|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
3. Federal Electoral District SummariesThe following section provides a district-by-district analysis, including a statistical representation of the electoral district prior to and post federal electoral boundaries readjustment following the 2001 census. Each summary will also review the Commission's Proposals recommendations, summarize hearing input and outline final readjusted recommendations based on input received from citizens. While it is impossible to include all the comments or opinions heard or submitted, we have attempted to include the substance, tone and key arguments, both pro and con, regarding the initial proposed boundary adjustments. The statistical portion of each summary section includes:
Presenters speaking with regard to an electoral district did not always speak at the hearing scheduled in that area. Thus, we have attempted to review the key arguments of all presenters speaking on behalf of an electoral district and include these in the appropriate summary. Detailed boundary descriptions and maps can be found in the appendices.
Acadie–Bathurst (name unchanged) Population (2001 census, final 1996 boundaries): 82,929 Population (2001 census, proposed 2003 boundaries): 76,353 Name As mentioned in the Summary Overview section of this report, the Commission originally proposed Chaleur–Péninsule as the name of this electoral district, which since 1990 had been known as Acadie–Bathurst. Chaleur is one of the oldest place names in Canada, being coined by Jacques Cartier in 1534. Péninsule refers to the Acadian Peninsula, which was settled as far back as 1620. During the hearings, there was unanimous support for the current name. The public argued that keeping "Bathurst" better reflected the bilingual nature of the electoral district because it is the home to the area's Anglophone community. The Commission agrees and recommends the electoral district name be retained. Observations/Proposal Acadie–Bathurst, geographically the smallest rural electoral district, was also the most densely populated of rural electoral districts with almost 83,000 people, resulting in an almost +14 percent variance. At the same time, its neighbouring electoral district, Miramichi, with a smaller population, had a –21 percent variance. This resulted in a 35 percent variance between the two neighbouring electoral districts. As mentioned previously, overpopulation in an electoral district can jeopardize effective representation due to lack of accessibility and availability of the elected representative. Underpopulation, on the other hand, results in over-representation, again eroding the principle of parity. With a view to increasing the population in the Miramichi electoral district, the Commission originally recommended transferring a portion of Gloucester County previously in Acadie–Bathurst Bathurst (parts of the parishes of Bathurst and Saumarez, and the Parish of Allardville) to Miramichi. Hearing Input Here again, the existence of the spirit as well as the law of official bilingualism was evident as presenters articulated the very important role the City of Bathurst plays as the Anglophone portion and major service centre in the electoral district. Presenters took issue with the initial boundary changes citing the need to respect communities of interest as well as the historic or cultural connection communities have with each other, especially those primarily Francophone communities being transferred to the Miramichi electoral district. With respect to the proposed name change, presenters clearly preferred maintaining Bathurst in the name as a reflection of the electoral district's bilingual nature. Commission Decisions Prior to Feedback from Parliamentary Committee Based on belief in the spirit and letter of the Act and its goal of more effective representation, Commission members remained convinced of the need to rectify the wide variance in population between the Miramichi and Acadie–Bathurst electoral districts while balancing public input with the rules of community of interest and community of identity.
Beauséjour (formerly Beauséjour–Petitcodiac) Population (2001 census, final 1996 boundaries): 82,930 Population (2001 census, proposed 2003 boundaries): 73,871 Name The name of this electoral district needed to be changed because the Petitcodiac area of the electoral district was transferred to Fundy. The word Beauséjour, which means "pleasant abode", has deep roots. It was the original name of an Acadian settlement established in 1671 near present-day Sackville. In 1750, the French built Fort Beauséjour, which was later taken over by the British in 1755. The Commission recommends changing the electoral district name to Beauséjour. Observations/Proposal The Commission recommended that the southwestern part of the electoral district be transferred to Fundy, including Petitcodiac, Salisbury, Elgin, Alma and Harvey. Because of this change, "Petitcodiac" would be dropped from the electoral district name. In the northern part of the electoral district, the Commission called for Acadieville, Carleton, Saint-Louis, Saint-Charles and Saint-Louis de Kent to move from Miramichi into Beauséjour. Hearing Input Although some Moncton presenters called for a break with the province's traditional urban-rural split by dividing the Moncton electoral district and including parts of Beauséjour, the majority of presentations at this hearing rejected that idea based primarily on the ability to retain a voice for essentially rural concerns. They did not see the wisdom of, as one presenter said, including rural communities with electoral districts to the south which had little or no ties to the region. Presenters also called for parts of Albert County to be retained in the Beauséjour electoral district rather than being relocated, along with Riverview, to the Fundy electoral district. They based that request on work patterns, ongoing project partnerships, common goals and the ability to pursue those interests as a group. Others expressed concern over the loss of northern parts of Kent County to the Miramichi electoral district, calling for Kent County to remain as a whole in one electoral district. Commission Decisions Prior to Feedback from Parliamentary Committee In response to hearing input, the Commission reverses its proposal to transfer Acadieville and Carleton to Beauséjour based on a long electoral tradition and the bilingual character of the Miramichi electoral district. Given the proposal to return certain other areas previously transferred to Miramichi, this change also helped achieve a better balance of population for that electoral district. Presentations opposing the transfer of parts of Albert County from Beauséjour demonstrated further evidence that the spirit of bilingualism continues to grow in the province. The fact that community of interest far superseded community of identity based on language was clearly evident as presenters outlined the benefits of working and advocating together towards shared goals given their common economic interests. Regrettably, the Commission was unable to adopt these well-articulated suggestions in the interest of maintaining a reasonable population variance in one of the province's smallest rural electoral districts. With the final recommendations, the population variance for Beauséjour will be +1 percent, down from +14 percent. The higher population compared to other rural electoral districts is justified given its smaller geographic size and the probability of easier access by citizens to their elected representative.
Fredericton (name unchanged) Population (2001 census, final 1996 boundaries): 75,811 Population (2001 census, proposed 2003 boundaries): 82,198 Name The name of this electoral district remains unchanged. Fredericton has been the name of the electoral district since 1996. Between 1989–1996, it was called Fredericton–York–Sunbury. It is one of the oldest place names in New Brunswick. It was named after Prince Frederick, Duke of York, second son of George III, in 1785. The Commission recommends the electoral district name be retained. Observations/Proposal The Fredericton electoral district is geographically approximately five times as large as the province's other two urban electoral districts – Moncton–Riverview–Dieppe and Saint John. With a view to achieving a population variance more in keeping with other urban areas and to help balance population in adjoining electoral districts, the Commission recommended transferring New Maryland to the St. Croix electoral district and transferring the communities of Minto and Chipman from Fundy to the Fredericton electoral district on the basis of community of interest and living and working patterns. The inclusion of rural communities (i.e. Minto and Chipman) in the Fredericton electoral district represented a departure from the province's traditional urban-rural division of electoral districts. Hearing Input Strong opposition was expressed regarding the transfer of the Village of New Maryland to the St. Croix electoral district based on its shared economic community of interest with Fredericton. As well, the Commission heard support for the inclusion of both communities of Minto and Chipman in the Fredericton electoral district, pointing to their geographic proximity, shared community of interest and work patterns. The recently established regional economic development divisions were cited as further evidence of the soundness of that approach. At least one presenter pointed out that Maugerville had little in common with "potato belt" communities. The view was also expressed that other rules in the Act should take precedence over the primary rule in the Act – one person, one vote. Commission Decisions Prior to Feedback from Parliamentary Committee In response to hearing input and in acknowledgement of their shared economic community of interest, the Commission returned the Village of New Maryland to the Fredericton electoral district, a move also supported by the adjoining electoral district of St. Croix. As discussed in Section 1.4 of this document, the Commission strongly rejects the suggestion offered at the hearing that the spirit and letter of the Act be ignored in favour of giving more weight to sub-rules than to the primacy of achieving a population "as close as reasonably possible" to the electoral quota. As intended in the Act, the one person, one vote rule is pre-emptive of all other sub-rules. The final boundary recommendations result in the Fredericton electoral district having a uniquely urban-rural mix with a positive population variance of 13 percent, one percent lower than Moncton–Riverview–Dieppe's variance and just two percent higher than Saint John's variance from the electoral quota.
Fundy (formerly Fundy–Royal) Population (2001 census, final 1996 boundaries): 72,464 Population (2001 census, proposed 2003 boundaries): 69,972 Name The name of this electoral district has been Fundy–Royal since 1966 when the counties of Kings and Queens formed an integral part of this electoral district. With the current changes, portions of these counties will be outside the electoral district, so "Royal" was dropped. The name Fundy is believed to have come from the French word fendu, meaning "split", in reference to Cape Split in the Minas Basin. The first use of Bay of Fundy was in 1680. The Commission recommends the electoral district name be changed to Fundy. Observations/Proposal In its effort to remedy the overpopulation in the Moncton area, the Commission proposed including the Town of Riverview which is in Albert County in the Fundy electoral district. The proposal also suggested transferring the Kingston Peninsula to the St. Croix electoral district, based on the need to balance populations in four adjoining electoral districts in the southeast, south and southwest areas of the province. The Town of Rothesay was moved to the Saint John electoral district. Hearing Input The majority of presenters from Fundy requested that the existing boundaries essentially remain the same. Transferring the more urban Town of Riverview into the Fundy electoral district precipitated an anticipated reaction. For some rural presenters, that move represented the possibility and even probability of becoming submerged in urban interests quite different from interests shared by the dairy industry, farmers, forestry operators and other business persons in the traditionally rural electoral district of Fundy. That same concern was repeated in a number of electoral districts for similar reasons. Presenters expressed their opposition to the separation of Quispamsis from Rothesay pointing to shared community of interest, geographic proximity as well as working and living patterns. As well, the Commission was asked to reconsider dividing the dairy industry among two electoral districts, a move that could eliminate the benefits, impact and therefore influence of the industry being able to speak effectively with one voice. Opposition was also heard with respect to the transfer of the Kingston Peninsula to St. Croix based on a long history as part of the Fundy electoral district and a lack of common shared interests with the electoral district of St. Croix. At the Fundy hearing, Commission members also received a submission supporting the creation of a mixed urban-rural electoral district with the recommendation that the electoral district of Saint John be divided. Portions of Fundy and Saint John would form one electoral district. The Town of Rothesay expressed support for the move on the basis that it allowed Quispamsis and Rothesay to remain in the same electoral district. While there was no opposition presented at the hearing, the option was not part of the Commission's original report and therefore awareness of the proposal was not widespread. Commission Decisions Prior to Feedback from Parliamentary Committee The decision to transfer the Town of Rothesay to Saint John is based on its obvious shared community of interest as a bedroom community to the City of Saint John and home to many of its business leaders. From the time of the proposal, members of the Commission received widespread support for the move, the only exception being those municipalities with shared interests. As a result of public input, Chipman and Minto are transferred to the Fredericton electoral district. The Kingston Peninsula will remain in Fundy based on historic electoral patterns. A number of smaller communities bordering the Saint John River (such as Cambridge-Narrows and Johnston) were transferred to St. Croix. In recognition of the community of interest of Riverview with the Moncton–Riverview–Dieppe electoral district, central Riverview was returned to that electoral district. However, a portion of Riverview will remain in the Fundy electoral district. The changes are in conformity with the spirit and letter of the Act given that Fundy, while a rural electoral district, is approximately half the size of the two geographically largest electoral districts, Miramichi and Tobique–Mactaquac. Therefore, Fundy is justified having more population. The resulting negative variance for the electoral district is just four percent.
Madawaska–Restigouche (name unchanged) Population (2001 census, final 1996 boundaries): 69,561 Population (2001 census, proposed 2003 boundaries): 65,877 Name The name of the electoral district remains unchanged. The names Madawaska and Restigouche are First Nations words with deep spiritual meaning. Madawaska comes from the Maliseet word, meaning "porcupine place" or "land of the porcupine." It first appeared in writing in 1683. Restigouche comes from the Micmac word meaning "good river for canoeing." It can be found in written works as far back as 1642. Restigouche was the name of one of the first federal electoral districts in New Brunswick in 1867. The Commission recommends the electoral district name be retained. Observations/Proposal Madawaska–Restigouche is a largely rural electoral district with challenges in representation and access, particularly from east to west. With a view to achieving a better population variance and based on the assumption that certain communities preferred to be returned to Madawaska–Restigouche, the Commission's initial proposal altered the electoral boundaries to return the communities of Grand Falls and Saint–André and most of the area of the Parish of Drummond to the electoral district. In addition, the Commission proposed transferring several Madawaska–Restigouche communities on the eastern border of the electoral district (Charlo, Balmoral and Belledune) to the Miramichi electoral district as part of a solution to that electoral district's unacceptably low population. Hearing Input Once again, two common and often repeated arguments were heard – the need to respect economic communities of interest over communities of identity and the need to respect and preserve the bilingual nature of electoral districts. While several presenters supported the return of three communities transferred in the previous electoral boundary readjustment to the Madawaska–Restigouche electoral district, the majority of presenters expressed strong opposition, arguing that economic community of interest should be the primary rule observed by the Commission rather than separation based on language. Returning these communities, presenters pointed out, would separate those involved in the province's potato industry, given that 95 percent of production and more than 96 percent of farm acreage are in the Tobique–Mactaquac electoral district. With regard to proposed boundary changes in the northeastern end of the electoral district, three communities – Charlo, Balmoral and Eel River Crossing – passed a motion in support of those communities remaining in the Madawaska–Restigouche electoral district based on natural affinities, shared interests, and historical living and working patterns. Commission Decisions Prior to Feedback from Parliamentary Committee The Commission was pleased and heartened to once again take note of the harmony between Anglophones and Francophones and their ability to work well together towards achieving shared goals. In response to well-presented arguments, the boundaries of the electoral district will remain essentially the same, with the exception of Belledune, Colborne and Durham, which will be part of the Miramichi electoral district based on their shared economic interests and as part of the solution to Miramichi's small population. The Commission agrees with the argument presented regarding the communities in the Dalhousie area and is pleased to be able to leave the community of Charlo in the Madawaska–Restigouche electoral district. As a result, the Commission's report results in a population variance of –10 percent for the Madawaska–Restigouche electoral district.
Miramichi (name unchanged) Population (2001 census, final 1996 boundaries): 57,772 Population (2001 census, proposed 2003 boundaries): 63,040 Name The name of the electoral district remains unchanged. The electoral district was called Northumberland–Miramichi from 1955 to 1987, in reference to the former electoral district of Northumberland, one of the original New Brunswick electoral districts at the time of Confederation. The name Miramichi is steeped in history. It is believed to have come from the Montagnais phrase meaning "Land of Micmacs." It first appeared in written form in 1541 as Merchemay and Misamichy on a map drawn by Samuel de Champlain. The Commission recommends the electoral district name be retained. Observations/Proposal Geographically the second largest electoral district, the Miramichi electoral district had a negative variance of 21 percent. Compared to neighbouring Acadie–Bathurst, one of the smallest and most densely populated of the province's seven rural electoral districts, Miramichi had a population difference of 35 percent. Significant boundary readjustments were required to move closer to a balance in terms of population. With a view to remedying the wide variance and based on the assumption of shared community of interest and community of identity, the Commission initially proposed including portions of Restigouche (Colborne, Durham, Belledune and Charlo) and Gloucester County (part of the Parish of Bathurst, Allardville and part of Saumarez) in the Miramichi electoral district and returning the northern area of Kent County (Acadieville and Carleton) to Beauséjour. The proposed changes would have resulted in the transfer of more than 6,000 people to the Miramichi electoral district. Given its large Aboriginal population and considering encouragements from Elections Canada to explore possible solutions to First Nations communities' low electoral participation, the Miramichi electoral district was also identified as the appropriate electoral district to test the concept of consolidating Indian reserves into one electoral district. The Commission viewed the proposal as a possible means of increasing Aboriginal electoral influence and, by doing so, increase that community's participation in the electoral process. Hearing Input Presenters offered opposition to certain boundary changes, placing a high priority on respecting historical communities of interest, communities of identity as well as the natural affinities communities have with each other. Several presenters questioned the ability of people in communities transferred from Acadie–Bathurst to receive services in their language of choice given that the service centre for most has historically been Tracadie-Sheila. The Commission's adherence to achieving electoral quotas in the spirit of the Act was also questioned by several presenters, some of whom suggested that Miramichi's population solution was not a solution for other communities such as the Parish of Bathurst, Charlo and neighbouring communities. The Miramichi's history of electing Anglophone representatives was interpreted as something that could possibly discourage electoral participation for the Francophone communities transferred into the electoral district. In the case of Acadie–Bathurst, altering of boundaries to include part of the Parish of Bathurst based on language was not considered necessary nor did presenters believe it respected and protected the electoral district's bilingual mix, largely represented by the presence of the City of Bathurst in Acadie–Bathurst. Concern was also expressed over the geographic size of the electoral district and its impact on effective representation. The proposal to consolidate Indian reserves, irrespective of their geographic location in one electoral district, was opposed on the basis that it did not represent any gain for Native peoples. Commission Decisions Prior to Feedback from Parliamentary Committee Geographically, Miramichi will remain the largest electoral district in the province. With a view to remedying the electoral district's population variance while respecting public input, the Commission's final recommendation adds to the electoral district portions of Restigouche, Gloucester and Kent counties, increasing the population and reducing its variance to –14 percent, a reduced population justified under the Act by the electoral district's large geographic area. Specifically, in response to hearing input, the Commission transferred from Madawaska–Restigouche those portions that share the same community of interest, i.e. mining, forestry, agriculture and the fishing industry (Colborne, Durham and Belledune). The Miramichi electoral district is representative of the province's bilingual character in that the population in terms of both official languages was and remains almost exactly the same as the population province-wide. As noted in the Summary Overview, the proposal to consolidate Native peoples in the Miramichi electoral district did not meet with support either prior to or during the hearings. First Nations communities preferred to retain a presence in multiple electoral districts, citing travel challenges, the preservation of existing relationships and the advantages of access to multiple and varied federal party representatives.
Moncton–Riverview–Dieppe (name unchanged) Population (2001 census, final 1996 boundaries): 92,935 Population (2001 census, proposed 2003 boundaries): 83,191 Name As a result of the Commission's proposal, the Town of Riverview would have been transferred to Fundy resulting in the necessity for a name change. After the public hearings, the Commission decided to retain central Riverview in the Moncton electoral district, and by doing so retained the original name. Moncton was first established as a township in 1765, named after the British general Robert Monckton. The town was first incorporated in 1855. Originally known as Légère Corner, Dieppe was incorporated as a town in 1952 and is named for a well-known seaside town in France. Canadian soldiers fought a major battle there in the Second World War. The Commission recommends the electoral district name be retained. Observations/Proposal As noted previously, the Greater Moncton area experienced the largest growth in population in the province, and, prior to this exercise, exceeded the permissible electoral quota with a variance of +27 percent. Such a wide variance could not be justified under the Act given the size and geography of the province. Compliance with the Act required significant boundary changes to the electoral district. In its preliminary proposal, the Commission recommended transferring the Town of Riverview and certain parts of Albert County to the Fundy electoral district. While anticipating strong reaction to the move, the Commission looked forward to further input and possible alternative solutions to be offered at the public hearings. Hearing Input The Commission heard arguments for and against the idea of departing from the province's traditional division of rural and urban electoral districts. Those opposed pointed to common interests and shared goals of rural communities as well as the probability of having those interests lost to primarily urban concerns. Here again, throughout the hearings, the Commission clearly heard that shared goals and common interests should be given more weight than concerns about community of identity based on language. Representatives opposing the transfer of Riverview to the Fundy electoral district expressed understanding for the Commission's population challenges but stressed that the town's natural affinities and interests were with Moncton. Some presenters argued for the division of the Moncton–Riverview–Dieppe electoral district into two urban electoral districts. However, that proposal would have segregated a small portion of Moncton in an urban-rural electoral district extending as far as Bouctouche, which was undesirable. That option represented a significant departure from the traditional urban-rural division of electoral districts in the province and, as such, met with strong opposition from some residents of Moncton as well as those representing the Beauséjour electoral district. Commission Decisions Prior to Feedback from Parliamentary Committee While presenters in two of the province's urban centres – Saint John and Moncton – offered the option of mixed urban-rural electoral districts as a solution to urban population growth, the members of the Commission felt the timing of those proposals did not allow for adequate public consultation for such a fundamental shift in the electoral boundaries. This would be unfair to those who would not have the opportunity as was intended in the process to respond to a significant shift in approach, and to address issues related to communities of interest, community of identity, historical patterns, manageable geographic size, as required under the Act. Furthermore, the division of the Moncton–Riverview–Dieppe electoral district, as proposed, would also segregate an English and French electoral district in Moncton, a move that would appear contradictory to the city's recently adopted official bilingualism status. Moreover, the division of the Moncton–Riverview–Dieppe area did not permit an appropriate division of the electoral district without extending excessively into rural areas, a move that was strongly opposed by Beauséjour representatives. Considering Moncton's demographics and its urban-centred, bilingual homogeneity with regard to economic shared interest and work patterns, the Commission remains convinced that its unique bilingual synergy should be maintained. For the above reasons, the Commission did not consider this proposal a timely or acceptable option. However, should population growth and homogeneity continue to increase, the concept of an urban-centred approach may be a subject for further consideration. The Commission was sympathetic to the concerns raised by the proposed severance of Riverview from the electoral district, having recognized the significant community of interest in a joint Moncton–Riverview–Dieppe electoral district. Although the population growth would not allow the boundaries to remain unchanged, the Commission arrived at a compromise solution with regard to the transfer of Riverview, returning the central part of Riverview to the Moncton–Riverview–Dieppe electoral district. Unfortunately, not all of Riverview could be left in the electoral district. In fairness to both communities adjoining Moncton, the Commission transferred a small portion of Dieppe to the Beauséjour electoral district. The Commission's final report results in a positive population variance for Moncton–Riverview–Dieppe of 14 percent, a variance similar to the province's other two urban electoral districts.
St. Croix (formerly New Brunswick Southwest) Population (2001 census, final 1996 boundaries): 61,622 Population (2001 census, proposed 2003 boundaries): 63,141 Name The Commission proposed this name change to better reflect the area's geography, history and the bilingual nature of New Brunswick. New Brunswick's electoral district names tend to have strong historical and/or cultural roots. The new St. Croix name designation is more in keeping with that approach as it recalls the first permanent European settlement in Canada on St. Croix Island in 1604 making it the birthplace of Acadie. The 400th anniversary of that historic event will be celebrated in 2004. The name itself comes from the word for holy cross because the river's tributaries give it the form of a cross. The electoral district has experienced a number of name changes, having been called Charlotte after the provincial county. That name was subsequently changed to Carleton–Charlotte as a result of encompassing part of Carleton County. In 1998, it became New Brunswick Southwest, a name representative of geographic location only. The name change is also in line with the Commission's stated goal of giving all electoral districts in New Brunswick names with a consistent "Maritime" flavour. The change received widespread public support. The Commission recommends the name of the electoral district be changed to St. Croix. Observations/Proposal St. Croix is a predominantly rural electoral district covering approximately 10,600 sq. km. The electoral district's small population is widely dispersed and includes constituents living on three islands, a situation that presents obvious geographical challenges. In addition, the electoral district exhibits a wide divergence in terms of shared economic communities of interest given the coastal and inland communities stretching from west to east. The electoral district's population was unacceptably low even considering its rural nature. In an effort to increase its population, the Commission's proposal included all of the County of Charlotte, as well as parts of Saint John, Kings, Queens, Sunbury, York and Carleton counties. The Commission also recommended a name change for the electoral district more in keeping with its geography and history. Hearing Input Presenters at both the Canaan–Tobique hearing and the St. Croix hearing agreed that the suggested boundaries in the proposal continued to include communities with little shared community of interest. For many communities in the northwest portion of the electoral district, in particular the Saint John River Valley communities, economic activity (potato industry) and shared interests were the more powerful unifying factors. Presenters pointed out the need to respect the shared interests certain communities have with each other because of geography, common economic activity and living patterns. Opposition was also heard concerning the transfer of the Kingston Peninsula and the transfer of Lorneville to the St. Croix electoral district based on maintaining historical and living patterns. The difficulty of access was also noted given the diverse and widespread geography of the electoral district. Commission Decisions Prior to Feedback from Parliamentary Committee Based on similar recommendations heard in both relevant hearings, the Commission transferred certain communities in the northwest of St. Croix to Tobique–Mactaquac (North Lake, Canterbury and areas around Woodstock), primarily based on their shared economic community of interest. To balance that loss, St. Croix will acquire additional communities in the northeast of the electoral district (as far east as Studholm). The continuing loss of population in the St. Croix electoral district points to the increasing difficulty of maintaining St. Croix as a separate electoral district. The electoral district will remain one of the smallest federal electoral districts in terms of population with a negative population variance of 13 percent, a justified and reasonable variance given the rural nature of the electoral district, its dispersed population and geographic challenges impacting on access to and availability of elected representatives.
Saint John (name unchanged) Population (2001 census, final 1996 boundaries): 69,821 Population (2001 census, proposed 2003 boundaries): 81,166 Name The name of the electoral district remains unchanged. The first federal electoral district of Saint John was established in 1867. The name has not changed since then. The name itself comes from the river running through the city, which was named after Saint John the Baptist by the French in 1604. The Commission recommends the electoral district name be retained. Observations/Proposal One of three urban electoral districts, the Saint John electoral district was seriously underpopulated in terms of its status as an urban electoral district. With a view to increasing the population and considering the rule of shared community of interest, the Commission recommended the addition of the Town of Rothesay to the electoral district. As well, certain areas on the westerly edge of the electoral district fell more naturally within the electoral district of St. Croix and the Commission was of the view that the transfer of these areas would result in a reasonable variance for the electoral district of Saint John. Hearing Input Opposition was heard concerning the transfer of the Lorneville area to the St. Croix electoral district. There appeared to be some support for the division of the Saint John electoral district, with the new electoral district extending as far east as Sussex and using the Saint John River as a dividing line. That proposal offered an entirely new alternative and a departure from the traditional urban-rural division of electoral districts within the province. Commission Decisions Prior to Feedback from Parliamentary Committee In response to public input at the Saint John hearing, the Commission will retain the Lorneville area in the Saint John electoral district. However, the Commission regrets it cannot satisfy all views presented, in particular the view that Quispamsis and Rothesay should remain in the same electoral district. Based on its obvious shared economic community of interest and geographic proximity, the Commission's final proposal includes the Town of Rothesay in the Saint John electoral district. Quispamsis will remain, as initially proposed, in the electoral district of Fundy, thus achieving a reasonable population variance in both Fundy and Saint John. While members of the Commission believe the proposal to divide Saint John merited future investigation, the Commission as a whole is of the view that further public consultation is advisable given that such a recommendation was not included in the original boundary changes submitted for public input. Therefore, there was no opportunity for public interventions and feedback addressing communities of interest, community of identity, historical patterns, geographic size, etc. The Commission acknowledges the disappointment of communities like Saint John in the south and Acadie–Bathurst in the north where, for similar reasons, the retention of certain communities was strongly recommended by presenters. However, Commission members remain convinced that the changes are justified and reasonable. Final recommendations result in all three urban electoral districts having a positive population variance ranging from 11 to 14 percent.
Tobique–Mactaquac (name unchanged) Population (2001 census, final 1996 boundaries): 63,653 Population (2001 census, proposed 2003 boundaries): 70,689 Name The Commission originally proposed that this electoral district's name be changed to Canaan–Tobique, which better reflected the electoral district's proposed geography. The Canaan and Tobique rivers would have been two key waterways in the area: the Canaan flows into Washademoak Lake and the Tobique flows into the Saint John River. Tobique is a Maliseet word thought to be the name of a Maliseet chief who lived between 1706 and 1767. Because of readjustments after the hearings, the electoral district no longer contains the Canaan River. The Commission recommends that the electoral district name in place since 1996 be retained. Observations/Proposal Based on past history and a legal court challenge to the previous electoral boundaries decision, the Commission originally proposed removing three communities from Tobique–Mactaquac – the communities of Grand Falls and Saint-André and most of the area of the Parish of Drummond – and returning them to Madawaska–Restigouche. The preliminary report also proposed that Nackawic and Millville be included in the redrawn St. Croix electoral district. With these communities transferred from the electoral district, further adjustment was required to achieve a reasonable population balance. The report proposed that the new electoral boundaries reach as far north as Drummond and as far to the southeast as Northfield. The largest electoral district geographically, Tobique–Mactaquac faced, as did Miramichi, accessibility and availability challenges due to its large size. Hearing Input Returning the three communities to Madawaska–Restigouche was clearly no longer an issue. In fact, the proposal was flatly and overwhelmingly rejected by presenters who asked that the bilingual nature of the electoral district be protected and that economic, cultural, social and historical communities of interest be recognized and retained in one electoral district. It was also argued that Francophones and Anglophones shared the same community of interest as part of the Saint John River Valley potato belt and its forestry sector. That interest and the ability to speak as one voice on issues related to the potato industry in particular, clearly superseded any language and/or community of identity concerns. As well, presenters were adamant that separating the communities would damage the existing harmony between Anglophones and Francophones in the region and "run counter to goals and objectives" of official bilingualism. The Commission also heard opposition to the transfer of areas around and including Nackawic, Millville and Southhampton based on the lack of shared community of interest and the probability of having marginal influence given the consolidation of power in St. Stephen, St. George, Blacks Harbour and St. Andrews. Presenters also offered suggestions for dealing with the electoral district's large geographic area, noting that as the largest in the Maritimes, it fell within the Act's rule calling for electoral districts to be of "manageable size." The Commission's initial proposal, presenters suggested, would have increased that by almost 25 percent, even further challenging the goal of equitable and fair representation. It was suggested that certain communities on the southeast border of the electoral district could easily be excluded while others should be incorporated based on shared community of interest. Commission Decisions Prior to Feedback from Parliamentary Committee In response to public input and in acknowledgement of an obvious shared economic community of interest, the Commission will retain Saint-André, Drummond and Grand Falls in Tobique–Mactaquac, thus retaining the 17 percent Francophone population. This is a similar language mix, but in reverse order, to that found in Acadie–Bathurst and Madawaska–Restigouche. Here again, the Commission was heartened to hear further evidence of the province's maturation in terms of official bilingualism as demonstrated by the impassioned debate over the possibility of transferring Francophone communities from the electoral district. In the southern portion of the electoral district, based on the need to respect communities and reduce the electoral district's geographic challenges, the Commission extended the boundary to the southwest (around Woodstock and as far south as North Lake and Canterbury) while at the same time adding a section of Sunbury County on its southeastern border (parts of Maugerville and Northfield). The Commission has also attempted to address concerns expressed by presenters regarding the electoral district's large geographic expanse and its impact on accessible and effective representation. The population variance has been reduced from |
 |
 |
