House of Commons Procedure and Practice

Second Edition, 2009

House of Commons Procedure and Practice - 4. The House of Commons and Its Members - Electoral Boundaries

Electoral Boundaries

While section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 sets out the formula for the allocation of seats in the House of Commons among the provinces after each decennial census, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act provides for the drawing of constituency or electoral district boundaries within each province by an electoral boundaries commission.^{^[41]} The boundaries of electoral districts need to be adjusted whenever a province’s representation changes or when there have been significant population fluctuations within a province, such as movement from rural to urban areas. The readjustment of boundaries is a federal matter controlled by Parliament.

Historical Perspective

In the early years of Confederation, after each decennial census, the government would introduce a bill describing the boundaries of each electoral district and then have the bill adopted like any other piece of legislation. This was subject to criticism as being a highly biased task focused on maximizing the governing party’s electoral successes, often referred to as “gerrymandering”.^{^[42]} In 1903, Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier altered this procedure by placing the readjustment of constituency boundaries in the hands of a special committee of the House of Commons on which Members from all parties were represented.^{^[43]} Each time a redistribution of seats was scheduled to occur, as provided for by the Constitution Act, 1867 and the latest census, the government brought in a bill which did not contain any details about the boundaries of individual ridings. After the bill was read a second time, it was referred to a special committee instructed to “prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return Members to this House”.^{^[44]} This process remained highly partisan and Members were not provided with guidelines upon which to base their decisions.^{^[45]} This system remained in place until 1964 when non‑partisan electoral boundaries commissions were established to draw and readjust the boundaries of electoral constituencies.

Even before Confederation, suggestions had been made to place the drawing of electoral boundaries into the hands of an impartial body, and not with Members.^{^[46]} This continued to be a concern after Confederation and, on a number of occasions, it was recommended that the process be placed instead into the hands of judges.^{^[47]} In 1963, the government introduced legislation to assign the drawing of electoral boundaries to non‑partisan commissions operating under specified general principles and, in 1964, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was passed.^{^[48]}

Readjustment of Electoral Boundaries

Appointment of Electoral Boundaries Commissions

As soon as possible after the completion of each decennial census, the Chief Statistician provides the Chief Electoral Officer, an Officer of Parliament who is responsible for the administration of federal elections, with the population figures.^{^[49]} The Chief Electoral Officer then calculates the total number of House of Commons seats and their distribution among the provinces and territories.^{^[50]} After this information is published in the Canada Gazette,^{^[51]} the process begins to appoint the members of each commission.

An electoral boundaries commission is appointed for each province by the Governor in Council within 60 days of the Chief Electoral Officer receiving the population figures.^{^[52]} No commission is appointed for the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories or Nunavut as these territories are allotted only one seat each. Each commission consists of a chairperson, normally a provincial court judge who is appointed by the chief justice of the province,^{^[53]} and two other individuals appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons “from among such persons resident in that province as the Speaker deems suitable”.^{^[54]} No sitting member of the Senate or of the House of Commons or of a provincial or territorial legislature can be appointed to a commission.^{^[55]}

As soon as the electoral boundaries commissions have been established, the Chief Electoral Officer provides each chairperson with the population figures. The commission has up to one year from that date to recommend constituency boundaries.^{^[56]}

Drawing of Boundaries

Each commission is required to draw constituency boundaries in such a way that the population of each constituency is as close as possible to the quotient obtained by dividing the provincial population by the number of seats allocated to the province. No constituency is permitted to have a population smaller than 75% of this figure or greater than 125%, although in extraordinary circumstances a commission may exceed these limits. Commissions may vary the size of constituencies within this range on the basis of special geographic considerations, such as density of population in various regions of the province, and the accessibility, size and shape of such regions. Because accessibility, transportation, and communications are often seen as obstacles both to effective representation and to ease of campaigning, electoral boundaries commissions generally draw boundaries so that there are fewer voters in rural constituencies than in urban constituencies. Variations may also occur on the basis of a special community of interest or the historical background of a particular district.^{^[57]}

Before writing its report, each commission publishes in the Canada Gazette, as well as in newspapers in the province, a map or drawing showing the proposed electoral boundaries for the province and invites electors and Members of the House of Commons to public meetings held in locations that will encourage the attendance of as many interested people as possible. The commission’s proposals must be published at least 60 days before the date of the first hearing. Interested persons wishing to make a representation must submit their notice in writing to the commission within 53 days after the date of publication of the commission’s advertisement.^{^[58]}

Following the hearings, each commission reviews its proposals, prepares a report and forwards it to the Chief Electoral Officer before the end of its one‑year mandate, unless the Chief Electoral Officer has granted an extension of not more than six months.^{^[59]} The Chief Electoral Officer transmits a copy of each report to the Speaker of the House of Commons who tables them in the House and ensures that they are referred to a committee designated to deal with electoral matters, currently the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.^{^[60]} If reports are received between sessions, the Speaker of the House will have the reports published in the Canada Gazette and a copy of that Canada Gazette will be sent to the Members representing the electoral districts in that province.^{^[61]}

Consideration by the House

Members have 30 days following the tabling or publication of the reports to file objections in writing with the clerk of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Members must specify the provisions objected to in the reports and the reason for the objection. These representations are made in the form of a motion signed by at least 10 Members.^{^[62]} Following the filing deadline, the Committee has 30 sitting days to review the Members’ representations,^{^[63]} unless the Committee asks the House for an extension.^{^[64]} At the conclusion of its consideration of the reports and the objections thereto, the Committee returns the reports to the House along with a copy of the objections and its minutes of proceedings.^{^[65]} The reports and attached documents are then sent by the Speaker to the Chief Electoral Officer for distribution to the various electoral boundaries commissions.^{^[66]} No discussion of the reports or the objections thereto takes place in the House.^{^[67]}

The commissions must consider the objections but they are not compelled to make any changes as a result of the objections. Each commission then submits a final report, with or without amendment, to the Chief Electoral Officer who forwards it to the Speaker of the House.^{^[68]} Tabled in the House by the Speaker,^{^[69]} the commission’s decision is final and without appeal.

Representation Order

After each commission has submitted its final report, the Chief Electoral Officer prepares a draft representation order. The draft representation order specifies the number of Members to be elected in each province and territory, divides each province and territory into electoral districts, describes the boundaries of each district and specifies the population of and the name to be given to each district.^{^[70]} The Chief Electoral Officer forwards the draft representation order to the Minister designated by the Governor in Council as being responsible for implementing the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and it must be proclaimed by the Governor in Council within five days of its receipt.^{^[71]} The new boundaries cannot be used at the time of an election unless one year has passed between the date the representation order was proclaimed and the date that Parliament is dissolved for a general election.^{^[72]} The representation order and the proclamation declaring it to be in force must be published in the Canada Gazette within five days of the issue of the proclamation.^{^[73]}

The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act also stipulates that maps showing the new electoral district boundaries resulting from the readjustment process must be prepared and printed.^{^[74]}

Naming of Constituencies

At the time of Confederation, the electoral districts for each province were established in the Constitution Act, 1867.^{^[75]} The electoral districts existing at that time were named after counties, cities, parts of cities, and towns in each province. From 1872 to 1964, the names of the ridings were provided in legislation to enact seat redistributions and fix electoral boundaries.

Since 1964 and the adoption of the modern process for drawing electoral boundaries, the names of electoral districts are decided by the electoral boundaries commissions and included in their reports. The names are set down in the representation orders giving legal effect to these reports. The alteration to the name of an electoral district after the publication of the representation order can be effected by the passage of legislation. A Member usually introduces a bill to change the name of the electoral district in response to concerns expressed by constituents that the name does not accurately describe the boundaries of the riding.^{^[76]} Such a bill is usually entitled “An Act to change the name of the electoral district of (electoral district)”. Such bills are often dealt with quickly, typically being deemed read a second time, considered in a Committee of the Whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at the report stage, read a third time and adopted in the same sitting by unanimous consent.^{^[77]} While name changes are typically effected by a private Member’s bill, exceptionally in 2004 a government bill was introduced to change the names of 38 electoral districts; the bill passed through all stages in the House the same day.^{^[78]}

Suspension of the Readjustment Process

In each decade between 1960 and 2000, Parliament adopted legislation either to suspend or to amend the redistribution process for one reason or another. After both the 1971 and 1981 censuses, the readjustment process was suspended to permit amendments to section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 setting out the formula for representation in the House and to make some changes to the readjustment process itself.^{^[79]} The redistribution process was suspended twice following the 1991 census.

In 1992, Parliament agreed that in light of the proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act recommended by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, as well as the probability that the readjustment process could not be completed before the next federal election, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act should be suspended.^{^[80]} In 1994, the government believed that it was time for a full review of the Act, given the dissatisfaction being expressed by Members about certain aspects of the process and the continual increase in the number of seats in the House after each census.^{^[81]} The readjustment process was subsequently suspended by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, which provided for the suspension of the readjustment process until the earlier of the enactment of new electoral boundaries readjustment legislation or June 22, 1995. It also temporarily discharged the existing electoral boundaries commissions of their duties once their reports to the House of Commons on electoral districts had been completed.^{^[82]} In the interim, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was instructed to draft a bill respecting the system of readjusting electoral boundaries.^{^[83]} The Committee was also asked to consider a formula to cap or reduce the number of seats in the House and to review the method of appointing members to electoral boundaries commissions, the rules surrounding their powers and methods of proceeding, and the involvement of the public and the House of Commons in the work of the commissions.

On November 25, 1994, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented its report which included draft legislation to repeal the existing statute and to abolish the electoral boundaries commissions.^{^[84]} While the Committee did not recommend a change in the manner of assigning seats among the provinces after each decennial census nor a formula for capping the number of seats in the House, it did propose a new method of drawing electoral boundaries. As a result, Bill C‑69, Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, was introduced by the government on February 16, 1995.^{^[85]} The objective of the bill was to stop the redistribution plans and to start the process all over again, allowing the next election to be held on the basis of the 1981 boundaries. The bill would have also brought about a redistribution every five years in provinces where the shift in population warranted it, a new triggering mechanism for holding a decennial redistribution which would have eliminated an unnecessary redistribution in provinces without a significant change in population, and parliamentary oversight of appointments to electoral boundaries commissions. However, amendments subsequently proposed to the Bill by the Senate and rejected by the House prevented the Bill from being passed.^{^[86]} Since new electoral boundaries readjustment legislation had not been passed by the stipulated June 22, 1995 deadline, the Speaker tabled the reports of all the electoral boundaries commissions in the House as required and the electoral boundaries were adjusted accordingly.^{^[87]} The general election of 1997 was held on the basis of the post‑1991 redistribution and revision of boundaries.

[41] R.S. 1985, c. E-3, s. 3.

[42] Gerrymandering is the manipulation of riding boundaries by the government party to ensure that the opposition’s vote is concentrated in as few constituencies as possible. John McMenemy explains in The Language of Canadian Politics: A Guide to Important Terms and Concepts (4th ed., Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2006, p. 151) that the term “gerrymander” comes from such a manipulation in Massachusetts in 1812 by the party of Governor Elbridge Gerry, which resulted in constituencies whose configurations resembled those of a salamander. In his book, The Canadian House of Commons: Representation, Professor Norman Ward briefly describes the 1872, 1882 and 1892 redistributions as being affected by gerrymandering (pp. 26‑9).

[43] Journals, April 14, 1903, p. 116.

[44] Journals, February 19, 1914, p. 153; March 25, 1924, p. 81; November 25, 1932, p. 148; February 24, 1947, pp. 122‑3; June 28, 1952, p. 618.

[45] For a more detailed look at the history of readjustment up to the 1960s, see Ward, “A Century of Constituencies”, pp. 207‑20.

[46] Ward, “A Century of Constituencies”, p. 211.

[47] Debates, May 25, 1933, pp. 5468‑9; February 21, 1947, pp. 698‑9. Between 1958 and 1962, a private Member, Frank Howard (Skeena), annually introduced a bill to assign this task to an independent body.

[48] S.C. 1964‑65, c. 31. The bill took more than a year to go through Parliament because of disagreements over some of the major clauses (Ward, “A Century of Constituencies”, pp. 212‑6). The Act has not been amended significantly since its adoption in 1964. Since 2000, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has recommended on numerous occasions that the Act be amended (Sixteenth Report, presented to the House on April 2, 2004 (Journals, p. 264) and presented again as its Seventh Report on October 22, 2004 (Journals, pp. 135-6) and the government’s response tabled on March 21, 2005 (Journals, p. 528); Thirty‑First Report, presented to the House on February 7, 2007 (Journals, p. 978) and the government’s response tabled on June 5, 2007 (Journals, p. 1477)). See also “Enhancing the Values of Redistribution—Recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada Following the Representation Order of 2003”, tabled by the Speaker on May 18, 2005 (Journals, p. 767), which proposed changes to the Act.

[49] The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer is discussed in detail later in this chapter.

[50] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, ss. 13 and 14.

[51] The Canada Gazette is a periodical publication of the Government of Canada containing orders in council, proclamations, regulations and other statutory instruments, and Acts of Parliament.

[52] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 3(1). In 2004, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Electoral Boundaries Commission for New Brunswick had incorrectly applied the rules governing the establishment of boundaries with respect to two ridings in 2003 (Raîche v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 679). The Court set aside the Commission’s recommendations pertaining to the boundaries of the two ridings for one year. Subsequently, on October 19, 2004, the government used the Inquiries Act (R.S. 1985, c. I-11) to create an electoral boundaries commission outside the normal decennial process to review the boundaries of the Acadie–Bathurst and Miramichi ridings and to propose changes.

[53] If the chief justice of the province does not or cannot appoint someone for whatever reason, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may make the appointment (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 5). This occurred in 1993 when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appointed the chairman of the British Columbia electoral boundaries commission. Originally, there was a fourth person appointed to each commission, a representation commissioner. The office of Representation Commissioner was abolished in 1979 when the incumbent retired and most of his duties were transferred to the Chief Electoral Officer.

[54] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, ss. 4 to 6. After the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was passed in 1964, many Members expected the Speaker to consult with party leaders prior to making appointments to the electoral boundaries commissions. Instead, the Speaker consulted with the chief justice in each province and the chairman of each commission, and generally appointed a university professor in political science and a citizen whose professional employment indicated some semblance of impartiality such as the clerk of a legislature (Ward, “A Century of Constituencies”, p. 216). See also the Thirty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on February 7, 2007 (Journals, p. 978), par. 51 to 57.

[55] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 10.

[56] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 20(1).

[57] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 15. In 2004, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Electoral Boundaries Commission for New Brunswick had not complied with this section of the Act when determining the boundaries of two ridings in the province following the 2001 census. This decision provided guidance as to the interpretation of “community of interest” (Raîche v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 679, in particular par. 66 to 82). The Commission’s recommendations were suspended and a new electoral boundaries commission was established to review the boundaries of the two ridings in question. The new Commission’s preliminary report was tabled in the House on December 3, 2004 and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Journals, p. 292). In its Nineteenth Report presented to the House on December 7, 2004 (Journals, pp. 311‑2), the Committee reported that it had not received any objections to the Commission’s recommendations. The Commission’s final report was tabled in the House on December 9, 2004 (Journals, p. 323) and on December 10, 2004, legislation to change the boundaries of the two ridings was introduced and subsequently passed through all stages in the House the same day (Journals, pp. 338-9). The bill received Royal Assent on February 24, 2005 (Journals, p. 479). See Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, S.C. 2005, c. 6. See also the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, presented to the House on April 9, 2003 (Journals, p. 672), in which the Committee recommended that electoral boundaries commissions consider official language minority communities when drawing boundaries. The government supported the recommendation (Journals, September 15, 2003, pp. 959-60).

[58] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 19.

[59] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 20(2).

[60] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3. s. 21(1). If the House is not sitting, the reports are tabled on any of the first five sitting days when the House returns. On June 10, 1994, the Standing Orders were amended to designate the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as the parliamentary committee responsible for electoral matters (Journals, June 10, 1994, p. 563; Twenty‑Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 9, 1994, Issue No. 16, pp. 7‑8). See also Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi).

[61] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 21(2).

[62] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 22.

[63] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 22. In 1995, because of the large number of objections filed, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs established four regional subcommittees to hear from Members and to make recommendations to the Committee (Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, October 17, 1995, Issue No. 52, pp. 25‑6). In 2002, the Committee established one subcommittee to deal with 85 objections (Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings, November 7, 2002, Meeting No. 6).

[64] See, for example, Journals, October 4, 1995, p. 1990; May 29, 2003, p. 826; June 12, 2003, p. 915.

[65] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑2, s. 22(1) and (2). For the Committee’s final report on the 1995 readjustment of electoral boundaries, see Journals, November 29, 1995, p. 2188; Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings, November 28, 1995, Issue No. 53, pp. 16‑118, in particular pp. 18‑26. In 2003, the Committee presented nine reports to the House on the readjustment of boundaries (Journals, February 5, 2003, p. 374; March 19, 2003, p. 518; May 8, 2003, p. 754; June 3, 2003, p. 837; June 5, 2003, p. 860; September 15, 2003, pp. 958-9).

[66] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑2, s. 22(3).

[67] Until 1986, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act contained provisions which allowed Members to discuss their objections to a report of an electoral boundaries commission on the floor of the House. Four debates—in 1966, 1973, 1976 and 1988—were held under the Act’s provisions (S.C. 1964‑65, c. 31, s. 20). Within 30 days of the tabling in the House of such a report, a motion for consideration of an objection to the report signed by not less than 10 Members could be filed with the Speaker. The motion would detail the provisions of the report objected to and the reasons for the objection. Within 15 days of the filing of the motion, time would be set aside under Government Orders for Members to voice their concerns about the report. Upon the conclusion of consideration of the objections, the Speaker was required to refer the objections and the relevant Debates pages back to the commission. In 1986, the Act was amended to provide for the current procedure (Representation Act, 1985, S.C. 1986, c. 8, ss. 9 and 10).

[68] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 23(1).

[69] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 23(2). See, for example, Journals, March 4, 1996, p. 36; June 13, 2003, p. 933; September 15, 2003, pp. 952, 959.

[70] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 24.

[71] R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 25(1).

[72] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 25(1). In 2003, the representation order set August 25, 2004 as the date when the new electoral boundaries were to come into effect. The Act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003 (S.C. 2004, c. 1) changed the date to April 1, 2004 to ensure that the order was effective on the first dissolution of Parliament that occurred on or after that date. See the remarks of Don Boudria (Government House Leader) at second reading of the Bill (Debates, September 17, 2003, pp. 7464‑5).

[73] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 26.

[74] R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 28.

[75] R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 40. See also Schedules 1 through 4. For an historical perspective on the naming of constituencies, see Courtney, J.C., “Naming Canada’s Constituencies”, Canadian Parliamentary Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, Summer 2000, pp. 31‑3.

[76] See, for example, Debates, June 27, 1989, pp. 3730‑3.

[77] See, for example, Journals, June 27, 1989, pp. 468‑70; September 16, 1992, pp. 2000‑1; December 2, 2004, p. 285. See also Journals, November 8, 1996, p. 856; December 12, 1996, pp. 1007, 1010 where one private Member’s bill altered the names of 22 electoral districts (An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, S.C. 1996, c. 36). In 1998, a private Member introduced a similar bill to alter the names of a number of electoral districts. By unanimous consent, the bill passed through all stages without debate or amendment the same day (Journals, May 28, 1998, p. 902). See also S.C. 1998, c. 27.

[78] Journals, February 23, 2004, pp. 111-2. It received Royal Assent on May 14, 2004 (Journals, p. 423). See S.C. 2004, c. 19. During Senate consideration of the bill in committee, concerns were expressed about the process of changing riding names by means of a government or private Member’s bill. The Senate committee recommended that amendments be made to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to address objections to a proposed electoral district name. See the Eighth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented to the Senate on May 6, 2004 (Journals of the Senate, pp. 519-21). See also the Seventh Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented to the Senate on June 22, 2000 (Journals of the Senate, pp. 770-1, 781-3) and Recommendation 9 in the Thirty‑First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on February 7, 2007 (Journals, p. 978).

[79] Representation Act, 1974, S.C. 1974‑75‑76, c. 13; Representation Act, 1985, S.C. 1986, c. 8.

[80] Debates, May 1, 1992, pp. 9995‑8. Bill C‑67, the Electoral Boundaries Suspension Act was subsequently granted Royal Assent on June 18, 1992 (Journals, p. 1800). See also S.C. 1992, c. 25.

[81] Debates, March 21, 1994, pp. 2518‑20.

[82] Initially, when the House passed the Bill at the third reading stage, the legislation stipulated that the electoral boundaries commissions would cease to exist and the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act would be suspended for 24 months on the day the Act was assented to. However, the Senate amended the legislation to allow the commissions to hold public hearings on their proposals and fixed February 6, 1995, as the date on which the suspension would end (Journals, May 25, 1994, p. 478). The House concurred in the amendments proposed by the Senate with the exception of the February 6, 1995 date. The date was pushed back to June 22, 1995 and the legislation was eventually adopted by both Houses and assented to on June 15, 1994. See Journals, June 3, 1994, p. 528, Debates, pp. 4811‑2; Journals, June 9, 1994, p. 557; June 14, 1994, p. 585.

[83] Journals, April 19, 1994, pp. 368‑70.

[84] Journals, November 25, 1994, p. 939; Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 25, 1994, Issue No. 33, pp. 5‑40.

[85] Journals, February 16, 1995, p. 1141.

[86] Journals, June 8, 1995, pp. 1600‑1; June 14, 1995, pp. 1748‑9; June 19, 1995, pp. 1786‑8; June 20, 1995, pp. 1817‑21. See also Debates, June 14, 1995, pp. 13854‑5. The Senate objected to the provision whereby a commission would not be established in a province where there had not been a significant change in population, the reduction of the maximum deviation from the electoral quotient to 15 percent from 25 percent, parliamentary oversight of appointments to electoral boundaries commissions and the proposed definition of “community of interests”. The Senate also opposed the next election being held on the basis of electoral boundaries drawn after the 1981 census and not on the basis of electoral boundaries required to be redrawn after the 1991 census. See also Journals of the Senate, June 8, 1995, pp. 998‑1001, Debates of the Senate, pp. 1725‑7, 1730‑5.

[87] Journals, June 22, 1995, p. 1867.