PROC Committee Report

Report on the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Alberta: 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 five Notices of Objection in response to the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Alberta by MPs, the Honourable Randy Boissonnault (Edmonton-Centre), George Chahal (Calgary-Skyview), Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead), Arnold Viersen (Peace River-Westlock), and Chris Warkentin (Grande Prairie-Mackenzie).

We respectfully disagree with the conclusions in the Report of PROC to support the objection of MP Chahal and set out our observations in this Dissenting Report. Although PROC did not support MP Boissonnault’s objection, and merely reported it back to the Commission, we wish to detail our opposition to the objection. We agree with the conclusions in the Report of PROC to support the objections of MPs Soroka, Viersen and Warkentin, however, we wish to offer our observations regarding these objections.

Error in the Report of PROC

We wish to note a factual error in the Report of PROC. With reference to the objection of MP Soroka, the Report of PROC reads:

“In the Report’s proposed riding of Battle River-Crowfoot: add a specified portion of Mountain View County to Battle River-Crowfoot and remove it from the riding Ponoka-Didsbury Riding. This would result in a population for Battle River-Crowfoot of 116,567, versus 110,212 the Report.”

That does not accurately reflect MP Soroka’s objection, which does not propose removing any part of Ponoka-Didsbury. Instead, MP Soroka proposes that an area south of Ponoka-Didsbury within Yellowhead be moved to Battle River-Crowfoot. His objection reads:

“Battle River-Crowfoot would need to be increased in size and add in Mountain View County south of the boundary of Ponoka-Didsbury Riding and east of Hwy 776 including the town of Carstairs. The new population would be 116,576 compared to 110,212 in the report.” [emphasis added]

The Boissonnault Objection

MP Boissonnault proposes that the communities of Athlone, Calder, and Kensington, situated north of the Yellowhead Trail, not be part of Edmonton-Centre. To adjust for the consequent population loss, MP Boissonnault proposes that the communities of Laurier Heights and Parkview be moved to Edmonton-Centre from Edmonton-West.

We respectfully submit that the Commission appropriately drew Edmonton-Centre, including having regard for the historical pattern of an electoral district and communities of interest and identity.

Athlone, Calder, and Kensington are reasonably placed in Edmonton-Centre

We observe that the Commission’s decision to include Athlone, Calder, and Kensington in Edmonton-Centre is reasonable and consistent with decades of precedent for these communities.

MP Boissonnault contends that Yellowhead Trail represents “one of the most definitive human-made geographic boundaries within Edmonton.”[1] Therefore, he submits that it is inappropriate for Athlone, Calder, and Kensington to be part of Edmonton-Centre. However, these communities have a long history of being connected with communities south of Yellowhead Trail at the municipal and provincial level; communities that are also part of Edmonton-Centre.

For example, the City Council ward of Anirniq, which encompasses Athlone, Calder, and Kensington, includes five residential communities south of Yellowhead Trail, including Dovercourt, Inglewood, Prince Charles, Sherbrooke, and Woodcroft (all of which are in Edmonton-Centre). Together these communities have a sizeable population. This is contrary to MP Boissonnault’s testimony at PROC, wherein he claimed that much of the ward south of the Yellowhead Trail is “industrial.”[2]  As such, MP Boissonnault’s assertion that including Athlone, Calder, and Kensington in Edmonton-Centre would put these communities “in a federal riding that is separate from their…municipal representation” is inaccurate.[3]

For decades, prior to the establishment of Anirniq in 2021, Athlone, Calder, and Kensington, were part of Ward 2. This ward traversed Yellowhead Trail and included the aforementioned communities south of Yellowhead Trail.

At the provincial level, the constituency of Edmonton-Calder, which existed between 1993 and 2019, included communities on both sides of the Yellowhead Trail. That included at times all or some of the aforementioned communities south of the Yellowhead, as well as Athlone, Calder, and Kensington.

MP Boissonnault’s claim that Yellowhead Trail “has been the northern boundary for different iterations of Edmonton-Centre” “for almost 40 years” is also inaccurate. Edmonton-Centre was drawn for the 2004 election.[4] The previous iterations of Edmonton-Centre, namely, Edmonton-West (1997-2004), and Edmonton-Northwest (1988-1997), traversed Yellowhead Trail. In fairness, the areas north of Yellowhead Trail in Edmonton-West and Edmonton-Northwest comprised largely of industry and farms.

More generally, there is plenty of precedent for federal, provincial, and municipal boundaries to traverse the Yellowhead Trail. For example, the provincial constituency of Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview takes in Beverly south of Yellowhead Trail and Clareview north Yellowhead Trail. The former federal ridings of Edmonton-North (1997-2004), and Edmonton-East (1997-2015), included communities on both sides of Yellowhead Trail. Numerous other examples can be cited.

No compelling argument to move Laurier Heights and Parkview into Edmonton-Centre

MP Boissonnault argues that Laurier Heights and Parkview should be moved into Edmonton-Centre from Edmonton-West, because they share “community leagues, schools and hockey rinks” with “the communities on the southwest border” of Edmonton-Centre.[5]   MP Boissonnault places a particular emphasis on supposed community league ties between Laurier Heights, Parkview, and Crestwood.

While Laurier Heights and Parkview share some connection with Crestwood, they also share a connection with neighbouring communities, including Lynwood and Jasper Park, which are in Edmonton-West. It should be noted that each of these communities has a separate community league. These and other community leagues are part of Zone E, which is divided between Edmonton-Centre and Edmonton-West. MP Boissonnault is not proposing to unite Zone E within Edmonton-Centre (nor are we recommending this). In short, we see no compelling argument that Laurier Heights and Parkview be moved into Edmonton-Centre because of a community of interest or identity connected to community leagues.

We further observe that the southern boundary of Edmonton-Centre, 95 Avenue, is also the boundary line for City Council wards. Crestwood, situated north of 95 Avenue, is in the Nakota Isga ward. Parkview, situated south of 95 Avenue, and Laurier Heights, are in the sipiwiyiniwak ward. Adjacent communities to Laurier Heights and Parkview, including Lynnwood and Jasper Park are also in the sipiwiyiniwak ward.

Moreover, MP Boissonnault’s proposal to move the communities of Laurier Heights and Parkview to Edmonton-Centre would result in a significant deviation for Edmonton-West, having regard for Alberta’s electoral quota. Edmonton-West ‘s population would be reduced by approximately 6,000 people. This loss would result in a deviation of approximately -7%. This would be by far the largest deviation among Edmonton ridings.[6]

Taken together, MP Boissonnault’s proposal to bring Laurier Heights and Parkview into Edmonton-Centre does not merit the population deviation that would result for Edmonton-West.

The Chahal Objection

MP Chahal proposes that the area south of 96 Avenue NE (Airport Trail) in Calgary-Skyview be moved to Calgary-McKnight. MP Chahal also proposes that Calgary-McKnight be renamed Calgary-Skyview.

We respectfully defer to Commission’s configuration of the boundaries of Calgary-McKnight and Calgary-Skyview.

The Proposed Boundary Readjustment

We note that the Commission received numerous representations urging it to keep northeast Calgary together in two ridings with a third riding to be situated exclusively on the west side of Deerfoot Trail. After considering these submissions, the Commission concluded that this would result in a “substantial” cascading effect on other ridings in Calgary.[7] The Commission nonetheless adjusted boundaries based on this input, including “adding more of the densely populated Saddle Ridge community to Calgary-McKnight” from Calgary-Skyview.[8] Moving these more densely populated neighborhoods reflects that Calgary-McKnight consists of “the densely populated northeast sector of the city.”[9]

We observe that the part of Saddle Ridge that MP Chahal objects to being part of Calgary-Skyview was included in Calgary-Skyview when the Commission released its proposal. Notwithstanding this, MP Chahal did not make a submission to the Commission during the consultation period, for which he had ample time.[10]

In any event, MP Chahal’s proposal, if implemented, would result in a substantial deviation from the electoral quota for Calgary-McKnight of +14.3%. That represents a deviation that is approximately three-and-a-half times larger than the Calgary riding with the next largest deviation, Calgary-Centre at +4.63%.[11] It would also fall outside the plus or minus 10% deviation that the Commission set for the drawing of riding of boundaries.[12] This would make Calgary-McKnight the most populated riding in the province.

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, as the Commission observed, “the overarching principle of the [ERBA] is to ensure that each electoral district ‘shall, as close as reasonable possible, correspond to the electoral quota for the province,” having regard for the factors that the Commission must consider pursuant to section 15(1) of the EBRA.[13] We note that the part of Saddle Ridge within Calgary-Skyview is a growing suburban community like other nearby communities within Calgary-Skyview. In the circumstances, it is our opinion, that MP Chahal has not presented compelling reasons that would justify such a significant deviation from the electoral quota for the province.

The Proposed Name Change

In our opinion, Calgary-McKnight is appropriately named. As the Commission notes, McKnight Boulevard, a major roadway, runs through the middle of the riding from east to west.[14]

We also observe that the community of Skyview Ranch is in Calgary-Skyview. As such, renaming Calgary-McKnight as Calgary-Skyview is bound to cause confusion amongst residents.

The Soroka Objection

MP Soroka proposes that the entirety of Yellowhead County be placed within the Jasper-Banff-Canmore riding. To offset the consequent population increase, MP Soroka proposes changes to the neighbouring ridings of Parkland, St. Albert-Sturgeon River, Battle River-Crowfoot, and Bow River. MP Soroka also requests a name change from Jasper-Banff-Canmore to Yellowhead.

We respectfully submit that MP Soroka’s proposal has merit.

Keeping Yellowhead County united is consistent with the EBRA

Having regard for section 15(1)(b) of the EBRA, Yellowhead County shares a common community of interest and identity that should be respected. This is supported by a letter to the Commission from the Mayor of Yellowhead County, Wade Williams, who has requested that Yellowhead County be united within one riding.[15] The Mayor of Edson, Kevin Zahara, in his letter to the Commission, also cites the historical ties of Yellowhead communities, and Yellowhead County.[16] Most of these communities are connected by a major transportation corridor, the Yellowhead Highway, and have strong economic and social ties. This is reinforced by being within or surrounded by the municipality that is Yellowhead County. Moreover, one school division, the Grande Yellowhead Public School Division serves Yellowhead County. We further note that Yellowhead County has been part of the same federal riding, since at least 1979.

We further observe that the eastern half of Yellowhead County, and eastern Yellowhead communities, including Evansburg and Entwistle, are more closely aligned with the rest of Yellowhead County, compared to Parkland County, and communities such as Spruce Grove and Stony Plain in the Parkland riding. The population base of the Parkland riding resides near Edmonton. The largest centres are Spruce Grove and Stony Plain, which can be characterized as bedroom communities of Edmonton. Moreover, Parkland County, Spruce Grove and Stony Plain, unlike Yellowhead County, are formally connected with the Edmonton region, being members of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board. Accordingly, as the President of the Evansburg Entwistle Chamber of Commerce, Terrance Smith, observes, the Commission’s report puts Evansburg and Entwistle “in a district that covers a larger urban area which would alter how we are represented.”[17]

The impact of the objection on other ridings

To adjust for the population increase to Jasper-Banff-Canmore, MP Soroka proposes adjustments to neighbouring ridings.

The most significant proposed adjustments are to the Parkland and St. Albert-Sturgeon River ridings. In short, St. Albert-Sturgeon River would lose the part of Lac Ste. Anne County that is situated west of the Pembina River to Parkland. Parkland would also gain part of Lac Ste. Anne County from Jasper-Banff-Canmore.

There are ties between the Lac Ste. Anne County, Parkland County, Spruce Grove and Stony Plain. They are linked by a major transportation corridor, Highway 43, which connects to the Yellowhead Highway. Spruce Grove and Stony Plain are service centres for Lac Ste. Anne County residents. We further note that MP Soroka’s objection is supported by MP Dane Lloyd, who currently represents the impacted parts of Lac Ste. Anne County.[18]

The proposed adjustments to the boundaries of Battle River-Crowfoot and Bow River are relatively minor. We believe they are consistent with section 15(1)(b) of the EBRA.

We further observe that the adjustments proposed by MP Soroka bring the population of each impacted riding closer to the electoral quota for Alberta.

The Proposed Name Change

We concur with MP Soroka’s request to change the name of the riding to Yellowhead for the reasons set out in his objection.

The Viersen and Warkentin Objections

MPs Viersen and Warkentin submitted identical objections. They propose that the Commission return to the Commission’s proposal as it applies to the division between the ridings of Grande Prairie and Peace River-Westlock (the “Original Proposal”).

We support the position of MPs Viersen and Warkentin.

Our Observations

As explained by MPs Viersen and Warkentin in their testimony at PROC, the Original Proposal better reflects communities of interest.

Uniting Mackenzie County within one federal riding better reflects communities of interest, having regard for: (1) a common municipal government; (2) one MLA who represents the County; (3) common school districts; and (4) a regional hospital at High Level that services the County.[19]

The Original Proposal also unites Indigenous communities with common interests.[20]

Moreover, the Town of High Level, which is surrounded by Mackenzie County, is more closely connected to the Town of Peace River than the City of Grande Prairie. In contrast, communities such as Crooked Creek, Goodwin and Sturgeon Lake are proximate to Grande Prairie. Many of its residents work and otherwise use services in Grande Prairie.[21]

The Commission’s rationale for departing from the Original Proposal is to “reduce the discrepancy in size” between Peace River-Westlock and Grande Prairie.[22] Significantly, however, both area MPs do not believe, by virtue of their objections, that this is an impediment to effectively represent residents.

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