Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 6 - Third, Fourth and Fifth Reports of the Committee
Thursday, February 17, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its
THIRD REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-302, An Act to change the name to the electoral district of Kitchener—Wilmot—Wellesley—Woolwich, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, December 7, 2004, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment but with observations, which are appended to this report.
Respectfully submitted,
LISE BACON
Chair
OBSERVATIONS
to the Third Report of the
Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional AffairsBill C-302 is a Private Member's Bill that changes the name of the electoral district of ''Kitchener—Wilmot—Wellesley—Woolwich'' to that of ''Kitchener—Connestoga.'' Your Committee heard testimony to the effect that a previous Bill (Bill C-20, S.C. 2004, c.19) contained an error. Most people in the riding concerned had thought agreement had been reached on the name Kitchener—Connestoga, and the election had been held under it. Bill C-20, however, changed that name to one that most thought was inappropriately long.
Your Committee accepts the uncontradicted testimony before us that a mistake was made in 2004. It is not your Committee's role to assess where the blame for such a mistake should be placed. Your Committee does wish to comment, however, on the process used to change the names of electoral districts once a Representation Order has come into force following each decennial census.
The origin of the need for Bill C-302 is not the Representation Order, but rather the Bill in the spring of 2004 that we mentioned above. When your Committee reported that Bill to the Chamber on May 6, 2004, we observed, as we had repeatedly over the last four years, that the process for changing riding names should be open and transparent. We reiterated our previous recommendation that, before a name is changed by an Act of Parliament, there should be a requirement for public notice in the constituency concerned and provision made for public consultation, following Guidelines provided by the Chief Electoral Officer. Had notice been given and input sought on the proposal to change the name of the electoral district of Kitchener—Connestoga, it is highly likely that the error in Bill C-20 would have been caught, and the present Bill rendered unnecessary.
Every change of name of an electoral district leads to additional costs and work for Elections Canada. The process for changing names should reflect that fact, and should also reflect the great degree to which local residents often identify with the name of an electoral district. They deserve to be consulted. For those reasons, your Committee once again urges the adoption of an open and transparent process for changing the names of electoral districts by Act of Parliament.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its
FOURTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-304, An Act to change the name to the electoral district of Battle River, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, December 7, 2004, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment but with observations, which are appended to this report.
Respectfully submitted,
LISE BACON
Chair
OBSERVATIONS
to the Fourth Report of the
Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional AffairsBill C-304 is a Private Member's Bill that changes the name of the electoral district of ''Battle River'' to that of ''Westlock—St. Paul.'' Your Committee heard testimony that a previous Bill (Bill C-20, S.C. 2004, c.19) had changed the name of the wrong riding. Indeed, the name Battle River is based on a landmark that is not within the boundaries of the electoral district.
Your Committee accepts the uncontradicted testimony before us that a mistake was made in 2004. It is not your Committee's role to assess where the blame for such a mistake should be placed. Your Committee does wish to comment, however, on the process used to change the names of electoral districts once a Representation Order has come into force following each decennial census.
The origin of the need for Bill C-304 is not the Representation Order, but rather the Bill in the spring of 2004 that we mentioned above. When your Committee reported that Bill to the Chamber on May 6, 2004, we observed, as we had repeatedly over the last four years, that the process for changing riding names should be open and transparent. We reiterated our previous recommendation that, before a name is changed by an Act of Parliament, there should be a requirement for public notice in the constituency concerned and provision made for public consultation, following Guidelines developed by the Chief Electoral Officer. Had notice been given and input sought on the proposal to change the name of the electoral district to Battle River, it is highly likely that the error in Bill C-20 would have been caught, and the present Bill rendered unnecessary.
Every change of name of an electoral district leads to additional costs and work for Elections Canada. The process for changing names should reflect that fact, and should also reflect the great degree to which local residents often identify with the name of an electoral district. They deserve to be consulted. For those reasons, your Committee once again urges the adoption of an open and transparent process for changing the names of electoral districts by Act of Parliament.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its
FIFTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-36, An Act to change the boundaries of the Acadie—Bathurst and Miramichi electoral districts, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, February 1, 2005, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment but with observations, which are appended to this report.
Respectfully submitted,
LISE BACON
Chair
OBSERVATIONS
to the Fifth Report of the
Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional AffairsBill C-36 changes the boundaries of the ''Acadie—Bathurst'' and ''Miramichi'' electoral districts. The Bill was introduced in response to the decision of Raîche v. Canada, in which the Federal Court held that the Electoral Boundaries Commission for New Brunswick had erred in its application of the rules governing the preparation of its recommendations. The Court found that the Commission had not adequately heeded the importance of the Official Languages Act and the communities of interest that existed in the electoral districts. This is the first time since the introduction of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act that a court has ordered that an electoral boundary be changed.
The Raîche decision revealed that there is no procedure in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to allow for the appointment of a boundary commission or the modification of the electoral map outside of the decennial redistribution process. Your Committee, therefore, recommends that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be amended to ensure that an independent and transparent mechanism is available to deal with any similar situation that may arise in the future.
Electoral boundaries must be decided in a way that is independent and transparent. While your Committee appreciates that the task of the boundary commissions is difficult, these commissions must pay more careful attention to community of interest and community of identity. We are of the opinion that they should be given more precise instructions on how to consider those factors. Moreover, when considering community of identity, boundary commissions should place significant weight on cultural identity. Your Committee believes that the law should be amended so that community of interest and community of identity are clearly defined and the importance of cultural identity recognized.
Your Committee also notes that other areas of interest, such as local geography, should be respected. Your Committee acknowledges the frustration of a number of Members of the House of Commons who have large ridings, made even larger when, for example, pockets of their ridings are isolated by natural barriers such as mountains or rivers. Boundary commissions must realize that what may appear logical on the map is not necessarily logical on the ground.
For these reasons, your Committee agrees with the recommendations of the 7th Report of the First session of the 38th Parliament of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which stated:
Recommendation 3
The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be amended to provide:
a) A clear definition of the terms ''community of interest'' and ''community of identity''; and
b) More information or guidance by which community representation is assessed.
Recommendation 5
Electoral boundaries commissions pay close attention to topography and transportation routes.
In addition to the above recommendations, your Committee further recommends that community of identity be defined with particular attention to cultural identity.
Your Committee also recognizes that costs were incurred by the people who successfully challenged the validity of the 2003 Representation Order with respect to the ridings of Acadie—Bathurst and Miramichi. Your Committee therefore recommends that the costs incurred by those individuals be covered by the by the Privy Council Office.