As discussed in part one, over the last ten years two boundaries commissions, one special commission and a Court of Appeal reference have wrestled with the question of how to improve the chances for Acadians and African Nova Scotians to be elected to the Nova Scotia legislature.<\/p>\n
It may have seemed that the matter was settled when the legislature responded positively to the finding of the court and the advice of the two most recent commissions. In late 2019, the legislature approved new electoral boundaries, including a handful of districts with populations falling 25 per cent or more below the provincial average and in the process added four more seats to be contested in the upcoming election. But the Acadian community of Ch\u00e9ticamp, with the support of the F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Acadienne de la Nouvelle-\u00c9cosse (FANE) is unhappy with the decision and is going to court. Instead of being part of Inverness riding, the village and surrounding area wants its own seat in the House of Assembly.<\/p>\n
If Ch\u00e9ticamp\u2019s case proceeds to court we may finally get a ruling on how low can the number of voters in a small district go and, conversely, how much can the votes of residents in larger districts be fairly diluted. When the Court of Appeal delivered its opinion on the 2012 boundaries challenged by FANE it did not provide any guidance on this. Nor contrary to what seems to be the prevailing opinion, did it say that altering the exceptional electoral districts by applying maximum deviation was a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<\/p>\n
To quote the court decision:<\/p>\n
\u201dWe do not state that section 3\u00a0of the Charter\u00a0<\/em>requires that there be protected ridings in Clare, Argyle and Richmond. Rather, under\u00a0section 3, the body that is authorized by law to craft the electoral boundaries must be allowed to balance the constitutional criteria as set out by the majority\u2019s reasons in\u00a0Carter<\/em>, and to express its view on the matter.\u201d<\/p>\n That excerpt, paragraph 135 in a 63-page decision, pretty much says it all, but can benefit from some elaboration. The charter violation stemmed not from the alleged abolishing of the ridings, but from the manner in which it was done. Having set up the independent commission, the attorney general was obliged under section 3 of the charter to let the commission \u201cexpress its view\u201d on how best to ensure \u201ceffective representation.\u201d<\/p>\n The court went on to say that if the government didn\u2019t agree with the Electoral Boundaries Commission (EBC), it was free to bring in legislation amending the EBC\u2019s recommended boundaries. According to the court, \u201cthe House of Assembly Act obligates the Government to introduce a bill with the boundaries recommended by the Commission\u2019s final report. Then, according to the House\u2019s normal procedures, the bill may be amended before passage.\u201d<\/p>\n But by choosing a different approach – directing the commission to change its recommendations to fit the terms of reference – the attorney general prevented the commission from \u201cexpressing its authentic view of effective representation for electors in Clare, Argyle and Richmond. Hence the Attorney General\u2019s intervention violated the precepts of\u00a0section 3 of the Charter.\u201d<\/p>\n The commissions<\/strong><\/p>\n Following the Appeal Court decision the McNeil government allowed the disputed boundaries to stay in place for the 2017 election, but later that year appointed a Commission on Effective Representation to recommend \u201chow best to achieve effective representation for all Acadians and African Nova Scotians.\u201d<\/p>\n That body, also known as the Keefe commission, submitted its report in January 2018. It did not recommend for or against re-establishing the protected districts as they had existed in 2011. And noting that \u201cit would be a mistake to place too much reliance\u201d on protected ridings to guarantee effective representation, the commission presented a range of other ideas for improving representation in both the legislature and elsewhere in government.<\/p>\n Despite the lukewarm support for protected districts the Keefe commission report set the stage for the next step in the process: the hasty appointment of an Electoral Boundaries Commission three years earlier than the legislated ten-year requirement. Following public hearings that were sparsely attended beyond the protected ridings the commission released its final report, \u2018Balancing effective representation with voter parity<\/a>,\u2019 in April 2019. Predictably, the report recommended reinstating the four protected electoral districts of Argyle, Clare, Preston and Richmond. It was accepted by the legislature with little debate and the new electoral boundaries were passed in the fall of 2019.<\/p>\n The new electoral map, reflecting both geographical and community of interest factors, includes seven districts that exceed the 25 per cent deviation. That\u2019s up from three in 2017 – a total that included the districts of Bedford and Hants East that were more than 25 percent above<\/em> the provincial average. Only one district was more than 25 per cent below the average.<\/p>\n The table lists electoral districts falling outside the 25 percent deviation in 2017 and 2021.<\/p>\n E.Shore-Tracadie<\/td>\n <\/td>\n Tracadie<\/td>\n Source:<\/strong> Calculations from boundary commission reports<\/p>\n One electoral district notable by its absence from the table is Preston. As Preston-Dartmouth in 2017, it was 23 per cent below average; as Preston in 2021 it is only 19 percent below. Continuing to refer to Preston as a protected riding is misleading, given that it came into existence in 1992 with a population that was 50 per cent below the provincial average. At the time, the district was more than 25 percent African Nova Scotia. Based on the most recent available numbers, the restored Preston riding is likely no more than 20 per cent African Nova Scotian, thanks mainly to population growth in nearby non-Black communities.<\/p>\n Ch\u00e9ticamp\u2019s challenge<\/strong><\/p>\n Under the boundaries approved by the legislature in 2019 there were no districts with an upside deviation greater than 25 percent, the result of the flexibility afforded by addition of four more districts. Nevertheless, wide disparities remain. \u00a0For example, in Argyle, there are 6,461 electors to one MLA while in Waverley-Fall River-Beaverbank there are 16,545 electors to one MLA.<\/p>\n But perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the latest boundaries commission exercise is the fact its members came within a single vote of recommending an electoral district of Ch\u00e9ticamp, a creation that would significantly widen disparity in voting power beyond the gap that already exists.<\/p>\n The boundaries commission devoted \u00a0a lot of \u00a0consideration and two public meetings to the subject of a Ch\u00e9ticamp riding before rejecting, by a margin of 5-4, entreaties by the F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Acadienne de la Nouvelle-\u00c9cosse (FANE) and other to create a 56th<\/sup> seat for the village and its environs. The EBC\u2019s final report stated \u201cit was the will of the majority of commission members to recommend 55 electoral districts,\u201d but did not explicitly explain why.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n 2017<\/strong><\/td>\n Deviation<\/strong><\/td>\n 2021<\/strong><\/td>\n Deviation<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Bedford<\/td>\n +50%<\/td>\n Argyle<\/td>\n -52%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Hants E.<\/td>\n +29%<\/td>\n Clare<\/td>\n -49%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Guysborough-<\/p>\n -30%<\/p>\n Richmond<\/td>\n -44%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n Guysborough-<\/p>\n -42%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n Queens<\/td>\n -36%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n Digby-Annapolis<\/td>\n -26%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n Cole Harbour<\/td>\n -26%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n