On the Boundaries Commission Report

By Peter Ewart

  Part 1 – “Arbitrary Recommendations that disenfranchise the North”

By Peter Ewart and Dawn Hemingway

The Electoral Boundaries Commission, chaired by Justice Bruce Cohen, has issued its preliminary report, and people in the North and other rural areas are understandably not happy.  Among other things, the report recommends reducing the number of MLAs by 3 in the North and Interior of the province, and increasing the number in the Lower Mainland by 4 and in the Okanagan by 1. 

Feelings are running high in the North against the recommendations of the report to the extent that the Mayor and Council of Prince George have called for a rally at 5pm on September 5^th at the Civic Centre Plaza to be held prior to the Commission’s hearings.

In this series of articles, we will be discussing various aspects of the Commission’s Report and presenting reasons as to why people in the North and other areas of the province should seriously consider rejecting it. 

Now, it should be said from the onset that setting provincial electoral boundaries is a highly political act.  There is no doubt about it.  Given the varied terrains, climates, and histories that make up the province of British Columbia, such a task is both complicated and complex.  But one thing is clear: the Commissioners on the Electoral Boundaries Commission have a lot of latitude and leeway.  And, as a result, there is also a lot of room for arbitrariness, bias, prejudice, and yes, politics.

As John Courtney, a professor in the Department of Political Studies at the University of Saskatchewan, has put it:  “the principal difficulty that [electoral] commissioners have” in determining “communities of interest” and electoral boundaries is “the absence of objective standards” and the fact that “the matter is reduced largely to making an informed, subjective judgment.”

For example, in British Columbia, in the past, some Electoral Boundaries Commissions have recommended increasing the representation in the North, and other Commissions have recommended decreasing it, depending on their point of view and criteria. 

Thus, in 1965, the Angus Commission, which some might say had a pronounced Lower Mainland bias, proposed that the Northern ridings be reduced “from seven electoral districts to five” and that the Lower Mainland ridings be increased from 19 to 27.  Strangely, this recommendation was made at a time when the North and other parts of the Interior were coming into their own, the population was increasing, and people were flocking to towns like Prince George from all over Canada.  Luckily for the North, the provincial Legislature overruled the Commission and rejected the proposal to eliminate seats in the North. 

On the other hand, the Eckardt Commission of 1978, proposed that representation in the North be increased by one, which the Legislature eventually supported.  Likewise, in 1982, the Warren Commission recommended, among other things, that a “second MLA” be added to one riding in the Cariboo region and one riding in the North.  This time, however, the Legislature ended up not supporting the Commission’s proposal.

Both the Fisher Commission (1988) and the Wood Commission (1999) proposed to neither increase or decrease the number of MLAs in the North, although both recommended increasing the number of Lower Mainland MLAs. 

And then we come to the present Commission, headed by Justice Bruce Cohen, which advocates the elimination of one riding in each of the North, Cariboo-Thompson, and Columbia-Kootenay regions, and the addition of four ridings to the Lower Mainland and one to the Okanagan region.

Historically, each of these Commissions has used its own criteria and points of emphasis in determining electoral districts.  But often, these criteria and points of emphasis differ significantly.  And this is immediately evident when we look at the summaries of the various commissions presented in the current commission’s Preliminary Report. 

The ideal number of people each MLA should represent in the BC Legislature is determined by what is called the “provincial electoral quotient” which is calculated “by dividing the provincial population” by the numbers of MLAs. Under the current First Past the Post system, this quotient stands at 52,069 people per MLA, but historically the number of people in some ridings has deviated significantly from the quotient, either less or more. 

For example, according to the Report, the Eckhart Commission of 1978 allowed “significant deviations from the electoral quotient, ranging from minus 88% for Atlin to plus 85% for Richmond.” 

However, the Fisher Commission of 1988 proposed “no more than a 25% deviation” from the quotient, except in “very special circumstances.”

In addition, while the Wood Commission of 1999 allowed “six of 79 electoral districts (5 of which were in the North) to exceed the “minus 25% deviation”, the current Cohen Commission takes a much more narrow approach and, if the First Past the Post system is kept, allows only 2 districts (North Coast and Northland) to exceed it.

These examples show that the findings of an electoral boundaries commission can be arbitrary and subjective to a significant degree and dependent upon the particular interpretation and point of view of the commissioners who sit on it.  If there had been different commissioners, the recommendations could have been quite different as well..  With this degree of arbitrariness, governments must tread very carefully about adopting the findings of any boundary commission. 

Now, it could be argued that we got these particular commissioners simply because that was the way the “dice rolled.”  But the fact of the matter is they were appointed by the provincial government and approved by the provincial legislature (both of which are dominated by representatives from the Lower Mainland).  Perhaps not surprisingly, all of the current Commission members are from the Southern part of the province.  And all appear to have a point of view that is not favourable to maintaining current levels of Northern and rural representation in the Legislature.

These controversial findings of the Commission’s preliminary report could not have come at a worse time.  In less than two years, British Columbians will be voting again in a referendum on whether to keep the existing First Past the Post electoral system or to adopt the Single Transferable Vote system as proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly.  One of the reasons why we are voting again is that, during the first referendum, a lot of people were confused about the differences between the two systems and how ridings would be laid out, because practically no funding was provided for voter education.  Now we have the current Boundary Commission’s recommendations to add to the confusion and controversy by further disenfranchising citizens living in the wealth-contributing Northern and rural parts of the province.

Email | Print | Facebook | Twitter | Digg | Del.icio.us