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

 

 

THIRTY-THIRD 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 Alberta, 2003.

 

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, who 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 Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta, 2003 was tabled in the House of Commons on February 24, 2003.  By the end of the 30-day period, the Clerk of the Committee received five objections.  The Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was appointed to consider these objections.  This report contains the comments and recommendations of the Subcommittee, as adopted by the Committee, on the proposed changes for the Province of Nova Scotia contained in the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta, 2003.

 

 

The City of Edmonton

 

9. The proposals for boundaries adjustment for the City of Edmonton caused considerable difficulties for the Committee.  Changes to one riding in particular – St. Albert – that we strongly feel are necessary, would create ripple effects on Edmonton’s ridings that may go beyond the scope of the objections brought before us.  Such potential effects may also create new concerns from those who as yet have had no reason sufficient to object.  On this the Committee feels “boxed in” by the Commission’s overall approach and its significant redesign of Edmonton’s electoral map.

 

10. This report therefore lays out the objections as presented to the Committee, along with an indication of how the Committee views the objections under the proposed riding distributions.  However, any recommendations we make on Edmonton ridings is done knowing that there should be significant changes made to Edmonton-St. Albert and that this may create ripple effects on the objections of other Edmonton electoral districts.  Therefore, we also direct the Commission to our comments on Edmonton-St. Albert and to our general comments at the end of this report.

 

 

Edmonton-St.-Albert

 

11. Mr. John Williams, Member of Parliament for St. Albert, filed an objection to the apportioning of St. Albert among the four proposed ridings of Yellowhead, Edmonton-Spruce-Grove, Westlock-St. Paul and Edmonton-St. Albert.  The reasons for Mr. Williams’ objection are:

 

a)      The proposal ignores a significant francophone community of identity;

b)     The proposal ignores other historic communities of interest and of identity in the riding of St. Albert;

c)      The apportionment of eight ridings to accommodate Edmonton is not justified.

 

12. The City of St. Albert remains distinct from Edmonton and is intimately linked to the smaller agricultural communities of the riding, especially the francophone ones. According to Mr. Williams, the francophone community of interest comprising St. Albert, Morinville and Legal was settled in 1861.  They have remained the centre of the religious community, of education and of trading and commerce ever since.

 

13. At the hearing, Mr. Williams brought to the Subcommittee’s attention the comments of the Federal Official Languages Commissioner regarding a similar situation in the riding of Miramichi in New Brunswick – that the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for New Brunswick in that case had not met its responsibilities under section 41 of the Official Languages Act, pertaining to the Government of Canada’s commitment to promote the development and vitality of anglophone and francophone minority communities in Canada.  The issue of the division of St. Albert was also brought before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, whose Fifth Report makes comments and recommends to not divide the riding of St. Albert.  The municipal community leaders in the riding have objected to the Commission’s proposal.  Two members of Cabinet from the Province of Alberta also appeared to speak against this proposal.

 

14. The Committee recognizes that St. Albert as it exists now comprises a historical, distinct community of interest and contains in whole a significant community of identity.  The ideal solution would be to leave the riding as it is and the Committee strongly urges the Commission to listen to the representations of the municipal, provincial and federal voices that have asked for the constituency of St. Albert to remain essentially intact.

 

15. The Committee also recognizes that the proposed constituency of Edmonton-St. Albert is an amalgam introduced to account for the growth of Edmonton’s suburbs out towards the exurbs that has occurred since the previous census.  That growth could be handled without breaking up the riding of St. Albert.

 

16. To leave St. Albert essentially as is would require the incorporation of approximately 50,000 additional people into the ridings of Edmonton.  To this extent the Committee feels “boxed in” by the Commission’s overall approach and its significant redesign of Edmonton’s electoral map; we do not have the resources at our disposal to redraw the electoral map of Alberta, nor does the Act give us the time or mandate to do so.  We can, however, indicate to the Commission the underlying criteria that we believe important in making this electoral boundary adjustment, and indicate generally where we think the Commission should look in order to provide an equitable solution for the people affected by their decisions.

 

a)      The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act states that communities of identity and communities of interest are to be accorded leeway when considering population numbers.  St. Albert clearly meets these criteria.  Within the proposed riding of Edmonton St. Albert there are three, clearly identifiable, separate communities:  the francophone community of identity, centred on the City of St. Albert and the towns of Morinville and Legal; the agricultural community of interest based on communities founded by those of German-Austrian descent, and the suburbs of Edmonton.  These communities should remain intact unto themselves in a riding that reflects their community, whichever riding is their final placement.  Maintaining the integrity of each of these communities, particularly that of an historic, official minority language group is a priority to these communities and to this Committee.

 

b)      The City of St. Albert, its attached community of identity, and the other agricultural communities of the riding of St. Albert, form a strong, common community of interest quite different from the suburbs of Edmonton.  This community of interest, essentially agricultural, is not centred on Edmonton and should not be bound up with the suburbs, although it could be well served through arrangement with ridings sharing a commonality of interest; i.e. other ridings with a significant rural base.

 

17.  On these principles we strongly urge the Commission to return to the electoral map.  There should be a way to accommodate the essence of the riding of St. Albert through thoughtful and judicious consideration of the characters and boundaries of the adjacent rural ridings and the ridings that represent the urban agglomeration of Edmonton. We suggest that the core of the riding of St. Albert can be maintained by looking to the adjacent rural ridings to the north and east to find communities more compatible with the Edmonton St. Albert’s communities of interest and make minor, strategic adjustments to the current ridings boundaries if necessary. The dense, urban ridings of Edmonton can be adjusted to accept the rump of Edmonton currently in the proposed riding of Edmonton-St. Albert. Urban ridings, well serviced and easy for constituency access, can readily tolerate variances above the provincial quotient.

 

 

Edmonton Centre

 

18. The Honourable Anne McLellan, PC, Member of Parliament for Edmonton West, filed an objection to the location of the eastern boundary of the proposed electoral district of Edmonton Centre along 97^th Street.  The proposed boundary fragments an existing community neighbourhood and does not reflect the shifting community of interest. 

 

19. Ms. McLellan proposes to retain in Edmonton West the communities of McCauley, Boyle (Street) and Riverdale, while transferring Westwood and Spruce Avenue to the proposed riding of Edmonton East.  Ms. McLellan informed the Subcommittee that these transfers would align Edmonton Centre and Edmonton East according to how people on the ground identified themselves according to their local communities and neighbourhoods.

 

20. According to Ms. McLellan, Edmonton has made considerable efforts to arrange itself according to local community leagues, which are in turn organized into Community League Districts.  Edmonton also has Business Revitalization Zones (BRZs), organized by local businesses, which align with the community league and Community League District.  These communities and organizations collaborate closely at the municipal, provincial and federal levels in order to develop, maintain and improve their community of interest.  Her proposals would bring together in one riding self-identified communities of interest, as expressed by municipal and business organizations.  Specifically, the Community League Districts “F” and “G” would comprise her riding, as well as the Edmonton Centre BRZs.

 

21. According to data available from Elections Canada, Ms. McLellan’s proposal would take Edmonton Centre to approximately 14% above the provincial quotient.  As Edmonton Centre is a small, densely populated urban riding, geographically easy to serve, the Committee feels that would be an acceptable variance.  The Committee agrees with and supports Ms. McLellan’s proposal.

 

 

Edmonton Centre-East

 

22. Mr. Peter Goldring, Member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre-East, filed an objection to the proposed transfer of the easterly portion of Edmonton East to form Edmonton-Sherwood Park, and to the proposed addition of a southerly portion of the current riding of Edmonton North to Edmonton East.  Mr. Goldring’s objection is based on the following:

 

a)      The proposed riding of Edmonton East will be significantly larger than other Edmonton ridings;

b)     The transfer of the northeast section of Edmonton East, particularly the community of Lago Lindo, disrupts a community of interest and an historical and integral part of the riding as it has been for the past 40 years.

 

23. Mr. Goldring suggested that the portion of the proposed riding of Edmonton East located between 137^th Ave. and 167 Ave. not be added to Edmonton East but to the proposed riding of Edmonton-Sherwood Park.  Also, the portion of the proposed riding of Edmonton-Sherwood Park extending to 34^th St. and bounded by 153^rd Ave. in the north – which comprises the communities of Hairsine, Fraser, Bannerman, South Clairview and Homesteader – remain as a component of Edmonton East rather than being transferred as proposed to Edmonton-Sherwood Park.  Mr. Goldring informed the Subcommittee that there are natural boundaries that separate these communities from Sherwood Park.

 

24. Mr. Goldring’s proposed boundaries for the north of Edmonton East are based on the existing boundary and a desire to keep that common reference point where possible.

 

25. Calculations provided by Mr. Goldring, and by Elections Canada indicate that Mr. Goldring’s suggestion would move approximately 44,000 people from Edmonton East to Edmonton-Sherwood Park and approximately 31,000 people from Edmonton-Sherwood Park to Edmonton East – depending on exactly where the boundary lines were drawn.  In conjunction with the changes to Edmonton Centre (see above), this would bring Edmonton East to about 93,000, approximately 12% below the provincial quotient.  Edmonton-Sherwood Park would go to about 116,000, about 9.1% above the provincial quotient, but well within tolerable limits for an urban riding, and on par with some neighbouring ridings.

 

26. Finally, the Committee notes that the proposed riding of Edmonton-Sherwood Park will be a new riding and therefore there is no current Member to object to these proposals.  The member of the current riding of Edmonton North, Mr. Ken Epp, has no objections to the proposal, according to Mr. Goldring.  No other ridings will be affected.

 

27. The Committee agrees with and supports Mr. Goldring’s objection and concurs with the underlying bases of his proposal – to adjust the riding boundaries to align with historical riding divisions, and community and natural boundaries where possible.  It also makes sense to accommodate continuity, where possible, with an existing riding whose numbers match the provincial quotient, rather than preference a newly formed riding.

 

1. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the portion of Edmonton-Sherwood Park comprising Harisine, Farase, Bannerman, South Clariview and Homesteader be with Edmonton East. Also, given these are both urban constituencies, we suggest that an appropriate boundary line the runs parallel to 167^th Avenue between 97^th Stand Manning Road, or the railway - and respecting the community league boundaries if possible - be found to balance the populations of these two constituencies with regard to the provincial quotient.
   
2.  

 

 

Red Deer

 

29. Mr. Bob Mills, Member of Parliament for Red Deer, filed an objection to the proposed transfer of the areas of Rocky Mountain House, Eckville, Blackfalds and Caroline from Red Deer to Wild Rose, Crowfoot and Wetaskiwin.  Mr. Mills’ objection is based the community of interest these areas hold with Red Deer and on the existing transportation routes of the region which flow east-west, not north-south.

 

30. Mr Mills’ informed the Subcommittee that Red Deer and environs comprise a large urban centre in the middle of an easily accessible area.  All the communities named are under one hour’s drive to Red Deer – an access they would not have under the proposed ridings.

 

31. These communities share a common, urbanized, community of interest with Red Deer, different from that of the large rural ridings into which they have been placed.  Major shopping, professional services and sporting events are all centred around Red Deer.  All the provincial government services for Rocky Mountain and area; including health care, are in Red Deer.  Red Deer Community College has a branch in Rocky Mountain House.  The transportation routes and travel patterns in this part of the province go east-west, as the current riding reflects, not north-south as they would have to be to participate in the proposed new ridings.

 

32. Finally, Mr. Mills noted that as Red Deer was an urbanized riding, a larger population within easy access would be relatively easy to serve.  The Committee concurs with the general principle that more homogenous urbanized ridings should err to a larger population than the quotient while larger, rural ridings should err to the side of small populations.

 

33. The Committee notes that these communities have petitioned to remain with the Riding of Red Deer, as recognized by the Commission in its Report.  The Committee also notes that the Commission did feel the transfer of Rocky Mountain House had some approval in the region based on a feeling that the emergence of Red Deer proper as its own electoral district was inevitable in the future, given current growth patterns.  According to Mr. Mills, this sentiment was not significant.  Furthermore, future growth is an important consideration but it is not a primary criteria for boundary adjustment considerations, and the Committee believes it premature to consider whether Red Deer proper will be come a self contained city riding at this point.

 

34. The Committee finds Mr. Mill’s arguments persuasive and recommends that Rocky Mountain House, Eckville, Blackfalds and Caroline be transferred back to the community of Red Deer.  These communities are integral to a community of interest centred in Red Deer and not in the neighbouring, agricultural, rural ridings.

 

 

Crowfoot

 

35. Mr. Kevin Sorenson, Member of Parliament for Crowfoot, filed an objection to the transfer of Flagstaff County to the riding of Vegreville-Wainwright on the basis of a community of interest.

 

36. Flagstaff County identifies closely with the city of Camrose, which is within the proposed constituency of Crowfoot.  Camrose is the closest major urban centre for all the small towns in Flagstaff County.  It provides their economic, cultural and social base.  An important portion of Flagstaff County’s commercial base is in Camrose.  By comparison, Flagstaff County is well removed from the rest of Vegreville-Wainwright and the residents do not naturally associate with, or generally do daily business with Wainwright, Vegreville or Lloydminster.  Rather they travel west, locally, to Camrose, or on to Edmonton.

 

37. The Committee notes that Flagstaff County did not make representation to the hearings because this division of Camrose and Flagstaff County was not part of the Commission’s original proposal.  The Committee also notes that the Members of Parliament from the neighbouring ridings support Mr. Sorenson’s objection.

 

38. Mr. Sorenson’s proposal would put Vegreville-Wainright at approximately 7% below the provincial quotient and Crowfoot at approximately 6% above the provincial quotient.  Both quotients are well within tolerable limits.  Vegreville-Wainright is a large, rural riding and in general the Committee supports the principle that large, rural ridings can err below the quotient as they require more travel to serve.  For the population distribution of Crowfoot, adding Flagstaff County would add no significant burden as Camrose, in Crowfoot, is the service centre for Flagstaff County.

 

39. Therefore the Committee supports Mr. Sorenson’s suggestion and recommends the Commission transfer Flagstaff County to the riding of Crowfoot.

 

 

General Comments

 

40. It appears the Commission has adhered to a narrow and somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of equality and representation.  It has chosen to focus on equalizing the federal representation of Calgary and Edmonton to eight ridings apiece and to a standardized riding pattern; whereas the simplest solution to demographic adjustment, commented on by several witnesses would have been to treat Edmonton, Calgary and the rest of Alberta each according to their natural patterns of community development.

 

41. In the City of Edmonton, there are approximately 660,000 people; that would seem to calculate to six ridings at 110,000 apiece.  The provincial quotient is 106,243.  Therefore six urban ridings for Edmonton, adjusted to account for realities on the ground, and for the reasonable assertion that dense, urban ridings can exceed the quotient because they are geographically easier to serve, would seem to be the natural starting point for electoral apportionment in Edmonton.

 

42. With regard to the riding of St. Albert, and also with regard to how the Commission has viewed urban, suburban and rural communities and their interests as a whole, the Committee believes the Commission has erred.  It appears to the Committee that the Federal Boundaries Commission of Alberta has strayed from the letter and the intent of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.  On the one hand, the Commission philosophically objects to requirements in the Act to take into account how communities identify themselves and their interests, the very thing upon which representation bases itself, stating that electoral representation should be on the criteria of one person, one vote.  On the other hand, it justifies its decisions on the basis of equality of representation between the larger communities of interest of two large cities – Edmonton and Calgary – not on individual representation.  This basis – the equality of cities within a province – is not listed anywhere in the Act.  In introducing this element of inter-city equality, the Commission has done representation in Edmonton a misservice and perhaps created incidental ripple effects and representation issues elsewhere in the province.

 

 

Conclusion

 

43. In accordance with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta, the objections, and the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the 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. 50) is tabled.

 

Respectfully submitted,



Peter Adams
Chair