REGIONAL VIEWPOINT: The work of drawing electoral boundaries

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/09/2023 (738 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

During 2022-23, I served for the fourth time as one of three members of the independent federal boundaries commission for Manitoba. By law, the commission is chaired by the Chief Justice or her designate and the other two members are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. This time, I had the privilege of working with Justice Diana Cameron and Prof. Kelly Saunders of Brandon University.

Independent boundaries commissions for national and provincial elections are a valuable feature of the Canadian democratic process because they eliminate gerrymandering, which involves politicians drawing the lines to gain maximum partisan advantage, a tactic used in many U.S. states.

Put simply, based on population shifts recorded in the decennial census, the task of the commission is to redraw the boundaries of the constituencies that elect Manitoba’s 14 MPs to serve in the House of Commons. While MPs have important input, the final word on the boundaries rests with the commission.

The primary requirement in redrawing constituencies is to ensure reasonable parity in terms of the number of votes required to elect a MP.

Voter parity must be balanced, however, by what the law calls “community of interest and identity.” This vague phrase can cover a number of territorial, transportation, economic and cultural features within constituencies.

To achieve an appropriate balance, commissions are allowed to create constituencies which are 25 per cent above or below a provincial quota. Most commissions, however, aim for deviations that are no more than five to 10 per cent from the quota. Commissions must also consider the benefits of continuity in boundaries from one realignment to the next.

All of these considerations are meant to promote the fundamental principle that all citizens are entitled to “effective representation” in the national governing process. What this phrase means in concrete terms and how it is best achieved is open to debate and disagreement. In short, deciding where to draw the line involves legal requirements, mathematical calculations and subjective judgments.

Dealing with northern and remote rural constituencies that are geographically vast, sparsely populated and often diverse socially and economically pose significant challenges to the achievement of effective representation. Churchill-Keewatinook Aski (CKA) is the leading Manitoba example. Different sorts of challenges arise in the case of densely populated, lower-income, diverse inner-city constituencies like Winnipeg Centre.

Apart from the requirement to hold at least one public hearing, each of the 10 provincial commissions has significant freedom to design its own processes. The Manitoba commissions have taken innovative steps to promote transparency, education and citizen engagement.

The Manitoba commission was the first among commissions to provide an opportunity for early input, before producing its initial maps, by sending advance notice to all MPs and a wide range of other stakeholders, setting forth its approach to applying the legal criteria, including variation from the provincial quota.

Another innovation by the 2022-23 commission was to publish online all the written submissions it received. To the best of my knowledge, no other commission followed this practice, which allowed interested citizens to see who was seeking to influence the thinking of the commission.

The commission also published a guide to participation and scheduled four public hearings, two in-person and two online. Probably because society was still in the throes of the pandemic, citizen participation was somewhat down from the 2012 process.

Not surprisingly, most MPs take advantage of the participation opportunities. Eleven of Manitoba’s 14 MPs participated in some way in 2023. It would be naïve not to assume that potential impacts of boundary changes on their political futures was a motivation for some MPs.

Concerns about how proposed major changes might disrupt the representation process was clearly a related motivating factor. Having established networks of ongoing relationships with various stakeholders, MPs have distinctive knowledge of the challenges involved with performing their representational role. For this reason, commissions must give serious attention to their opinions without granting them a veto over changes.

Based on what it heard, the Manitoba commission accepted most of the changes to its original maps proposed by presenters. But after the hearings, there is no provision for further public input. In contrast, MPs have the opportunity through a committee process in the House of Commons to raise objections and to propose further changes. Fairness requires that the law be amended to allow interested citizens to react through written submissions to changes proposed by commissions and MPs.

Commissions are bound by law to consider, but not necessarily accept, MPs’ concerns. The recent Manitoba commission accepted one minor change involving CKA. All that remains is the formality of issuing of a legal order establishing the new boundaries for the next federal election.

» Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba. The above opinions are his alone, not necessarily endorsed by his commission colleagues. This column previously ran in the Winnipeg Free Press.