The Surprising Case of Public Participation and Social Media Usage in Canada’s Redistribution Process

During each electoral boundary redistribution process, members of the public are invited to provide feedback to the commissions’ proposed reforms to federal electoral boundaries. While participation rates in public consultation processes during the 20th century are reportedly low, little research has examined participation rates in the 21st century. Additionally, how public participation has been affected by the creation of redistribution social media accounts for the 2023 process is not yet understood. This article seeks to address these gaps. The results show that while (formal) public participation in the process has increased in the 21st century, a closer examination of the data shows there has been a mild decrease in participation for 2023 in comparison to 2013. However, if comments submitted through social media to the commissions are included, then participation rates for the 2023 process increase substantially compared to past decades.

Valere Gaspard

Valere Gaspard is a PhD student at the University of Ottawa and a Research Fellow at the Leadership and Democracy Lab. His doctoral studies and research are supported in part by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The views of the author do not reflect those of any employer.

Introduction

Each decade, 10 independent electoral boundaries commissions are formed across Canada (one for each province) to revise the electoral boundaries in their province, and welcome feedback from both the public as well as Members of Parliament (MPs).1 Members of the public are invited to provide feedback about the commissions’ proposed reforms to their province’s federal electoral boundaries by attending public hearings, giving presentations at those hearings, or providing written feedback (referred to as oral representations, or written representations). Though the independent commissions are under no obligation to change their proposals based on feedback from the public or MPs, they have been known to act on some of these suggestions in past processes2,3,4 showing that participation in the process has demonstrable impacts.

Despite many opportunities to participate, redistribution processes in the 20th century saw low public participation that was dominated by political elites (elected officials, constituency party executives, or defeated candidates).5 For the 2023 redistribution process, official social media accounts (on Twitter (now X), Facebook, and Instagram) were created for the first time.6 This innovation should allow more information about the process to be shared with a wider audience and give the commissions another way to solicit engagement from the public. However, the effects of this innovation, as well as how residents of provinces choose to participate in the redistribution process in the 21st century, have yet to be examined.

Building on past studies about the redistribution of electoral districts in Canada and its public consultation process, this research paper addresses three questions: first, who can participate in the redistribution process, and how can they participate? Second, do the rates of participation for the 2023 redistribution process differ from past decades? And third, how has the introduction of social media effected participation in the redistribution process? To address these questions, I rely on data from each of the commissions about rates of participation through representations, and the number of social media comments received by the commissions on Twitter (X), Facebook, and Instagram.

The results demonstrate that while public participation in the process has increased in the 21st The article proceeds in five parts. First, I provide a brief review of past research on the public consultation process to contextualize my own contribution. Second, I outline technical information about the public consultation process, including the types of participation and who can participate. Third, I offer a short methodology to explain how the data was collected. Fourth, I summarize and provide discussion of the results. Finally, I conclude by pointing to some problems in the current process and the key findings of this paper.

Literature review

The literature on Canada’s federal electoral redistribution process is succinct but covers several important topics. My focus is strictly on research relating to public hearings and public participation, but I acknowledge the contributions of work on other topics such as the historic debates about the utility of the commissions7 or how communities of interest are considered by the commissions.8,9

Commissions are very serious about guarding their independence.10 After a commission has developed a boundary proposal for its province, it is required to hold at least one public hearing in the province so that it can hear ‘representations’ (the official word used for oral or written feedback on a boundary proposal) from interested persons.11,12 Public hearings are important for participatory and representative democracy13 since it gets residents involved in another part of the democratic process. Hearings also assist in maintaining transparency and public confidence in the redistribution process,14 and give an opportunity for the commissions to understand the views of both communities at large and specific groups in those communities.15 While commissions are under no obligation to accept any of the opinions expressed by members of the public or MPs (to ensure they maintain their independence),16 they are still tasked with increasing public awareness of the redistribution process.17,18

Both members of the public and MPs are allowed to take part in public hearings and submit representations,19 and these representations are submitted from all kinds of individuals or groups.20 Commissions do not usually record the exact number of people that attend public hearings (but typically record the number of oral or written representations), making it more difficult to gage participation rates in communities.21 MPs are known to take full advantage of participating in public hearings – even though they receive their own opportunity to give feedback on proposals in Parliament22 – and that participation at public hearings is usually dominated by political elites (mayors, constituency party executives, or defeated candidates).23 However, a greater number of constituents or members of the public tend to participate in public hearings when there are controversial changes that affect a specific riding or region.24 Members of the public typically care most about preserving existing electoral boundaries25 while MPs are found to care most about providing feedback when boundary proposals affect their own self-interest or electoral prospects.26

Feedback given at public hearings can be very impactful, since commissions are known to act on, or at the very least consider, suggestions made at public hearings.27 During the redistribution process for 2003, approximately two-thirds of proposed boundaries were modified after the commissions held public hearings, showing that public feedback can affect the outcomes of the process.28,29 Overall, research shows that there is both a normative reason (to increase public participation in a democratic process) and substantive reason (to affect the outcome of the process) for members of the public to participate in public hearings. However, there remains a gap in understanding how the emergence of social media impacts public participation, as well as if participation rates have changed in the 21st century.

Public consultation process

In this section, I outline relevant technical information about the redistribution process and public hearings, as well as the addition of social media to the 2023 process. There are seven key steps in the redistribution process:

A calculation of the number of seats allocated to each province is made using a formula set out in the Constitution Act, 1867;
A commission for each province is established and they are given population data about their province;
Each commission develops and publishes a boundary proposal for its province;
Each commission must hold at least one public hearing, and members of the public or MPs can participate by submitting oral or written representations;
The commissions report to the House of Commons through its Speaker to allow MPs to provide objections during a parliamentary committee;
The commissions write a final report (they can consider or dispose of any objections) and submit it to the Speaker of the House of Commons through the Chief Electoral Officer;
Representation orders finalize the process and
new boundaries are established.30

During the public hearing stage of the redistribution process, commissions can weigh any representations they receive (from members of the public or MPs) and choose to address or ignore any feedback. Official English and French social media accounts on Twitter

(X) (@FedBoundaries and @LimitesFed), Facebook (Redistribution Canada and Redécoupage Canada), and Instagram (@FedBoundaries and @LimitesFed) were introduced for the 2023 redistribution process. Based on a content analysis of the posts made by these accounts, they are primarily used for posting news releases, giving updates on the larger process, and providing reminders for public hearings in each of the provinces.

It should be noted that each commission does not have its own social media account. Instead, two accounts on each platform post information about each of the provinces and the commissions. Although the commissions could use the feedback that they receive from social media users (specifically, from comments on posts pertaining to their province), it is unclear to what extent commissions consider or read feedback on social media. For example, Alberta’s commission mentions using any materials that were made available to it, including social media posts,31 while other commissions do not mention social media.

This distinction is important when assessing the data from social media, since it is possible that commissions could be on either extreme of reviewing any social media comments they receive or excluding all comments from their decision-making. If participation on social media increases in future redistribution cycles, then commissions may be incentivized to better incorporate feedback via social media in their decision- making process.

While detailed explanations are given about how the redistribution process functions, the rules about who can participate during each part of the process are not at the forefront of the information provided to the public. The redistribution process ultimately occurs for the purpose of determining the boundaries of districts for federal elections. To vote in a federal election, an individual must be a Canadian citizen who is 18 years or older on election day.32, 33 However, public hearings are open to the public, and not limited to voters or even residents of the province. Table 1 explains that the only legal restriction for participating in the redistribution process relates to being a member of a provincial commission, which requires an individual to be a resident of the province and to not be a MP, Senator, or member of a provincial legislative assembly.

Discussing how participation in the federal redistribution process is extended to non-citizens while voting in federal elections is limited to citizens falls outside the scope of this article; however, it is helpful context to consider that the entire population of a province (or even individuals outside of it) can participate. This means legal barriers to participation in the redistribution process are very low. Individuals do not need to provide their identity to participate (unlike in federal elections where proof of identity or vouching is required to vote).34 However, there might still be non-legal barriers to participation, such as time commitments, getting to the physical location of public hearings, internet access for virtual public hearings, or simply being unaware of the process. These topics merit further consideration by scholars.

Methodology

The data on participation rates used in this article come from four main sources: the redistribution websites for both 201335 and 2023,36 past research that compiled data on participation rates in the redistribution processes for 1987 and 1996,37 physical copies of the commissions’ reports for the 2003 process, and the social media websites that hosted the official redistribution accounts for the 2023 process (Twitter (X), Facebook, and Instagram). A description of each source and the data it provides is discussed in turn.

The redistribution websites provide the data for the number of hearings, the number of presentations, and the number of written submissions for both the 2013 and 2023 processes. Both websites for 2013 and 2023 include a list of public hearings that occurred. However, the total number of presentations and written submissions are less clear. While the 2023 website provides totals for written submissions, the reports from each commission give the total numbers of presentations and written submissions for both 2013 and 2023. In certain cases, the numbers in the reports are unclear, unlisted, or only give approximate estimations instead of an exact number. For 2023, specifically, some totals for the number of written submissions on the redistribution website do not match the total listed in the report from the commission. To address these anomalies, the author consulted with another researcher in this journal’s volume to find a consensus on the exact numbers.40

Table 1: Types of participation

Type of Participation	Must be a Cana- dian Citizen?	Must be a resi- dent of the prov- ince?	Any additional restrictions or requirements?	Is this type of par- ticipation considered in the Commission’s decision-making?
Member of a Provincial Commission	No	Yes	Cannot be a member of the Senate, House of Commons, aprovincial legisla- tive assembly, or a legislative council of a province.	N/A
Attend a public hearing	No	No	Must attend in- person or virtu- ally	Yes
Submit a representation	No	No	No	Yes
Comment on social media	No	No	Access to Internet and at least one social media ac- count	Varies (some commis- sions claim to review social media feedback)
Voting in a federal election	Yes	Yes (must provideproof of address)	Must be 18 years or olderMust provide proof of identity	N/A

John C. Courtney’s 2004 book Elections is the second data source. It lists the total number of submissions for all 10 federal commissions for the 1987 and 1996 processes. While the chapter does not provide an exact breakdown of submissions per province, it gives a comparison of how national totals of submissions have changed over time. The third source of data – for the redistribution process of 2003 – comes from physical copies of the commissions’ reports for that decade.

The final source of data is a compilation of comments made by users on posts from any of the six official redistribution social media accounts. This compilation covers comments made on posts from January 14, 2022, to May 31, 2023. It should be noted that in addition to posts from the official redistribution accounts, numerous advertisements on social media platforms about the redistribution process were made to promote awareness of the process. Comments on these advertisements are not part of the dataset since it would be very difficult to confirm whether each advertisement that was published is captured in the data (in some cases the advertisements can no longer be found online while in other cases, comments on the advertisements can no longer be accessed). Therefore, while the data for the number of social media comments is accurate, it is substantially lower than if comments on advertisements were also incorporated.

In addition to what is included as data, it’s important to highlight what is not included. The number of attendees at public hearings is not included in the dataset since some commissions did not make this number available or did not track the number of attendees at hearings. If commissions have the resources to count the number of attendees at each hearing for future redistribution processes, this data could enhance our understanding of this topic in future research. Furthermore, the data does not include the number of objections made by MPs during their distinct opportunity to review the commissions’ reports during parliamentary committee, but does include any oral or written representations made by MPs at public hearings. The number of objections made during parliamentary committee is not included as this paper concerns itself with participation in public hearings and not with the distinct opportunity given to MPs under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.41

Results and discussion

To address the second and third research questions, I begin by examining the total participation rates for each redistribution process from 1987 to 2023. The totals illustrated in Table 2 constitute all written and oral representations submitted to the 10 commissions. The data for 2023 does not include social media comments.

After the 2003 redistribution process, there was a substantial increase to the number of representations submitted to the commissions, demonstrating that more individuals and groups are participating in public hearings in the 21st century. Since past assessments of public hearings for the 1987 and 1996 processes conclude that the public was not yet sufficiently involved in or informed about the redistribution process,42 these results imply the public is either more informed about the process or has more reasons to participate. Since members of the public participate more when controversial changes are being made to their riding or region,43 increases in participation could mean the commissions are now making more controversial decisions than in past processes. However, while participation has increased compared to the past century, there is a mild drop in participation for the 2023 redistribution process. These results address the second research question ‘do the rates of participation for the 2023 redistribution process differ from past decades?’ by showing that while participation through representations has increased in the 21st century, it has decreased slightly for the 2023 process.

Next, I briefly examine the specific breakdowns of the number of public hearings, oral representations, and written representations by province for both 2013 and 2023. This is to help contextualize what kinds of representations (oral vs. written) are being used by participants. Table 3 compares the number of public hearings by province for 2013 and 2023.

Apart from Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick, all provinces held more hearings in 2023 compared to 2013. In addition to public hearings at a physical location, most commissions also held at least one virtual hearing, which likely made participation more accessible. Since we do not have the number of attendees per hearing (distinct from the number of presentations), the impact of virtual hearings on participation rates remains unknown.

While having more opportunities to participate is important, it’s essential to gauge how individuals chose to participate in both 2013 and 2023. Table 4 gives the number of oral representations in both decades, while Table 5 provides the number of written representations.

In every province aside from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador, there were more oral representations for 2013 than for 2023. However, as illustrated in Table 5, apart from Saskatchewan, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador (which received the same number of written representations in both decades), each province received more written representations for 2023 than for 2013.

While surveys or interviews would need to be conducted to assess individual variation for why some chose to make one type of representation over another, a potential circumstantial explanation could be the aftereffects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, at the time of the hearings, certain individuals or populations may not have felt as comfortable attending public events for prolonged periods. Alternatively, it could simply be the case that individuals think it is less time consuming to submit a written representation instead of speaking at a hearing, or that they prefer not to speak in front of an audience. Future research could survey individuals’ preferred methods of participation and could add to this article’s analysis of whether participation in the redistribution process changes over time.

The final question this article poses is ‘how has the introduction of social media effected participation in the redistribution process?’ Based on the technical information about the public consultation process discussed earlier, it appears that the effects of social media on the process vary. Since the commissions are not required to review feedback they receive on social media, we cannot be sure if they used this information unless they explicitly mention it in their report or on their website. While it is unclear how the commissions used this information, Table 6 highlights the number of comments the official redistribution accounts received on Twitter (X), Facebook, and Instagram, showing that participation on social media is substantially higher than participation in the process through traditional feedback (representations).

It is worth noting that the number of comments received on Facebook alone exceeds the total number of both written and oral representations for 2023. This is best demonstrated by an updated version of the table illustrating the total representations per decade, which now includes social media comments on the redistribution accounts during the 2023 process (Table 7).

While the addition of social media makes the participation rate for 2023 drastically higher, it should be noted that comments received on social media are often less detailed than written or oral representations (see Table 8 below). Therefore, taking social media comments into account as an official type of feedback may be considered a major (or positive) increase to public participation from a normative perspective (which is concerned about increasing public participation for its own sake), but is much less impactful if viewed from a substantive perspective of participation (if participation is meant to influence the outcome of the process).

This puts the commissions in a predicament. On one hand, going through so many comments on social media could take away from resources that could be used on other aspects of the process. On the other hand, using social media as an official medium to receive feedback could drastically increase the levels of participation in the redistribution process. While this would facilitate the feedback process to a wide group of people, including non-residents of a province (and any individual with a social media account), the public hearing process is already technically open to these groups. As previously discussed, there are no legal restrictions on whether an individual must be a citizen or resident of a province to participate in public hearings. Non-residents could already be participating in the process; including social media as an official venue for feedback would simply make this participation more likely.

Since commissions ultimately have the prerogative to include or disregard any feedback they receive, their independence should temper any concerns about malicious intentions or interference from individuals or groups outside of Canada during public hearings. Therefore, while the introduction of social media has not greatly affected the 2023 redistribution process, the commissions do have an opportunity to try using feedback on social media as an additional method for increasing public participation in future redistribution processes. This begs another point of analysis – how does the feedback from traditional forms of participation (representations) differ from this new form of participation (comments on social media)? While a full analysis merits its own research project, this article offers a preliminary comparison using a small random sample from the written representations and the social media comments for the 2023 process. Table 8 illustrates three examples of feedback given through written representations and social media comments. Any identifiable information (names and social media handles) has been removed from this publicly available information.

Table 8 illustrates that feedback in the form of written representations are often longer and more detailed. As shown in the written representation to Manitoba’s commission, individuals submitting this kind of feedback may provide maps of their proposed changes, or a detailed personal experience, as demonstrated by the feedback for the commission in New Brunswick. However, written representations may also be as short as a social media comment, as seen in the feedback to Ontario’s commission. Although the sample of social media comments shows that feedback online is likely to be shorter and less detailed, some still provide feedback or criticisms of Canada’s electoral system. Furthermore, the opportunity to engage in the redistribution process on social media also serves at least two additional purposes – it gives individuals an easily accessible opportunity to ask questions, or it gives them another venue for engaging in the process (which assists the commissions with their task of increasing public awareness about the redistribution process). While feedback in representations is typically (but not always) more detailed than social media feedback, it is still important to note that the commissions received more feedback online than through representations for the 2023 process. When a plurality of public feedback is online, it may be important to meet the public where they are willing to participate. If this trend continues in the next decade, the commissions will likely be faced with a critical question on the nature of participation during the next redistribution cycle: do the commissions value all, or only certain types of participation in the redistribution process?

Table 8: Sample comparison of written representations and social media comments

Samples of written representations	Samples of social media comments
Example #1 (Manitoba):	Example #1 (Facebook):
“In my version of the Winnipeg West riding I wanted it to more closely represent the city of Winnipeg so I removed the portion of the riding that included Rural Manitoba including the communities like St. Francois Xavier and Elie in favour for communities closer to Winnipeg like Oak Bluff and Headingley. Going into the city I kept the changes of including Tuxedo but kept the riding borders along Kenaston and over the bridge to Century street and eventually Century. This was done to smooth the borders between the new Winnipeg West and Winnipeg Centre. I also extended the riding borders north to include the perimeter high- way to create smoother borders with the Portage-Lisgar and Kildonan-St.Paul ridings. Overall, the new riding I’ve created features most of the old Charles- wood–St. James–Assiniboia–Headingley riding and extends it to cover Oak Bluff and to create a smoother border with Kildonan-St.Paul and also removes the awkward borders that Portage-Lisgar has in the proposed map.”	“Pretty sad when Northern Ontario loses a riding and our voices are once again being ignored, but the area around Brampton will get an extra one. Yeah, great, more votes from an area that doesn’t even know that there is anything north of the French River. ”

Example #2 (New Brunswick):“I have reviewed the redistribution of the electoral districts and am very con- cerned about the impact this will have on Saint John. While I currently live in Rothesay, I grew up in Saint John and spent all my working life in that city. I am a Saint John supporter and I believe that the proposed electoral districts will have very negative consequences on the future success of Saint John. I under- stand by reviewing the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act that the commis- sion shall consider “the community of interest or community of identify in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province”. How can the Commis- sion split a city in half and put the population into two different districts and abide by this dictate? Do not the people of Saint John consider themselves “Saint Johners”? What happens in the east side of Saint John impacts those in the west side. People living in the east side work in the west side and vice versa. Busi- nesses advertise their services and products to both those in the east side and the west side. And, most of all concerning, is the fact that the Council and businesses of Saint John must engage with two different MP’s (who may represent two dif- ferent parties) to solicit any kind of support from the Federal Government. We can already see this impact of this decision on the schedule of public hear- ings where hearings are being held in Moncton and Fredericton, but not Saint John. I am requesting that the New Brunswick Commission rethink this decision and put forward revised electoral districts for the southern part of New Brunswick that enable the city of Saint John to remain intact as one federal district. Thank you.”	Example #2 (Twitter(X)): “Why does PEI get 4 mp’s for 167k people? Make our votes and equal! My vote is worth 1/3 of theirs.”
Example #3 (Ontario):	Example #3 (Instagram):
“Thank you, it does seem the Ottawa south is not actually Ottawa south today. It was Ottawa south in the eighty’s. With the expansion it is now Ottawa East. Nepean is actually southwest Ottawa. Thanks.”	“What is going to hap- pen when there is no longer enough space in the house of commons to add more seats?”

Conclusion

This article sought to addresses three key questions about participation in the redistribution process:

First, who can participate and how?

Second, do participation rates for 2023 differ from past decades?

Third, has social media affected participation?

An analysis of the legislation (and absence of participatory restrictions) pertaining to the redistribution process shows the formal threshold to participate is very low and does not limit non-citizens or non-residents from contributing. Additionally, participation rates have increased in the 21st century, but a minor decline in participation through representations occurred for the 2023 redistribution cycle. While data on public participation is available online for 2013 and 2023, it is not always presented clearly. Some commissions have given different total participation rates on different parts of the redistribution website and others only report an approximate estimate instead of an exact number. This results in a gap in transparency and makes it more difficult to assess engagement in this process. Having a standardized reporting format for all commissions could increase transparency in the process, but it may limit the commissions’ capabilities to discuss issues in their report that are specific to their province or regions. Finally, the number of social media comments substantially exceeds the number of representations in all 10 provinces for 2023, yet, it is unclear which commissions may have considered feedback on social media (unless it’s specifically stated in their report). If these trends continue during the next redistribution cycle, the commissions may need to consider better incorporating feedback from social media platforms as part of their consultation with the public, or they risk missing a substantial amount of feedback from individuals interested in the redistribution process. The introduction of social media to the redistribution process ultimately presents the commissions with a critical question on the nature of public participation: do the commissions value all, or only certain types of participation?

Notes

Redistribution Canada, Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts 2022, Redistribution Canada, Gatineau, 2023.

1. John C. Courtney, Commissioned ridings: designing Canada’s electoral districts, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal, 2001.
2. Munroe Eagles, & R. Kenneth Carty, “MPs and electoral redistribution controversies in Canada, 1993-96”, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 5(2), 2007.
3. Carmen Moreau-Vena, “Federal Representation 2004: Redistribution Following the 2001 Census”, Electoral Insight, 4(2), 2002.
4. John C. Courtney, Elections, UBC, Vancouver, 2004.
5. Information on the creation and administration of these accounts is found the 2023 Redistribution website: “The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act gives the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer the ability to provide administrative support services to assist the 10 electoral boundaries commissions (hereinafter “commissions”) in fulfilling their mandate under the Act. The section of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer that operates under the name of Elections Canada provides, among other things, administrative support to the commissions in their communication efforts. As a result, the social media accounts for Redistribution 2023 on Twitter [X], Facebook and Instagram (collectively referred to as “social media accounts”) are administered by Elections Canada.”
6. Keith Archer, “Conflict and Confusion in Drawing Constituency Boundaries: The Case of Alberta”, Canadian Public Policy, 19(2), 1993.
7. James Bickerton, and Glenn Graham, “Electoral Parity or Protecting Minorities? Path Dependency and Consociational Districting in Nova Scotia”, Canadian Political Science Review, 14(1), 2020.
8. Jennifer Smith, “Community of Interest and Minority Representation: The Dilemma Facing Electoral Boundaries Commissions”, Electoral Insight, 4(2), 2002.
9. John C. Courtney, “Parliament and Representation: The Unfinished Agenda of Electoral Redistributions”, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 21(4), 1988.
10. Government of Canada, Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Ministry of Justice, Ottawa, 2019, 19(1).
11. Redistribution Canada, Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts 2022, Redistribution Canada, Gatineau, 2023.
12. Stewart Hyson, “Electoral boundary redistribution by independent commission in New Brunswick, 1990-94”, Canadian Public Administration, 42(3), 2000.
13. Lisa Handley, Challenging the Norms and Standards of Election Administration: Boundary Delimitation, International Foundation for Electoral Systems, Arlington Virginia, 2007.
14. David Small, “Drawing the Map Equality and Efficacy of the Vote in Canadian Electoral Boundary Reform”, Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, 11, 1991.
15. John C. Courtney, Elections, UBC, Vancouver, 2004.
16. Lisa Handley, Challenging the Norms and Standards of Election Administration: Boundary Delimitation, International Foundation for Electoral Systems, Arlington Virginia, 2007.
17. Government of Canada, Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Ministry of Justice, Ottawa, 2019, 19(1-6).
18. Government of Canada, Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Ministry of Justice, Ottawa, 2019, 19(1-1.1).
19. John C. Courtney, “Parliament and Representation: The Unfinished Agenda of Electoral Redistributions”, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 21(4), 1988.
20. John C. Courtney, Commissioned ridings: designing Canada’s electoral districts, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal, 2001.
21. John C. Courtney, Commissioned ridings: designing Canada’s electoral districts, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal, 2001.
22. John C. Courtney, Elections, UBC, Vancouver, 2004.
23. John C. Courtney, Elections, UBC, Vancouver, 2004.
24. John C. Courtney, “The Concept of “Community of Interest” in Determining Electoral District Boundaries”, Electoral Insight, 4(2), 2002.
25. Munroe Eagles, & R. Kenneth Carty, “MPs and electoral redistribution controversies in Canada, 1993-96”, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 5(2), 2007.
26. John C. Courtney, Commissioned ridings: designing Canada’s electoral districts, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal, 2001.
27. Munroe Eagles, & R. Kenneth Carty, “MPs and electoral redistribution controversies in Canada, 1993-96”, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 5(2), 2007.
28. Carmen Moreau-Vena, “Federal Representation 2004: Redistribution Following the 2001 Census”, Electoral Insight, 4(2), 2002.

Redistribution Canada, Redistribution of Federal Electoral

Districts 2022, Redistribution Canada, Gatineau, 2023.

1. Commission of Alberta, Final Report, Redistribution Canada, Gatineau, 2023.
2. Elections Canada, Ways to Vote, Elections Canada, Gatineau, 2023.
3. Elections Canada, Ways to Vote, Elections Canada, Gatineau, 2023.
4. Elections Canada, ID to Vote, Elections Canada, Gatineau, 2023.
5. Redistribution Canada, Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts 2012, Redistribution Canada, Gatineau, 2013.

Redistribution Canada, Redistribution of Federal Electoral

Districts 2022, Redistribution Canada, Gatineau, 2023.

John C. Courtney, Elections, UBC, Vancouver, 2004.
Government of Canada, Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Ministry of Justice, Ottawa, 2019.
Elections Canada, Ways to Vote, Elections Canada, Gatineau, 2023.
I would like to thank James Bowden (author in this journal’s volume) for his work reviewing the anomalies in the data for the representations of the 2023 redistribution process.
Government of Canada, Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Ministry of Justice, Ottawa, 2019, 22(1-2).
John C. Courtney, Elections, UBC, Vancouver, 2004.
John C. Courtney, Elections, UBC, Vancouver, 2004.