The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has the honour to present its

 

 

THIRTY-SECOND REPORT

 

 

1. Pursuant to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-3, as amended, the Committee has considered the matter of the objections to the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Nova Scotia, 2003.

 

2. After each decennial census an electoral boundaries commission is established for each province.  The Chief Electoral Officer calculates the number of Members of the House of Commons assigned to each province according to the provisions of section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867.  Following advertisements and representations from interested persons, each commission prepares a report on the division of the province into electoral districts based on population and corresponding as closely as reasonably possible to the quotient of Members per population for that province.

 

3. In its considerations, each commission is to take into consideration the community of interest or community of identity or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, as well as what constitutes a manageable geographic size in cases of sparsely populated, rural or northern regions.  The Commission may depart by a variance of up to plus or minus 25% of the quotient in order to accommodate such circumstances.

 

4. Each commission’s report is forwarded to the Chief Electoral Officer, who in turn sends it to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who tables the report in the House.  The report is referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. 

 

5. In accordance with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, after each commission report has been tabled in the House of Commons, Members of the House of Commons have 30 calendar days in which to file objections to the proposals contained in each report.  The Act requires that objections must be in the form of a motion, in writing, specify the provisions of the report objected to and the reasons for the objection, and must be signed by not less than 10 Members of the House. 

 

6. If objections are filed, the Committee has 30 sitting days, or such longer period of time as may be approved by the House of Commons, to consider the objections.  Following this, the commission report, the objections, and the minutes of proceedings are returned to the Speaker, who transmits them to the Chief Electoral Officer.  The Chief Electoral Officer returns the material to the relevant electoral boundaries commission, which has 30 days in which to dispose of the objections.  The commission then finalizes its report. 

 

7. Once all the commission reports have been finalized, the Chief Electoral Officer prepares a draft representation order setting out the boundaries and names of the new electoral districts.  This is sent to the Governor in Council, who must proclaim it within five days.  No changes can be made by the Chief Electoral Officer or the Government.  The representation order comes into effect one year after it is proclaimed, and is in force for any federal general election called after that date. 

 

8. The Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Nova Scotia, 2003 was tabled in the House of Commons on February 27, 2003. By the end of the 30-day period, the Clerk of the Committee had received two objections.  The Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was appointed to consider these objections.  This report contains the comments and recommendations of the Subcommittee, as adopted by the Committee, on the proposed changes for the Province of Nova Scotia contained in the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Nova Scotia, 2003.

 

 

South Shore-St. Margaret’s

 

9. Gerald Keddy. Member of Parliament for the current electoral district of South Shore, filed an objection to:

 

a)      the extension of the eastern boundary of South Shore into Halifax County to match the provincial electoral district of Chester-St. Margaret’s, and

 

b)     the consequent name change of the South-Shore to South Shore-St. Margaret’s to reflect the proposed boundary change.

 

10. Mr. Keddy’s objection was based on the criteria of geographic manageability and community of interest. In hearings,  Mr. Keddy informed the Subcommittee that South Shore riding comprises the longest sea coast of any riding in Canada. It is a relatively populous riding, long and narrow, with fishing communities every five miles or so along the coastline connected by a winding coastal road. Also, there are many smaller, self-contained communities of interest within the riding, each with their own community events, cultural fairs, independent histories and traditions, some dating back to the 1600s. The riding therefore requires considerable personal travel and contact with individuals and small communities.

 

11. By comparison, Mr. Keddy indicated, the area of St. Margaret’s proposed for his riding comprises an urban population used to a permanent walk-in riding office and services compatible with, and knowledgeable about, Halifax.  Therefore, this proposal would have significant resource implications for the representative of the riding.

 

12. When questioned on the issue of aligning the riding boundaries with the provincial riding boundaries, Mr. Keddy informed the Committee that in this case it made little sense.  In discussion with the Subcommittee, Mr. Keddy indicated other, potential options for drawing the boundary lines that made more sense “on the ground” with regard to aligning communities of interest and populations.

 

13. Mr. Keddy told the Subcommittee that he believed larger rural ridings such as his could tolerate a population smaller than the provincial quotient, as rural ridings were more time-consuming to service than urban ridings. The Subcommittee noted that in the Boundaries Commission report, the Commission had also stated in its own discussion of its starting principles and criteria that:

 

…the urban electoral districts in and around Halifax should have populations somewhat higher than the electoral quota because of the greater ease of representation due to population concentration.

 

14. With regard to the numbers, the current proposal would place South Shore - St. Margaret’s at +1.39% variance from the provincial quotient and Halifax West at – 3.17% creating an urban riding smaller than the provincial quotient and an adjacent rural riding above the provincial quotient. The Commission’s initial proposal of July 13, 2002, as indicated in Schedule “D” of the Commission’s report, had South Shore at –8.48% variance and Halifax West at +6.22%, which the Committee considers tolerable.

 

15. Therefore, the Committee supports Mr. Keddy’s objection and recommends that the Commission to return to its initial proposal of July 13, 2002. Furthermore, given evidence provided by Mr. Casey and Mr. Keddy in hearings, the Committee questions the decision to include provincial riding boundaries as a criteria for drawing boundaries for federal electoral districts, particularly given that this criterion is not a formal requirement of the Electoral Boundaries Adjustment Act.

 

 

North Nova

 

16.  Bill Casey, Member of Parliament for the electoral district of Cumberland-Colchester, filed an objection to the proposal for North Nova, on the grounds that the proposal would increase a riding that was already large and that had ideal population numbers. The changes would add more residents than average and extend the riding making it more difficult to serve.

 

17.  Mr. Casey withdrew his objection in person at the meeting of the Subcommittee on April 30, 2003.

 

 

Conclusion

 

18. In accordance with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Nova Scotia, the objections, and the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Subcommittee will be returned to the Speaker and the Chief Electoral Officer.  We urge the Commission to consider carefully the objections, and the comments and recommendations contained in this report.

 

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings n^o 46) is tabled.

 

Respectfully submitted,



Peter Adams
Chair