PROC Committee Report

Report on the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of British Columbia: Conservative Dissenting Report

This Dissenting Report reflects the views of the Conservative Members of Parliament who serve on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (“PROC”): MP John Nater (Vice Chair of the Committee, Perth—Wellington), MP Luc Berthold (Megantic—L’Erable), MP Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe), and MP Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton).

Introduction

PROC received nine Notices of Objection in response to the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of British Columbia requesting electoral boundary changes (the “Boundary Objections”). The Boundary Objections were made by the Honourable Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock), the Honourable Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre), MP Wilson Miao (Richmond Centre), MP Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville), the Honourable Harjit Sajjan (Vancouver South), MP Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway), MP Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country), MP Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay), as well as a joint objection by MP Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby) and MP Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam). The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver) had submitted but then withdrew his objection.

PROC also received eight Notices of Objection requesting electoral boundary name changes (the “Name Objections”). The Name Objections were made by MP Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country), MP Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove), MP John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City), MP Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River), as well as by MPs Cannings, Miao, Sajjan, and Weiler.   

Additionally, there was a joint objection in support of the Commission’s report signed by MP Terry Beech (North Burnaby—Seymour), the Honourable Carla Qualtrough (Delta), the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver), MP Parm Bains (Steveston—Richmond East), MP Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey—Newton), MP Aldag, and MP Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam (the “Joint Submission of Support”).

We respectfully disagree with the conclusions of the Report of PROC to support the objections of MPs Miao, Noormohamed, Sajjan, Weiler, Julian/Zarrillo, and Cannings, and wish to elaborate on our reasons for supporting the work of the Commission. We note that PROC reported back but did not endorse the objection of MP Davies. We do not support his objection. We concur with the Report of PROC to support the objection of MPs Findlay and Fry. We further concur with the report of PROC to support the Name Objections of MPs Gray, and Van Popta. We take no position with regards to the other Name Objections.

The Findlay Objection

We respectfully request the Commission to favourably consider MP Findlay’s objection by adjusting the boundary of Nanaimo—Ladysmith to include Lantzville. This targeted proposal, which is supported by the Mayor of the District of Lantzville, Mark Swain, would return Lantzville to Nanaimo—Ladysmith, while adjusting the southern boundary of the riding slightly northward such that Saltair and the surrounding area would be moved into Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

We recognize that the Commission considered the strong ties between Lantzville and Nanaimo, however, decided to move the northern boundary of Nanaimo—Ladysmith southward to minimize disruption in terms of changes to Vancouver Island ridings and avoid a “domino effect around the Malahat area. “[1] This resulted in Lantzville being moved into Courtenay—Alberni. We understand and generally agree with the Commission’s reasoning.

However, we submit that MP Findlay’s proposal better respects communities of interest and identity, while respecting relative population parity, without creating a cascading effect. As Mayor Swain highlights, Lantzville and Nanaimo are closely connected, including sharing infrastructure, policing, recreational services, and cultural activities.[2] By contrast, Saltair is closely connected with Duncan situated in Malahat—Cowichan—Langford. If adopted, the populations of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and Malahat—Cowichan—Langford would still fall within the population range adopted by the Commission for Vancouver Island. Courtenay—Alberni’s population, which would be slightly under 120,000 brings it more closely in line with province’s electoral quota.

The Vancouver and Richmond Objections

Except for the objection of MP Fry, the objections of the other Vancouver MPs, and Richmond MP Miao have overlapping issues, specifically as it pertains to Marpole, with a cascading effect. As such, we analyze these objections together.

We support MP Fry’s submission that Granville Island be part of Vancouver Centre. This is a minor adjustment that will not have a cascading effect on other ridings and has a negligible impact on the populations of Vancouver Centre and Vancouver West Broadway.

Otherwise, we respectfully submit that the Commission reasonably drew the boundaries of Vancouver and Richmond ridings, and that no further adjustments be made.

Key to the way in which the Commission drew the Vancouver map is its decision to connect Richmond Centre with the Vancouver neighbourhood of Marpole to create the riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. This decision reflects considerable feedback received by the Commission during the consultation period.

In its initial proposal, the Commission added a portion of the existing New Westminster—Burnaby and Delta ridings to the two Richmond-based ridings. As the Commission states, this was done to address “significantly under-quota populations of the two current Richmond electoral districts.”[3] However, the Commission received opposition from “[m]any residents of the municipalities touched” by the proposal.[4] Accordingly, the Commission adopted a “different solution to add needed population to the current Richmond electoral districts,” namely connecting Marpole with Richmond—Centre.[5] Although the Commission acknowledged that “[c]rossing the Fraser River is a significant step in the design of an electoral district,” the Commission effectively had no choice but to take this step with respect to at least one of the Richmond ridings, having regard for population.

We note that the Commission, where possible, tried to keep municipalities united.[6] However, the Commission had to address the aforementioned population challenges concerning Richmond, and that Vancouver “has not kept pace with the general population growth of the province.”[7] As a result, the Commission decided to maintain six Vancouver ridings, with two of them spanning municipalities. Having made this decision, connecting Marpole with Richmond is reasonable, having regard for Richmond’s proximity and other factors that the Commission detailed in its final proposal.

The Commission considered the “urban nature of Richmond Centre, the success of Canada Line transportation, and the location of two bridge crossings of the north arm of the Fraser River.”[8] The Commission is also satisfied that “historical patterns of Marpole and Richmond and communities of interest between neighbourhoods are sufficiently strong to support this crossing.”[9]

Arguments against this configuration were most strongly made by MPs Miao and Noormohamed in their respective objections, and during their testimony at PROC. Their main arguments can be summarized as follows: (1) it would unhelpfully split the capacity of the MP to serve constituents in both municipalities of Vancouver and Richmond;[10] (2) there would be logistical challenges for Marpole residents to access their MP’s office in Richmond;[11] (3) Marpole and Richmond have distinct community identities;[12] and (4) there is no historical pattern of a Richmond riding’s boundaries including municipalities to the north, only the south.[13]

Respectfully, we find these arguments to be unpersuasive. To begin with, although Vancouver and Richmond are distinct municipalities, it is common for an MP to represent more than one municipality. Both Vancouver and Richmond are urban municipalities with many of the same challenges, including infrastructure and housing. It is reasonable to expect that the MP for Richmond Centre—Marpole will be able to effectively manage relationships with both municipalities.

We also do not agree that there will be any real logistical challenges for constituents living in Marpole to connect with an MP whose office is likely to be in Richmond. As the Commission noted, there is connecting infrastructure. This includes the Oak Street Bridge. Oak Street runs through the middle of Marpole and is the route that takes commuters to the centre of Richmond. The time to drive from Marpole to the centre of Richmond is negligible, taking approximately ten to fifteen minutes. There is also regular light rail service between Marpole and the centre of Richmond, the cost of which is economical. Any inconvenience for residents would be minor, and pales in comparison to the challenges that many constituents of large rural ridings have in connecting with their MP.

Also, there is precedent for this type of a riding configuration in the Greater Vancouver Area. For example, the riding of Burnaby North—Seymour connects Burnaby with North Vancouver, which are separated by a larger body of water, with only one bridge, and no light rail service. There does not appear to be any significant geographical challenges for constituents in that riding to connect with their MP. Indeed, MP Beech, who represents Burnaby North—Seymour, has expressed satisfaction that the Commission has maintained the riding.[14]

On the question of a community of interest, the Commission considered this, and was satisfied that there is a sufficiently strong connection between Richmond Centre and Marpole. We defer the Commission in reaching this conclusion.

MPs Miao and Noormohamed are correct that historically, Richmond ridings have never been connected with communities to the north, only communities to the south. However, as discussed, the Commission received negative feedback during the consultation process about tying the Richmond ridings with New Westminster—Burnaby and Delta. The drawing of Richmond Centre—Marpole reflected this public feedback, along with practical challenges that the Commission had to address relative to the populations of Vancouver and Richmond.

MP Miao recommends that Marpole be moved to an exclusively Vancouver-based riding, and that Richmond—Centre and Steveston—Richmond East be entirely Richmond-based, with Richmond split between the two ridings. However, as discussed, the Commission has already determined this not to be practicable. If Marpole were moved out of Richmond Centre, then it would be necessary to extend one or both Richmond ridings into Delta, which was not well-received. Moreover, it would have a cascading effect impacting ridings across the Lower Mainland.

Without more, the Commission “got it right” in drawing Richmond Centre—Marpole. This is supported by the positive feedback from MP Qualtrough, who is pleased that the City of Delta is united within one riding. It is also noteworthy, that other Lower Mainland MPs expressed support for adjustments made by the Commission between its initial proposal and final proposal, some of which would have to be reversed if Marpole was moved out of Richmond Centre. It is also noteworthy that the other Richmond MP, Parm Bains, is satisfied with the boundaries of Steveston—Richmond East, which would be changed if the Commission accepted MP Miao’s proposal.

It follows that we cannot support the objection of MP Sajjan. MP Sajjan proposes keeping the Sunset neighbourhood united by moving Marpole to Vancouver Arbutus. This would be to make up for the loss of residents in the parts of Sunset that would be moved from Vancouver Arbutus to Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby. For the reasons already outlined, this adjustment would have a cascading regional effect. We further observe that while relatively small parts of Sunset are situated in Vancouver Arbutus, and Vancouver Kingsway, much of the neighbourhood’s population is concentrated in Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby. This reflects efforts by the Commission to keep communities of interest together, to the extent possible.

The Commission’s decision to tie Marpole with Richmond—Centre resulted in the reorganization of the two main ridings on the western side of Vancouver with the drawing of Vancouver Arbutus and Vancouver West Broadway.[15] MP Murray objects to the drawing of Vancouver West Broadway and has asked the Commission to “keep the current Vancouver Quadra boundaries to the extent possible.”[16] If adopted, the Commission would be faced with the task of “going back to the drawing board,” which we believe to be impracticable and would, from a regional lens, likely disrupt what has been, overall, a well-received map.

The Julian and Zarrillo Objection

We respectfully submit that the Commission appropriately drew the boundaries of Port Moody—Coquitlam, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville and Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. As such, we do not support the joint objection of MPs Julian and Zarrillo.

The primary concern of MPs Julian and Zarrillo is the Commission’s decision to place Maillardville in New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, rather than Port Moody—Coquitlam. In considering the objection, the placement of Maillardville should not be looked at in isolation, but by having regard, more broadly, for the way in which the Commission drew boundary lines for the Burnaby and Tri-Cities region.

Looking through a regional lens, the Commission weighed feedback during the consultation process. This included concerns that the City of Burnaby had been divided into six ridings. In response, the Commission decided to “significantly redraw the electoral district boundaries affecting Burnaby and surrounding municipalities.” There were also concerns regarding the drawing of Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam in the initial proposal, in which the riding traversed the Pitt River. As the Commission noted, [t]his design did not find favour on either side of the Fraser River or Pitt River.”[17] To address this the Commission decided to “extensively reconfigure the electoral districts from the Pitt River to Annacis Island and eliminate the proposed crossings of the Fraser River and the Pitt River in this area of the region.”[18]

The adjustments made by the Commission in the region have been generally well-received. MP Julian expressed general support for the adjustments made in Burnaby between the initial proposal and he final proposal.[19] The Joint Submission of Support, signed by MP McKinnon, who represents Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, states: “The final result is a coherent riding for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, giving full value to the cohesive community and geography.” This evidences that the Commission took care to consider communities of interest and identity for the region, in the context of a “difficult undertaking.”[20] Given the general regional satisfaction with the adjustments, we caution against further adjustments, which could result in an unwelcome cascading effect.

We further observe that the adjustments proposed by MPs Julian and Zarrillo would result in the populations of the ridings of Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Port Moody—Coquitlam, and Burnaby Central to fall further outside the regional average population (“RAP”) set by the Commission, as well as electoral quota for British Columbia (“EQBC”).

Based on the final proposal of the Commission, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, with a population of 114,460, is -2.28% and -1.58% relative to the RAP and the BCEQ, respectively. The Julian/Zarrillo Objection, if adopted, would take Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam to +4.46% and +5.13%, relative to the RAP and BCEQ, respectively.

Port Moody—Coquitlam, with a population of 115,367, is -1.50 and -0.80, relative to the RAP and BCEQ, respectively. The Julian/Zarrillo Objection would take Port Moody—Coquitlam to +5.77% and +6.43, relative to the RAP and BCEQ, respectively.

Burnaby Central, with a population of 120,734, is +2.99% and +3.81%, relative to the RAP and BCEQ, respectively. The Julian/Zarrillo Objection would take Burnaby Central to -6.53% and -5.87, relative the RAP and BCEQ, respectively.

These deviations from the RAP and BCEQ, in all three ridings, fall outside the largest deviation in the final proposal for The Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley, which is Burnaby Central at +3.81% relative to the BCEQ. Indeed, under the Julian/Zarrillo Objection, the deviation from the BCEQ would approximately double from the current largest regional deviation (Burnaby Central) for Port Moody—Coquitlam and Burnaby Central.

We acknowledge that the Commission does have latitude relative to population pursuant to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. E-3 (the “EBRA”). However, the overarching principle of the EBRA is to ensure that each riding shall as close as reasonably possible, correspond to the electoral quota for the province. Consistent with this, the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, determined that while absolute parity is impossible, a citizen’s vote should not be unduly diluted. As McLaughlin J. (as she was then) wrote at p.185:

“It emerges therefore that deviations from absolute voter parity may be justified on the grounds of practical impossibility or the provision of more effective representation. Beyond this, dilution of one citizen’s vote as compared with another’s should not be countenanced.”

That the Julian/Zarrillo Objection materially increases deviations for all three mentioned ridings, should, in our opinion, weigh heavily against adopting the objection.

We further note there is decades of precedent for Maillardville to be situated in the same riding as parts of New Westminster and Burnaby. This is relevant, because in drawing riding boundaries, the Commission shall consider “the historical pattern of an electoral district” pursuant to section 15(1)(b)(ii) of the EBRA. Maillardville was situated in the riding of New Westminster-Coquitlam between 1979 and 1988, and again from 2004 to 2015. Between 1997 and 2004 Maillardville was part of New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.

Finally, we observe that the Commission has to the greatest extent possible respected the community of interest and identity that is Maillardville. Lower Maillardville, the oldest neighbourhood in Coquitlam, has been kept whole, being situated in the same riding. Although Maillardville is part of the City of Coquitlam, Maillardville, is not uniquely the only Coquitlam community situated in a riding with communities outside of Coquitlam. Coquitlam is divided into three ridings, including Port Moody—Coquitlam and Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam.

The Weiler Objection

We submit that the Commission’s decision to select 21 Street as the eastern boundary for Howe Sound—West Vancouver is reasonable. It is evident that the Commission carefully considered feedback provided during the consultation process and concluded that this configuration “is the only fair and appropriate resolution to the electoral district’s high population.”[21]

MP Weiler argues that the 21 Street boundary “severs the Ambleside-Dundarave community of interest.” However, the Commission had no practical choice but to divide West Vancouver into two ridings, having regard for its population. As such, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the Commission to draw a boundary line in West Vancouver, respecting population parity, without impacting communities of interest. 21 Street is a major transportation corridor running through the centre of West Vancouver that connects Marine Drive with the Trans-Canada Highway. It is a clear line of demarcation that should cause no real confusion amongst residents and businesses.

MP Weiler proposes that instead the eastern boundary be 11 Street. However, this would result in a population of 123,717, well outside the RAP and BCEQ of +5.33 and +6.0, respectively.

MP Weiler concedes the population variance but argues that it is within the range of the RAP for Vancouver Island, and notes that the riding borders the Vancouver Island riding of North Island—Powell River.

It is our observation that the Vancouver Island RAP is based upon combined factors that are unique to Vancouver Island alone, including: (1) population growth since the last redistribution;[22] (2) the unique geography of Vancouver Island, with waters separating it from the mainland “making it largely impractical to combine their territories into electoral districts;”[23] and (3) the decision of the Commission to allocate British Columbia’s additional riding to the Southern Interior, rather than Vancouver Island.[24] Accordingly, we submit that it is not appropriate to consider the RAP for Vancouver Island in the context of Howe Sound—West Vancouver – a riding with a substantial population minutes away from downtown Vancouver.

Finally, we note that the neighbouring affected MP, Jonathan Wilkinson, does not support MP Weiler’s proposal to move the eastern boundary of Howe Sound—West Vancouver to 11 Street.[25]

The Cannings Objection

We submit that the Commission should reject MP Cannings objection. The objection would result in a boundary configuration that is contrary to public input during the consultation period. It would also have a cascading impact that is not supported by the affected MPs and could necessitate substantial changes to riding boundaries in the Southern Interior.

In essence, MP Cannings proposes that certain communities in the West Kootenay be moved to Similkameen—West Kootenay from Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies and Vernon—Monashee. To adjust for this added population, MP Cannings proposes to move the Similkameen Valley into Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. To offset a population loss in Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, MP Cannings propose that the municipalities of Golden and Field be moved from Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies to Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Interior. Notably, MP Cannings has made this proposal without the support of the affected MPs Mel Arnold and Rob Morrison, nor is there any evidence that he has consulted or has support from the affected municipalities of Golden and Field. In short, MP Cannings is unilaterally proposing a radical realignment of the electoral boundaries in the Southern Interior. In our view, the stage in the process by which MPs may submit objections is past the time for a significant redraw of the electoral map.

The “workability” of MP Cannings proposal rests with severing the Similkameen Valley from the riding. Such an adjustment would ignore public input that the Commission received. The Commission heard clearly that the residents of Penticton, members of the Penticton Indian Band, the Regional District for Okanagan-Similkameen, and the municipalities of Keremos and Princeton opposed being separated as the Commission initially proposed. The Commission responded to this feedback by making boundary adjustments to unite the communities of the Similkameen Valley with Penticton. MP Cannings objection would undo this, thereby separating communities of interest and identity. Even MP Cannings concedes that the adjustments made by the Commission between its initial and final proposal concerning the Similkameen Valley is “somewhat positive.”[26]

Keeping Similkameen Valley communities united with Penticton is further supported, having regard for “the historical pattern of an electoral district” pursuant to section 15(1)(b)(ii) of the EBRA. Except for the last redistribution, the Similkameen Valley and Penticton have been part of the same federal ridings for decades. The feedback that the Commission received from the public and from the affected municipalities was to restore this historic connection.

Finally, in our opinion, MP Cannings contention that the process is “deeply flawed”, and that residents of the West Kootenay had “no recourse to public input at all” is without merit.[27] The Commission held twenty-six in-person hearings, over seven weeks, and heard from 211 presenters across the province.[28] Further, the Commission held a virtual hearing. There was ample opportunity for residents in the West Kootenay, like all other British Columbians, to provide input to the Commission.

The Gray and Van Popta Name Change Objections

We respectfully ask the Commission to adopt the name changes proposed by MPs Gray and Van Popta.

With respect to MP Gray’s objection, we observe that the District of Lake Country is a sizeable community in the southern half of the riding. Moreover, it has been included in the name of the present riding of Kelowna—Lake Country since 2004. Amending the name of Vernon—Monashee to include Lake Country more accurately describes the composition of the riding. Moreover, adding this name will bring greater awareness to residents that they are in a new riding, having historically been situated in the Kelowna-based riding that for the past twenty years has borne in its name “Lake Country”. We note that this name change is supported by the Mayor of the District of Lake Country, Blair Ireland.[29]

MP Van Popta’s objection that Fraser Heights be added to the name of the Langley Township would more accurately describe the riding by recognizing a sizeable community that is in the City of Surrey and not Langley Township. The name change is supported by MPs John Aldag and Ken Hardy, who along with MP Van Popta, currently represent the communities that will be part of the new riding. Finally, the proposed name change is consistent with the approach the Commission took to the naming of the neighbouring ridings of Cloverdale—Langley City and Abbotsford—South Langley.

Respectfully submitted,

John Nater, MP, Vice-Chair

Perth—Wellington

Luc Berthold, MP

Megantic—L’Erable

Blaine Calkins, MP

Red Deer—Lacombe

Michael Cooper, MP

St. Albert—Edmonton