Elections Canada | Federal Representation 2004

The Commission held hearings in 15 communities in Alberta, gaining valuable insight into the geography of the province and the distribution of its population. At no hearing did the Commission fail to gain at least some knowledge of a local or general nature that assisted it in its deliberations. The Commission's Proposals of August 2002 met with approval from some and vigorous criticism from others. Much of this criticism was constructive and the Commission has responded with changes to 22 of its proposed 28 electoral districts. As explained at our public hearings, the Commission is limited in what it can do by the provisions of section 15 of the Act, which requires it to interpret the public interest in a wide sense. This involves a balancing of competing interests; therefore, individual preferences cannot always be met.

It is sometimes possible to make electoral districts coterminous with county or municipal boundaries and we were often urged to do so. We were able to oblige in some cases, but given that there are more than twice as many municipalities as federal electoral districts, some overlapping of boundaries is unavoidable. In fact, it does no harm, for as political scientist Dr. Roger Gibbins said, "federal policies seldom apply in a way that draw sharp distinctions at municipal boundaries."

As before, the Commission has not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would lead it to depart from the normal 25 percent deviation limit. The largest electoral district has a 2001 census population of 123,877 or 16.6 percent above the electoral quota; the smallest has a population of 88,882 or 16.3 percent below the electoral quota. The population of most electoral districts remains close to the province's electoral quota: 82.1 percent are within 10 percent, 42.8 percent are within 5 percent, and 21.4 percent are within 2 percent.

The Commission noted in its Proposals of August 3, 2002 that, according to the Geographical Names Board of Canada, the best names for federal electoral districts are those that immediately give a sense of the province and, if possible, a region or part of the province in which they are located. For that reason, the Commission favoured place names and although we maintain that position generally, we heard strong recommendations for the retention of a few names of historical and descriptive importance. Accordingly, we retain the names Crowfoot, Wild Rose, Peace River and Athabasca instead of our proposed Drumheller, Banff–Cochrane, Grande Prairie–Peace River and Athabasca–Fort McMurray.

The allocation of an eighth electoral district to Calgary was well received. The proposed Calgary West, Calgary–Nose Hill, Calgary Northeast and Calgary North Centre electoral districts drew no unfavourable comments. However, questions were raised about the recommended Calgary South Centre, Calgary East, Calgary Southeast and Calgary Southwest electoral districts. The bulk of these focused on the boundaries of the proposed Calgary South Centre, Calgary East and Calgary Southeast electoral districts, especially use of the Elbow River as the dividing line between Calgary South Centre and Calgary East. The new border, which follows the current boundary along the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks, addresses most of the expressed concerns. It also makes it possible to streamline the respective southern and northern boundaries of Calgary South Centre and Calgary Southwest by using Glenmore Trail as the common border. In order to augment the population of Calgary East, the southern boundary of that electoral district will extend along Glenmore Trail to Deerfoot Trail, thence to 114 Avenue SW to the eastern limits of the city. The variances for Calgary's electoral districts are: Calgary East 8.8 percent, Calgary North Centre 10.4 percent, Calgary Northeast 2.9 percent, Calgary–Nose Hill –5.9 percent, Calgary South Centre 10.5 percent, Calgary Southeast 1.1 percent, Calgary Southwest 1.6 percent and Calgary West –2.2 percent.

The Commission's proposed electoral districts in the Edmonton Region generated much interest both in the written submissions and in the public hearings held in Edmonton and elsewhere in the province. Support was offered by the municipalities of Beaumont, Spruce Grove and Leduc, and by several individuals. The City of Edmonton, the County of Strathcona and the City of St. Albert opposed the proposal, although three city councillors from St. Albert, speaking on their own through a representative, supported it.

The opposition to the proposal for the Edmonton Region contained the following common themes, each of which will be addressed in turn.

(i)		"If it ain't broke don't fix it."
(ii)		Urban and suburban areas have different priorities.
(iii)		There are different identities and values between Edmonton and the surrounding communities which require representation.
(iv)		The surrounding communities are connected not only with Edmonton, but also with neighbouring rural areas.
(v)		The proposals are a form of "creeping annexation."

(i)	"If it ain't broke don't fix it." In the Commission's view, this approach ignores the Commission's constitutional and statutory mandate to reconsider electoral districts based on current census data. This data shows that there is a large urban population in the Edmonton Region that should be represented.

(ii)	Urban and suburban priorities are different. There is no doubt that within any large urban-suburban area some priorities differ. However, the communities involved share an overriding interest in how federal policies affect the region. As Dr. Gibbins noted in his presentation to the Commission, the term "urban region" is being increasingly used in public policy discussion and in political discourse because: … there is a growing awareness that municipal boundaries as such don't count for a great deal in terms of how people organize their own social, cultural or political worlds, that "urban regions" are not coterminous in any sense with municipal boundaries. To classify Edmonton as "solely" urban and the surrounding municipalities as "solely" suburban is, in the Commission's view, inappropriate. The City of Edmonton itself has both inner city and suburban areas with distinctive growth patterns and issues (Edmonton Population and Employment Forecast Allocation Study, 2000–2025, Summary Report, November 2001). In other words, there are both "urban" and "suburban" interests within any urban region. To the extent that any distinction between urban and suburban is relevant, the Edmonton Region boundaries place the "suburban" parts of Edmonton with the "suburban" municipalities in the Edmonton Region.

(iii)	Different identities and values. Many presenters argued that community of identity or community of interest considerations such as socio-economic status, ethnicity or geographic factors (i.e. I chose to live in X and not in Y) should dominate in drawing the boundaries. For example, we heard that people living in a working class area do not want to be in the same federal electoral district as those living in more affluent neighbourhoods. Others suggested that high concentrations of immigrant or First Nations people should not be in the same federal electoral district as wealthier and better established citizens. The Commission rejects the narrow conception of identity politics as a basis for drawing boundaries for two reasons: Philosophically, it disagrees that boundaries should be drawn to reflect ethnicity or class. Rather, elected representatives must represent and accommodate all Canadians who live within their electoral district. Practically, in a diverse country and province it is impossible to create boundaries that capture a single identity, especially when it is recalled that the average electoral quota for a federal electoral district in Alberta is more than 106,000.

(iv)	Surrounding communities' connections with rural Alberta. While no one disputed the structural, economic, cultural, recreational and service connections between Edmonton and surrounding municipalities, it was asserted that for St. Albert and Leduc, the historic trading patterns and cultural connections were to the surrounding rural areas. At the hearings, however, the Commission heard persuasive opinion in support of the view stated in its Proposals that the suburban communities are more closely linked to the metropolitan area than to the agricultural areas beyond.

(v)	Creeping annexation. A common critique of the proposal was that it represented creeping annexation. The federal government has no jurisdiction over municipalities. Therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction over, interest in, or position on the annexation issue.

During the public consultation process, the Commission obtained further information about the growth pattern of the City of Edmonton in relation to the surrounding municipalities. The City of Edmonton's own documents confirm that much of the growth in the metropolitan area has occurred outside Edmonton. As a proportion of the census metropolitan area, Edmonton's population has been declining. In 1986, Edmonton accounted for 74 percent of the population. By 2001 this proportion declined to 71.3 percent. It is projected to further decline to 67.9 percent by 2025 (Edmonton Population and Employment Forecast Allocation Study, 2000–2025, pp. 9, 24). Even though this calculation takes into account a larger metropolitan area (encompassing Legal, Redwater, Bruderheim, Calmar, Warburg, Wabamun and Entwistle) than the Commission has in the Edmonton Region, the trend is clear.

Some submissions proposed that the Commission account for the urban growth around the City of Edmonton by creating electoral districts as a "doughnut" around the City of Edmonton, as opposed to the "hub and spoke" or "pie-shaped" approach adopted by the Commission. The Commission rejects the "doughnut" suggestion. While the surrounding communities within such a "doughnut" may have common issues, the relationship between the communities pales beside the bilateral relationship they have with Edmonton in terms of population, mobility, service delivery and transportation. This view is offered by Dr. Gibbins, and we respectfully adopt it.

The Commission has decided to proceed with its proposed approach for the Edmonton Region. We did receive a number of submissions and presentations regarding refinement of the electoral districts, most of which focused on the proposed Edmonton Centre and Edmonton North. The Commission has taken these into account and has modified the Edmonton Region electoral districts in the following ways.

The proposed Edmonton North electoral district will be renamed Edmonton East. The boundary between Edmonton Centre and Edmonton East will be 97 Street all the way to the North Saskatchewan River. This has the effect of putting most of the communities of McCauley and Boyle Street and all of Riverdale in Edmonton East. The eastern border of Edmonton East instead of following 50 Street now follows the Canadian National Railway tracks running to the North Saskatchewan River, placing the communities of Beverly and Beacon Heights in Edmonton East. The northern boundary of Edmonton East becomes 167 Avenue. The community of Lago Lindo moves from Edmonton East and becomes part of Edmonton–Sherwood Park.

The western boundary of Edmonton Centre adjoining Edmonton–Spruce Grove has been adjusted to run down 170 Street to Whitemud Drive, placing the communities of Lynwood and Elmwood in Edmonton Centre.

Minor adjustments have been made to Edmonton–Spruce Grove and Edmonton–Strathcona. The area of Glory Hills north of Stony Plain and Spruce Grove has been removed from Yellowhead and placed in Edmonton–Spruce Grove. Refinery row east of Edmonton had been in Edmonton–Strathcona, but has been placed in Edmonton–Sherwood Park to reflect the interest between Sherwood Park and refinery row.

Some comments were received on the population variances, the inner city electoral districts of Edmonton East (Edmonton North in Proposals) and Edmonton Centre being 8.8 percent and 12.1 percent respectively, and the remaining electoral districts being closer to or below 0 percent. Although there is development foreseen in the Central Griesbach and Railtown areas, contrary to some of the representations made at the hearings, the information made available to the Commission from the City of Edmonton at the time of this writing does not indicate any dramatic increases in population in the near to medium future in the inner city. By contrast, the suburbs are growing, so the variances there are lower.

The variances for the Edmonton Region electoral districts are: Edmonton–Beaumont –6.3 percent; Edmonton Centre 9.1 percent; Edmonton East 12.2 percent; Edmonton–Leduc –9.9 percent; Edmonton–St. Albert 6.5 percent; Edmonton–Sherwood Park –2.5 percent; Edmonton–Spruce Grove 5.1 percent; Edmonton–Strathcona –6.8 percent.

The City of Red Deer has experienced substantial growth since the last redistribution. In order to satisfy the requirements of section 15 of the Act, the electoral district must shrink. We had proposed a federal electoral district of 100,789 people with a variance of –5.1 percent, but found that it presented significant structural deficits. We were persuaded to alter the boundaries to conform to those of the County of Red Deer and this yields an electoral district with a variation of –1.1 percent.

Strong representations were heard from residents of Highway No. 11 communities to the west, notably Rocky Mountain House, that they should remain in the Red Deer electoral district. This would not be possible without the creation of a very long and narrow electoral district, which would disrupt the communities of interest between Red Deer and areas north and south of it. Reaction from Rocky Mountain House was almost unanimously against being included with its southern neighbours in the Wild Rose electoral district. Therefore, we have followed the alternate suggestion of MP Myron Thompson speaking for five members of Parliament from Yellowhead, Wetaskiwin, Red Deer, Crowfoot and Wild Rose to place Rocky Mountain House in the Wetaskiwin electoral district if it could not be in the Red Deer electoral district. We do so with some reluctance in the face of the obvious ties between the Rocky Mountain House and Red Deer communities. However, as one presenter from Rocky Mountain House observed:

Accordingly, Rocky Mountain House is in the Wetaskiwin electoral district where, we are confident, it will find effective representation within an area of agricultural community of interest.

The southern boundary of the Yellowhead electoral district has been altered somewhat as a consequence of changes made to Wild Rose and Wetaskiwin. As noted above, the eastern boundary has been changed from our proposal so as to exclude the Glory Hills area north and east of Spring Lake, which goes instead to Edmonton–Spruce Grove. The northern boundary of Yellowhead moves south through thinly populated country to place the Little Smoky agricultural holdings in the southeast portion of the Peace River electoral district. Yellowhead is left with a variance of –7.8 percent.

The Peace River electoral district at 16.6 percent is both larger geographically and more populous than the Commission would like, but for lack of connecting roads it is impracticable to create an electoral district across the northern part of the province from Peace River to Fort McMurray. This means that the northwestern and the northeastern halves of the province must form two federal electoral districts of roughly equal geographical size. Most of the population lives in the western portion, but the population there is too low for two electoral districts. The electoral district of Athabasca, by contrast, is set at –16.3 percent. Due to rapid growth in the City of Fort McMurray the Commission expects that the variance will be –10 percent or less before the next census. At least two presenters at the Fort McMurray and Slave Lake hearings made forceful and thoughtful cases for excluding the Athabasca-Boyle area from the Athabasca electoral district on the basis that patterns of trade and commerce in the Athabasca-Boyle region now look southward instead of towards the Lac La Biche-Fort McMurray area. The Commission recognized the strength of their community of interest arguments and made every effort to adjust the boundaries so as to include the Athabasca-Boyle agricultural community in the Westlock–St. Paul electoral district. Regrettably, this could only be done at the cost of lowering the Athabasca electoral district variance to a –24 percent level, which the Commission believes is too low in view of its duty under section 15 to create electoral districts that are as close as reasonably possible to the electoral quota. Accordingly, all of Athabasca County No. 12 remains in the electoral district of Athabasca.

With regard to the northern electoral districts of Peace River and Athabasca, the Commission acknowledges the representational difficulties posed by a population thinly spread over a huge area. This situation is by no means unique in Canada where the northern reaches of most provinces contain few people. Resource development in the north is proceeding at a rapid pace. Expected improvements in communication links as well as added populations hold the promise of electoral districts of a more manageable size by the time of the next redistribution.

The Westlock–St. Paul electoral district, at a variance of –6.7 percent, is formed from parts of the present St. Albert, Elk Island and Lakeland electoral districts. It comprises a mainly agricultural area lying to the south of the Athabasca electoral district and to the north of the North Saskatchewan River, bounded on the east by the Saskatchewan border and on the west by the eastern limits of Lac Ste. Anne, Barrhead and Woodlands counties.

To the south of the North Saskatchewan River lies the new electoral district of Vegreville–Wainwright at a variance of 1.4 percent. It too covers an agricultural community that extends from metropolitan Edmonton on the west to the Saskatchewan border on the east and southward to now include all of Flagstaff and Provost counties.

South of Vegreville–Wainwright is the electoral district of Crowfoot bounded on the west by Highway No. 791 (the Calgary-Red Deer corridor). The boundaries of the proposed electoral district have been altered to include Camrose. Where possible, as in the case of Flagstaff, they follow county or municipal district lines. Crowfoot has a variance of –2.1 percent.

The Wild Rose boundaries have been altered to result in a variance of –4.3 percent, which leaves some room for the ongoing population growth in the Bow Valley corridor west of Calgary. At the urging of many presenters, the eastern boundary of Wild Rose has been moved east to Highway No. 791 to observe the community of interest of towns along Highway No. 2 south of Bowden and north of the Calgary limits.

The electoral district of Wetaskiwin at –4.8 percent follows generally the same boundaries as proposed except for the southwest corner which has been extended to incorporate the Rocky Mountain House area. As well, the northeast corner has moved westward to exclude the Camrose area, it being the wish of many people in Camrose and area to be included in the Crowfoot electoral district.

Minor changes have been made to the electoral districts of Medicine Hat, Lethbridge and Macleod in response to communities of interest urged by persons who made submissions.

The legal descriptions of these electoral districts and the resulting maps are attached to this report.