Comment 30 (8 August 2022) – comments and feedback

Ralph Forte

Subject: Public Hearing Participation from Ralph C Forte

There are excellent benefits to how the commission has divided up the ridings in and around the city of Saint John. I would like the opportunity to review the advantages of implementing the proposal and leaving it as is. Please let me know the speaking time limit to make sure that I respect it. Thanks!

Dear Members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission :

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you my thoughts on the redistribution process at the September 22 hearing. I am speaking to you solely as a private citizen, as part of no group or organization, as a person who does not vote by party lines, but who votes for ideas that work for Canadians.

I took the time to understand the criteria which Committee uses to redefine federal electoral district boundaries based on census data. Here is what I understand :

1. The main goal is to set boundaries so that each electoral district contains roughly the same number of people, with some leeway to make adjustments based on #2 and #3 below, but not deviating more than 25% more or less than 25% of the provincial average for a district.
2. The commissions also consider communities of interest or identity and an electoral district's history.
3. Finally, they must consider ensuring a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated regions of the province.

In studying what is proposed, I looked at the members of the commission and their backgrounds. All are highly qualified and based on those qualifications, one can have high confidence, to put it plainly, that the members of the commission know what they are doing.

I looked at the plan proposed by the commission and their reasons for their recommendations. Here is what I see :

• They have followed the federal redistricting guidelines to the letter, not only in population, but in issues of interest, and ensuring a manageable geographic size.
• The commission's explanation of why things were done show a high level of attention-to-detail, something that we are not accustomed to seeing in government. Successful governance requires attention to detail.
• I can only comment on the proposed riding naming in my area. The proposed names of the ridings, in my opinion, reflect who we are, and where we are.

From everything that I have read and studied, here is what I see:

A very qualified group of commissioners, while paying attention to details, proposed a riding redistribution for New Brunswick, following the federally established guidelines, to do such redistricting. I am asking the commission to trust the quality of work that they did and move forward as per the current redistricting proposal for Saint John and vicinity and make no changes.

I am not from Saint John. I am from Rothesay. At the same time, I am passionate about Saint John, as this amazing city is the economical, cultural, and social hub of our region. It is the engine that drives us. Now there has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about Saint John being split between two ridings. Some politicians have stated that they will fight this. One local newspaper has opined that Saint John needs to remain in one riding due to its unique voice. I do not understand those opinions for one remarkably simple, practical, collaborative, and mathematical reason as follows:

The commission did its job and followed the established redistribution guidelines, indicating fairness and equity. In this expression of fairness and equity, a municipality gets two voices in the House of Commons instead of one, with the team to advocate in Ottawa increasing by 100% (from 1 to 2 MPs). How could more advocates be a bad thing? It boggles my practical mind that anyone would be against more advocates for a municipality to fight for what that municipality needs in the federal arena. I would expect any mayor and council and citizens to be ecstatic about that and to learn how to use this to their advantage.

Now I am not a mayor or member of any council. To learn more about this issue, I contacted a mayor of a small Canadian city, split between two federal electoral districts. The mayor took time from his busy schedule to respond. Here is what he said, as snipped right from his letter with no editing:

Are you better served by two MP's – Yes, from the perspective you will have 2 of 10 MPs for your province speaking on your behalf at the caucus table IF they are both elected representing the same party and the party they represent forms government. The other side is you do not get two elected government MP's – this can be challenging for the local municipal government when it comes to advocating for the community's needs and wants!! I am of the view two is better that one!

Our qualified commission for New Brunswick has followed the established guidelines for the riding redistribution, keeping the redistribution fair. That has resulted in the city of Saint John, being split between two federal ridings. I am asking the commission to not be distracted by the various comments of doom and gloom, but to look at the increase in advocacy that this fairness resulted in for the most important city in our region. I am asking that you stick to your decision for the currently proposed boundaries for the new ridings of Saint John-St. Croix and Saint John-Kennebecasis.

Sincerely,

Ralph C Forte
Rothesay

Additional information from Ralph C. Forte's presentation at the public hearing in Rothesay of 22 September 2022 (sent on 22 September 2022)

22 September 2022

Ralph C. Forte

To the Electoral Boundary Commissioners for New Brunswick,

I would like to address the involvement of our MPs in this process. There has been much in the news lately where some elected officials quite upset about the proposed redistribution. That is their right. However, their position, as elected officials, does not make their opinion any more important than that of a typical citizen of Canada. I am concerned that the system is more geared to the opinions of MPs for the reason that the MPs are permitted to speak here, and are permitted again to have their concerns heard a second time:

According to the Elections Canada website, regarding the commissioners' report (Section 21) The report is sent to the Speaker of the House of Commons through the CEO, where it is tabled and referred to a designated parliamentary committee (The House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs).

(Section 22) MPs file written objections to a report with the designated parliamentary committee. Objections must be signed by at least 10 MPs.

It has the appearance that the elected officials are up to bat twice on the redistribution and this has me concerned.

Our system for redistribution is beautiful by that fact that it is driven by independent commissions. Contrast this with the system in the United States, which is politician driven, resulting in constant gerrymandering and ridings whose boundaries make no geographic sense and zigzag across the landscape, all designed to give political advantage to one party or another. The accusations of gerrymandering and voter suppression have not been the news of the day during the redistribution process. Our system, while not perfect, is superior.

Regarding elected official involvement in Canada, I did some research on elected officials who are against the proposals, looking for the reference to the key principles of redistricting:

1. Equitable representation driven by population
2. Adjustments based on community of interest or identity
3. Adjustments based on rational geographic size

Except in the case of the loss of the riding in Toronto, where there was no concern based on equitable representation, I generally could not see reasons for their opposition which reflected on these key criteria upon which redistribution is based.

Here are some of the reasons some of the elected officials are SAYING that they are against the various proposals across the country:

1. One elected individual commented that he or she does not like it. Unfortunately, not liking it is not a consideration in redistribution.
2. One commented on a community being split from its current riding and placed in another because he had concerns in that people will be split from the riding where they tend to shop... I can't make that up. Unfortunately, the need to shop in one's riding is not part of the redistribution criteria. Who thinks about federal riding boundaries when they shop?
3. I read the following regarding the split of Saint John between to ridings:

A local official was quoted as starting that that with eh current proposal, West siders in Saint John will become a minority where their position will be diluted in an expansive riding largely made up of rural communities.

My opinion, based on precedent, is that that is not big deal. The urban rural mix is nothing new among Canada's ridings. Some cases in point are:

• All three ridings in Saskatoon are mixed urban-rural
• Fredericton
• Thunder Bay-Rainy River and Thunder Bay-Superior North. Not only is Thunder Bay divided between two MPs, like the proposal for Saint John, it has a similar situation in the rural-urban split.
• These are just a few examples where this is common in Canada, and it works.

I would ask that the commission not be swayed that riding diversity, in this case rural-urban, is a bad thing. We have proven that it works in Canada every single day. MPs have to be able to represent a diverse population. It is part of the job. West Saint John will only be diluted if whoever their MP allows that to happen.

I tried to sort out why elected officials against some of the proposals and have found very few comments relating to the three principles of redistribution. As the MPs get two times at bat for these issues, I would ask that the commissioners apply the three principles... population, community of interest, and geographical area when addressing their concerns, making the concerns of MPs no more or less important than that of the general Canadian public.

In the end, the Commission, following the redistribution guidelines and applying serious attention to details, redrew riding boundaries in a fair an equitable way. This resulted in the City of Saint John being split between two ridings. I am asking the Commissioners to stay the course and maintain the current proposal for the new ridings of Saint John-Kennebecasis and Saint John-St. Croix.

Regards,

(Original signed by)

Ralph C. Forte