Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 20th, 2023

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you for the question.

You'll see in my submission on page 10 a map that will illustrate this as well. It just shows all of the public amenities that are right in the centre of this area, the area that's going to be on each side of the boundary that's been proposed to be changed.

To your point, there are a lot of seniors who live in this area, and the main advance polling site is actually right on the boundary of where the boundary commission has proposed it being set. This is very concerning, because that is one of the most fundamental times for our democracy. These are folks who may not know which district they're going to be voting in. That concerns me greatly.

It's not a natural boundary, because it is simply a street in the middle of the community, right in the core, which in no other scenario has been separating communities. In terms of where you're going to church and where you're going to your seniors activity centre, the biggest church and the biggest seniors activity centre would be on opposite sides of the boundary. This is likely to cause a lot of confusion. I don't think that's good for democracy. That could have a major impact on voting turnout as well.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

The other thing that has come up though is the question of population and making sure that you don't have bleed and impact on other ridings. You noted this in your submission. When you talked about the North Shore in particular and about making sure that communities' interests are protected and that you also respect the issue related to population, you touched on this.

Can you spend a little more time just reconciling how this would all work in terms of the numbers without impacting ridings to your east?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Absolutely. When we're looking at the district of West Vancouver, it's had flat and sometimes negative population growth in recent years. It's not a community that's growing quickly; it's sometimes shrinking. The only areas that are likely to see any growth are the area around Park Royal and the area on Taylor Way, where you're now seeing some apartment buildings that are proposed and some that are actually opening up. That's the area that would be added to the North Vancouver riding, which does share some similarities. The North Vancouver riding would be a bit small at first, but it would quickly make up that population difference.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr. Champoux.

You have the floor.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

I'll address you first, Ms. Blaney. I wanted to talk a little bit about the importance that we place on this on behalf of our constituencies. You were here when my colleague from Manicouagan, Ms. Gill, presented her opposition, which is somewhat similar to yours. She said something that I find very interesting: “[...] in the context of reconciliation and the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I believe it is indispensable to include First Nations in the naming process.”

That's what you want, isn't it? Do you think the commission is doing enough on reconciliation?

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

That's a very interesting question. Thank you for asking that.

In my role on this committee, we've heard repeatedly that there are concerns that have been brought forward by indigenous communities about the fact that the process may not be as helpful to those communities. One of the things we may want to explore within this country is how those communities are engaged in a more meaningful way.

It is always important for us to look at our structures, because if we talk about discrimination and about the history of colonialism in Canada, it's the structures themselves that have processes intrinsically built into them in which marginalized communities are disenfranchised. Having that meaningful discussion I think is really important, and that's why I'm very happy to bring forward this suggested name change, which I think will really reflect the riding I represent and many of the people who are in it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

There are many more indigenous communities than can be included in the riding names. Do you think we should do this systematically when it is possible to do so?

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

It really depends on the riding. I have the third-largest riding in British Columbia. I represent over 20 indigenous communities. One of the reasons I was able to offer this is that the territory I represent is broadly represented just in that one area by a nation that's related to other nations that were all comfortable, and they share a language. That made that portion better.

I represent a broader part of the mainland, but that part of the mainland with many other nations, which are just as important as this one, is represented by the North Island, which is the provincial name. The challenge with that of course is that there are many nations, and trying to figure out which names would be used would be hard. I think it's an important conversation to have, because it is the names of the first people of this territory, and it should be recognized in every way that we possibly can. If the members from that region come forward to me with some ideas, it would be very interesting to go through that process. I would be very excited to do that with them.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Cannings, I'm going to talk to you, even though I'm probably the person who is the most jealous of your riding, which I had the opportunity to visit a few times in my previous life, before I got into politics. You are currently facing some significant challenges in your riding. I know that you have provided the commissioner with some interesting avenues for solutions.

I would like to hear a little bit about the upheaval that all of the proposed changes will bring to the Okanagan Valley region if they come to fruition.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Well, the disruptions would more affect the West Kootenay side. Okanagan is retained as it is now, and that's a good thing.

On the Kootenay side, we have, as I said, communities like Beaver Valley, which is a part of Trail. That's the city. If you go out the other way, it's just mountains and forest. It's being taken away from Trail for the first time in electoral history, whether provincial or federal, and put with a riding where the nearest MP's office is over one of the highest mountain passes in the country.

Similarly, we have the suburbs of Castlegar, Brilliant and Thrums. People live there and work in Castlegar—or people in Castlegar work there. Now those suburbs are being taken out and put in that same East Kootenay riding, or they're put in Slocan Valley with Vernon, which is, again, a ferry trip. We don't have many ferry trips in the interior of B.C. There's one ferry that you have to cross and then another major mountain range to get to your MP.

Those are the kinds of disruptions. It's not just the inconvenience; it's the communities of identity. These people identify as West Kootenay residents, and they are being put in by themselves with communities that are not part of West Kootenay. It's for no apparent reason, other than trying to make sure those numbers are right. We've put forward a proposal where the numbers work. Those communities would be kept whole and with their neighbours.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I find what you say interesting. We had a proposal for the Drummond riding, and I made the same arguments in opposition to that suggestion. Those were the elements that went into the decision to keep the riding intact. I find it interesting that you bring the same arguments, but you were not given the same solution or the same answer.

I imagine you have the support of your community, your fellow citizens and your stakeholders in this. Do you feel like everyone has been heard?

How do you feel about the commission's response to your requests?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Briefly, because I hear the bell ringing, I would say that the people have certainly let me know, but they have had no public process. The public process was about the first draft when Okanagan was split up. Now the Kootenays are split up, and there's no public process. It's an even more concerning change. That's why I'm saying that, in situations where you have such a drastic difference between the two drafts, there should be some public process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Ashton.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to direct my first set of questions to Mr. Cannings.

Mr. Cannings, I think you've reinforced very well the extent to which your constituents felt blind-sided by the latest round of changes that were proposed. It's a bit of a similar scenario in our riding, where folks were never given the opportunity to speak to a proposal. They were never made aware of it by the time the boundary commission made the proposal in that second round.

I want to go back to some of the issues that you've raised. You mentioned that you're objecting on behalf of 1,000 constituents. What were their main concerns about the proposed changes to your riding?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

We've received over 1,100 emails and letters.

As I say, all of the mayors, councils and people in regional districts have all spoken with one voice on this. That's because of these changes that occurred in the second round. They don't have an opportunity to go to a public hearing, as was available in the first round.

I haven't counted up the exact number, but the vast majority of them are about the decision to take Beaver Valley away from Trail, I would say. There's been a huge swell of concern from that area. That's the highest priority.

It's a similar situation in the suburbs of Castlegar. Here we have a community that is surrounded by rural areas, mountains and forests, and its immediate suburbs are taken and put in a different riding. This includes Brilliant, where the big community centre, the USCC centre, is the main big hall for Castlegar, and it's now in a different riding.

The vast majority of concerns are around the West Kootenay side of things.

In the second round, as I say, Big White was moved into Kelowna. That's a good idea, but they added the community of Beaverdell with that for no reason. It should be kept with the rest of Kettle Valley.

As I say, the people of West Kootenay want to stay in West Kootenay. They want West Kootenay to be retained as whole as possible. Those are the vast majority of messages that I've received.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Yes, there's a very clear message there.

In your objection, you mentioned that it would be logical to keep the population of the city of Kamloops in one riding since it has never been divided in the past. Kamloops is not in your riding. What pushed you to mention Kamloops?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I was asked by residents of Kamloops to make that proposal. It's a long way from my riding, but I felt obliged to put that in there.

Again, it's these situations where we have a lot of ridings that are mostly rural areas and because of the need to try to get the numbers right, the commission tucked in and took parts of Kamloops and put them with different ridings.

I think in that situation we tried to create maps that would ameliorate that situation. It was very difficult. I felt obliged to put that comment in there to recognize their concerns.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Absolutely.

You mentioned a bit about prioritizing. You just shared some priorities in terms of the changes that you're requesting. I'm also wondering if you can speak to what neighbouring MPs think about these changes.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I've had informal discussions with my neighbours, including Mr. Albas, Mr. Arnold, who represents North Okanagan-Shuswap, and Rob Morrison, who represents East Kootenay. I would say they are all neutral on this. None of them raised any serious objections or support one way or the other. Part of that is because the new riding was placed in the North Okanagan, so that has created a ripple effect that necessitates some change.

Again, I haven't heard of any real objections to what I'm proposing. As I say, they've kind of remained neutral on this, one way or the other.

I'm trying to represent my constituents as well as the constituents of the Similkameen Valley, for instance, who are not my constituents now, but I have talked to them because that's part of the changes that have been proposed.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Finally, we know that with the boundaries commission there's a lot of emphasis on communities of interest.

I'm wondering if you could speak to how the draft report doesn't take into account communities of interest or historic connections between communities in the proposed boundary change.

Is there an easy fix to this situation?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I would say that the commission has a difficult task. It has to create ridings that fit as best as possible with population numbers to make sure that people have proper representation, but it also has to represent those communities of interest and those communities of identity.

If you asked a certain citizen if they would rather be in a riding that puts them with their neighbours and keeps those communities together than in a riding that might have 5,000 fewer people so they'd have 1% or 2% more representation, I think they would choose to be in a riding that kept communities and neighbourhoods together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for those fruitful rounds today.

It brings us to the final panel for British Columbia. I have to say that I've learned a lot about this great province. I will suggest that in 10 years when we do redistribution, or whoever does it, perhaps we travel to the communities as part of this process to really be able to experience it in person.

I want to thank all of you on behalf of the PROC committee members for your work and for being here today. If you have any other information that you would like to provide, please provide it to the clerk and we'll have it circulated to all members.

With that, we wish you a good day. Keep well and safe.

PROC committee members, we'll suspend for three minutes and then we'll continue in camera. Thank you so much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]