Introduction

On 31 January 2023, pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi) and section 22 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (EBRA),^[1] the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (the Committee) began its consideration of the objections filed by members of the House of Commons in respect of the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Nova Scotia (the Report and the Commission).

After each decennial census, the number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of each province is adjusted according to the rules found in section 51 and 51A of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The chief electoral officer (CEO) is responsible for calculating the number of members of the House allotted to each province. This calculation is mathematical and the CEO exercises no discretion in the matter.

The work of readjusting electoral boundaries is carried out in each province by an independent and neutral three-member electoral boundaries commission. The mandate of these commissions is to consider and report on the division of their province into electoral districts,^[2] the description of the boundaries and the name of each electoral district.

The EBRA provides the rules governing the division of a province into electoral districts. The population of each electoral district must be as close as possible to the electoral quota for the province, that is, the population of the province divided by the number of members of the House of Commons allocated to the province under section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

In setting the boundaries of an electoral district, each commission is legally obliged to consider the community of interest, community of identity or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province. Further, electoral districts must have a manageable geographic size, in cases of sparsely populated, rural or northern regions.

A commission may depart from the provincial electoral quota by plus or minus 25% in order to respect the community of interest, community of identity, or the historical pattern of an electoral district, or to maintain the manageable geographic size of sparsely populated districts. In circumstances that are viewed as extraordinary by a commission, the variance from the electoral quota may be greater than 25%.

After coming up with an initial Proposal for the electoral districts in their province, a commission is required to hold at least one public meeting to hear representations by interested persons. After the completion of the public hearings, each commission prepares a report on the boundaries and names of the electoral districts of the province. These reports are tabled in the House of Commons, and referred to the Committee. Members of the House then have 30 calendar days to file objections with the clerk of the Committee to the proposals contained in a report.

An objection must be in writing and in the form of a motion. It must specify the provisions of the report objected to, and the reasons for those objections. An objection must be signed by not less than 10 members of the House of Commons.

The Committee then has 30 sittings days to consider members’ objections, unless an extension is granted by the House. The Committee’s reports on members’ objections are referred back to the relevant commissions, along with the objections, the minutes of the proceedings and the evidence heard by the Committee. The commission then has 30 calendar days to consider the merits of all objections, and prepare its final report.

Once all the commission reports have been finalized, the CEO 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, within five days, must proclaim the new representation order to be in force and effective for any general election that is called seven months after the proclamation is issued.

Objections

The Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Nova Scotia was tabled in the House of Commons, and referred to the Committee on 17 November 2022. By the end of the 30-day period, the clerk of the Committee had received three objections.

A.  Electoral Boundary Changes

1.   Jaime Battiste, the member for Sydney—Victoria

Jaime Battiste, the member for Sydney—Victoria, objected to the proposed ridings of Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish and Sydney—Glace Bay in the Commission’s Report. His objection is based on the adverse effects these proposed boundaries would have on the Mi’kmaq communities of Eskasoni and Wagmatcook, which are communities of interest and communities of identity. It was accompanied by individual letters of support from Chief Norman Bernard of the Wagmatcook First Nation and Chief Leroy Denny of the Eskasoni First Nation, as well as a letter signed by the five Chiefs of the Unama’ki (Cape Breton) Mi’kmaq District.^[3] The joint letter states that the Mi’kmaq communities’ “constitutional rights to be consulted and accommodated” have been violated by the Commission.^[4]

The Mi’kmaq communities of Eskasoni and Wagmatcook are currently situated in the riding of Sydney–Victoria, a configuration that is reflected in the Commission’s initial Proposal. However, the electoral boundaries proposed in the Report for Cape Breton Island would instead create one urban riding (Sydney–Glace Bay) and one large rural riding that include portions of the existing ridings of Sydney–Victoria, Cape Breton–Canso and Central Nova (Cape Breton–Canso–Antigonish). The new configuration would cleave the Mi’kmaq communities of Eskasoni and Wagmatcook from the City of Sydney with which, according to Mr. Battiste, they have significant historical, social, cultural and economic ties.

Mr. Battiste stressed that the affected communities feel that they were unfairly kept out of the consultation process, as the Commission’s Report departs considerably from its initial Proposal. He stated the changes proposed by the Commission had created the suspicion and perception of systemic racism because of how late in the redistribution process they were made. Mr. Battiste believes a clear message must be sent that “systemic racism and failures in the past to ensure indigenous representation stops today.”^[5] He cautioned that should the proposed boundaries be adopted, it could lead to legal action.

Mr. Battiste recommended maintaining the existing electoral boundaries for the ridings of Sydney–Victoria and Cape Breton–Canso to ensure effective representation and to make up for historical injustices of the past. To support his objection, Mr. Battiste stated:

• There was a lack of procedural fairness for the affected communities. According to Mr. Battiste, the residents of Sydney–Victoria were satisfied with the initial Proposal, as it made little to no change to the boundaries of their riding. This resulted in a low turnout at the public hearing in Sydney. Mr. Battiste indicated that the lack of a mechanism allowing the affected communities to respond to the “dramatically” and “unilaterally” altered proposal in the Commission Report contravenes principles of procedural fairness. Mr. Battiste believes that any such significant changes should have been proposed at the beginning of the process, not at the Report stage, and likened the late change to “procedural catfishing.”^[6]
• The boundaries proposed in the Report ignore the close historical and contemporary ties between the Mi’kmaq communities of Eskasoni and Wagmatcook and those of Membertou and Sydney. In particular, Mr. Battiste notes that the Eskasoni community shops, participates in sports and social activities, and accesses government and hospital services in Sydney.
• The boundaries proposed in the Report were drawn without consulting the affected Mi’kmaq communities, and the Commission did this despite the Crown’s duty to consult Indigenous peoples. Mr. Battiste supported this argument by referring to First Nations’ inherent and treaty rights, and the obligations of the Crown in this respect. He also referred to article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which requires that free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous communities be obtained before adopting and implementing any administrative measure that may affect them.
• The proposed electoral boundaries in the Report for Cape Breton Island do not factor in Indigenous languages in the same manner other historical linguistic minority communities have been taken into account by past commissions. Mr. Battiste pointed out that the current riding of Sydney–Victoria has 2,375 Mi’kmaq speakers. He noted that the Commission’s Report does not present any evidence that Mi’kmaq language rights were considered during the consultations. Mr. Battiste fears that the language weight of the Mi’kmaq would be reduced within the proposed riding of Cape Breton–Canso–Antigonish, as it would be a nearly unilingually anglophone riding. He indicated that the interests of other linguistic minority communities, such as those of francophone Acadians, were given consideration in previous electoral boundaries readjustments.
• The Commission did not align its work with other electoral commissions, which gave appropriate consideration to the distinct rights of Indigenous peoples. Mr. Battiste stated that since the 1992 redistribution, the electoral boundary commissions in Nova Scotia have recognized the Mi’kmaq communities as a core community of interest. He underlined that indigenous communities were not mentioned anywhere in the Commission’s report. Mr. Battiste also alluded to the work of other commissions, which considered the importance of Indigenous consultation and accommodation in their work.

The Committee supports Mr. Battiste’s objection and recommends that the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Nova Scotia consider it favourably.

2.   Lena Metlege Diab, the member for Halifax West

Lena Metlege Diab, the member for Halifax West, objected to the proposed electoral boundaries of Halifax West in the Commission’s Report. Ms. Diab is advocating in favour of the boundaries proposed by the Commission in its initial proposal, which kept together a number of communities of new immigrants in the current Halifax West riding and left intact, in a single riding, the community of St. Margarets Bay.

Ms. Diab’s objection was threefold. First, she stated that Halifax West has a well-established community of interest of diverse Canadians, which the Commission did not take into consideration in its Report. For decades, Halifax West has had a community of new immigrants and minority racial, cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic groups. According to Ms. Diab, the current electoral boundaries provide for the effective representation of these various groups; however, this effectiveness would be diluted if these communities were to be divided into separate ridings. Indeed, Ms. Diab stated that, in her view, the Commission’s proposal for Halifax West in the Report decimates this community hub for new Canadians.^[7]

Next, Ms. Diab stated that the proposed ridings of Halifax West and South Shore–St. Margarets do not respect St. Margarets Bay’s community of interest or identity, or the historical patterns of previous electoral boundaries. With respect to the latter, Ms. Diab stated that the community of St. Margarets Bay was founded in 1780 and that, from Hubbards to Peggy's Cove, it has been in the same federal riding since 1867.

She indicated that St. Margarets Bay is a distinct, connected community, as seen by their common school system, shared local services and close economic and social association. However, the proposed boundary changes made by the Commission in its Report places two-thirds of the residents of St. Margarets Bay in Halifax West rather than in their namesake riding of South Shore–St. Margarets. She told the Committee that residents were concerned about their community being divided in two, especially because population growth in the area was not the impetus for this proposed change.

Ms. Diab underlined that these changes were extensive and not part of the Commission’s initial proposal, and as such, residents did not have an opportunity to provide their input about these changes during the public consultations. She provided the Committee with over two dozen names of residents, stakeholders, representatives, businesses and community groups or associations from St. Margarets Bay who had contacted her, following the issuance of the Commission’s Report, and asked her for her help in keeping their community intact in a single riding.

Lastly, Ms. Diab objected to the Commission’s proposal for the riding of Halifax West on the grounds of procedural fairness. She indicated that the Commission did not hold any public in-person hearings in Halifax West. Having attended the one virtual Commission hearing, she noted that she did not hear anyone suggest or advocate for the boundaries that the Commission proposed in its Report for Halifax West. According to Ms. Diab, based on the Commission’s initial proposal, the various communities of interest in Halifax West had no reason to believe that the Commission intended to recommend drawing a division through them.

She stated that, in her view, had the Commission had the intention of proposing big changes to the current ridings in Nova Scotia, the big changes ought to have been proposed at the initial proposal stage and not at the Report stage. Ms. Diab stated that the residents of the current Halifax West riding were happy with the boundaries for that riding made by the Commission in its initial proposal. As such, they were caught off guard by the proposal in the Commission’s Report. Further, she indicated that the population of new immigrants in her riding, understandably, lack familiarity with the electoral boundaries readjustment process and, as such, were not predisposed to make submissions about their viewpoints to the Commission. This lack of familiarity could potentially have been addressed had the Commission proposed big changes to the Halifax West riding at the initial proposal stage and not subsequent to the public hearings.

In sum, Ms. Diab believes that the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) is a pocket of diversity in Nova Scotia and that Halifax West is a pocket of greater diversity within the HRM. She stated that this diversity merited protection and meaningful representation.

The Committee supports Ms. Diab’s objection and recommends that the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Nova Scotia consider it favourably.

3.   The Honourable Sean Fraser, the member for Central Nova

The Honourable Sean Fraser, the member for Central Nova, objected to the proposed changes to the electoral boundaries of the current federal riding of Central Nova (proposed riding of Pictou–Eastern Shore). Mr. Fraser told the Committee that of the 10 municipalities in his riding, nine objected to both the process followed and the outcome reached by the Commission. Mr. Fraser noted that while significant opposition was raised by residents of the current riding of Central Nova during the public consultations, their input resulted in no accommodation in the Report. Indeed, he stated that some issues raised about the Commission’s initial Proposal were even exacerbated in the Report.

According to Mr. Fraser, if the Commission’s proposal were to be adopted, it would divide a number of communities of interest, create rural and urban tensions between communities in the region, and undermine the ability of the member of Parliament representing that riding to serve their constituents. To support his objection, Mr. Fraser stated:

• The connections run deep between the Town and County of Antigonish, and Pictou County, as both regions share a long common history. These two communities are better served by remaining in the same federal riding. Many people live in one community and work in the other. Further, both counties have Indigenous communities, a historical connection to Scottish settlers, and several institutions of higher education.
• Residents of Antigonish are deeply concerned about the placement of their community into the proposed riding of Cape Breton–Canso–Antigonish, as the majority of this riding is located on Cape Breton Island. Further, the Commission’s Report proposes to enlarge the area of Cape Breton Island that is contained in the proposed riding of Cape Breton–Canso–Antigonish, as compared to the initial Proposal. This enlargement in fact deepens the concerns held by residents of Antigonish, and this despite residents having voiced their objection to being a part of the proposed riding of Cape Breton–Canso–Antigonish at the public hearings.
• Despite the Commission’s assertion in its Report that there is some connection between Antigonish and a small portion of Cape Breton, Mr. Fraser argues that there is no significant connection between Antigonish and most of the other communities on Cape Breton Island. He stated that the island “faces particular challenges, which are separate and apart from those faced in Antigonish,” in particular with respect to health care, Indigenous rights, poverty reduction and industrial economy. Mr. Fraser stated that these communities share “no real common economy or common political issues.”^[8]
• Extending the southwest boundary of the proposed riding of Pictou–Eastern Shore  to include parts of the Halifax suburbs would alter the character of the riding, which is currently made up of small towns and rural communities. In Mr. Fraser’s view, the interests and priorities of these small, widespread rural communities are fundamentally different from those of the residents of the Halifax suburbs.
• The large size of the proposed riding of Cape Breton–Canso–Antigonish would pose challenges for a member of Parliament to effectively serve all constituents in the riding, in particular if communities without logical connections were to be joined together.

In addition, Mr. Fraser indicated that the process which resulted in the Commission’s Report was fraught with serious issues to do with legal and procedural fairness. He underscored that no public consultation was held in the proposed riding of Pictou–Eastern Shore. Further, the venue for the hearing in Antigonish was too small and quickly reached full capacity. While the Commission did subsequently obtain a larger room for the hearing, the last-minute nature of this change resulted in confusion among some residents who showed up in the wrong venue or others who decided not to attend at all.

He also noted that the boundaries for the proposed riding of Pictou–Eastern were drawn without consultation with important community groups, such as Nova Scotia’s African and Mi’kmaq communities. In his view, the Commission ought to have directly sought their input. Mr. Fraser indicated that he raised this issue with the Commission, but it did not to address his suggestion. With respect to Indigenous communities, Mr. Fraser felt that the Commission acted without fulfilling the constitutionally required duty to consult.

The Committee supports Mr. Fraser’s objection and recommends that the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Nova Scotia consider it favourably.

B.  Electoral District Name Changes

1.   The Honourable Sean Fraser, member for Central Nova

Mr. Fraser objected to the proposed riding name of Pictou–Eastern Shore. Instead, he believes that the name of the riding should remain Central Nova, as the proposed name ignores some “significant communities” that make up the riding.

The Committee supports Mr. Fraser’s objection and recommends that the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Nova Scotia consider it favourably.