That's a very good question, Ms. Blaney, and the reality is there was no heads-up from the commission that they were going to rip Maillardville out of Port Moody—Coquitlam, and no heads-up either, really, from the commission around splitting Edmonds in two.
This gets back to the point of the second version, with the second often proposing wholly new solutions without having had the public's feedback. Perhaps it's something that the procedure and House affairs committee can look at as well. A process whereby the public is eliminated from a second stage that can often be dramatic doesn't make a lot of sense.
There are ramifications of the second proposal for Edmonds, which is a community that has a great deal of cohesion, because one neighbour would have a different MP from another neighbour. In Maillardville, it's the same thing.
Maillardville, historically, has been part of Port Moody—Coquitlam, and, all of a sudden, they would have to go to New Westminster to get from their member of Parliament the supports they have the right to obtain. It is a dramatic shift in the second draft. It doesn't make sense for Maillardville. For everybody who's been in the Lower Mainland, to get from my riding to Maillardville you'd have to cross a stream, a rail yard and the freeway. To get to Maillardville, that does not make any sense at all.
There's only one input length: one street that actually goes between what is being carved out of Port Moody—Coquitlam in this proposal and put in with New Westminster—Burnaby. It wasn't a thoughtful suggestion from the commission, and there isn't a justification for it, because it doesn't meet the quotient. The quotient can be met by ensuring that Edmonds, Maillardville, Westwood Plateau, Anmore and Belcarra stay in the ridings they have historically been part of.
I don't understand the justification for the second version, and it certainly was not subject to any public feedback whatsoever.