Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 4th, 2023

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Of course. They share ambulance and fire services. They share shopping centres. They share schools. All the things that make a community, they share. If this were to be broken, I think the very important principle that this process needs to adhere to would be broken, by definition.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

That's something we've heard quite a lot at this committee. There's this tendency, when you get an initial proposal you actually agree with, not to speak out. Really, the consultation seems to be geared towards hearing objections. It's no surprise, then, even though, as you've said, you've had parliamentary duties, that in many other cases we've heard MPs not speaking out in that initial proposal when they were in agreement with it. This is the stage at which you're able to express the concerns brought to you by your constituents, and we appreciate your time today.

Do you want to speak to the potential flaws in the process itself?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Let me be clear, and interestingly, Ms. Gladu did not include this in her comment. Although I wasn't at the hearing that took place, there were individuals representing me who did voice their points of view. They did say that the initial proposal released in the summer of 2022 was a reasonable one, and it is. It adheres to the population quota of 116,000. It keeps communities of interest intact. I had no real challenges with that initial proposal.

In trying to solve concerns raised in other ridings, I think the commission has created a new problem. Why haven't regional MPs spoken out? Some might be ambivalent, but some might be worried about upsetting the apple cart, so to speak. If they were to raise objections at this point, perhaps they're worried about the situation reverting to what was originally the case and their problems would reappear.

I think that explains some lingering questions that might exist.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudreau, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for joining us. It must be a different experience for you to testify before a committee.

I want to give you time to explain what you think may have been missing in the process or in the documentation that was provided. Earlier, it was mentioned that it was important to take the pulse of the community and get its support. I would like to know if you have everything you need to show that what you are proposing respects the wishes of the people and of the locally elected officials. This would ensure that there is some compliance in the report. We must be vigilant. It is the committee's role to be vigilant and to reflect what is happening on the ground. That is why public consultations are important. I understand that we can't be in two places at once, but we must demonstrate that we are well aware of the situation.

I would like to say to Mr. Baldinelli that I am familiar with Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. I see that it is a microclimate. I'd mention that Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake is an appealing name, so I guess it's easier to explain to people the value of that change.

That said, I invite you to come and enjoy the special climate of Mont-Tremblant, which you may be familiar with and which is also an international hub for tourism.

If public opinion favours the name Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, why was the name Niagara North chosen instead?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

As I mentioned in my remarks, I think the commission just sought to counterbalance the creation of the new riding my colleague will be in now, which will now be called Niagara South. To balance that, they called my riding Niagara North.

During the commission hearings, the public hearings that we both spoke to, a number of witnesses came forward and proposed different names for our riding to touch upon the historical perspective. The commission ultimately decided not to. I think they did that, again, to kind of counter the notion of Niagara South being created.

I'm here today to talk about the notion of why that shouldn't be done, because “Niagara North” is an innocuous term. You could live in Niagara-on-the-Lake, you could live in St. Catharines, you could live in Jordan, you could live in Beamsville, you could live in Grimsby or you could live in Winona. It's all part of the Niagara region, but you would be considered living in Niagara North.

What I'd like to do is have a better name that reflects the two communities, the commonalities and the communities of interest. Niagara and Niagara-on-the-Lake are home to the greatest concentration of War of 1812 sites anywhere in this country. There are battlefield sites in both ridings. We are Canada's wine region. Not only do we have the grape growers and the wineries in Niagara-on-the-Lake, but the largest production facility for wine in this country is in Niagara Falls.

I spoke to our community members as well as our local mayors and, with their support.... The riding will be the entirety of those two municipalities, so I thought it was a great idea to call it Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Fragiskatos, would there be any additional or complementary items to submit, so that in the report we can have everything we need to convince the commissioners to make this change?

You mentioned that 37,000 people were affected. I don't know the specifics on the mobility of people and the demographic changes. A lot of times, predictions are made.

Do you have everything that is needed right now? If not, you still have time to submit documents before the report is completed.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you for the question.

For me, it's a matter of democracy. For example, our mayor's perspective is very important in our community, and his position is very clear.

This is not a fair approach. When you have a community of interest that is severed—and I've emphasized this point many times, but this is a key principle in all of this—then you have a problem.

Some might ask if I'm coming at this from a partisan perspective. It does not affect my interests electorally one way or the other. With the initial proposal, the numbers are the same. Basically, there might be some percentage difference, but I'm not doing it for partisan reasons. I think that needs to be made very clear.

I'm happy to table with you the map that I talked about, where it's clear that the community is being completely severed in half. I'm happy to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I thank you for that submission. The clerk looks forward to receiving it, and we will share it with all members. Offer made and accepted.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

That sounds good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Excellent. Offer made and accepted.

Ms. Blaney, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I thank everybody who is here testifying today.

My first question is for Mr. Badawey.

There have already been questions asked around the Brock University campus and the fact that it's split between the two ridings. You mentioned that the commission was trying to keep the campus of Brock University together in one riding.

Have you done any work with that area to find out how the students feel and what the impacts will be on them if they continue to be split? It seems like there was an interest to bring them together, and I'm wondering why that doesn't seem to be a major concern for you.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I've talked to the mayor and the council, and they have had a lot of those discussions, from what I understand. When you look at the student population in the area, the student population isn't just contained within the area they're cutting out, within that boundary change. When you look at the city's limits and at that piece, there are about 100 students in there with a newly created student residence. However, there are student residences all over the city of Thorold and the city of St. Catharines, so they are throughout the community.

The bottom line, Ms. Blaney, is the fact that there were a lot of changes made when they first proposed our riding, and I'm quite happy with what they're proposing now. We had the city of Thorold split in three when they first proposed the change. Now they have it somewhat whole. All we're asking for is to keep the boundary consistent with the municipal boundary, as is consistent with all four ridings throughout the region for the most part.

With regard to your question about the consultation of the students, we're looking at basically keeping Brock University whole except for the recreation facility that services the city of Thorold. Other than that, the rest of the campus is in the city of St. Catharines and in the St. Catharines riding. Also, the residence that's right next to city hall in Thorold would be captured in my riding, alongside a lot of residences throughout the city of Thorold.

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

Thank you.

I now come to Mr. Fragiskatos.

I'm really struggling with your intervention today. Based on the research that I did, it really sounds like, when the first Ontario proposal was released, a lot of Londoners were very unhappy about the proposed changes. There were a lot of people who came forward to advocate against the initial proposal, and it was a wide range of people, such as those from different community group sectors and from all three levels of government.

I'm really struggling to completely understand. We are now hearing that, while not everyone is entirely happy with the report, the majority are actually more pleased with the current report than they were with the last one. I'm just wondering if you could explain your perspective on this, as it's going to have a big impact on those other ridings. It sounds like the other folks who are representing those ridings are not really supporting what you're bringing forward. Would you agree that the initial proposal raised more concerns with Londoners than the current proposal we are looking at now?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you for the question.

There were certainly voices participating in the first process that raised objections, Ms. Blaney. Many were from NDP riding associations, but I'll leave that aside.

I would also point to the fact that, when a community's mayor speaks out, that speaks volumes about how the community feels on this particular issue.

It is a difficult job that the commission had. I would just ask that they go back and revisit what they have presented, because there is a very important need to ensure, yes, adherence to a population quota, but also adherence to the communities of interest principle.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Those are all the questions I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Blaney.

We'll now continue with Ms. Rood.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here.

Mr. Fragiskatos, as you mentioned earlier in your remarks.... You implied that if someone resided in the city of London, they wouldn't be as well represented because you're adding part of a rural riding.

As somebody who currently represents Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and who is set to represent Middlesex—London as my new riding, I can speak to the fact, on behalf of many of my constituents residing in Middlesex County, that the rural population has a huge connection to the city of London, in this particular area. Our rural communities are an urban support network. In fact, the Middlesex County council chambers are located in downtown London.

You mentioned shared services and that these communities of interest would lose their shared services. I'd beg to say, on the flip side of this, that the county itself uses some of those same services, including health care, shopping centres, medical care, paramedics, etc.

I'm wondering whether you can comment on that. With this new change right now, why would you want to revert back to not having the urban part? Why don't you think somebody who was born in London, went to college in London and already represents all around the city of London, right up to the border of the city of London...? Why would those folks not feel they would be a part of the new riding?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Rood, for the question.

On your comments relating to shared services, I would simply ask you to raise those objections with those who live in the books and see what they say.

In principle, of course I have no problem with a member of Parliament representing an urban area and a rural area. Karen Vecchio does a superb job of it. I know she's your colleague and you respect her very much. She's an example of how an MP can balance both.

I would simply go back to the fact that we're talking, Ms. Rood, about 37,000 people. I'm sure you would be a good member of Parliament for those people. This is not a.... I don't mean to make, and I don't think I have made, this a personal issue. I am simply taking my cue from residents who—and I think it's fair—want to be represented by an urban MP because they see themselves, first and foremost, as Londoners. The mayor feels the same way—the mayor of London, the chief executive of the municipality. When he speaks out, I think we have to listen, Ms. Rood.

I don't discount your ability to represent. In fact, I would invite you to come to more London events. I'm sure we'd love to see you down there, because I haven't seen you at many London events in the past seven or eight years when I've been in.

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

Thank you. I'm sure you will.

I want to say a few things about some of the people who made submissions and from whom we're not going to get to hear before the final draft report.

Michael Chong had a submission. In his riding, where the boundary is redrawn, three houses that pay taxes to the municipality were excluded. He's asking that they be made whole. I don't object to that.

I know Irek Kusmierczyk wants a name change as well, to add “Lakeshore” to his Windsor—Tecumseh name. It makes sense, because he has a huge portion of Lakeshore. Again, I don't have an issue with that.

Then there were a number of MPs who wrote in to say they liked the redrawn maps. If the committee is going to put in any commentary on what we could do to improve the process, it might be worthwhile to allow people to.... There's no forum to do anything but object, so it might be a good idea to have an ability for people to say, “Yes, I think this map is okay.” It's validation for the commissioners that they did a reasonable job.

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have 50 seconds.

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

I'll give the 50 seconds back to you. I think I'm good, thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

As per the legislation, my understanding from the experts in the room is that an objection can be for or against. That's why so many people have provided submissions in support.

To reiterate your point, there are many colleagues who recognize that PROC has been seized with many activities. Therefore, as long as they are responding to the clerk and analysts—they're basically providing back our time—and letting them know that they support the recommendation—in the case of Mr. Chong, it's about three houses—I have been assured that it will be reported in the report. The committee will get to see the drafting of it.

I appreciate your raising that. There are more members from Ontario who have been listed. We provide the same ability to all members.... We appreciate them acknowledging that, if it's a riding name change or in support...there is another way of doing it. We will make sure they are represented within our report.

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank all of my colleagues who have appeared before the committee today.

Mr. Baldinelli and Mr. Badawey, you have outlined your concerns very well.

Mr. Fragiskatos, your presentation was also well done, but it seems to raise several questions. You mentioned the Mayor of London. What are his views on these changes?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Fergus.

Our mayor's approach is based on equity. That is a very important principle in this process.

Fairness has to be underpinning all of this. Yes, for each action there is a reaction. When you call for changes, it raises the very real possibility, if not certainty, that they will affect other ridings. What am I to do, and what is the mayor to do, when a community that has been together for decades will now be separated?

I emphasized this in the last answer: It's not personal. It should not be personal. This is about representing the interests of constituents—thousands of people—who have lived together in neighbourhoods for many years and were quite surprised by this proposal.

Again, I emphasize that in the initial proposal, the community of interest was completely intact. There was no community of interest broken in the first proposal raised, at least for the proposed London Centre.