|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Principles Adopted The mandate of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec, like that of the other federal commissions, is to study the revisions to be made relative to the representation of the province’s population in the House of Commons as a result of the 2001 census, and to report on these revisions. This mandate stems from demographic movements that have led to significant variations in the populations of various electoral districts. It is worth recalling that the electoral quotient has been set at 96,500 people and that rules are set out in the Act, section 15 of which is cited in full in the Foreword. The right to vote is a fundamental right of Canadian democracy and of each citizen. This right was expressly embedded in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Its scope and range have been the subject of a number of court decisions and in particular one by the Supreme Court of Canada, Reference Re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158. The Commission considers that it understands the reasons of the majority, written by Madam Justice McLachlin and paraphrased here, certain extracts of which it often heard cited, that the courts hold that the right to vote protected by section 3 of the Charter does not require an absolute parity in the number of electors in each electoral district. Rather, this right is defined as a right to “effective representation” for each citizen, for which the relative parity of each citizen’s voting power is a condition. That is, a system that does not unduly dilute the vote of one citizen in comparison to that of another, while always taking into consideration factors such as geography, history and community of interest. Beyond this, dilution of one citizen’s vote as compared with another’s should not be countenanced; deviations are not permissible unless they permit better governance by giving regional issues and geographic factors their proper weight. Although the jurisprudence very briefly summarized above does not have its source in the Act, section 15 contains much the same elements: first, a population figure for each electoral district corresponding “as close as reasonably possible” to the electoral quotient, qualified by the factors of community of interest or community of identity in an electoral district, or its historical pattern, or the manageable geographic size of electoral districts in some regions, together with the power – but not the obligation – to deviate at the Commission’s discretion, by no more than 25%, from the electoral quotient, except in circumstances that the Commission deems extraordinary. Such power to depart from relative parity should not be used, however, unless it appears that a relative deviation from the rule of “one person – one vote” will allow better governance and gives certain other issues the representative weight they deserve. Thus, in common with other past and present federal commissions and some of the presenters, the Commission considers it is desirable, with certain justified exceptions, in a spirit of equity and justice for all citizens of a province, that the greatest possible number of electoral districts be within 10% of the electoral quotient:
As indicated previously, the Commission’s mandate derives, among other things, from the fact that there were movements in population. The Commission thus took into account the factor of effective representation, vis-à-vis the workload of the member of the House of Commons, without always, however, acceding to the numerous requests to maintain the historic boundaries and existing names, often referred to as the status quo. It did, however, seek to preserve the historic boundaries and communities of interest as much as possible, by trying as best it could to avoid carving up such boundaries or separating communities within boroughs or municipalities. It did the same for boroughs within municipalities, for municipalities within RCMs and, finally, for RCMs within an administrative region. It sometimes had to make compromises between the new and historic realities of electoral districts. However, it is useful to point out that changes to the Proposals were usually the result, directly or indirectly, of wishes expressed at the public hearings. Thus, in light of the opinions expressed at the hearings and the comments received, the Commission attempted to respond, subject to the applicable legislation and jurisprudence, to the desires expressed by the presenters. Many of them were upset by the proposed changes, which is natural since change is disruptive. The Commission gave serious consideration to representations regarding, among other things, 1) the public’s attachment to their traditional region, for example, the administrative region, RCM, old and new municipalities and boroughs, or, to put it another way, the community of interest or identity of an electoral district; 2) the historical continuity of the boundaries and name, that is, the status quo or, in other words, an electoral district’s historical pattern; 3) the size of the electoral districts, given modern methods of communication; and 4) the workload of the member of the House of Commons as it relates to effective representation. The Commission does not feel that it can deviate too far from the reality that, for effective representation, the political weight must be granted to individuals: “one person – one vote.” Moreover, it recognizes the desirability of participation within natural communities insofar as possible. Concern for equity must apply to individuals, and not be displaced in favour of abstract or geographic configurations. As for the name given to each electoral district, the Commission recognizes
that in many cases its proposed names of August 31, 2002, appeared less
representative than it would have liked. It also recognizes that many
people are very attached to the names currently used, names that in some
cases consist of four (4) parts. Although the Commission
did not consider names as elaborate as that to be appropriate, it will
therefore adhere to, in light of the many representations, the use of
names consisting of two (2) parts, for a large number
of electoral districts.
|
 |
 |
