The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has the honour to present its

 

TWENTY-NINTH REPORT

 

1.                  Pursuant to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-3, as amended, the Committee has considered the matter of the objections to the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Manitoba.

 

2.                  After each decennial census an electoral boundaries commission is established for each province.  The Chief Electoral Officer calculates the number of Members of the House of Commons assigned to each province according to the provisions of section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867.  Following advertisements and representations from interested persons, each commission prepares a report on the division of the province into electoral districts based on population and corresponding as closely as reasonably possible to the quotient of Members per population for that province. 

 

3.                  In its considerations, each commission is to take into consideration the community of interest or community of identity or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, as well as what constitutes a manageable geographic size in cases of sparsely populated, rural or northern regions.  The commission may depart by a variance of up to plus or minus 25% of the quotient in order to accommodate such circumstances.

 

4.                  Each commission’s report is forwarded to the Chief Electoral Officer who in turn sends it to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who tables the report in the House.  The report is referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

 

5.                  In accordance with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, after each commission report has been tabled in the House of Commons, Members of the House of Commons have 30 calendar days in which to file objections to the proposals contained in each report.  The Act requires that objections must be in the form of a motion, in writing, specify the provisions of the report objected to and the reasons for the objection, and must be signed by not less than 10 Members of the House. 

 

6.                  If objections are filed, the Committee has 30 sitting days, or such longer period of time as may be approved by the House of Commons, to consider the objections.  Following this, the commission report, the objections, and the minutes of proceedings are returned to the Speaker, who transmits them to the Chief Electoral Officer.  The Chief Electoral Officer returns the material to the relevant electoral boundaries commission, which has 30 days in which to dispose of the objections.  The commission then finalizes its report. 

 

7.                  Once all the commission reports have been finalized, the Chief Electoral Officer prepares a draft representation order setting out the boundaries and names of the new electoral districts.  This is sent to the Governor in Council, which must proclaim it within five days.  No changes can be made by the Chief Electoral Officer or the Government.  The representation order comes into effect one year after it is proclaimed, and is in force for any federal general election called after this date. 

 

8.                  The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs appointed the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment to consider these objections.  This report contains the comments and recommendations of the Subcommittee, as adopted by the Committee, on proposed changes for the Province of Manitoba contained in the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Manitoba, 2003. 

 

Winnipeg South Centre

 

9.                  Ms. Anita Neville, Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre, filed an objection with respect to the proposed change of the electoral district name from Winnipeg South Centre to River Heights-Fort Garry on the following grounds:

 

a)                  The mention of two distinct communities in the electoral district ignored several equally significant and distinct communities that also composed the riding – Tuxedo, Osborne Village, Crescentwood, Lord Roberts, Riverview, Wildwood Park and Fort Rouge – and was therefore exclusionary.

 

b)                 Fort Garry was a confusing designation given that Fort Garry proper would straddle the proposed River-Heights-Fort Garry riding and Winnipeg-South.

 

10.              It appears the current proposal was motivated by a desire to reflect a proposed change in boundaries that would place part of Fort Garry into the riding.  The Boundaries Commission obviously requires the power to change riding names to reflect boundary changes in electoral districts.  The Committee, however, agrees with Ms. Neville’s arguments in this case and recommends that the existing riding name of Winnipeg-South-Centre stand.

 

Churchill

 

11.              Ms. Beverly Desjarlais, Member of Parliament for Churchill, filed an objection with respect to the transfer of a portion of Selkirk-Interlake into the Churchill constituency on the following grounds:

 

a)      The Interlake communities in question do not share a community of interest with the Churchill riding.

 

b)      The addition of these communities makes the riding geographically unmanageable and not feasible to service under the restraints of the Member’s operating budget.

 

c)      The 8% variance of population in the two electoral districts is well within the statutorily allowable maximum of 25%.

 

12.              The Interlake communities are separated from the nearest Churchill riding community to the North, Grand Rapids, by approximately 200 kilometres of boreal forest.  This uninhabited forest has historically been the boundary between Northern and Central Manitoba, playing this role first in the settlement patterns of the Aboriginal peoples who inhabited these regions, and then subsequently during the much more recent arrival of European fur traders and settlers.  Simply put, both the roads and traditional pathways stop at this natural barrier.  Consequently, all the Interlake communities’ political, social and economic ties are oriented southwards.

 

13.              At 462,871 sq. kilometres, Churchill riding already covers over 84% of Manitoba’s land mass.  According to Ms. Desjarlais, it is the fifth largest riding in Canada and the largest population to serve of the comparable constituencies.  She points out that the Commission’s proposal would increase the riding’s size to make it the fourth largest in Canada – larger than the whole of Yukon Territory.

 

14.              To provide service in such a riding requires air travel.  Northern communities are equipped with airstrips for flying in goods and services:  the Interlake communities proposed for Churchill riding do not.  They can only be accessed by road, meaning a drive of several hundred kilometres from any of Churchill’s population centres.  The closest sub-office to the Interlake communities is at The Pas – 460 kilometres away.  Driving from Winnipeg, as suggested by the Commission, would also require a several-hundred kilometre trip.  Ms. Desjarlais already operates three constituency sub-offices to manage such a large area.  The addition or rearrangement of constituency sub-offices has resource implications.

 

15.              Ms. Desjarlais’ objection noted that the Commission sacrificed the two statutory aspects of its mandate – community of interest and geographic manageability – in favour of achieving a strict 5% variance of population between electoral districts, whereas it could have by statute allowed up to 25% variance of population.  Leaving the boundaries untouched would leave Churchill at -3% variance and Selkirk Interlake at +6.76% variance, well under the statutorily allowable maximum of 25% or informal rules of thumb of 10% or 15%.  Ms. Desjarlias also suggested the Commission could make minor adjustments elsewhere if it wanted to bring the variance discrepancies down.

 

16.              According to the Commission’s report,  “The combined effect of the transfer of most of the southeastern portion of the existing Churchill electoral district to Provencher and Selkirk-Interlake and a return to the existing Churchill boundary would have negative implications for the voter equality principle.”

 

17.              The Committee recognizes that principle, but feels that other measures of voter equality, including effective service to the community by the Member and the community’s sense of interest and/or identity, must also factor into representation.  In the opinion of the Committee, a greater than 5% variance is more than tolerable given the need for effective representation in an extraordinarily large riding with its specific transportation and communication infrastructure challenges.

 

18.              The Committee notes and agrees with the Commission’s proposal to transfer the communities situated at the southeast tip of Lake Winnipeg – Fort Alexander, Pine Falls, Riverview, St. Georges, Bird River and Great Falls – from the Churchill to the Provencher electoral district.  These areas have expressed their desire to return to Provencher electoral district and maintain a community of interest with northern Provencher.

 

19.              Furthermore, the Committee agrees that the adjacent communities around Victoria Beach should be transferred from Churchill to Selkirk-Interlake as proposed.  The Victoria Beach area shares a community of interest with other communities along the Lake Winnipeg shoreline that rely in part or in large on summer residences and tourism for their socio-economic foundation.

 

20.              The Committee recommends that the Interlake communities of the northwestern portion of Selkirk-Interlake remain within Selkirk-Interlake as suggested by Ms. Desjarlais.  The Committee further agrees that the communities of Fort Alexander, Pine Falls, Riverview, St. Georges, Bird River and Great Falls be transferred to Provencher and the communities around Victoria Beach be moved to Selkirk Interlake as proposed by the Commission with regard to the Provencher and Selkirk-Interlake boundaries.

 

21.              According to Elections Canada calculations, this would leave Churchill at a variance of about -8.7%, which the Subcommittee considers not excessive given the geographical size of the riding and the challenges presented in servicing it effectively.  Selkirk-Interlake would be at +8.24%, but all other Manitoba ridings would fall well within the 5% variance.  Given the diversity of Manitoba’s ridings, the 8% variance for two electoral districts out of 14 is reasonable.

 

 

Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia

 

22.              Mr. John Harvard, Member for the constituency of Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia, filed an objection with respect to the proposed name of Charleswood-St. James for the riding on the following grounds:

 

a)      The current riding name accurately reflects the three communities represented in the riding.  The riding is made up of the three former municipalities of Charleswood, St. James and Assiniboia whose names go back a long way through Manitoba history.

 

b)      Mr. Harvard is not aware of any pressure whatsoever in the riding or elsewhere in the province for a name change.

 

23.              The Committee notes that there is no issue of confusion involved that would necessitate the dropping of “Assiniboia” from the riding name.  According to Mr. Harvard, Assiniboia is wholly within the riding and Assiniboia is locally identifiable only with this community.  There are also no significant boundary changes to the riding that appear linked to this change of name.

 

24.              The Committee notes that a Member can change the name of a constituency through a private Member’s bill and Mr. Harvard indicated that he would do so if he were to be representing the riding after the redistribution comes into force.  Mr. Harvard requested that Parliament be spared having to spend time in the future on such a matter.

 

25.              The Committee agrees with Mr. Harvard’s objection and recommends the riding name be left as Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia.

 

 

General Comment

26.              The Committee notes that Bill C-301, which has been passed by the House of Commons and is currently before the Senate, contains changes to the existing names of some current constituencies, including the proposed change of Dauphin-Swan River to Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette. Because of some confusion, the name change was not the subject of an objection to the Subcommittee.  In reviewing this report, the Commission may wish to consider this issue in its proposals. This could avoid the possibility of further name changes after the representation order is proclaimed.

 

27.       In accordance with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Manitoba, the objections, and the minutes of proceedings of the Committee and Subcommittee will be returned to the Speaker and the Chief Electoral Officer.  We urge the Commission to consider carefully the objections, and the comments and recommendations contained in this report.

 

 

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 39) is tabled.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,




Peter Adams
Chair