Introduction

On 2 February 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 Saskatchewan (the Commission and the Report).

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 was tabled in the House of Commons, and referred to the Committee on 6 December 2022. By the end of the 30-day period, the clerk of the Committee had received three objections.

A.  Electoral Boundary Changes

1.   Daniel Blaikie, the member for Elmwood–Transcona

Daniel Blaikie, the member for Elmwood–Transcona, objected to the Commission’s decision, in its Report, against creating a central urban riding in Saskatoon. He notes that the Commission, in its initial Proposal of 9 May 2022, had created such a riding, which it named Saskatoon Centre.

He indicated that the Report stated the Commission found that there was both interest and desire to have a central urban riding in Saskatoon.

In appearing before the Committee to explain his objection, Mr. Blaikie acknowledged that he represents a riding in Manitoba and that he did not claim to be a subject-matter expert on the province of Saskatchewan. He stated that some residents in Saskatchewan had contacted the New Democratic Party’s (NDP) federal office to express their support for a potential central urban riding in Saskatoon organized around the idea of political representation for the urban core. These residents have concerns with the Commission’s Report and prefer the boundary proposals for Saskatoon found in the initial Proposal. They contacted the federal NDP in order to have a voice in this stage of the process.

Mr. Blaikie stated that the population growth of Saskatoon made it no longer tenable to deny the merits of a central urban riding in Saskatoon. Further, he indicated that the matter of creating such a riding began in 2012 and the conversation about its creation will continue, in ten years’ time with a larger population in Saskatoon, if not addressed during the current boundaries readjustment process.

Mr. Blaikie asked the Committee to provide its reflections to the Commission about the nature of political representation and how to make the representative role of members of Parliament more cohesive or coherent. He raised the question about whether it makes sense to create split urban-rural ridings, whereby one member of Parliament is expected to properly mediate and represent the concerns of both urban and rural residents.

He noted that the Commission, in its Report, recognized that urban cores have unique challenges with respect to transit, housing, homelessness, and so on. He indicated that residents who spoke in favour of creating a central urban riding in Saskatoon did so to have advocacy and representation that focused on the urban experience and would not be divided between two very different communities of interest that have very different infrastructure needs.

In his view, one effect of creating urban-rural ridings was that one of either rural residents or urban residents will end up feeling like their member of Parliament does not truly speak to their specific concerns. As such, some residents will feel like they don’t have a voice for their concerns.

In sum, Mr. Blaikie advocated for creating ridings where the communities of interest for urban areas and rural areas is well respected.

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

2.   The Honourable Andrew Scheer, the member for Regina–Qu’Appelle

The Honourable Andrew Scheer, P.C., the member for Regina–Qu’Appelle, raised two separate objections about the boundaries of the proposed Regina–Qu’Appelle riding.

Firstly, he objected to the Commission’s proposal to move a neighbourhood located west of Lewvan Drive, in the southwest corner of the current Regina–Qu’Appelle riding, into the neighbouring riding to its west of Regina–Lewvan. Mr. Scheer stated that, in his view, the Commission violated section 15 of the EBRA by not fully considering the community of interest or community identity in or historical pattern of an electoral district in the province. It may be worth noting that Warren Steinley, the member for Regina–Lewvan, has raised the same objection on the same grounds.

According to Mr. Scheer, Lewvan Drive is a major arterial north-south road that acts as a boundary that separates the communities and neighbourhoods on either side of it. He stated that

• there are few links between neighbourhoods on either side of Lewvan Drive in this part of Regina;
• many streets do not cross Lewvan Drive because it is three lanes wide in either direction and a high traffic road; and
• all the community and neighbourhood associations are split by Lewvan Drive.

Mr. Scheer pointed out that North Central Regina, located in the south-western corner of the current riding of Regina–Qu’Appelle, is a very distinct, cohesive, uniform and easily identifiable area, with housing that was constructed in the same era and similar demographics among the residents. By comparison, across Lewvan Drive, the neighbourhood is completely different, in terms of demographics and the uniformity of the housing. He indicated that North Central Regina has been in the Regina–Qu’Appelle riding for over 30 years. In North Central Regina, the schools cooperate and support each other, and outreach and urban services are offered by institutions and organizations, such as the Indian Christian Métis Fellowship and the North Central Family Centre.

Mr. Scheer surmised that changes were made to the southwest corner of the current Regina–Qu’Appelle riding to add population to the riding. This is because, in the Report, the proposed riding of Regina–Qu’Appelle loses communities in its northern portion. Mr. Scheer proposed that the Commission ought to move the neighbourhoods west of Lewvan Drive back into the Regina–Qu’Appelle riding and make fewer changes to the proposed riding’s northern communities.

Secondly, Mr. Scheer objected to the removal of the communities of and around Wynyard and Ituna from the current Regina–Qu’Appelle riding. He stated that these communities have, for decades, been in the same riding as Kelliher and Fort-Qu’Appelle. Mr. Scheer indicated that, in making such a proposal, the Commission did not fully consider communities of interest or historical patterns of the Regina–Qu’Appelle riding.

He noted that during the public hearings, submissions made by residents of Wynyard and Ituna all sought to be included into the same riding as Fort Qu'Appelle. He told the Committee that Fort Qu'Appelle is the hub for residents of that area and is the largest urban centre outside of Regina.

Mr. Scheer stated that his proposal to add Wynyard and Ituna to the proposed riding of Regina–Qu’Appelle is a transfer of about 2,700 residents and would have a minimal impact on the population figures of both that riding and the neighbouring riding of Yorkton—Melville. He further noted that the Commission had given itself wide latitude in departing from the province’s electoral quota, as evidenced by the variation from the electoral quota of -53.22% for the proposed riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

Lastly, Mr. Scheer indicated that the residents of Regina and Saskatoon, and Saskatchewan generally, experienced dramatic changes to the design of their ridings as a result of the 2012 electoral boundaries readjustment process. In this regard, he indicated that residents would likely welcome a greater sense of continuity between the 2012 and 2022 readjustment processes, as opposed to having to experience another round of massive changes to their ridings, especially if these changes are not justified by demographic growth or shifts in where the population resides.

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

3.   Warren Steinley, the member for Regina–Lewvan

Mr. Steinley’s objection is the same in substance as Mr. Scheer’s objection, and concerns the neighbourhoods on the west and east of Lewvan Drive. Mr. Steinley proposes to transfer two neighbourhoods between the proposed ridings of Regina–Qu’Appelle and Regina–Lewvan. Specifically, he proposes to

• transfer a neighbourhood, totalling 5,771 constituents, located to the east of Lewvan Drive from the proposed riding of Regina–Qu’Appelle into the proposed riding of Regina–Lewvan; and
• transfer a neighbourhood, totalling 5,275 constituents, located to the west of Lewvan Drive from the proposed riding of Regina–Lewvan into the proposed riding of Regina–Qu’Appelle.

Mr. Steinley’s objection is based on the existence of communities of interest and identity in that part of the province, as well as the historical pattern of the electoral districts of Regina–Lewvan and Regina–Qu’Appelle, as found in section 15 of the EBRA.

He told the Committee that residents in the affected area have lived and voted together for decades in ridings separated by Lewvan Drive. Further, Lewvan Drive acts as a boundary for residents, school boards, school community councils, community associations and so on. The city wards in Regina do not cross Lewvan Drive, nor do the provincial ridings for members of the Legislative assembly of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Steinley indicated that he could not have raised this objection during the public hearings because his objection is based on the Commission’s Report, which was issued after the conclusion of the public hearings.

He stated that his proposal would keep over 11,000 constituents within their current riding, and follows the principle of section 15 of EBRA, regarding the Commission’s obligation to fully consider communities of community identity in, or the historical pattern, of an electoral district in the province. He noted that his proposal has no domino effect on other ridings and that it was supported by Mr. Scheer and his colleagues in Saskatchewan.

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