A Focus on Electoral Boundaries Redistribution
Canada’s population is growing, but not uniformly. Some provinces and territories have had a faster pace of growth than others,
and while certain communities or regions within these jurisdictions are growing, others are shrinking (in real terms, or as a proportion of the total population in a province or territory).
To account for these changes, after every decennial census, a federal process is initiated to review and, if necessary, adjust the boundaries of individual electoral districts according to section 51(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (EBRA). The various processes to adjust boundaries for provincial and territorial assemblies are distinct.
Although electoral boundaries readjustment has changed over the years (from a parliamentary-centred process to the current system run by independent and neutral electoral boundary commissions), the effects of readjustment on communities, provinces, and territories (and the people seeking election to represent voters) have frequently made this process keenly observed and sometimes hotly contested.
Indeed, the Canadian Parliamentary Review’s plan to run a feature-length article by several EBRA commissioners as part of this theme issue had to be postponed to some point in the future – the potential threat of litigation against commissions following the recent adjustment process caused concern among some commissioners about adding comments to the public record beyond their reports.
Nevertheless, in this issue we have collected a strong series of articles that detail the history of electoral boundary adjustments in Canada (James Bowden), explain the current process used to facilitate assessment and adjustments every 10 years (Bowden and Andre Barnes), reflect on participation by members of the public and MPs in this process (Barnes, Tamara Small and Valere Gaspard), and pose questions about how communities of interest (cultural and geographic) are affected by this process (Remi Leger and Floyd McCormick).
Judging by the length of this issue (even after postponing other planned articles), it’s evident that there is a wealth of territory to cover here. A second thematic issue on the subject may be a possibility in the not-too-distant future.
In the meantime, we at the Canadian Parliamentary Review hope you enjoy this issue, and we would like to extend a sincere thanks to the members of the Canadian Study of Parliament Group, and particularly its President Charlie Feldman, for their tremendous efforts in soliciting and contributing submissions.
Will Stos
Editor