acknowledging that shows the balance in your presentation today.

I'd like to actually talk a little about the removal of Marpole and moving it to Richmond Centre, because I'm going to address it more broadly than that.

First of all, with regard to it—and this is from page 18 of the report:

Many residents of the municipalities touched by this previous proposal frankly and helpfully questioned it as contrary to historical pattern and community of interest. While the Cities of Richmond and Delta have shared representation in the past, this solution was opposed by presenters on both sides of the Fraser River.

They originally proposed something. Everyone came out against it, similar, it seems, to the MPs here. Page 18 also says—and this is interesting, especially with regard to Mr. Noormohamed's comments:

it was suggested that the urban nature of Richmond Centre, the success of Canada Line transportation, and the location of two bridge crossings of the north arm of the Fraser River supported including lands in the historic Vancouver area of Marpole within the existing Richmond Centre district. Crossing the Fraser River is a significant step in the design of an electoral district. The Commission considers that historical patterns of Marpole and Richmond and communities of interest between neighbourhoods are sufficiently strong to support this crossing.

I totally understand, Mr. Miao, Mr. Noormohamed and even you, Minister, that you are all saying that there are no communities of interest and that the submissions were only one-sided, in your favour, for your argument. However, it clearly says right here that that's just not the case. The case is that the Richmond ridings didn't have the population, and that there are corridors and traditional communities of interest, and people said that to the commission. How do you respond?

Maybe we'll go to Mr. Noormohamed first.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

I'd start by saying that if you were to speak to anyone in Marpole and ask them how often they go to Richmond, you'd find that that's actually not necessarily where they ordinarily go to shop, to get their services, to do their banking or to get their community services. They're not residents of Richmond. That's the first thing.

The second thing is the idea that the Canada Line is the be-all and end-all of transportation between Vancouver.... I would invite anyone on this committee to go and situate themselves at the corner of Fremlin Street in Vancouver, or 70th Avenue, and try to make their way easily to any of the historic offices of MPs—the last five MPs in Richmond—to see how long it takes you to get there by transportation, by car, by foot, by bike or by boat. Or, you could swim; that might even be faster. It doesn't work.

The other thing that is important to consider is that when you think about the nature of the community in Marpole, their ties to the city of Vancouver and the degree to which they are connected to what happens in Vancouver, you cannot understate the value of what people in that community feel about where they actually belong.

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

As an MP who comes from an area where West Kelowna and Kelowna are separated and where there is an issue of the transportation, I will say that there are more transportation hubs between these two areas. Second to that, the answer was that I share an office with an MLA on the other side. I understand the arguments; I just don't agree with them.

I would just hope that the commission takes those viewpoints, because I think there's a stronger argument to be made just with regard to the population. You cannot have areas of representation that are unequal.

Thank you.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

That's not true, actually.

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

Are we going to have a second round? Yes? Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

That's great. Thank you.

It's a pleasure to be here at the much-esteemed PROC committee. This is the first time I have been here. It's good to see all my B.C. colleagues presenting.

I find it quite interesting that it seems that the primary concerns we have heard this morning relate to Vancouver. As a member of Parliament from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, I think we need to get it right in Vancouver, absolutely, but I would also like to make sure we're not pushing anything out into, say, my region as we try to get it right in Vancouver.

There was a comment made by my Conservative colleague about not getting the numbers right. Richmond could be low. I think there are ranges within the mandate that the electoral commission related to the population. Dr. Fry has spoken about how hers would see a difference of only 17. That seems very reasonable.

Mr. Davies, you mentioned that you'd come up with a plan for Vancouver. I think you mentioned six seats. I'll start with you, but I would like to hear from others as well about any plans they've come up with and what the population targets would be. Could we actually have the proposed boundary changes within Vancouver that would maybe not exactly reflect an equal number but be within the range the boundary commission is able to work with?

Perhaps you could speak to particularly in yours, Mr. Davies, what you would see as being the population effects. Perhaps you could also talk about the larger piece you did for Vancouver, with the populations of the new ridings being within an acceptable range for population.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Aldag.

I'll give you some numbers. The population of Vancouver, as used by the electoral boundaries commission and I think largely accepted as being the population of the city of Vancouver, is 682,000. That's the population. Divide that by six and you get an average of about 114,000. The provincial quotient is 116,000.

I showed the electoral boundaries commission how you could keep all six seats within the municipal boundaries of Vancouver. I just want to pause here and say that this is Canada's third-largest major city. With some very, very logical moving of boundaries, you could have each seat be 114,000 or 113,000.

In fact, it's 114,000 for Vancouver Centre, 114,000 for Vancouver East, 114,000 for Vancouver Granville, 114,000 for Vancouver Quadra, 113,000 for Vancouver South and 113,000 for Vancouver Kingsway, with virtually identical electors between the ridings and within 2,000 or 3,000 of the provincial quotient. You may know that the act permits a deviation of up to 25%. We're talking about 1.5% off the provincial quotient.

I also recognize that sometimes, as Mr. Albas said, you have to go across municipal boundaries. I recognize that, but that was not necessary in the case of Vancouver. When we put those submissions in, I have no idea.... The original submission had Vancouver South and Vancouver Kingsway popped over into Burnaby without any explanation. When they came back the second time, they moved Kingsway back into Vancouver. They took Vancouver South and put them even further into Burnaby, and then inexplicably took a piece of Richmond and grafted that onto Vancouver without any explanation. Just for them to say the words that, well, we have listened to everybody and we have taken into account the submissions—that is not sufficient.

I would conclude by saying that it seems to me that what the boundaries commission did was to slavishly adhere to the numerical equality of voters and not give sufficient attention to the equally important and legislatively required criterion of community of interest. That, I think, is what is underpinning all of our submissions today.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you so much for that.

I think you've hit a really good point with what you've suggested, that it would be within a couple of thousand. We know that in Vancouver, within the metro region, we're going to see a huge population growth within the coming decade. I know they look at where we are at this point in time, but frankly, if we're worried about losing population, I would say it's not going to happen in any of the Vancouver ridings in the coming decade. I would think that each of those ridings would soon surpass the target of 116,000.

I'd like to turn to the others at the table and get their thoughts as well on this kind of redistricting and what the impacts would be on neighbouring ridings. Maybe we can go from left to right, if there's still time.

Ms. Murray, you mentioned as well the very significant impacts on the Musqueam community. Have you looked at what your proposed boundary would be? What are you suggesting for Vancouver Quadra?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

The proposal in June made a lot of sense. It brought in a part of Kitsilano that had historically not been in Vancouver Quadra, so it connected the Kits community.

I didn't have the tools and the time to redraw the whole Vancouver and adjacent areas. My objection is about the fact that the consultation led to a proposal in June that was acceptable; there was no further consultation, and then there was a radical and dramatic change.

My key argument there is on the community of the Musqueam, who historically have lived at the mouth of the Fraser River. The chief is a fisherman actually, and fishing is a big part of the community. That community is now being completely severed from the lands where they are planning to provide housing for members as their community grows. As well, the Musqueam community's interest in things like the reconciliation centre out at UBC would be severed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay, thank you.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

When—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm sorry, but when I start demonstrating my impatience, I need you to respond by providing me back the floor, and then I don't have to do this.

I appreciate that exchange. It was very fruitful.

The one thing I have in common with British Columbia is that my initials are the same.

Go ahead, Ms. Gaudreau.

I'm going to give you the time you lose because of the interpretation. Everyone has the right to speak in the language of their choice.

Go ahead, Ms. Gaudreau.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First, I have to be honest and say that I still haven't been to Vancouver Island or British Columbia, but you make me want to go, hopefully this summer.

I fully understand that you have to go through a number of steps because of a turnaround that seems to make no sense, which you rightly pointed out. I'm going to give you an opportunity to explain further, Ms. Murray.

I represent Laurentides‑Labelle, a rural riding that spans a large area. I'd like to give you a chance to explain how natural communities in urban areas can be very different from one another, even when they're just a few blocks apart.

What impact would the proposed boundary redistribution have? You've talked about it some, but now you have a chance to explain further. The members of the commission are following these proceedings.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you for your question.

Here's a map of what Vancouver Quadra looks like currently. You can see the electoral boundary readjustment proposed in June. The whole riding is rooted in Vancouver's historical development and has been part of the district's peninsular geography for a hundred years. Arbutus, Dunbar, Mackenzie Heights and Blenheim streets are all complete neighbourhoods that would be divided.

I also want to underscore to the committee that indigenous lands were fragmented without any consultation. None whatsoever. In a time of reconciliation, that is completely unacceptable. Indigenous people even expressed their dissatisfaction in a letter that was sent to the committee.

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

Thank you.

Obviously, I'm not in a position to ask extremely specific questions since I'm not familiar with your ridings.

That said, this may be a good time for you to challenge the criteria behind the redistribution. Things change, realities change, circumstances change.

Do you think now is the time to review the much talked-about criteria? There's the quota, but there's also the community of interest. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

Would you like to go first, Mr. Noormohamed?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you for your question.

I'd like to make two points. First, the process is indeed being questioned. A map was proposed, but people weren't then given an opportunity to provide feedback. Subsequently, a completely different map was proposed, without residents having any opportunity to speak to the people making the decisions. There's a problem with that process.

Second, in regard to your question about the criteria, I think it's very important for communities of interest to stay together. It's also important to take municipal boundaries into account. It's incredibly difficult for a member to represent the residents of two different cities, when you're talking about big cities like Vancouver and Richmond. They are totally different. They each have their own mayor and city council. That makes things very difficult, not only for constituents, but also for the member, who then has to work with two city councils and two governments.

I think it's necessary to consider changing the process and steps, as well as the rules and criteria.

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

We are making work for ourselves, here, but it's a hugely important issue.

When all the factors are being weighed, it's necessary to ask what's more important. The population has grown, and that has to be dealt with. You mentioned the process, but it seems to me there's a step missing. There needs to be consultation before coming back, to say whether the proposed change is acceptable.

I'd also like to hear your thoughts on the criteria or process.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

If I may, I'm not so sure that the problem is with the criteria as with the fact that they were ignored in this case. The criteria under “community of interest” are.... Some are set out in legislation and some through jurisprudence, but an electoral boundaries commission is supposed to look at the history. It is supposed to look at geography. IT is supposed to look at demographics. It is supposed to look at communities of interest. I don't think there's a problem with those. It's a problem with the fact that it misapplied or ignored those when it came to drafting the boundaries for Vancouver.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Over to you, Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all of our witnesses here today.

I'm just going to ask a simple question. I'll allow all of you to answer it, because it is probably the last round.

What are the most concerning consequences if the current boundaries are kept in your community?

I'll start with you, Minister Murray.