Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 18th, 2023

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, colleagues.

I'm going to start with just a couple of statements related to name changes and then go to some questions, if there's time, on populations and the impacts on surrounding districts through the proposals that you're making today.

I want to start with Mr. Van Popta, neighbour of my riding, as well as Ms. Findlay. The name change you put forward I fully support. As you noted, Langley township now has part of Surrey in it, and it would be a complete misrepresentation to not have that reflected. Just for the record, I fully support what you indicated for the proposed name change.

I would also point out to the committee that I opted to not do an in-person presentation. I put forward a name change as well, so I would hope that you had a chance to look at that and consider a name change that is fairly benign. I just wanted to get a little plug in there for Cloverdale—Langley City—Sullivan Heights as perhaps the new name for my riding.

Ms. Zarrillo, I was intrigued by your comment about the name for the proposed New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville and the very interesting history you pointed out in the spirit of reconciliation. Do you have any thoughts on what that...? I guess if the community is actually kept intact, then it may not need to be represented, and the name is not what you'd be saying. Would you be suggesting that the New Westminster—Burnaby riding would simply be New Westminster—Burnaby?

That's for either one of you, Mr. Julian or Ms. Zarrillo, if you'd like to give us some context on how we could get rid of the reference to Maillardville.

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

New Westminster—Burnaby would be the name, because what we're proposing is that Maillardville be intact in Port Moody—Coquitlam. Again, with regard to the quotients, we're proposing that the Edmonds neighbourhood that has been divided be restored—so a community of interest as well. All three of those changes, including Westwood Plateau with Anmore and Belcarra, are the historical communities of interest that have always existed in Burnaby, New Westminster and the Tri-Cities, and they're within the quotient. What we are hoping for is a consensus through PROC that would recommend to the commission to take those common-sense steps to ensure that communities of interest are kept together.

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

Thank you.

The final piece I'll go to is on the numbers. Maybe the three of you who are looking at some tweaks to boundaries can speak about giving reassurance that the proposed boundaries you'd be looking at would be within that quotient.

Ms. Findlay, maybe I'll start with you, and then if there is time, I'll go to Mr. Julian and Ms. Zarrillo. I think the commission did well on a lot of things, but maybe use that number as the primary thing to fixate on, and I think that there's some room. If you could just speak about the numbers and what you would see in your redistribution proposal....

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

Thank you.

Yes. In other words, it's basically equivalent. What we're saying is they're taking a little piece in the north and putting it with the northern riding, when what should have been done is that small piece in the south should have been pushed into the southern part.

It's a common-sense approach. If you're doing everything with one municipality, and you've always been a part of that municipality, it makes no sense to then push that community up north to be part of a riding that it doesn't work with in the same way. They're not as integrated as they are now.

Lantzville with Nanaimo is absolutely integrated. In the southern portion—which we're suggesting can take the place of that and go with the more southern riding—again, they're already doing that. That's how it works there.

We're talking about rough equivalents in order to make it fit.

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

Thanks.

I haven't heard the buzzer, so maybe either Mr. Julian or Ms. Zarrillo could speak to the numbers in their area.

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

Yes.

The B.C. riding quotients go from Kelowna to Victoria, with 105,000 to 125,000. What we're proposing is within that quotient and allows for the communities of interest in all three ridings of New Westminster—Burnaby, Port Moody—Coquitlam and Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

You still have a minute and a half.

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

Okay.

I'm interested in whether you're aware of any other discussions. We heard this morning from Ms. Murray about the inadequate or lack of indigenous consultation.

I think, Ms. Zarrillo, you spoke to that.

Are there any other areas you're aware of—other first nations communities or territories you've heard of—that may not have been represented as well through consultation?

I wonder if this has come up in any discussions you've had in your areas.

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

We're not aware of any consultations with the Qayqayt First Nation.

In New Westminster—Burnaby, we are on the traditional unceded territories of the Hul'q'umi'num' and Squamish-speaking Coast Salish peoples. As Ms. Zarrillo pointed out, there was a fundamental lack of consultation within the Port Moody—Coquitlam riding boundary. I think it's fair to say that ensuring that Maillardville stays with Port Moody—Coquitlam helps to satisfy that lack of consultation by restoring the community of interest.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Aldag.

I understand that today is your birthday. It may be a milestone birthday, so happy birthday on behalf of the committee.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Mr. Fergus said 75. He's never looked better, but I'm not sure that's quite there.

Go ahead, Ms. Gaudreau. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're doing an excellent job, by the way.

The previous member gave me some food for thought. I realize now that the electoral quota is high. This is my first concern. What will happen in 10 years if the electoral quota is nearly maxed out already? How do you see future movements in the population or population growth? Are you worried right now? Might that be another factor to bring to the commission's attention in support of your objection?

Mr. Julian can answer first, followed by Ms. Findlay.

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

Thank you.

Unfortunately, the commission can't take population growth into account. For us, the most important thing is taking into account the current population.

Maillardville is the birthplace of British Columbia's francophone community. As you well know, it's home to a great many francophone institutions. Breaking up Maillardville, with part of the community moving to the New Westminster—Burnaby riding and the other part staying in Port Moody—Coquitlam, makes no sense.

The initial proposal was to put New Westminster and Surrey together. That's a bit like putting Laval with Longueuil. It doesn't make sense.

Also, the population reacted very strongly to the second proposal, because it breaks up the neighbourhoods. That is why we are proposing, in all three cases, bringing together the communities of interest of those neighbourhoods, so that Edmonds can stay together, Maillardville can stay in Port Moody—Coquitlam, and Westwood Plateau, Anmore and Belcarra can also stay together.

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

Thank you.

In the last 10 years—those are the time frames we're working with—all of the development in Nanaimo has gone north, not south. Again, that's another reason why it makes sense for Lantzville to be included there. That is no doubt as to why the mayor of Lantzville is saying, “We rely on Nanaimo for all its services, even water, sewer, and all the infrastructure. We work together.” That's just the way the growth has been. It has not been south; it's been north.

Ladysmith is south of Nanaimo, so it makes sense to incorporate that smaller community and draw the line there, but in my view, it does not make sense to put Lantzville into a riding further north.

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

Thank you.

That brings something to mind. I asked someone in the previous panel whether we should review the criteria and the process. He said that the criteria existed, but wondered whether they were taken into account. Which criterion comes first?

I'd like you to talk about the changes being proposed today. The preference is to keep communities of interest together, but demographics also come into play. It's the same in Quebec.

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

Actually, Ms. Zarillo and I don't doubt that the population grew. That said, we are proposing going about the redistribution differently, while preserving the communities of interest. What puzzles me are all the procedures.

A commission released a first draft of possible proposals, whether in Quebec or British Columbia. In some cases, that leads to significant changes. Subsequently, the population proposes other options. Then, a second proposal comes out, but the public isn't consulted on it. With the second proposal, the francophones of Maillardville should at least be asked whether they want the riding of Coquitlam split up. Their reaction would be very strong, indeed.

Currently, the process around the second proposal allows the commission to do what it wants. That's the problem. If the second map proposes significant changes without a historical basis for separating communities of interest, it only makes sense to consult the public a second time, in my view. It's important to take the public's view into account.

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

That confirms that, in some cases, a step is missing to ensure respect for both demographics and democracy over the next 10 years.

I think you have 30 seconds left to answer, Ms. Findlay.

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

Thank you.

I lived through the last redistribution, and there were dramatic changes then. There are some dramatic changes here, particularly in British Columbia. Often, one of the objections is that now, whoever the federal representative will be will have to deal with more than one municipality. The truth is that in my riding now, I deal with two cities.

In my old riding, which was Delta—Richmond East, not only was I in two cities, but I was across the river, so I heard some of the earlier testimony, “You're making us represent across a river.” I've actually done that, because it is possible. It is possible for a federal representative to deal with two or three different municipalities.

In some of our rural ridings, there are many cities and townships that people deal with, so it is possible. Sometimes, though, on the ground, it doesn't make sense. In my riding of South Surrey—White Rock, they're going to carve out a little bit and put it in Delta. That's another city, but it isn't dramatic enough—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

I have to cut you off, Ms. Findlay, with the greatest respect as our whip.

From one whip to the next whip, we have Ms. Blaney, for six minutes, give or take.

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

“Give or take”. I like that.

Thank you to everyone who is here testifying today.

Of course, it's very lovely to see Mr. Nater in the chair and always nice to have a little change.

I think this comes back to a process question. In this committee, we've heard a lot about the fact that in the initial public input process, if people are content or don't have major concerns with it, they don't show up, and when there's a dramatic change, then people are very frustrated when they don't get an opportunity to respond to it. I think it is something this committee should take into consideration. How do we make sure people's voices are heard and that the process is clear enough so that people have time to respond in a meaningful way? The other issue that has come up several times, of course, is indigenous communities being consulted in a meaningful way.

I hope this committee will take a bit of time to discuss how we are engaging with the public on all the different needs they have, and how we ensure the process doesn't fall apart later on and leave this committee in a place where we're trying to navigate these systems and information, maybe without all of the relevant information.

I'll move on to questions.

I have no questions for Mr. Van Popta or Madam Findlay. I have no problem with the interventions you've brought forward and will be happy to support them moving forward.

I have a question for Mr. Julian and Ms. Zarrillo, if there's interest in responding.

What I've heard very clearly is that there are key interests of communities that have connections to services in the community, and communities are completely being removed. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I'm wondering, where did this come from? In the public hearings, were there actually people who said, “We want to take this community out of this community”? It doesn't seem to make sense. Could you provide any clarity, Ms. Zarrillo or Mr. Julian?

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

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.

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

Thank you so much.

It sounds from your testimony like there were no big groups of folks proposing that this community be moved from the current riding into a different one.

I'm wondering if I could ask both of you, what would be the consequences within the region you serve if these current boundaries were maintained, Mr. Julian and Ms. Zarrillo?

Ms. Zarrillo, you go ahead first.

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

Well, if I speak about Maillardville, it will be the only community that is removed from the Tri-Cities in relation to representation.

There are economic impacts as well. Maillardville hosts the largest celebration of French culture in all of British Columbia. It's part of Coquitlam. It's marketed that way, so it has economic impacts. Also, it has impacts on the ground. I spoke about our Legion. The Legion is going to be split. The Legion that has traditionally been supported by and supports the south side of Coquitlam will no longer be in the federal riding.

The impacts are huge. This happened right in the middle of Canada summer jobs grant applications. I got calls from people in my community, not-for-profits and charities, who were asking how this was going to affect them and their summer jobs grants.

I think the impacts are wide. Certainly, there was no consultation. There was no one in the south side of Coquitlam who knew that this could possibly happen, that the commission would take a portion of the Tri-Cities and join it to something that is not physically connected. You can't actually walk from the two ridings safely at all.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you.

That is time, but Mr. Julian, did you want to make a quick response?