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.