Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 27th, 2023

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Through you, Madam Chair, to my colleague, Mr. Turnbull, it is indeed the vision of this new national coordinating role to bring together the various initiatives and agencies that work to identify threats created by foreign interference, so we can respond to them in a way that is agile.

You're also right, I think, to point out the distinction we have put in place. It is a protocol stood up by the government but applied by our non-partisan, professional public servants during an election. However, outside of a writ period, it's also important that we continue this work. That is something we have been doing with a lot of focus and energy over the last number of years. I believe many concrete examples show how this government is pushing out our policy and posture to protect all of our democratic institutions in a way that is unprecedented.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I agree, and I believe it is accurately described as a robust approach. There's a continual evolution of that desire, as we can see, to protect our democracy.

What strikes me as very challenging within this whole study is that the Conservatives have continuously used unconfirmed—maybe false—or uncorroborated allegations. They've ignored the facts that we have presented many times in this committee, about the many measures our government has put in place. They've accused our Prime Minister of working against the interests of Canada, and they've called into question our democratic institutions, which I think can compromise the faith Canadians have in our democratic institutions.

Minister, could you comment on how this partisan rhetoric is having an impact?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Chair, it's negative. We've seen some of that behaviour on display today, unfortunately.

The fact of the matter is that the only way we can address the very real threats posed by foreign interference is to find ways to work across the partisan aisle. We do that through NSICOP. NSICOP has put forward recommendations, and the government is acting on those recommendations. I would certainly encourage my Conservative colleagues to take a page out of that book and work with us to deal with an issue that is not partisan.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

With that, we want to thank you, Minister Mendicino, Mr. Tupper and Mr. Vigneault, for your time and attention today.

If there's anything else that comes to mind that you would like the committee to share, if there's something you wish you had shared but you didn't get the time to, please just share it with the clerk, and we'll have it circulated around.

With that, on behalf of PROC committee members, I would like to thank you for your time and attention today.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We will suspend for three minutes, and we'll return with our first panel on Ontario redistribution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much.

We are now returning for our second hour.

To the people who are joining us, I apologize for the slight delay, but we will make sure we go through this session properly.

Before we do commence, I will say that we're starting on Ontario redistribution, which is really exciting for all of us. With that, we will need to pass a budget to ensure that the clerk and analyst can do what needs to be done.

Are there any concerns with the budget being passed?

Seeing none, we will make sure we get that done.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you.

The second thing is good news. We've been asking for extra resources to continue this work and the work on foreign election interference, and we have been given an extra hour, which will be next Tuesday evening. Instead of meeting from 6:30 to 8:30, we will get to meet from 6:30 to 9:30. Mark your calendars.

For our second panel, as I've noted, we will begin our study on the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario 2022, and we welcome our colleagues here today.

We have Michael Coteau, MP for Don Valley East, by video conference; Mr. Han Dong, MP for Don Valley North; Ms. Melissa Lantsman, MP for Thornhill; the Honourable John McKay, MP for Scarborough—Guildwood; the honourable Robert Oliphant, MP for Don Valley West; and Mrs. Salma Zahid, MP for Scarborough Centre.

We welcome you all and thank you for being here today. Each of you will have up to three minutes for an opening statement, after which we will proceed to comments and questions from committee members.

We will start with Mr. Coteau.

Welcome.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I believe that the electoral boundaries commission is about to make a major mistake that will have a devastating impact on certain Toronto neighbourhoods for years to come—including Flemingdon Park, where I was raised—reducing support to newcomers and upending stable historic communities that have existed for 100 years plus.

Last year, the electoral boundaries commission for Ontario released its recommendations, which included an expansion of Don Valley East, and the public had an opportunity to review and comment on those changes.

On February 10, the commission reversed course and recommended the elimination of Don Valley East without any public input. This came as a complete shock. My community was angry.

This is not the first time Don Valley East has been negatively impacted by electoral redistribution. A decade ago, the riding was cut in half when they created Don Valley North, and now it's being divided into three.

There are communities I represent that have been in three ridings, pending this proposal, within a decade. My submission, which each of you have, includes four objections: the lack of public notice and due process; the impact on newcomers, racialized and Muslim residents; the historical significance of the villages of North York; and a complete disregard for Victoria Park Avenue as a historical political dividing line between North York and Scarborough.

Because of time constraints, I will address two of the four main points.

First, the significance of the Victoria Park line was supported by 24 MPs, as outlined in a co-authored letter and supported by members adjacent to this historical border.

Second is the lack of due process. I must remind members of this committee that this report by the commission was never shared or consulted upon. No one had the opportunity to weigh in on these changes, and the original proposal recommended expanding Don Valley East, not eliminating it. This is unacceptable. We have a responsibility to do what's right as MPs, and you as a committee have a responsibility to never allow this to happen again.

I have also made four recommendations, which I hope the committee will endorse. My brief includes reference to court decisions that directly relate to the matters at hand. I trust all of you on the committee will have the opportunity to review these points.

I have also tabled answers to the six questions the committee asked to address. I have submitted a letter from the City of Toronto, signed by 23 councillors, and a letter from our MPP, the school board trustee, local organizations and two community mosques, a copy of every email my office has received on this issue—more than 500—and a petition signed by 952 people organized by a local group of concerned citizens. The group has also coordinated the placement of 1,000 lawn signs in the riding and has had three community consultations.

I implore you to do the right thing and recommend that this matter be sent back for public input to address the flaw in the legislation that has brought us to this point.

I want to say thank you to the city councillor from Willowdale, who is joining us here today.

I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Coteau.

Mr. Dong.

[Han Dong, Independent, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm here today to express my objections to the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario's proposal regarding the Don Valley North riding.

The commission proposed to move the riding's eastern boundary from Victoria Park Avenue westward to Highway 404, which would remove the neighbourhood of Pleasant View and parts of Henry Farm and Hillcrest Village from Don Valley North.

The proposal would instead incorporate these North York communities into Scarborough—Agincourt and result in an electoral district that would be 84% in Scarborough. The commission also proposed to include the neighbourhoods north of York Mills Road between Yonge Street, Highway 401 and Don River.

In my letter to the committee, I raised three main concerns regarding the commission's proposals, but for the purpose of this discussion I would like to focus on two.

First, I believe the commission failed to adequately apply its own standards with regard to how it drew boundaries respecting Scarborough versus North York. While the commission sought to respect the historical significance of the former city of Scarborough and took efforts to accommodate this reality, I believe it failed to do the same for the former city of North York.

The commission acknowledges in its report the importance of recognizing and considering communities of identity, as well as historic patterns that determine boundaries, but failed to do so in the case of North York. The commission rightfully acknowledged Victoria Park Avenue as a very important landmark for the residents of Scarborough; however, the commission has failed to adequately recognize that this is also a very important landmark for the residents of North York.

North York was its own municipality prior to the amalgamation of the city of Toronto and for many decades the residents east of Highway 404 and west of Victoria Park have been residents of North York—in fact, for over 100 years. If the commission is prepared to consider the importance of community of identity and historic patterns with regard to Scarborough, it must do the same for North York.

The second major concern I would like to raise has to do with an issue that this committee has heard much about already. That is the significant changes between the first proposal and the report that was tabled in the House.

I know this committee has heard these concerns raised by other members, and I believe the fact that other members have expressed this concern highlights its significance. These changes presented in the commission's final report vary so significantly from the original proposal that I believe they would have warranted providing opportunities for community feedback and further consultation.

I believe that there is more work to be done regarding this proposal that has been tabled. I'm hopeful that these objections will be thoughtfully considered.

I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions the committee may have today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Lantsman.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Chair, thanks for having me here. It's a different vantage point for committee, for sure.

Thanks for the opportunity regarding the boundary readjustment report for Ontario. I'm here with a simple objection to the proposed name change of the riding of Thornhill.

In the proposal, it says “Vaughan—Thornhill”, but I'd object to anything similar as well.

The objection is made on behalf of not only me, but many constituents, as well as the ward 1 councillor from Markham, whose constituents are federally represented by the member of Parliament for Thornhill, as well as the neighbouring member of Parliament, your colleague, Minister Ng.

There are no objections to the name change from any other colleagues or the mayors in the region.

Thornhill is a unique pocket of the GTA. It's unlike any other in the sense that it was established in 1794. The people of Thornhill identify as Thornhillers, even though they are part of the City of Vaughan or the City of Markham, depending on where they live.

During the last federal boundary change, Thornhill was split into two ridings, which are the ridings of Markham—Thornhill and Thornhill proper. The name of the Markham—Thornhill riding makes sense, because 100% of that riding resides in Markham. It's the same in other neighbouring ridings. You would know from your colleague, Mr. Sorbara. His riding is Vaughan—Woodbridge, and 100% of his riding is in Vaughan.

It causes a bit of confusion. There are other examples where our colleague from King—Vaughan has both of those municipalities in her riding name, because it straddles both of those municipalities.

I realize that many colleagues around the table would have many municipalities, but when you have only two and you put one in the name, it creates confusion for people who live there.

The current riding of Thornhill straddles both municipalities, Vaughan and Markham. I'd appreciate it if the committee would consider keeping the name “Thornhill”.

I'll cede the rest of my time to anybody who wants it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you kindly for that extra minute back. We appreciate it.

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I would suggest that Mrs. Zahid go next, because Mr. Coteau's, Mrs. Zahid's and my submissions all kind of flow from each other. She would be the logical second person to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mrs. Zahid.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. I trust you all have read my detailed objection.

In short, with its final report, the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario made radical changes not envisioned by the interim report, with no opportunity for meaningful public consultation. These changes split the existing constituency in half and split important communities of interest.

My objections are threefold.

First is procedural fairness. The final electoral boundaries map for Scarborough is a major deviation from the original proposal, which has not been justified. The new boundaries were created without effective consultation with the communities impacted by this new proposal.

Second, the new boundaries do not take into consideration important communities of interest in Scarborough Centre, including one of the largest Muslim communities in the greater Toronto area. More than 20,000 Muslims live in the riding, and the proposed boundary is a block from the major mosque. Drawing the proposed riding boundary at Midland Avenue effectively splits this community in half, which will create confusion about where and how to access government support. It also divides a major Tamil community of 10,000 people. These new proposed boundaries would also split this community, separating it from community resources and businesses that are routinely accessed.

As other levels of government map their boundaries to the federal boundaries, the proposed borders will also create challenges for other orders of government by splitting the catchment area for three schools serving the marginalized and new immigrant communities. Electing a trustee not responsible for their children's school will make it more challenging for parents to effectively advocate for their children and ensure they are able to access the extra resources they need to succeed in an at-risk neighbourhood.

Third, the new boundaries eliminate the traditional Scarborough border at Victoria Park Avenue and merge communities with very different socio-economic profiles. To address these objections, I'm proposing a series of boundary changes that will keep communities of interest together in a number of Scarborough ridings and ensure a stronger Scarborough presence within these six ridings than is currently proposed. These boundary changes are proposed in consultation and with the support of the members of Parliament for Scarborough—Guildwood and Scarborough—Rouge Park. A map showing the proposed borders was included with my full complaint.

Finally, given that our proposed new boundaries would result in a riding that is 68% Scarborough, compared to 55% Scarborough under the borders in the FEBCO's final report, I request the riding continue with its traditional name of Scarborough Centre. This is the name familiar to most residents, and it will help avoid confusion.

I ask the committee members to recommend these proposed changes to the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario.

I welcome your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

May I say that I endorse Mr. Coteau's and Madam Zahid's remarks in full.

This is really a tale of three maps. I hope they've been distributed to you.

The first map is the current configuration of the boundary. The second map was the first suggestion of the commission, to which we submitted no objection because it worked to the greater benefit of both the 416 area and, more particularly, Scarborough. It recognized the integrity of Scarborough. We supported and had no objections to that. The third one completely blindsided the riding. It totally butchered the riding, bears no relationship to anything else, and did bits and pieces, because of other configurations.

I'm left to be the only one to object, because the community had no opportunity to object, no opportunity to weigh in, no opportunity to say what they might prefer. This is a process objection as much as it is a substantive objection. This proposed configuration, as Madam Zahid said, bears no relationship to communities of interest, no relationship to geographical sensibilities, no relationship to historical truths and no relationship to the integrity that has been Scarborough. Literally, I don't think we could go quite back to the 1700s, as Ms. Lantsman said—and there might be some who said I was there—but it is a community that has had its integrity over many years. At one point Scarborough was a township; then it became a borough; then it became a city, and now, much to its resistance or chagrin, it is part of the greater Toronto area.

With that, I cede whatever time I have left either to Mr. Coteau or to Madam Zahid.

I thank you for your time and your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

The time will not go to the others, but when they have questions and comments, they will receive some extra time.

Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of PROC.

It's pretty good to see Mr. Cooper here today, because I know that, uniquely among all members of Parliament, he has the maps of all our ridings over the last 100 years, and the election results, firmly ingrained in his head—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

—and he will know that these communities have bounced back and forth a number of times over the years.

You are dealing with the report from the electoral boundaries commission for Ontario. I'd like to present two relatively minor objections, and I would see them as improvements. They have no domino effect on the work of the commission but respond to a local concern and a community-of-interest concern. They were not in the initial report of the commission, having been added only in the final report.

The first is with respect to the name. I believe it would be best if it remained Don Valley West and was not renamed Don Valley South.

The second is that the small area known as Governor's Bridge should remain in University—Rosedale and not be included in the new boundaries of Don Valley West.

On the first issue, the final report of the commission says that the entire new riding lies west of both branches of the Don River. The name Don Valley South is inconsistent with the real geography of the riding. In 2013, the then electoral boundaries commission rejected a proposal to change the name of Don Valley East to Don Valley South. The commission concluded that, “While the electoral district is situated south of the electoral district of Don Valley North, it is also situated east of the electoral district of Don Valley West.”

I'm giving you all the Don Valleys here.

The current riding of Don Valley West is situated to the west of the current riding of Don Valley East, and the proposed riding will still be situated to the west of the amalgamated riding of Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East.

Further to geography—this is a bit about the rivers—the source of both branches of the Don River is indeed north of the current proposed riding of Don Valley West; however, the Don continues south and touches on four other ridings before it reaches Lake Ontario. Additionally, the name is well known and, as my written submission indicates, 94.5% of the new riding has already at one time or another been called Don Valley West, either before or after the last redistribution. Changing it would add confusion to the residents.

In summary, the proposed riding name change to Don Valley South would be inconsistent with the conclusion of the 2013 commission, would be geographically incorrect, because the Don Valley goes much further south, and would cause confusion.

My second objection is with respect to a very small part of the newly proposed riding, called Governor's Bridge. Simply put, this area does not share a community of interest with surrounding neighbourhoods in Don Valley West. It really is part of Rosedale. I don't think it has ever been persuaded that it should be a community of interest along with Don Valley West. It represents only 0.5% of the new riding and, therefore, has no material impact on proportionality or numbers in the riding.

Those are my two suggestions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you. That was brilliant.

We will now proceed with six-minute rounds of questions, starting with Ms. Gladu, followed by Mr. Turnbull, Madame Gaudreau and then Mrs. Blaney.

Madam Gladu, go ahead.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair. It's a pleasure to be here today.

Thank you to all of our witnesses today.

Before we go ahead, I should let you know that as the lead for the Ontario redistribution on the part of the Conservatives, I attended nearly all the public hearings. There were more than 40 of them, and there were 20 or 30 witnesses at each one, so it was quite a long undertaking.

What I would say, specific to Scarborough, is that out of the 800 to 1,000 people we heard from, a disproportionate number were from Scarborough—many constituents and councillors. It's my view that on the maps overall, even in Ontario, the commissioners listened to those who participated in the public hearings and addressed most of the issues.

In Toronto specifically, one of the points that Peter Loewen, one of the commissioners, made was that growth in Toronto was 6% versus 13% in the rest of the province. That was one of the things that caused the difficulty with their having to change boundaries.

Specifically to the witnesses, to each of you who has asked for a name change, a lot of latitude was given to naming the ridings appropriately. I don't personally have any objections to that, but I just want to make sure, Mr. Oliphant, that there's no objection from anybody within your riding.