Good policy translates into electoral appeal

With an election coming up in September, the various political parties are already gearing up for the pre-election period. The rhetoric is becoming sharper and the various political leaders are visibly challenging each other on the issues of the day. Candidates are being sought and local nominations are already taking place.

Despite the fact that the Parties and their Leaders appear to have each other in their sights, all of these activities are aimed at one target – the voter.

As Don Desserud and others have observed, New Brunswick voters appear to be a fairly fickle bunch. They embraced Bernard Lord and the Progressive Conservatives in 1999 but voter affection definitely cooled by 2003. The Liberals with Shawn Graham at the helm were able to win a narrow victory in 2006 but were firmly rejected in 2010. It now appears that the David Alward-led PCs will have difficulty repeating their dramatic 2010 sweep in September.

Even though these electoral shifts are dramatic, the Liberals and PCs maintain a “duopoly” over representation in the Legislature. The New Democrats have been without a seat in the Legislature since 2005 and neither the Green Party nor the People’s Alliance Party, relative newcomers to the provincial political scene, have been able to win seats.

Rather than focus on the parties, we should try understanding the process by which voters decide how to cast their vote. This is a challenging endeavour – a voting decision is as individual as the voter who casts their ballot. Some may vote according to a long-held partisan belief. Others may be torn between their options or, as decreasing turnout numbers attest, will not cast a vote at all.

Since 1965, a consortium of political scientists has been studying the electoral behaviour of Canadians through the Canadian Elections Study (CES). Based primarily on data collected during federal elections, the CES takes an in-depth look at the many factors that contribute to a voting decision. (You can check out the CES at http://ces-eec.org).

One of the key conclusions I have drawn from this information is that policy, rather than the Leader or the local candidate, is the primary driver in the voter’s decision-making process. Having the right policies, and having the perceived competence to deliver on them, accounts for approximately one-half of the vote choice.

It is not enough to have popular policies; you also need to have credibility that you can deliver on these policies. There is no political benefit in espousing popular policies that conflict with each other or promoting a policy agenda that you are constitutionally, legally or financially unable to deliver.

Despite the dominance of political personalities in media coverage of politics and elections, party leaders only account for about one-quarter of a voting choice. Of course, Leaders are the chief spokespersons for their respective parties and their key messages tend to focus on the policy issues they think are vote-getters. More often than not, party leaders stress the policy differences between their respective parties rather than promote (or critique) their personal attributes and differences.

Like Party Leaders, local candidates account for one-quarter of the voting decision. Given their importance to local voters, it is no surprise that a great deal of effort goes into the selection of these local standard-bearers.

One interesting factor in the vote choice dynamic is that Party Leaders tend to be more slightly more important for voters in urban areas represented by multiple ridings. In rural areas, or in urban areas that are represented by a single seat, the local candidate is slightly more important to the voter than the Party Leader.

But even local candidates tend to use policy-based arguments and messages at the doorstep, in town halls or with the media. No one expects every candidate to be a policy expert but they are expected to know and promote their Party’s platform and key election planks.

Clearly, candidates and leaders are important to the political process. But, if they are searching for political success, they need to have a mastery of the policy agenda. Voters may be swayed by “hot-button” issues but, more often than not, they are persuaded by a Party’s ability to govern.

The most recent British Columbia Election is a good example of this factor at work. While Adrian Dix and the NDP were seen as a sure bet to win the election, Christy Clark and the BC Liberals were able to win with relentless messaging on their ability to govern as well as taking full advantage of the policy gaffes offered up by Dix and the NDP.

When voters decide, it is policy (and policy competence) that makes the difference.

- 30 -

This article was originally published in the December 17, 2013 edition of The Telegraph-Journal.

 

The New Brunswick We Want

Twenty years ago, then-Prime Minister Kim Campbell said that an election campaign was not the time to be debating social or economic policy. Although election campaigns are supposed to be a clash of competing ideas and platforms, it can be argued that a four or five week election timeframe does not give voters sufficient time to become familiar with the various party positions and assess the ability of the different parties to actually deliver on their commitments.

Now that New Brunswick has adopted a fixed date election, with the next Provincial Election due on September 22, 2014, a discussion about the future of our Province need not be confined to the 32 days of the writ period (the time between the official call of the election and voting day). Perhaps we need to act on Ms. Campbell’s conclusion and, rather than waiting for the hurly-burly of the campaign to debate the future direction of the Province, we should start having this discussion now. Not only does this give us more time to deliberate on the issues facing our Province, this process would likely inform the positions taken by the political parties in their election planning.

So, if we are to focus on the issues of gravest importance to our Province, what would those be?

First, let’s avoid the “shopping list” approach where all the current grievances and controversies are transformed into an overlong list of “immediate” electoral promises. Instead, let’s take a deeper view into the problems we have and the solutions that are at hand. To me, there are four issues that need the focussed attention of citizens in order to prod action from our risk-adverse political machinery.

 

A Balanced Budget

The most critical policy, the one upon which all other policies are based, is with regard to the Provincial Budget. Right now, New Brunswick is caught in a vicious cycle of increasing deficits and rising debt. Even though provincial tax rates are increasing, provincial revenues are stagnant or declining. This means increased pain and little gain for the Province and its people.

But we need to reject the short-term “hack and slash” approach to fiscal matters. Yes, sometimes these measures do achieve a “balanced” budget – for a year or two. In the midst of controversial wage freezes, layoffs and service cuts, the underlying problems of public administration are ignored and the cost pressures continue to build.

New Brunswick needs to commit to a policy where deficits are the exception and balanced budgets are the norm. This is not the easiest of policies to follow but a balanced provincial budget is the best, if not the only, guarantor of our health care and public education systems.

Retooling Government

If we reject the “hack and slash” approach to budget-making, we also need to reject this approach when it comes to reforming the Provincial Public Service. We will not get the progress we need by under-valuing public servants and diminishing the work that they do.

Trends in public administration show us that changes to government spending solely driven by reducing costs invariably fail. Not only do the fiscal gains prove to be transitory, service cuts tend to be done in a haphazard manner that alienates the population.

The approaches that do succeed are those focussed on improving service to citizens. A service-orientation that provides more timely services to citizens saves money because it is more efficient. Using business process design, government activities are de-layered, de-cluttered and streamlined for service. Innovation, rather than risk-avoidance, becomes the key word for Government. t. By being smart and strategic, we can retool the Government of New Brunswick and both citizens and the economy will be the beneficiaries.

Improving Literacy

As recent headlines indicate, approximately one-half of New Brunswickers do not possess the literacy skills that we would expect from high school graduates. This is not a new problem. The fact that we continue to let this high level of illiteracy persist is as much of a problem as the lack of literacy itself. We are so used to this problem that we have “tuned it out” as an issue or believe that a solution is beyond our grasp

However, if we look at the other troubled policy areas in New Brunswick, we find that a lack of literacy is a major barrier to our success. You cannot have a modern labour force if one-half of potential employees cannot read at a high school level. You cannot support preventative health measures, or reduce the number of emergency hospitalizations, if patients cannot understand prescriptions or follow treatment plans. Investors will continue to be reluctant and economic growth will be hindered.

Like the tide that raises all boats, increasing literacy would have wide-spread benefits socially and economically.

 

Population Growth

The lack of population growth is a major underlying factor for many of the public policy challenges we face in New Brunswick. We are not only losing our best-educated and most talented young people on a daily basis; we also do not get the appropriate share of immigrants to help sustain our population levels. This decline in population has many negative attributes, from decreasing the amount of federal funding for cost-shared programs (like health and post-secondary education) to a decreasing work force and a general decline in economic strength.

The preference of New Brunswickers is to patriate those who have left seeking economic opportunities elsewhere. However, unless we can restore a sense of economic opportunity here, we are unlikely to make a difference on this front. Further, an immigration strategy that recruits new families to New Brunswick but does little to settle or integrate these new arrivals has proven to be unsuccessful.

New Brunswick needs a consistent and pro-active policy on population growth. A growing population has many benefits to New Brunswick, including bolstering the morale of the current population.

 

The New Brunswick we Want

Rather than postponing the discussion of our future to next September, we should seize the present opportunity to begun the conversation about our public policy priorities. We can have the New Brunswick we want – but only if we get to work on the underlying issues that are often hidden by today’s controversies.

- 30 -

Chris Baker is President of Continuum Research, a public opinion research firm specializing in public policy and public affairs. He served as the Deputy Minister, Policy and Priorities in the Government of New Brunswick from October 2006 to October 2008.

 

This article was originally published in the November 8, 2013 edition of The Telegraph-Journal

My Blog List

I have added a new site to My Blog List - Alex's Blog by Alex Himmelfarb, former Clerk of the Privy Council and always erudite observer of the world of politics and public administration.

Alex joins the short but eminent selection of blogs featured on Total Quality Politics. This includes Politics by Toronto Start senior reporter Susan Delacourt, the Contrarian by Cape Breton's Parker Donham, A BCer in Toronto by Jeff Jedras (social media pioneer and Chair of Deborah Coyne's recent bid for the Liberal Leadership), and It's the Economy, Stupid by New Brunswick's own David Campbell.

Aside from fine and thoughtful writing, each of these blogs provide a lively and fresh perspective on the issues of the day.

Enjoy!

It ain't broke

The 2000 presidential election in the United States, with its voting contortions and its controversial outcome, prompted many Canadians to express relief that, here, at least we know who the winner is after the voting ends.

Even critics of our system for electing members of Parliament - often called 'first-past-the-post' because the candidate with the most votes in a riding wins the election, with or without a majority - admit that the system's ability to deliver clear outcomes is one of its strengths.

However, critics tend to neglect or dismiss the other strengths of the first-past-the-post system. Further, they make the error of blaming this process for a host of political ills, from falling voter turnout to Canada's lagging record on the proportion of women and visible minorities in the House of Commons.

The recent report from the Law Commission of Canada, "Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada," follows in this vein, making its case for using a mix of first-past-the-post and proportional representation to select MPs.
While "Voting Counts" may be good stimulus for a debate on all of this, it overstates both the desire for reform and the consensus for change. Many Canadians are concerned about the state of our democracy, but electoral reform is not the priority that the report's authors (and advocates for proportional representation, generally) believe it to be.

Even if electoral reform were to be among the top five issues of concern to Canadians, more pressing priorities would be the candidate-nomination process, controlling the influence of money on the electoral process and deciding the proper role for third-party or non-partisan intervenors.

The first-past-the-post system provides effective governments. Canadians support a range of parties, but we vote with the expectation that governments will act in accordance with the national interest. Some view the frequency of majority governments that emerge through this process as its chief failing, but majority governments have been as socially progressive as minority governments, and tend to govern better and more effectively.

We may be frustrated with the dominance of a majority government, but we like even less the horse-trading and political manipulations of minority governments. The first-past-the-post system of selecting MPs also has the advantage of encouraging political parties to be broadly based and ideologically moderate, so that they can obtain enough support to form a national government.

Given the geographic, linguistic and cultural diversity of the country, the ability of a political party to accommodate this diversity becomes one of the tests it must meet in order to form a government. As much as the first-past-the-post system allows for majority governments to be the rule rather than the exception, it is important to recognize that this system also allows for regional or ideological voices to emerge and be represented in our national legislature.

The barrier for regional parties to enter Parliament may be low, but the barrier is appropriately high for those who wish to translate a regional or ideological base into a national government. The recent merger of the Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance into the Conservative Party is evidence of the political dead end that a regional or ideological party meets under the current system.

Another strength of the first-past-the-post system is that it provides clear local representation. On average, there is one MP for every 100,000 citizens (or 60,000 voters), and the constituency boundaries are drawn up so there are, with few exceptions, an equal number of voters in each riding in a province (federal boundaries are determined on a provincial basis).

The link between the MP and his or her riding is very clear and, combined with party identification, provides a higher level of accountability. Although there is a popular misconception that MPs are powerless within our political system, the strong local connection created by the first-past-the-post system supports the rights of individual MPs against majority views in both the House of Commons and within the party caucus.

The procedural rules of Parliament recognize this and, as recent events attest, party leaders interfere with the local nomination process at their peril. Even with a working majority, party leaders are usually careful not to alienate individual members of their caucus.

Ironically, one of the failings that is attributed to the first-past-the-post process, specifically the inability of our system to elect a reasonable proportion of women to office, is not the result of that process and will not be solved by the electoral reform recommended by the law commission.
Our political parties are more to blame for our lack of progress in this area. Factors other than the electoral process are also at the heart of reduced voter turnout.

The first-past-the-post system is not perfect, but it does very well at promoting the essential attributes of a democratic system. It provides stable and effective government, as well as local representation, consensus-building, broadly based parties and accountability.

- 30 -

Chris Baker, president of the public-opinion firm Continuum Research, was a special assistant in Jean Chrétien's Prime Minister's Office from 1996-1997.

This article was originally published in the May 20, 2004 edition of The Globe and Mail

Budget Illustrates Alward Government Divisions

Reflecting on the budget speech, with its grim tidings of increased taxes, deficits and service reductions, it is evident that we have a provincial government at war with itself.

 

In Opposition, David Alward’s Progressive Conservatives spent four years railing against government spending and promised a more prudent, stringent management of public funds. Now, in their third budget as government, the same party is showing itself unable to combat growing deficits, stimulate a stagnant economy or maintain essential services. In a speech that could not rally enthusiasm from the government benches, Finance Minister Higgs admitted that the Progressive Conservatives had no intention, or political will, to seize control of New Brunswick’s faltering fiscal situation.

 

“It’s not our fault,” he repeated as he went through the litany of tax increases, budget cuts and half-hearted measures listed in the Budget Speech. “Maybe next year,” he speculated as he described the declining revenues and flat economic projections.

 

When he was first sworn into office, there was hope that Blaine Higgs, who had earned a strong reputation as an effective fiscal manager in the private sector, would bring a new sense of direction and purpose as Finance Minister. He was considered an astute choice as CFO for an organization with 45,000 employees and an $8 billion budget.

 

However, it has became more and more evident that Mr. Higgs is the only cabinet minister concerned about New Brunswick’s fiscal situation. In other jurisdictions facing similar situations, such as Saskatchewan in the early 1990s or the federal government in the mid-1990s, being the lone deficit fighter in cabinet did not prevent those governments from succeeding where the New Brunswick Government is currently failing.

 

The difference is that the Finance Minister in those jurisdictions had the unequivocal support of their First Ministers. Without the leadership of Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Premier Roy Romanow, Finance Ministers Paul Martin and Janice MacKinnon would not have been able to balance their respective budgets and set a positive course for economic growth. Both ministers relied on their leaders to give focus to the budget deliberations and to restrain the spending tendencies of their colleagues.

 

Unfortunately for New Brunswick, it seems our finance minister cannot count on the support of his premier in the unenviable task of bringing provincial finances under control. Further, it is apparent that Premier Alward will not – or cannot – secure the support of cabinet for the measures that need to be taken.

 

Rather than the unity needed to set clear goals and take decisive action, we have a cabinet that is divided against itself. This leaves Mr.Higgs in the unfortunate position of tinkering around the edges of government spending, trying to squeeze out marginal savings from process design, while the rest of cabinet sits on its hands. Since they refuse to lead, the cabinet is looking for others to take responsibility for their own inaction, such as the poor example set by Health Minister Ted Flemming with regard to the province’s doctors. Divisions within cabinet are leading to divisions within our society.

 

New Brunswickers, like Canadians in general, elect governments to govern. Without confidence in their own decisions, governments lose the ability to give confidence to citizens that they are on the right path or have the ability to deliver on the decisions they make.

 

Whether you are an entrepreneur, a union leader or someone who delivers (or relies on) provincial government services as part of your daily life, this lack of confidence is contagious.

 

Given the precarious state of our finances, it is also dangerous. It is like careening down a highway without anyone willing to steer the car. There is no good ending to that story.

 

Premier Louis J. Robichaud was known for saying, “Half-measures plus half-measures equals nothing.” In my opinion, this recent budget shows that we have a half-hearted government of half-measures in New Brunswick today.

- 30 -

 

Chris Baker is president of Continuum Research, a Fredericton-based public opinion and market research firm specializing in public policy, public affairs and strategic planning. He was deputy minister for, policy and priorities in the Liberal government of New Brunswick from 2006 to 2008.

 

This article was originally published in the April 3, 2013 Edition of the Telegraph-Journal

Why Progressives Balance Budgets

A number of years ago in Ottawa, conservative writer and pundit David Frum spoke to an assorted group of policy wonks called the Cathay Club. After speaking about his experiences working in the second Bush White House and the future of the conservative movements in the United States and in Canada, he welcomed questions from the audience.

The first question had to do with the budgetary policies of those on the conservative side of the political spectrum, Ronald Regan, Brian Mulroney and Grant Devine, and those on the progressive or centre-left, Bill Clinton, Jean Chrétien and Roy Romanow. It was noted that these conservative leaders led administrations with out-of-control government spending, large deficits and increased government debt while Clinton, Chrétien and Romanow curtailed government spending, eliminated deficits and paid down debt. The question was put to Frum, why were progressives in power obsessed with balanced budgets while it appeared that conservative leaders could not care less?

Frum stood silent for a moment. He admitted that he had not given this topic a lot of thought and then said, “Next question.”

Even though Frum has not thought about this question, it certainly has given me a lot to ponder. Aside from the fact that conservatives appear to have an undeserved reputation for being good fiscal managers, why is it that those firmly on the ideological right drive up government spending or, as the many federal budgets under Mulroney and Harper show us, are incapable of balancing budgets?

Some might state that these ideologues are trying to achieve their goal of a minimal government by stealth. Shackled by unsustainable debt, future governments would be reduced to providing minimal services to citizens and, more importantly, they would lose their ability to “interfere” with market forces. The punitive tax levels that would be required to barely manage this fiscal situation would discredit government in the eyes of the citizenry.

Rather than achieving minimal government through the democratic process, it would be achieved through the “market tools” of overspending and unsustainable debt.

As interesting as this speculation might be, it is more productive to consider why progressive governments, those who believe in the economic and social well-being of the populace, are so interested in balanced budgets and controlled government spending?

After all, aren’t leaders on the centre-left supposed to be “tax and spend” types who care more for new and costly social programs than pinching pennies and balancing the books?

The reality is that progressive leaders know that running sustained deficits to finance services endangers their long-term viability. Just as pensions need to be funded for the long-term benefit of the contributors, services like health care, education and economic development need to be funded on an ongoing basis.

In order to preserve the health care system in Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow’s NDP government needed to close 52 hospitals in their first term, mostly in rural areas of the Province. Grant Devine’s PC Government had almost bankrupted Saskatchewan through political overspending. It took a centre-left government to administer the strong medicine that was needed to restore health the provincial finances.

Bill Clinton had to face down power-brokers within the Democratic Party in order to rein in the out-of-control spending that typified the Republican administrations of Regan and Bush Sr. Purse-strings needed to be tightened, and some social programs needed to be reduced, in order to prevent a debt crisis that the United States is now faced.

Clinton left office with a balanced federal budget. However, the subsequent Bush Administration squandered this achievement much in the same way the Harper Government blew though the multi-billion dollar budgetary surpluses left by the Chrétien and Martin Governments.   

Progressives believe in balanced budgets because it is the only way that social programs and economic well-being can be sustained over the long-term. Conservatives may have ideological reasons for high spending and high deficits, or they may just be incapable of exercising restraint while in power. Either way, it is not a policy that serves the long term interests of their people.

- 30 -

Chris Baker is President of Continuum Research, a public opinion consultancy specializing in public policy and public affairs based out of Fredericton, New Brunswick.

 

This article was originally published in the March 23, 2013 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.

Representing the Capital Region

Michael de Adder’s choice of a Rubik’s Cube as a metaphor for the process to change representation in the Legislative Assembly is a very appropriate metaphor. In the effort to get a single colour on one side, the other sides become a jumble. Since the goal of the puzzle is to get all six sides in harmony, the solution can be frustrating and elusive.

The Rubik’s Cube of determining effective and appropriate riding boundaries is also elusive and frustrating. Not only must the Commissioners determine ridings of equal numerical value to respect the principle of “one person, one vote”, they also need to consider the other factors that go into effective riding design: reflecting communities of interest, the internal ties, respecting municipal and administrative boundaries, ensuring the effective representation of rural areas and so on.

Getting one side of this cube right, achieving the numerical equality of the ridings, does not resolve the whole puzzle. In fact, it often leaves the other sides of the cube a complete jumble. But, rather than abandoning this puzzle as “impossible” a fresh approach may be the solution.

Currently, representation in the Capital Area is fairly straight-forward. The City of Fredericton is represented by four ridings. The riding of Oromocto is largely urban and York, York North and Grand Lake Gagetown are rural. New Maryland – Sunbury West is a hybrid urban-rural riding.

On the other hand, the Preliminary Report Proposal relies heavily on “hybrid” urban-rural ridings. Instead of four ridings, the City of Fredericton is now represented by only two ridings that are exclusively urban. The rest of the City of Fredericton is split into urban-rural ridings (Nashwaaksis-Stanley and Hanwell-Silverwood) or are included in existing ridings (New Maryland – Sunbury West, Oromocto-Lincoln, and Grand Lake) outside of Fredericton.

Aside from the fact that this proposal effectively diminishes the voice of residents of the City of Fredericton in the Legislative Assembly, it also has a negative impact on the nearby rural areas, which currently have their own representation in the Legislature.

It has been a long-established principle that the best riding boundaries are those that reflect common communities of interest, provide for effective representation of these interests, and avoid, as much as is reasonably possible, creating minority communities within ridings that could become disenfranchised in relation to the majority.

To provide advice to the Commissioners in accordance with their legislated mandate, the NB Riding Boundaries Project Team has created a solution that addresses the need to provide effective representation of local interests while abiding by the numerical equality of voters in each riding.

As you will see from the attached map, we propose that the City of Fredericton, along with the Village of New Maryland, be represented by four ridings in a Legislative Assembly of 49 members. Further, we retain the rural ridings of York, York North and Grand Lake and create a new urban-rural riding of Oromocto-Lincoln.

In our view, this proposal respects the need for effective representation of both urban and rural voters from the Capital Area in the Legislative Assembly. The Village of New Maryland has a strong connection with the City of Fredericton, just as the Village of Lincoln shares strong ties with the Town of Oromocto and adjacent LSDs.

And, to be sure that all six sides of this Rubik Cube policy are the right colours, this proposal exists within an overall proposal of 49 ridings – each numerically equal and representative – that was presented to the Commission last week.

This is not a perfect solution, but it is a good solution, to the difficult situation outlined in the Commission’s Preliminary Report.

 

Proposed Capital Area Ridings (Voter Counts, Variance from Electoral Quotient)
#	Proposed Riding Name	# of Voters	Variance from EQ	Variance
36	Oromocto – Lincoln	11,744	104.2%	+475
37	Grand Lake – Gagetown	11,406	101.2%	+137
38	Fredericton – Nashwaaksis	11,368	100.9%	+99
39	Fredericton - Fort Nashwaak	11,065	98.2%	-204
40	Fredericton - New Maryland	11,467	101.8%	+198
41	Fredericton South	11,439	101.5%	+170
42	York	11,728	104.1%	+459
43	York North	11,172	99.1%	-97

If you would like to make comments on this proposal, or to view the province-wide riding map that we propose, please visit Total Quality Politics at http://rookwilcorner.blogspot.ca/

- 30 -

Chris Baker is President of Continuum Research, a Fredericton-based public opinion research firm specializing in Public Policy, Public Affairs and Strategic Planning. The work of William Blanchette, Bob Doiron and Brian McCain, colleagues on the NB Riding Boundaries Project Team, contributed to this article.

 

This article was originally published in the March 19, 2013 edition of The Daily Gleaner.

Presentation to the Electoral Boundaries and Representation Commission

We would like to thank the Commissioners for this opportunity to present our comments on the proposed riding boundaries outlined in their Preliminary Report of January 17, 2013.[1] Given that the members of our Project Team have undertaken our own riding boundary proposal for all 49 ridings in the Province, we understand the many challenges and the painstaking diligence required to put forward such a proposal.

While we appreciate the work undertaken by the Commissioners in preparing the Preliminary Report, we believe that many of the riding boundaries proposed in this report do not achieve the goals for the redistricting process set out in guiding principles stated in the Electoral Boundaries and Representation Act of 2005.

The Commission has done an admirable job of achieving the numerical equality of their proposed ridings, which is a principle set out in Section 12(1) of the Act. However, the following section of the Act also defines the other criteria that must guide the redistricting process. These are:

12(2) A Commission may depart from the principle of voter parity as set out in subsection (1) in order to achieve effective representation of the electorate as guaranteed by section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and based upon the following considerations:

(a) communities of interest;

(b) effective representation of the English and French linguistic communities;

(c) municipal and other administrative boundaries;

(d) the rate of population growth in a region;

(e) effective representation of rural areas;

(f) geographical features, including the following:

(i) the accessibility of a region;

(ii) the size of a region; and

(iii) the shape of a region; and

(g) any other considerations that the Commission considers appropriate.

Although these principles were affirmed in the Preliminary Report, we are concerned that many of these guiding principles have not been given more consideration in the creation of many of the new ridings.

This is most evident in the Capital Area, where the Commission has decided to rely on hybrid urban-rural ridings to meet a quantitative test but trumps the communities of interest, municipal boundaries and the effective representation of rural areas in their proposal.

We understand that you were urged to take this hybrid approach in the previous round of hearings in Fredericton. That should not be construed as popular support for ignoring the Guiding Principles.

Generally, there is an over-use of hybrid urban-rural ridings in the Commission’s proposal. This includes the metropolitan Moncton area as well as Bathurst and Edmundston. In the latter cases, the Preliminary Report divides these formerly unified communities into two hybrid ridings.

As well, many of the proposed rural ridings, such as Gagetown-Petitcodiac or the ridings in the Upper Saint John River Valley, do not adequately reflect historic market and transportation patterns.

The representation of linguistic communities is also an important factor in the success or failure of a redistricting process in New Brunswick. In addition to their large size, the two rural Miramichi ridings combine the Anglophone lumber communities of the interior with the ocean-oriented Francophone communities of the coast.

The relatively small Anglophone community of the Tantramar area has little choice but to be combined with nearby Francophone areas in order to achieve a riding with numerical equality. However, rather than combining it with Memramcook, which has significant cultural and historic significance for Acadians, a more viable choice would be to look northwards for a solution.

As a representative, deliberative body, the Legislative Assembly functions best when Members of the Assembly can effectively represent the ridings from which they are chosen. For this purpose, a riding that reflects a single community of interest is better than a riding that straddles differing, or even conflicting, communities of interest.

While this is not always possible, especially in small province such as ours, it is better to emphasize the commonalities that exist than to deliberately combine conflicting communities of interest in a proposed riding.

The study of public opinion in New Brunswick reveals a number of important factors with regard to our political culture. While New Brunswickers share many views and values, it would be an erroneous over-simplification to assume that New Brunswickers think alike about all things and differences in language, community size and region are non-factors.

In fact, when the views of New Brunswickers on public issues are examined, the differences in between urban and rural New Brunswickers can be strikingly different even though they may live in relative proximity to each other. Likewise, just as members of our two linguistic communities share many of the same views, there are important differences that need to be respected, if not recognized, in the way these communities are represented in the Legislature.

To be an effective deliberative and representative body, the Legislative Assembly needs to be comprised of members who can effectively represent the interests of their constituents. This task should be made more difficult by proposing ridings that ignore existing communities of interest or undermine the needs of both urban and rural residents of New Brunswick to have their voices heard in the Legislature.

Given the many challenges that we are facing as a Province, and the increasing cynicism many New Brunswickers have about their representative institutions, we should not be making a difficult situation worse. The challenge is to create ridings that improve the ability of New Brunswickers to be represented – and to feel represented – rather than a riding structure that encourages feelings of alienation and disenfranchisement.

We cannot cure all the ills of our political culture with a better, more representative set of riding boundaries. It is, however, a positive step in demonstrating that care has been taken to get the basics right. That is the approach we are taking in our proposal. 

As has been noted by the Commissioners, it is easier to identify a problem with a riding, or a set of ridings, than to offer a solution. A change to one riding creates a “domino effect” that alters other ridings. This is especially true when the principle of numerical equality, even with an allowable variance of plus or minus five percent, must be respected.

With this in mind, we are presenting our own proposal for the 49 ridings represented in the Legislative Assembly. In the attached table, we demonstrate that each of these ridings achieves the principle of numerical equality within the five percent variance.

At first glance, you will note that the riding map we propose has two important attributes. The first is how much this map retains some of the geographic boundaries of the current riding map. Given that the existing boundaries already represent established communities of interest, it is not surprising that there is an “echo” of the current map in our proposal.

The second is the level of agreement we have with some of the proposed changes offered in the Preliminary Report, especially with regard to the urban core of the City of Saint John, the Charlotte County ridings, the creation of a Miramichi City riding, and parts of the Acadian Peninsula.

While we do not have the same resources as those available to the Commission, we have constructed a proposal that solves many of the problems that we have already identified with regard to the proposal contained in the Preliminary Report. Further, from the media reporting of some of the earlier sessions, this proposal would also address some of the other issues that have been brought to your attention.

In the process to develop our proposal, we obtained a better understanding of the challenging task that you have undertaken as Commissioners. It is not easy to balance the need to reflect communities of interest and the other important qualitative factors with the principle of numerical equality. However, we believe that we have met this challenge and that the proposal we are offering today better reflects the needs of New Brunswickers for effective representation and the needs of the Legislative Assembly as a deliberative and law-making body.   

We realize that a proposal of this complexity and detail will require further examination and study. We will provide the Commission with as much detail as you need to assess and verify our proposal. Further, we are willing to work with Commission staff, as volunteers, to address any questions they might have and provide additional insight into the decisions that are reflected in this proposal.

Thank you.

 

Proposed Ridings
#	Name	# of Voters	% of EQ	Variance
1	Campbellton - Dalhousie	11,417	101.3%	148
2	Nigadoo-Chaleur	11,692	103.8%	423
3	Nepisiguit - Centre Peninsule	11,239	99.7%	-30
4	Bathurst	11,560	102.6%	291
5	Caraquet	11,255	99.9%	-14
6	Shippagan – Lamèque – Miscou	11,660	103.5%	391
7	Tracadie-Sheila	11,411	101.3%	142
8	Miramichi City	11,725	104.0%	456
9	Upper Miramichi	11,453	101.6%	184
10	Miramichi Bay	10,728	95.2%	-541
11	Kent North	10,824	96.1%	-445
12	Kent South	10,997	97.6%	-272
13	Cocagne - Lakeville	10,826	96.1%	-443
14	Shediac	11,048	98.0%	-221
15	Tantramar - Cap Pele	10,912	96.8%	-357
16	Memramcook – Dieppe	11,235	99.7%	-34
17	Dieppe Centre	11,263	99.9%	-6
18	Moncton East	11,176	99.2%	-93
19	Moncton West	11,162	99.1%	-107
20	Moncton North	10,855	96.3%	-414
21	Moncton Mountain Road	10,875	96.5%	-394
22	Petitcodiac	10,736	95.3%	-533
23	Riverview	11,172	99.1%	-97
24	Albert	11,078	98.3%	-191
25	Kings East	11,081	98.3%	-188
26	Hampton Fundy	11,553	102.5%	284
27	Quispamsis	11,236	99.7%	-33
28	Rothesay	11,460	101.7%	191
29	Saint John East	11,798	104.7%	529
30	Saint John Harbour	11,133	98.8%	-136
31	Saint John Portland	11,501	102.1%	232
32	Saint John Lancaster	11,005	97.7%	-264
33	Grand Bay-Westfield-Kingston Peninsula	10,930	97.0%	-339
34	Charlotte - The Isles	11,179	99.2%	-90
35	Charlotte - Campobello	10,809	95.9%	-460
36	Oromocto - Lincoln	11,744	104.2%	475
37	Grand Lake - Gagetown	11,406	101.2%	137
38	Fredericton - Nashwaaksis	11,368	100.9%	99
39	Fredericton - Fort Nashwaak	11,065	98.2%	-204
40	Fredericton - New Maryland	11,467	101.8%	198
41	Fredericton South	11,439	101.5%	170
42	York	11,728	104.1%	459
43	York North	11,172	99.1%	-97
44	Woodstock	11,628	103.2%	359
45	Carleton	11,671	103.6%	402
46	Grand Falls - Victoria	11,631	103.2%	362
47	Restigouche - St. Leonard	11,628	103.2%	359
48	Madawaska	11,176	99.2%	-93
49	Edmundston - St. Basile	11,244	99.8%	-25

 

---

[1] This proposal is being submitted on behalf of the NB Riding Proposal Project Team, a volunteer, non-partisan effort by Chris Baker, William Blanchette, Bob Doiron and Brian McCain.