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 Manitoba (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 Manitoba 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 two objections.

A.  Electoral Boundary Changes

1.   Niki Ashton, the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski and James Bezan, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman

Niki Ashton, the member of Parliament for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, and James Bezan, the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, jointly objected to the proposed boundaries for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski and Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. Specifically, they objected to the Commission’s placement of two adjacent First Nations communities, the Little Saskatchewan First Nation and a recent community development by Lake St. Martin First Nation called Obushkudayang, into the proposed riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. At present, these two communities are almost entirely located in the current riding of Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. According to Ms. Ashton and Mr. Bezan, their proposed placement into Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman would separate them from other communities with whom they have shared interests and identity. Ms. Ashton and Mr. Bezan recommended redrawing the boundaries so that both communities remain a part of Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

Ms. Ashton and Mr. Bezan told the Committee that, as a result of the previous boundary readjustment, the reserves of Little Saskatchewan No. 48 and Lake St. Martin No. 49 and 49A were placed in the riding of Churchill—Kewwatinook Aski; they previously were part of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. In its Report, the Commission now suggested placing the entirety of Little Saskatchewan Reserve No. 48 back into Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, which would disconnect the reserve from neighbouring Indigenous communities that would remain in Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. The proposed boundaries would also split Lake St. Martin First Nation Reserve No. 49 from Obushkudayang, with the latter also being placed in Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

Ms. Ashton and Mr. Bezan are concerned that moving communities repeatedly from one constituency to another might cause disenfranchisement, resulting in a reduced exercise of the communities’ democratic rights. Ms. Ashton stated that, since 2015, much work has been expended to enfranchise and inform citizens of the seven First Nations in the eastern Interlake about which constituency they are a part of, and where constituency offices and services are located. According to the members, placing two of the seven First Nations into a separate riding could contribute to confusion and mistrust, especially since the Commission’s initial Proposal did not include this change, nor were the affected communities consulted. As such, representations about keeping the seven First Nations in the eastern Interlake in the same riding could not be made at the public hearings. The members deemed the Commission’s proposed change as “unfair” and “disrespectful” to the affected communities.

Ms. Ashton and Mr. Bezan stressed that, over the last two decades, the affected communities have dealt with major upheaval and relocation caused by floods. They told the Committee that dividing the community of Lake St. Martin between two ridings would be detrimental to the efforts undertaken to ensure community stability and continuity. As for Little Saskatchewan, disconnecting the reserve from the neighbouring Pinaymootang First Nation, Dauphin River First Nation and Lake St. Martin First Nation (except for Obushkudayang) would be inconsistent with the principle of keeping communities of interest in the same constituency. It was noted that individuals in these communities have close ties among families, share celebrations and access common services together. Further, these nations are part of the same regional Interlake Reserves Tribal Council.

The members also noted that the member of Parliament for the riding of Churchill—Keewatinook Aski would still need to transit through both the Little Saskatchewan First Nation and the community of Obushkudayang when visiting nearby Indigenous communities.

As an alternative, the members proposed to:

• place the reserves of Little Saskatchewan No. 48 and Obushkudayang in the Churchill—Keewatinook Aski riding; and
• divide the Rural Municipality of Grahamdale as follows:

The Rural Municipality of Grahamdale be intersected with the boundary between Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and Churchill—Keewatinook Aski commencing from Fairford Reserve No. 50 northerly along Fairford Road (Municipal Road 49W); continuing northerly down Kotelnyk Road (Municipal Road 49W) and further northerly down municipal road allowance for Road 49W at approximate latitude 51.67271 N till Provincial Road 513; thence easterly along PR 513 till the westerly limit of Obushkudayang; thence northerly, easterly and southerly of said First Nation to the northerly limit of Lake St. Martin Reserve No. 49 and 49A;

They noted that, according to the 2021 census data, their proposal would result in electoral district populations as follows:

• a) Churchill—Keewatinook Aski: 82,737 (with a variance from the provincial electoral quota of -13.70%); and
• b) Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman: 98,624 (with a variance from the provincial electoral quota of +2.87%).

Ms. Aston and Mr. Bezan’s objection is supported by a letter signed by Craig Howse, Reeve of the Rural Municipality of Grahamdale. At the public hearings, this municipality made representations to oppose the initial Proposal that would have divided the hamlet of Gypsumville between the two ridings; however, the municipality agrees with the alternative proposed by Mr. Bezan and Ms. Ashton as described above.

The Committee supports Mr. Bezan and Ms. Ashton’s objection and recommends that the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Manitoba consider it favourably.

2.   Daniel Blaikie, the member for Elmwood—Transcona

Daniel Blaikie, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, objected to the boundaries proposed in the Commission’s Report for Elmwood—Transcona. Specifically, he objected to the proposed expansion of the riding to the east and the inclusion of territory that is located outside of the City of Winnipeg.

Mr. Blaikie explained that, in the Commission’s Report, the proposed riding of Elmwood—Transcona expands east to include the community of Dugald, which is located in the Rural Municipality of Springfield. The effect of this proposal would be to convert Elmwood—Transcona from an urban riding into a mixed urban-rural riding. Mr. Blaikie indicated that, in his view, the proposed change places communities with divergent interests and priorities into the same riding. Further, he stated he proposed change would significantly alter the type of work the member of Parliament for Elmwood—Transcona would undertake, including having to develop relationships with rural members of the Legislative Assembly, health authorities and the council for Springfield.

Mr. Blaikie noted that, in the Report, the Commission justifies its changes to the riding of Elmwood—Transcona out of a need to balance the population sizes of Elmwood—Transcona and the adjacent riding of Provencher. The Commission indicated the communities of Transcona and Dugald have shared ties.

Mr. Blaikie indicated that, in his view, the ties between Transcona and Dugald are tenuous. He noted that, to his knowledge, the only administrative link in recent memory between the two communities is the former school district of Transcona–Springfield, which was disbanded in 2002. Mr. Blaikie also noted that the current trend existed that saw an administrative separation between the communities of northeast Winnipeg and the communities of the Rural Municipality of Springfield. As such, the Commission's proposal would go against this prevailing tendency.

Mr. Blaikie told the Committee that the northeast side of Winnipeg is one of the fastest growing areas of the city and that he expected this growth to continue, although he did not have exact figures to provide to the Committee. He indicated that the population of Elmwood—Transcona would, in the coming years, continue to grow within the boundaries of the City of Winnipeg. As such, in his view, it would make more sense to increase the geographic size of the adjacent riding of Kildonan—St. Paul, which already is made up of an urban and a rural area, rather than to include rural communities in Elmwood—Transcona. Mr. Blaikie told the Committee that similarities existed between some of the rural communities that are currently part of Kildonan—St. Paul and the rural communities the Commission is proposing to include in Elmwood—Transcona.

Mr. Blaikie told the Committee that, in order to offset the decrease in population size that would result from his alternative proposal, the Commission could modify the proposed northern boundary of Elmwood—Transcona to incorporate a larger portion of the neighbourhood of North Kildonan. Mr. Blaikie told the Committee that this neighbourhood shares multiple demographic, historical and service similarities with the communities in his current riding.

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