Electoral Boundaries Revisions:
Proposals Stage

In implementing the guidelines of the Act and adhering to the guidelines of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter decision and subsequent Canadian superior court decisions, the Commission proceeded in the following manner in preparing its initial Proposals. We have included this discussion of the Commission’s initial work so that it is part of the historical record and so that the public can compare our revised Proposals to these initial recommendations.

The Commission first considered whether or not there were any "extraordinary circumstances" which might justify moving beyond the given ± (plus or minus) factor of 25 percent (subsection 15(2) of the Act). Upon consideration, the Commission decided that there were clearly no such extraordinary circumstances.

The Commission’s second task was to determine the need, if any, for a redrawing of federal electoral boundaries in the Province, based on the official population figures for 2001. The Commission used two criteria: population variances for each electoral district and seat entitlements for each electoral district. These measures show any deviation of the population of each electoral district from the Nova Scotia electoral quota of 82,546.

The first measure of variance simply states the percentage by which an electoral district’s population is either above or below the electoral quota. The second measure, that of seat entitlement, is based on an "entitlement index." An electoral district’s seat entitlement is calculated by dividing the electoral district’s population by the electoral quota. Both measures are presented in Schedule "A" for the current electoral districts in Nova Scotia.

Two of the current federal electoral districts, as established in 1996 on the basis of the 1991 census, substantially exceed the electoral quota of 82,546. The electoral district of Halifax West is nearly 29 percent above the electoral quota and has a seat entitlement of 1.29, and Kings–Hants is slightly more than 20 percent above the electoral quota and has a seat entitlement of 1.20. Moreover, a number of the other electoral districts show a considerable range of variance in seat entitlement scores. As a result, the Commission has concluded that some boundary changes must be made in order to meet the principal criterion of "relative parity of voting power" and the other criteria in the Act as interpreted by the courts.

In addition to considering the variance and entitlements for each current electoral district, the Commission reviewed present county seat entitlements as well. The previous Commission had grouped together contiguous counties as the basis for the drawing of the present electoral districts that were approved in 1996. In Schedule "B", the Commission presents the current seat entitlements for each county, and in Schedule "C", the current seat entitlements for county groupings. County seat entitlements were calculated by dividing the population of each county by the electoral quota. A similar process was used to determine the seat entitlements for groupings of contiguous counties.

A review of the data in Schedules "A", "B" and "C" revealed two areas of special concern: Cape Breton Island and Halifax County. In 1996, Cape Breton Island was allocated two seats, but based on the 2001 population figures, it is now entitled to 1.79 seats. In Halifax County, which was allocated four seats in 1996, population growth by 2001 had increased that county’s seat entitlement to 4.35. It was determined that these results indicated a need for boundary adjustments in both areas. These adjustments necessitated changes in adjacent areas. In addition, it was determined that a change in the boundary line between West Nova¹ and Kings–Hants was warranted.

Having identified potential areas for change and having rejected the need to invoke the "extraordinary circumstances" clause, the Commission’s third task was to decide what variances, if any, were necessary to meet the primary objective of relative parity of voting power, while also applying the other criteria of historical patterns, community of interest, and geographical size in a consistent way. In considering justifications for variations of population in electoral districts, the Commission determined that the large rural electoral districts should be treated roughly the same because of the geographic size factor, and that the urban electoral districts in and around Halifax should have populations somewhat higher than the electoral quota because of the greater ease of representation due to population concentration.

In its initial Proposals, all eleven of the Commission’s recommended electoral districts fell within a variance of ±10 percent or a seat entitlement of .91 to 1.1. The most populous electoral district of Halifax East was 9.68 percent above the electoral quota and the least populous electoral district, Central Nova,² was 8.95 percent below the electoral quota. In Schedule "D", the Commission presented its recommended electoral districts, which it believed would achieve fair and effective representation for the people of Nova Scotia.

¹See Notes page

²See Notes page

[Previous]  [Next]

 Privacy Statement, Important Notices and Disclaimers