|
|
|
FEDERAL ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION
FOR ALBERTA
2003
DISPOSITION BY THE COMMISSION
PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 23(1) OF
THE ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
OF
OBJECTIONS FILED BY MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE OF COMMONS WITH RESPECT
TO THE COMMISSION'S
REPORT DATED JANUARY 15, 2003
Disposition of Objections – Alberta Commission
Introduction
The Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta ("Commission")
has considered and disposed of the objections filed by Mr. Peter
Goldring, the Honourable Anne McLellan, Mr. Bob Mills, Mr. Kevin
Sorenson and Mr. John Williams, with respect to the Commission's
Report dated January 15, 2003 ("Report"). In so
doing, the Commission has reconsidered its Report having regard to a copy
of the objections, the minutes of proceedings of the Subcommittee on Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs ("Standing Committee"), and the Thirty-third Report
of the Standing Committee.
We note that three of the five members of Parliament who have filed objections
appeared and made extensive representations at our public hearings. The
Commission recognizes the expertise that elected representatives bring
to this process and appreciates the effort taken in this regard. However,
we are an independent Commission and are not bound by the views of elected
representatives.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Edmonton Centre-East
Mr. Goldring's objection is that he wishes to exchange a portion
of the new EDMONTON EAST electoral district with the new electoral district
of EDMONTON–SHERWOOD PARK. Mr. Goldring claims that this will:
|
1)
|
reduce the population of EDMONTON EAST from 119,160 to
106,667
|
|
2)
|
return the new EDMONTON EAST to its existing boundaries, i.e. restore
the status quo, and
|
|
3)
|
promote economic diversity in EDMONTON EAST |
The Standing Committee endorses
… 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.
Therefore, the Committee recommends that the portion of Edmonton-Sherwood
Park comprising Harisine (sic), Farase (sic), Bannerman, South Clariview
(sic) and Homesteader be with Edmonton East. Also, given these are both
urban constituencies, we suggest that an appropriate boundary line the
(sic) runs parallel to 167th Avenue between 97th Stand
(sic) 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.
At the outset, the Commission notes that Mr. Goldring appeared during
the public hearings making extensive recommendations to the Commission's
proposal for EDMONTON EAST. And, as acknowledged by Mr. Goldring
in his testimony before the Subcommittee on May 5, 2003, "approximately
75% of those recommendations were accepted." The portion that was
not accepted forms the basis of his objection.
The Commission has considered the objection and observes that:
|
1)
|
Although the population of EDMONTON EAST is above the electoral
quota (12.16 percent), it is well within statutory
guidelines and consistent with the variance of other inner city electoral
districts in Calgary and Edmonton. As noted in our Report, the City
of Edmonton did "not indicate any dramatic increases in population
in the near to medium future in the inner city." In contrast,
the suburban areas are expected to grow more rapidly. Nothing in Mr.
Goldring's objection or testimony before the Subcommittee changes
this view.
|
|
2)
|
The Commission recognized a historical community of interest in
maintaining the status quo and attempted to preserve major electoral
districts intact. However, the Commission also recognized a community
of interest represented by the urban voter such as between urban Edmonton
and urban Sherwood Park.
|
|
3)
|
The Commission did not create electoral districts with a view to
incorporating economic diversity. Our view was that economic diversity
within an electoral district is not necessarily a thing to be avoided.
In any event, we do not understand how economic diversity has been
decreased. |
There are, obviously, many configurations that could be chosen to satisfy
relative numerical equality. We are satisfied that the boundaries as we
have established them achieve this goal and combine compatible urban populations,
and are fully justified for the reasons given in our Report.
Disposition:
The objection is dismissed.
The Honourable Anne McLellan: Edmonton West
Ms. McLellan wants the Commission to revise the boundaries of the EDMONTON
CENTRE electoral district to include the communities of Riverdale, Boyle
Street and McCauley, and to move the communities of Spruce Avenue and
Westwood to EDMONTON EAST. In her view, the Commission has failed to take
account of the importance of self-identified communities of interest represented
by Edmonton's community league structures (leagues and districts)
and business revitalization zones in creating EDMONTON CENTRE's
boundaries.
The Standing Committee agrees with Ms. McLellan that "The proposed
boundary fragments an existing community neighbourhood and does not reflect
the shifting community of interest." It supports her proposal "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." This "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."
Ms. McLellan did not make oral submissions at our public hearings, but
after the hearings concluded the Edmonton West Liberal Association filed
a written submission approving the proposed electoral districts in the
Edmonton Region. The Association also supported the proposed electoral
district of EDMONTON CENTRE, subject to including the communities of Lynwood
and Elmwood.
The Commission obliged by including Lynwood and Elmwood in EDMONTON CENTRE,
but in making the change, moved the northeastern boundary of EDMONTON
CENTRE eastward to 97 Street, thus achieving a population balance
and meeting strong requests for EDMONTON EAST to have its western boundary
along 97 Street. The communities of Spruce Avenue and Westwood were
moved into EDMONTON CENTRE in our final Report to balance the loss of
Riverdale, Boyle Street and McCauley, and in view of the use of 97 Street
as a boundary between EDMONTON CENTRE and EDMONTON EAST.
The Commission recognized that community leagues themselves represented
an easily identifiable community of interest and in drafting our proposed
federal electoral districts we tried to keep entire community leagues
within a given federal electoral district although it was not always possible,
for reasons of geography, population density, and other factors. It is
to be noted that the changes we made did not "split" community
leagues as such but rather community league districts that form the representational
bases within the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues.
What Ms. McLellan now asks of us is a still more sophisticated structure
for a federal electoral district, which would respect the boundaries,
not only of community leagues, but also of community league districts,
and business revitalization zones. As she said to the Subcommittee, the
Proposals for the Province of Alberta ("The Proposals") had,
for the most part, "respected" the boundaries of community
league districts and business revitalization zones. We did take account
of community league districts, but in our view, they involve blocks of
city populations that tend to be too large to work with, and, as well,
identify administrative convenience, as opposed to community of interest.
At the public hearings in Edmonton, the Commission heard much criticism
about the boundary between EDMONTON CENTRE and EDMONTON EAST contained
in the Proposals. Aside from Mr. Goldring's criticism based
on historical community of interest, the Commission heard from several
presenters that this particular boundary was confusing. It was argued
that clear physical boundaries are preferable as it is easier for electors
to determine which electoral district they live in. Community leagues
are a way for some members of the community to identify themselves, but
the boundaries are not always self-evident to all members of the community.
Although we were pleased with the support received for the Commission's
Proposals for EDMONTON CENTRE from the Edmonton West Liberal Association,
we were persuaded by the criticism made about the need for clear geographic
determinants in drawing the electoral districts. Accordingly, we made
the change to 97 Street as the eastern boundary of EDMONTON CENTRE
and will not change that determination.
Disposition:
The objection is dismissed.
Mr. Bob Mills: Red Deer
Mr. Mills objects that the Commission's decision to exclude Rocky
Mountain House, Eckville, Blackfalds and Caroline from the electoral district
of RED DEER ignored both the expressed wishes of the electorate in
these communities and the natural community of interest that exists among
them.
The Standing Committee says that it:
… finds Mr. Mill's (sic) 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.
Mr. Mills's objection echoes what he and his supporters said during
the public hearing. The Commission responded with significant changes
to the Proposals, but found itself unable to agree that the Rocky Mountain
House area should remain in the electoral district. Our views were fully
set out in our Report and have not changed.
Disposition:
The objection is dismissed.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Crowfoot
Mr. Sorenson wants the City of Camrose and the County of Flagstaff to
be in the same federal electoral district, CROWFOOT.
The Standing Committee supports Mr. Sorenson's proposal that
the County of Flagstaff be transferred to the CROWFOOT electoral district
"on the basis of a community of interest." It observes that:
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.
The Proposals placed the County of Flagstaff partly in VEGREVILLE–WAINWRIGHT
and partly in CROWFOOT. The Village of Forestburg, located within the
County of Flagstaff, strongly objected to being included in the electoral
district of CROWFOOT. In order to place the entire county within the same
electoral district and to observe the natural boundary of the Battle River,
the Commission decided to make the change indicated in its Report.
The Commission believes that although Mr. Sorenson's suggestion
is not unreasonable in a numerical sense, to change the boundaries again
would serve only to please some people and displease others. We are not
persuaded that the County of Flagstaff's relations with the City
of Camrose will be in any way impacted by the two municipal entities being
located in different federal electoral districts.
Disposition:
The objection is dismissed.
Mr. John Williams: St. Albert
Mr. Williams objects to the proposed EDMONTON–ST. ALBERT electoral
district and wants a return to the existing electoral district on the
following bases:
|
1)
|
In making its decisions about the Edmonton Region electoral districts,
the Commission "relied" on the advice of Dr. Roger
Gibbins, "a Calgarian", and "dismissed" the
views of local authorities, members of Parliament and citizens. The
interests of urban and suburban communities, he asserts, are not necessarily
compatible.
|
|
2)
|
The Commission failed to take into account the existing connections,
including the market or trading area, between St. Albert and
the rural area beyond.
|
|
3)
|
The Commission divided the francophone community north of Edmonton,
thereby making it difficult for the community's linguistic and
cultural voice to be heard.
|
|
4)
|
The Commission gave preference to the historical equality of the
number of electoral districts between Calgary and the Edmonton metropolitan
area over the interests of their populations.
|
|
5)
|
The boundaries of the EDMONTON–ST. ALBERT electoral district
will make the location of a constituency office a contentious issue.
|
|
6)
|
Responses to a questionnaire distributed by Mr. Williams's
office show that members of the existing St. Albert electoral
district are overwhelmingly opposed to the new EDMONTON–ST. ALBERT
electoral district. |
The Standing Committee agrees with Mr. Williams that the existing
electoral district of St. Albert "comprises a historical, distinct
community of interest and contains in whole a significant community of
identity," and that there should be significant changes to EDMONTON–ST. ALBERT.
The Standing Committee contends:
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.
The Commission's Response
|
1)
|
Although the Commission found much of value in the
views of Dr. Gibbins, it is inaccurate to say that we "relied"
upon those views any more than we "dismissed" representations made
by others. Moreover, the views of other presenters were not unanimous.
For example, three councillors from the City of St. Albert strongly
favoured our proposal. Their arguments, in our judgment, were more
persuasive than those put forward in opposition.
It is true that the official position of the cities of Edmonton and
St. Albert and some members of Parliament who spoke at our Edmonton
hearings did not support the creation of electoral districts composed
of part of the City of Edmonton and part of an outlying city or municipality.
But the reason given for their opposition was that a member could
not represent the interests of both. The Commission is of the view
that patterns of "work, living, shopping, and socializing,"
to use Mr. Williams's words, cut across municipal boundaries
within the Edmonton Region to such an extent that the interests of
the wider community represented by that region deserve the attention
of members of Parliament whose loyalties are not so narrowly focused
as they are at present.
Moreover, federal policies are not limited by municipal boundaries,
and although urban and suburban communities may differ on local issues,
they share an overwhelming interest in how federal policies affect
them. The Commission believes that the electors in the Edmonton Region
will be more effectively represented by members of Parliament who
will promote and protect the wider interests of the urban-suburban
community than by members who must compete for the same scarce resources
available from the federal government.
|
|
2)
|
Mr. Williams objects to the loss to the existing St. Albert
electoral district of the towns of Morinville and Legal, which are
north of the City of St. Albert and which the Commission placed
within the new federal electoral district of WESTLOCK–ST. PAUL.
In doing so we recognized a common agricultural community of interest
as well as a linguistic one based upon the strong francophone presence
in both the western and the eastern parts of the WESTLOCK–ST. PAUL
electoral district.
We received support for this view from presenters at the St. Paul
public hearing. Ms. Maryanne Finley, President of the St. Paul
Chamber of Commerce, had this to say:
We recognize that the new riding captures many communities
that are primarily agriculture related and supported. This factor
will play an important role at establishing good working relationships
within the riding because of the similarities …. An MP representing
Westlock - St. Paul will truly speak for the majority
of the electorate.
And contrary to Mr. Williams's contention that the creation
of the EDMONTON–ST. ALBERT electoral district will separate
St. Albert from its natural trading area to the north, Ms. Finley
observed, "We believe the natural commercial trading patterns
are maintained and enhanced with this proposal."
We remain convinced that the boundaries established in our Report
separate a major agricultural community of interest in the WESTLOCK–ST. PAUL
electoral district from the urban dwellers of EDMONTON–ST. ALBERT
and that is the overriding consideration.
|
|
3)
|
Mr. Williams repeats his earlier argument that the creation of the
EDMONTON–ST. ALBERT electoral district will divide the linguistic
and cultural unity of the francophone communities in St. Albert,
Morinville and Legal. Mr. Williams does not explain how the boundaries
of a federal electoral district can fracture a linguistic and cultural
community. Nor does he offer any evidence that francophones in the
three communities are "fractured and marginalized" at
this time. The only example of francophone co-operation he offers
is that of the Roman Catholic School Board, which manages schools
in St. Albert, Morinville and Legal. However, it should be noted
that education is a provincial and not a federal responsibility. The
Commission did not hear from a single member of the francophone community,
before or at our public hearings, who opposed the creation of the
EDMONTON–ST. ALBERT electoral district. In fact, at the
Commission's public hearing in St. Paul – one of
the major centres in the new WESTLOCK–ST. PAUL electoral
district – Mr. Paul Pelletier, a francophone and president
of the Lakeland Progressive Conservative Party, observed:
La commission a démontré une opportunité
d'avoir une circonscription qui représente une culture
francophone reconnue d'un coin à l'autre. Des
communautés comme Bonnyville, St. Paul, Legal, Morinville
et beaucoup d'autres. Félicitations à tous et
toutes les membres de la commission. [sic]
To place the matter in a numerical context, according to Statistics
Canada, 2.53 percent of the population of the new
EDMONTON–ST. ALBERT electoral district identify themselves
as having French as their mother tongue, versus 2.91 percent
in the existing electoral district of St. Albert. Some 6.70 percent
of the population of WESTLOCK–ST. PAUL will have French
as their mother tongue. These figures certainly reveal an important
community of interest, but in our view, it is one that crosses electoral
boundaries and will continue to thrive notwithstanding the creation
of these boundaries.
|
|
4)
|
The Commission rejects Mr. Williams's assertion that
it ignored its statutory and constitutional mandate. As we explained
in the Proposals and in our Report, the rationale for our approach
to the Edmonton Region is to "adequately reflect the urban population
in Edmonton and its environs." The fact that this restores the
historical equality of the number of electoral districts between the
Edmonton Region and Calgary is a result of our approach and not the
motivation for it.
|
|
5)
|
The potential location of a constituency office is not a relevant
factor in determining where federal electoral boundaries are drawn.
Parenthetically, the Commission notes that federal electoral districts
are so large that choices such as the location of a constituency office
might be controversial regardless of the electoral district. Further,
we fail to see how this would impact on the ability of a member of
Parliament to represent his or her constituents.
|
|
6)
|
At a Subcommittee hearing, Mr. Williams asserted that about
175 respondents to a write-in survey opposed the Proposals. Later
in the hearing he said that "the better part of 200 objections"
from his riding were received, and finally that there were 151 respondents.
At one of the Commission's public hearings in Edmonton, he said
that he had "151 responses from households in these areas,
149 of which opposed the Proposals."
In fact, the responses filed with the Commission at the public hearing
totalled 116. Of that number, the Commission is of the view
that 13 were spoiled (as either incomplete or illegible), 101 purported
to reject the proposals and 2 agreed. More fundamentally, however,
the Commission was unsure what to make of the questionnaire, as it
asked readers to choose between the proposed "Westlock–St. Paul
constituency" and "remain(ing) part of the
Capital Region." The questionnaire did not contrast the proposed
electoral district with the existing one. Instead it referred to the
"Capital Region." Yet, if we understand Mr. Williams's
point, he does not see the existing St. Albert electoral district
to be part of the Capital Region, rather, his argument is that St. Albert
is very distinct from Edmonton. Furthermore, the questionnaire does
not address what community of interest or interests the respondents
are concerned about.
The Commission, therefore, is unsure of the message to be drawn from
Mr. Williams's questionnaire, although it is clear that
about 100 respondents in the Morinville area expressed the wish not
to be included in the WESTLOCK–ST. PAUL electoral district.
Because of the population involved, however, the Commission was unable
to accommodate their wishes. |
Disposition:
The objection is dismissed.
The Standing Committee's General Comments
According to the Standing Committee, "the Commission has adhered
to a narrow and somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of equality and
representation." In so doing, it "has strayed from the letter
and the intent of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act."
The Committee adds:
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
(sic) 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.
The Commission's statutory obligations are established in section
15 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act which states:
|
(1)
|
In preparing its report, each commission for a province
shall, subject to subsection (2), be governed by the following
rules: |
| |
(a) |
the division of the province into electoral districts
and the description of the boundaries thereof shall proceed on the
basis that the population of each electoral district in the province
as a result thereof shall, as close as reasonably possible, correspond
to the electoral quota for the province, that is to say, the quotient
obtained by dividing the population of the province as ascertained
by the census by the number of members of the House of Commons to
be assigned to the province as calculated by the Chief Electoral Officer
under subsection 14(1); and |
| |
(b) |
the commission shall consider the following in determining
reasonable electoral district boundaries: |
| |
|
(i) |
the community of interest or community of identity in
or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province,
and |
| |
|
(ii) |
a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated,
rural or northern regions of the province.
|
|
(2)
|
The commission may depart from the application of the
rule set out in paragraph (1)(a) in any case
where the commission considers it necessary or desirable to depart
therefrom |
| |
(a) |
in order to respect the community of interest
or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral
district in the province, or |
| |
(b) |
in order to maintain a manageable geographic
size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions
of the province,
|
| |
but, in departing from the application of the rule set
out in paragraph (1)(a), the commission shall
make every effort to ensure that, except in circumstances viewed by
the commission as being extraordinary, the population of each electoral
district in the province remains within twenty-five per cent more
or twenty-five per cent less of the electoral quota for the province. |
From the outset, the Commission has interpreted its obligation as one
of giving effect to the principle of equality of representation, and in
so doing, considering the communities of interest at play. Historical
community of interest (historical boundaries) is but one consideration.
The Commission's view is that population growth patterns may warrant
not only an adjustment of boundaries to conform to electoral quotas, but
also a revisiting of the rationale underlying electoral districts. In
the Commission's judgment, such a situation exists in the Edmonton
Region, which has experienced much urban population growth outside Edmonton's
municipal boundaries. The existing electoral districts bordering the City
of Edmonton have been primarily rural, but now contain significant urban
populations. The Commission's approach to the Edmonton Region has
been to re-examine the structure of electoral districts and to change
them to reflect as closely as possible the principle of equality of representation
and the urban community of interest in Edmonton and area. Moreover, as
we point out above, the fact that this will result in the same number
of seats as Calgary is a consequence of this approach rather than the
reason for adopting it.
Dated at Edmonton, Alberta, this 4th day of July, 2003.
Honourable Mr. Justice Edward P. MacCallum
Chairman
Ms. Ritu Khullar
Member
Mr. Donald Barry
Member
CERTIFIED copy of the disposition of objections to the Report of the
Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta.
Ms. Miranda Petryshyn
Commission Secretary
|
