PROC Committee Report

Report on the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Nova Scotia 2022: Conservative Dissenting Report

This Dissenting Report reflects the views of the Conservative Members of Parliament who serve on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (“PROC”): MP John Nater (Vice-Chair of the Committee, Perth-Wellington), MP Luc Berthold (Megantic-L’Erable), MP Blaine Calkins (Red Deer-Lacombe), and MP Michael Cooper (St. Albert-Edmonton).

Introduction

Three Notices of Objection were submitted to PROC in response to the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Nova Scotia by MPs Jamie Battiste, the Honourable Sean Fraser, and Lena Metledge Diab. We respectfully disagree with the conclusions in the Report of PROC to support the objections and set out our observations in this Dissenting Report.

General Observations

We acknowledge the work of the Commission.  It is evident that the Commission made a significant effort to gather public feedback, holding eight in-person public hearings across Nova Scotia, as well as one virtual hearing. The Commission heard from 104 presenters and received more than 1,000 written submissions. As the Commission noted in its report, adjustments were made between the original proposal and the final report based on this input.[1] Considering the foregoing, we are deferential to the Commission’s final conclusions.

The Battiste Objection

MP Battiste recommended maintaining the existing boundaries for the ridings of Sydney-Victoria and Cape Breton-Canso. MP Battiste also raised procedural issues.

Our Observations

We respect the Commission’s decision to divide Cape Breton into a generally urban riding consisting of “industrial” Cape Breton (Sydney-Glace Bay), and a rural riding extending onto the mainland (Cape Breton-Canso-Antigonish). The Commission noted that during the consultation process, which MP Battiste neglected to participate in, there was support for dividing Cape Breton into urban and rural ridings.[2]  We also take note that the that the Commission “spent considerable time” to determine the boundaries of an urban industrial riding, Sydney-Glace Bay.[3]

We note that the Commission explored maintaining two Cape Breton only ridings, however, determined that this was not possible, as both ridings would fall below the permissible -25% variance.[4] Accordingly, MP Battiste’s recommendation to maintain the status quo in Cape Breton is not feasible.

We observe that MP Battiste only took the position of maintaining the status quo on Cape Breton after the release of the Report of the Commission. MP Battiste did not object when the Commission originally proposed adjustments to the Cape Breton ridings, including extending Cape Breton-Canso onto the mainland. Indeed, MP Battiste did not provide input to the Commission, despite having ample opportunity to do so. Now late in the process he has decided to take his case to PROC.

MP Battiste’s contention that this was because the Sydney-Victoria riding remained largely unchanged in the Commission’s initial proposal is wanting. Other MPs who were satisfied with the initial proposal provided input to the Commission. For example, MP Stephen Ellis shared his positive remarks at the virtual hearing noting: “since you already have it right – it’s already a great riding, the boundaries and numbers appear to be appropriate – I’ll keep my comments short and to the Commission I will say thank you for your deliberations and thank you for keeping Cumberland-Colchester the way it is.” 

Likewise, MP Battiste could have informed and encouraged members of the Eskasoni, Membertou, and Wagmatcook communities to provide input to the Commission. The location of the Commission’s public hearing at the Cambridge Suites hotel in Sydney is accessible to these communities. According to Google Maps, the hotel is only a six-minute drive from Membertou, a 33-minute drive from Eskasoni, and a one hour and nine-minute drive from Wagmatcook.  There was also a virtual hearing plus the opportunity to make written submissions over several months.

Having done none of the above, it is unreasonable for MP Battiste, late in the process, after the release of the Commission’s final report, to now ask the Commission to make significant adjustments to the riding boundaries in Cape Breton.

The Fraser Objection

MP Fraser’s main objections to the configuration of the newly drawn Pictou-Eastern Shore riding, can be summarized as follows: (1) extending the riding close to the City of Halifax changes the character of the riding to one that includes bedroom communities with different needs from riding’s small towns and rural communities; and (2) Antigonish and Pictou counties should not be separated. MP Fraser also proposes a name change from Pictou-Eastern Shore to Central Nova.

The Proposed Name Change

We support MP Fraser’s recommended name change. Central Nova better captures the geographical location of the riding and does not exclude communities of interest in the name. Central Nova has for decades been the riding name for large parts of the riding except between 1997 and 2004. Many residents no doubt identify with living in the Central Nova riding, which is further reason, in our opinion, to maintain this historical riding name. 

Extending the Riding close to Halifax

We acknowledge that the character of the riding will change by adding communities in the Halifax Regional Municipality (“HRM”). However, the HRM is projected to account for much of the province’s population growth for the foreseeable future. We are concerned that removing communities within the HRM from Pictou-Eastern Shore will cause a cascading effect impacting the boundaries of multiple ridings across the province. The Commission laid out the challenge of the HRM beginning with the overpopulation of Halifax-West on page 6 of the original proposal stating: “It is not as simple, however, as making a single adjustment to Halifax-West to bring it within the 25% permissible variance. Adjusting the boundary or boundaries of one riding necessarily results in the adjustment of adjoining ridings, and this often causes a cascading effect to others.”[5]

We submit that any further adjustments the boundaries of ridings at this late stage in the process should generally be limited and targeted.

Antigonish and Pictou Counties

As already noted, we respect the Commission’s decision to establish an urban and a rural riding in Cape Breton. Given Cape Breton’s population, we take note of the Commission’s finding that it is necessary to extend one of the Cape Breton ridings onto the mainland.[6] 

We further observe that there are strong links between Antigonish and rural Cape Breton. We note that during the consultation process the Commission was advised of a “strong community of interest” and received support for Antigonish to remain connected with Cape Breton.[7]

There are particularly strong current and historical ties between Antigonish and the Cape Breton counties of Guysborough, Inverness, and Richmond, that together is known as the Strait Area. The communities of the Strait Area share:

• A common chamber of commerce, the Strait Area Chamber of Commerce.
• Health services, including a regional hospital at Antigonish, and until recently a common healthcare delivery structure under the Guysborough Antigonish Strait Health Authority.
• A common school district, the Strait Regional School Board.
• A community of faith, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Antigonish.
• A strong connection to St. Francis Xavier University.
• The radio station XFM/CJFX was the original station serving listeners in Antigonish, Guysborough County, Inverness County, and Richmond County.

Moreover, there is historical precedent for situating Antigonish and Cape Breton within the same federal riding. From 1968 to 1997 Antigonish was part of the then Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso riding.

It has been suggested that the new Cape Breton-Canso-Antigonish riding will be geographically large and difficult to effectively represent.  We disagree. We note that in the current Cape Breton-Canso riding, it takes approximately 3 hours and 10 minutes to drive from Glace Bay to Isaacs Harbour, which is essentially end-to-end.  It takes approximately the same time to drive from Dingwall to Antigonish, which is essentially end-to-end in the new Cape Breton-Canso-Antigonish riding.

The Diab Objection

MP Diab’s objects to the newly drawn Halifax-West riding on the grounds that: (1) the Larry Uteck community should be returned to Halifax-West; and (2) communities of St. Margaret’s Bay moved to Halifax-West should be returned to South Shore-St. Margaret’s. MP Diab also asserts that the process was procedurally unfair.

The Process

We are of the opinion that MP Diab’s contention that the process was procedurally unfair is without merit. MP Diab complains that no public hearing was held within Halifax-West. However, the Commission held eight in-person public hearings, including in Cole Harbour and Lower Sackville, which are accessible to Halifax-West residents.  Driving times to get to Cole Harbour and Lower Sackville from all corners of Halifax-West range from approximately 15 minutes to one hour.  There was also a virtual hearing, and plenty of time to make written submissions.

At PROC, MP Diab argued, without evidence, that Halifax-West residents, particularly newcomers, were unfamiliar with the process, and therefore did not participate. While MP Diab appears to lay the blame entirely on the Commission for this, there is nothing to indicate that she took the initiative to inform constituents about the process and encourage participation.

Larry Uteck

We do not take issue, per se, with the Larry Uteck community being placed back in Halifax-West. This new, fast-growing area is more connected to Bedford in terms of shopping and school patterns than it is with Timberlea and Fairmount.

We caution, however, that this is one of the fastest growing communities in Nova Scotia, and Halifax-West is already +12.60% above the electoral quota. We are also concerned that this will have a complicating ripple effect necessitating significant changes to the boundaries of multiple ridings.

St. Margaret’s Bay

The Commission’s decision to move some of the communities of St. Margaret’s Bay within the HRM to Halifax-West from South Shore-St. Margaret’s is reasonable. In the final report, the boundary between Halifax-West and South Short-St. Margaret’s divides the St. Margaret’s Bay communities in a manner which comes closer to respecting the approximately 300 years of history represented by the Lunenburg County Line.

MP Diab’s assertion that the communities of St. Margaret’s Bay have always been in the same federal riding is factually incorrect. Except for one decade between Confederation and 2004, communities of St. Margaret’s Bay were divided federally, with the boundary separating the communities being the Lunenburg County line, which divides the eastern and western shores of St. Margaret’s Bay.  Accordingly, the new boundary is closer to the historical pattern of the South Shore-St. Margaret’s riding than the current boundary or that proposed by MP Diab.

Additionally, the new boundaries also better reflect the communities of interest found within Halifax-West and South Shore-St. Margaret’s.  The communities of St. Margaret’s Bay now lend themselves closer to the bedroom urban communities of Halifax rather than the rural fishing and forestry counties of Queen’s, Shelburne, and Lunenburg. 

During the public hearing in Bridgewater, several presenters expressed this view, including former MP Gerald Keddy, who noted how “much of Halifax County has become a bedroom community for Halifax” and that the residents of St. Margaret’s Bay have become “urbanites” lending themselves now to a close connection with Halifax.[8] Furthermore, as presenter George Ernst pointed out, the residents of the HRM “are not dependent on resource-based industries [like the communities along the South Shore], but instead often make their living working in service, government and other industries scattered through Halifax and surrounding industrial parks.”[9]

Based upon the input received at the public hearings, we observe that the Commission made a significant effort to listen to public feedback in drafting the final report. 

Conclusion

We do not recommend any changes to riding boundaries drawn by the Commission in its final report.

Respectfully submitted,

John Nater, MP, Vice-Chair Perth Wellington

Luc Berthold, MP Megantic-L’Erable

Blaine Calkins, MP Red Deer-Lacombe

Michael Cooper, MP St. Albert-Edmonton