PROC Committee Report

Report on the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Québec: 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 (Mégantic—L’Érable), MP Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe), and MP Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton).

Introduction

PROC received eleven Notices of Objection in response to the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Québec requesting electoral boundary changes (the “Boundary Objections”). In addition, PROC received 10 Notices of Objection requesting electoral boundary name changes (the “Name Objections”).

We respectfully disagree with the conclusions in the Report of PROC to support the objections of MPs Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean) and Mario Simard (Jonquière) (collectively referred to as the “Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean Objections”) and set out our objections in this Dissenting Report. We concur with the Report of PROC to support the objections of MPs Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable), the Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau (Compton—Stanstead), and Louis Plamondon (Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel) (collectively referred to as the Chaudière—Appalaches Objections) and wish to set out our observations. We take no position on the other Boundary Objections.

We concur with the Report of PROC to support the Name Objections. However, we wish to set out our observations in support of the Name Objections of MP Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup) and MP Berthold.

We note that MP Berthold recused himself from assessing his own objection and did not participate in drafting the parts of the Report of PROC or this Report that pertain to his riding.  

The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean Objections

We respectfully defer to the manner in which the Commission drew the electoral boundaries in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, including the configuration of the Jonquière—Alma riding.

It is our observation that the Commission had an unenviable task in drawing an electoral map in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. As the Commission noted in its Proposal, the region had “worrying demographics” with three of the four ridings in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Côte-Nord regions seeing “their populations decline in absolute figures over the past 10 years.”[1] The Commission considered removing one of the three ridings in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. However, it observed that this would result in the two remaining ridings in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean having the highest populations in Québec. It would have also resulted in a “significant expansion” of the already vast Manicouagan riding.[2]

Another challenge for the Commission is that Jonquière and Chicoutimi-Le Fjord have populations significantly below the electoral quota for Québec. In the case of Chicoutimi-Le Fjord, the population exceeds the -25% threshold imposed by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. E-3 (ERBA).[3] Having made the decision to maintain three ridings in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, the Commission needed to increase the population of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to bring it within the threshold imposed by the ERBA. Beyond this, it is reasonable for the Commission to decide to reduce the disparities between the region’s three ridings. After all, as the Commission correctly noted, the “primary” requirement of effective representation, as determined by the Supreme Court of Canada, is population parity.[4] 

On the low end, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord has a population of 80,593 while Jonquière has a population of 87,596. By contrast, Lac-Saint-Jean has a significantly larger population of 103,886, which is 23%, and 16% greater than Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and Jonquière respectively.[5] To address the disparities, it became necessary for the Commission to adjust the Lac-Saint-Jean riding.

The Commission initially proposed moving several communities within the Regional County Municipalities (“RCMs”) of Maria-Chapdelaine and Lac-Saint-Jean-Est from Lac-Saint-Jean to Jonquière. As the Commission acknowledged, “the proposal was not well received.”[6] Based upon the feedback that the Commission received during the consultation process, the Commission decided to transfer back to Lac-Saint-Jean the communities in the RCMs of Maria- Chapdelaine and Lac-Saint-Jean-Est, thereby keeping the RCMs united. Having decided this, the Commission had no practicable choice but to transfer another part of Lac-Saint-Jean to Jonquière to achieve relative population parity. The Commission decided to move Alma from Lac-Saint-Jean to the newly named riding of Jonquière—Alma.

We acknowledge that Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean are distinct regions, and that Jonquière is part of the Saguenay region, and Alma is part of the Lac-Saint-Jean region. However, boundary lines must be drawn somewhere. Given the Commission’s mandate, it seems that no matter how they drew these boundaries, it would leave some in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean unsatisfied. This is demonstrated by MPs Brunelle-Duceppe and Simard. Both MPs were unhappy with the Commission’s initial proposal and are likewise unhappy with the Commission’s final proposal. In short, there is no ideal solution for the region.

Assessing the reasonableness of the drawing of the Jonquière—Alma riding cannot be done in isolation and consideration must be given to the regional impact. Arguably, transferring Alma into the new riding of Jonquière—Alma is the “cleanest” adjustment that can be made in the region. Alma is one municipality. As a result, the Commission’s final proposal keeps RCMs and municipalities united, to the greatest extent possible. As the Commission noted, dividing the RCMs of Lac-Saint-Jean-Est and Maria-Chapdelaine in its initial proposal was “particularly” “not well received.”[7] Moreover, Alma is proximate to Jonquière, being only 42 km apart, and is approximately a 30-minute drive. Geographically, Jonquière—Alma is a workable riding to represent.

A key argument of MPs Brunelle-Duceppe and Simard is that from a representation standpoint, Alma will be disadvantaged in the new riding. At PROC, MP Brunelle-Duceppe argued that Alma would be negatively impacted because the town’s “political weight will shrink.”[8] MP Simard offered anecdotal evidence from a group of businesspeople who said that Alma was “poorly served”, because the then MP for Jonquière—Alma was “focused more on Jonquière than Alma and did not attend as many events there.”[9]

Respectfully, we find this argument to be unconvincing. Alma’s population as of 2021 is 30,331, representing approximately one third of the population of Jonquière—Alma. The population of Alma is sufficiently sizeable within the new riding to give it significant “clout” with whoever is elected as the MP for the new riding. Any MP who ignored the second largest municipality in their riding, which accounts for one-third of the population, would likely face political consequences.

We accept that whoever is the MP for the new riding may have a stronger connection with either Jonquière or Alma. However, this is hardly novel. Many MP’s represent ridings with multiple municipalities, sometimes spread over large geographic areas. It is natural that they might be more familiar with one part of their riding over another, at least initially upon being elected. However, the work of an MP is to bridge those gaps, by working their riding, and being accessible to constituents. In the case of Jonquière—Alma, the MP would have to become acquainted with only two main municipalities. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the argument that such an arrangement would in any meaningful way negate “effective representation” for either Jonquière or Alma.

We wish to note that the Report of PROC mentions twice that MP Richard Martel (Chicoutimi-Le Fjord) supported the Commission’s initial Proposal. It fails to mention that MP Martel also supports the Commission’s Final Report.[10] The failure to acknowledge this in the Report of PROC inaccurately suggests that MP Martel endorses the objections presented by MPs Brunelle-Duceppe and Simard, which he does not.

Taken together, we believe that the Commission should leave Jonquière—Alma intact.

The Chaudière—Appalaches Objections

We support the Chaudière—Appalaches Objections. Taken together, they are targeted, minor adjustments that will better keep communities of interest together, while respecting the principle of voter parity amongst ridings. It is noteworthy that these objections are collectively supported by all affected municipalities and MPs - the latter of whom are from three different political parties.

Weedon, Lingwick, and Scotstown

We submit that Weedon, Lingwick, and Scotstown should be moved from Mégantic—L’Érable to Compton—Stanstead. The Commission’s final proposal places these communities in a riding separate from the 11 other municipalities in the RCM of Haut-St-Francois, which are in Compton—Stanstead. The Commission has recognized that RCM’s represent important communities of interest. To that end, the Commission has made efforts to keep RCMs united within the same riding, to the degree that this is possible, having regard for other factors, including the overriding principle of relative population parity.[11] An example of this is the adjustments made to Lac-Saint-Jean between the Commission’s initial and final proposal. From this standpoint, we submit that Weedon, Lingwick, and Scotstown more appropriately belong in Compton—Stanstead.

Moreover, as noted by MP Bibeau, these communities are socially, economically, and culturally connected to other municipalities in Compton—Stanstead. Particularly, there are strong ties with Cookshire—Eaton and East Angus. In contrast, there is no meaningful connection between these communities and Thetford Mines, the municipality that is at the centre of Mégantic—L’Érable.[12]

Another relevant factor, which favours these communities returning to Compton—Stanstead is “the historical pattern of an electoral district”, pursuant to section 15(2)(b) of the ERBA. These communities have been part of Compton—Stanstead since the riding was established in 1996.[13]

The Commission has appropriately given significant weight towards achieving relative population parity amongst ridings. Moving these communities back to Compton—Stanstead does not upset that objective. Collectively, these communities have a population of 3,767.[14] With this adjustment, Compton—Stanstead would go from +0.6% to +5.5%, whereas Mégantic—L’Érable would go from -3.9% to -7.3% relative to the electoral quota for Québec. This is well within the range of the plus or minus 10% target the Commission set.[15] It should be noted that the voter parity of Mégantic—L’Érable will be brought closer to the electoral quota, if Val-Alain, Leclercville and Villeroy are added to Mégantic—L’Érable as proposed in the Chaudière—Appalaches Objections.

Villeroy

We respectfully submit that Villeroy be moved from Bécancour—Saurel—Odanek to Mégantic—L’Érable.

From a community of interest perspective, Villeroy is part of the RCM of L’Érable, and would be the only municipality in the RCM to not be situated in Mégantic—L’Érable. With a population of 484, returning Villeroy to Mégantic—L’Érable will have no meaningful impact on the deviation of either riding from the electoral quota. As such, Villeroy should be returned to Mégantic—L’Érable.[16]

Leclercville and Val-Alain

We acknowledge that the Commission listened to and gave weight to the feedback that it received during the consultation period regarding the division of the RCM of Lotbinière. In our opinion, the division of the RCM of Lotbinière in the final proposal is a significant improvement from the initial proposal.

However, we submit that Leclercville and Val-Alain more appropriately fit within Mégantic—L’Érable, having regard for their ties to nearby communities in the RCM that are part of Mégantic—L’Érable. This is supported by the submissions of Councils of the RCM of Lotbinière, Leclercville, Val-Alain, and nearby municipalities in the RCM of Lotbinière. Collectively, the Councils of these municipalities request that the Leclercville and Val-Alain be moved to Mégantic—L’Érable. This transfer would also see that the RCM of Lotbinière be divided into two, rather than three federal ridings. This would be a desirable outcome for the RCM of Lotbinière and is consistent with the Commission’s approach to keep RCMs united, where possible.

We concede that this adjustment would result in Bécancour—Saurel—Odanek being at -11.6% relative to the electoral quota, which falls outside of the Commission’s population target of plus or minus 10%. However, the Commission has shown flexibility in departing from this target in the case of eight ridings, having regard for other factors in the EBRA. Being outside the target by a mere 1.6% is a modest departure. Moreover, such a deviation will likely be offset by anticipated population growth for Bécancour—Saurel—Odanek in the near future, bringing the population back within the Commission’s target. This is detailed in MP Plamondon’s objection and testimony at PROC.

Proposed Name Changes

We respectfully ask the Commission to give favourable consideration to the name changes proposed by MPs Généreux and Berthold.

With respect to MP Généreux’s proposal, Côte-du-Sud is a better descriptor of the region than Kamouraska, which is only one of three RCMs in the riding. Consistent with this, the name Côte-du-Sud has been adopted at the provincial level. Further, Rivière-du-Loup, being the largest municipality in the riding, is the economic, social, and cultural centre of the riding. As such, it should be included in the name of the riding.

With respect to MP Berthold’s proposal, we submit that the name “Appalaches—Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière” is a better descriptor of the riding. We note in particular that approximately half of the RCM of Lotbinière, representing a sizeable population, has been moved into the riding. As such, it should be recognized in the name of the riding.

Respectfully submitted,

John Nater, MP, Vice-Chair

Perth—Wellington

Luc Berthold, MP

Mégantic—L’Érable

Blaine Calkins, MP

Red Deer—Lacombe

Michael Cooper, MP

St. Albert—Edmonton