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.