Reasons – Saskatchewan

Introduction

The population of Saskatchewan, as determined by the 2021 census, was 1,132,505. This represents an increase of 9.6% over the 2011 census population of 1,033,381. The two major cities (Regina and Saskatoon) grew at a substantially faster rate than the province as a whole. The 2021 population of the City of Regina was 226,404, or 17.2% greater than the city's 2011 population of 193,100. The 2021 population of the City of Saskatoon was 266,141, or 19.8% greater than the city's 2011 population of 222,189. The population of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek also increased, from 72,607 to 83,395, representing a 14.86% increase from the 2011 census. However, three ridings, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, Cypress Hills—Grasslands and Souris—Moose Mountain, did not grow appreciably, and Yorkton—Melville declined in population. It is this census data that forms the background for the Commission's decisions in relation to the boundaries for all the ridings.

The census change in population from 2011 to 2021 is captured by Table 2, which was developed in relation to the electoral districts presently in place.

Table 2

Current Federal Electoral District	Pop. 2011	Deviation from 2011 Quotient 73,813	Pop. 2021	Deviation from 2021 Quotient 80,893	2021 Pop. Variation (2011–2021)	2021 Pop. Variation (2011–2021)	Area (km2)
Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River	69,471	-5.88%	71,488	-11.63%	2,017	2.90%	358,338
Battlefords—Lloydminster	70,034	-5.12%	70,918	-12.33%	884	1.26%	30,910
Prince Albert	79,344	7.49%	80,845	-0.06%	1,501	1.89%	19,471
Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek	72,607	-1.63%	83,395	3.09%	10,788	14.86%	29,711
Saskatoon West	76,704	3.92%	87,855	8.61%	11,151	14.54%	95
Saskatoon—University	76,257	3.31%	88,348	9.22%	12,091	15.86%	72
Saskatoon—Grasswood	72,010	-2.44%	93,277	15.31%	21,267	29.53%	350
Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan	76,106	3.11%	80,547	-0.43%	4,441	5.84%	33,391
Regina—Qu'Appelle	72,891	-1.25%	78,140	-3.40%	5,249	7.20%	13,632
Regina—Lewvan	79,587	7.82%	98,492	21.76%	18,905	23.75%	58
Regina—Wascana	77,208	4.60%	89,087	10.13%	11,879	15.39%	64
Yorkton—Melville	71,270	-3.45%	71,220	-11.96%	-50	-0.07%	44,184
Cypress Hills—Grasslands	67,834	-8.10%	68,314	-15.55%	480	0.71%	78,494
Souris—Moose Mountain	72,058	-2.38%	70,579	-12.75%	-1,479	-2.05%	43,436

Guiding Rules

Since section 15 of the Act establishes the rules that guide the work of the Commission, it is appropriate to reproduce it here, with underlining added to the key provisions for the purpose of emphasis.

The Commission's first task is to determine what Parliament intended when it passed section 15. This task is an exercise in statutory interpretation.

In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII), [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, at para. 119, Chief Justice Wagner, writing on behalf of the majority of the Court, stated that administrative decision makers need not "engage in a formalistic statutory interpretation exercise in every case." However, he went on to say (at para. 120) that an administrative decision maker's interpretation of a provision must be "consistent with the text, context and purpose of the provision."

As a first point, it should be noted that Parliament has determined that, in construing its legislation, "[e]very enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects" (s. 12 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21). Important for the interpretation of section 15 of the Act, section 11 of the Interpretation Act also draws a distinction between imperative and permissive construction. Section 11 provides that "[t]he expression 'shall' is to be construed as imperative and the expression 'may' as permissive." This is important because section 15 uses both "shall" and "may" when describing the Commission's powers.

With section 15, Parliament requires that the commissions consider population parity, but they must also consider "the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, and a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province." Population parity and the categories of "community of interest, identity, historical pattern and manageable geographic size" may pull in different directions. Nonetheless, the direction to the commissions is that they "shall" consider all these matters.

Section 15 also gives the commissions the discretion, through the permissive use of the language "may," to depart from population parity "in any case where the commission considers it necessary or desirable" to do so. The statutory limit on this permissive power is that the commissions shall make every effort to ensure that "the population of each electoral district in the province remains within twenty-five per cent more or twenty-five per cent less of the electoral quota." Notwithstanding this direction to remain within plus or minus 25% of the electoral quota, a commission is also given the authority to exceed the plus or minus 25% limit in "circumstances viewed by the commission as being extraordinary." It is perhaps worth noting for the sake of completeness that section 15 is based on "population parity" and not "voter parity"—i.e., the quotient is "obtained by dividing the population of the province as ascertained by the census by the number of members of the House of Commons to be assigned" (emphasis added).

One question is how section 15 fits within the framework of section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter): "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein."

This question has been largely resolved by Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158 [Reference case]. That case concerned Saskatchewan's Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which at that time allowed (a) the two northern districts to deviate from the electoral quota by as much as 50% and (b) the 64 southern districts to deviate by 25%. In the Reference case, the Supreme Court of Canada considered a report of the Saskatchewan Commission, which had drawn the province's electoral map with districts varying by as much as 38% below and 24% above the electoral quota.

In upholding the Saskatchewan Commission's map, McLachlin J. (as she then was), writing for the majority in the Reference case, concluded that the purpose of the right to vote enshrined in section 3 of the Charter was the right to effective representation and not parity of voting power only. The Court held that factors such as geography, community history and interests as well as minority representation must be taken into account to ensure that legislatures effectively represent the diversity of the Canadian social mosaic. Justice McLachlin also made it clear that only those deviations that can be justified as contributing to the better government of the population as a whole should be permitted.

Clearly, parity of voting forms the backbone of the electoral distribution process. In light of section 3 of the Charter, it could not be otherwise. However, Parliament, with its enactment of the Representation Act, 1985, has determined that other factors are also important. It has signalled this intention by the words of section 15 of the Act, which refers to ridings of manageable geographic size; this puts in play the factor of access to one's member of Parliament. Saskatchewan, at 652,206 square kilometres, is the fifth-largest province of Canada in terms of area but has only 14 seats. In such circumstances, territorial size with respect to all but the Regina and Saskatoon urban ridings is a more important factor in this province than in some others when establishing appropriate electoral boundaries.

The only tool that the Act makes available to a commission to "maintain a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province" is to reduce the territorial size of a district. Reducing the size of a district will almost always decrease its population and place it under the electoral quota. In other instances, in order to meet the electoral quota or to accommodate a decreased population in another district, the territorial size of a district will have to increase.

In light of the Reference case, the Commission finds no reason not to apply section 15 according to its terms. Section 15 requires that the Commission shall consider the factors set out in both paragraph 15(1)(a) and (b)—i.e., it "shall" do so. It also "may" depart from the rule in paragraph 15(1)(a) by up to 25% when it is necessary or desirable to do so, and, in extraordinary circumstances, it "may" depart by more than 25%, having regard for the principles set out in the Act, which were, in effect, confirmed by the Reference case. The Commission discusses the extraordinary circumstances exception more fully later in this report, when providing its reasons with respect to Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

Thus, we conclude that the Commission is required to keep all the factors mentioned in section 15 in mind. Primacy must be given to population parity, but all factors must be considered.

This interpretation is consistent with the history of the amendments to section 15. In 1986, Parliament passed the Representation Act, 1985, S.C. 1986, c. 8, which made three changes of significance to section 13 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C., 1970, c. E-2. First, paragraph 13(1)(a) was amended to replace the phrase "as nearly as may be" with "as close as reasonably possible," which gives commissions additional flexibility regarding population parity. Second, by changing "may" to "shall" in paragraph 13(1)(b), commissions are required to consider communities of interest and identity as well as geographical size. Third, paragraph 13(1)(c), which had previously empowered commissions to depart from 13(1)(a) up to 25% in any case viewed by a commission as necessary or desirable, was amended to further empower commissions to depart from paragraph 13(1)(a) by more than plus or minus 25% "in circumstances viewed by the commission as being extraordinary." As part of the 1986 revision of the federal statutes, these amendments were later incorporated into An Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-3 (2nd Supp.), resulting in section 15 in its present form, as quoted above.

On November 19, 1985, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections met to study the Representation Act, 1985. In his appearance before the Committee, the Hon. Ramon Hnatyshyn, member of Parliament for Saskatoon West, acknowledged that there was likely a natural inclination on the part of the commissions to keep things as close to the average as possible. However, he advised the House that this was the very reason that the proposed amendment was necessary. He contended that the extraordinary clause would act as a strong signal to the commissions that they can, and should, allow for variations from the norm.

This legislation deals with that very problem you raise, Mr. Murphy. It says henceforth you will pay attention to manageability of constituency size; you will look at, within that flexibility, these considerations that should be taken into account in devising the boundaries of a constituency. So, if anything, it reinforces the fact that the commission should exercise its discretion to maintain constituencies that are manageable and that in fact reflect a community of interest. (Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, 19 November 1985, 20:15)

Community of Interest or Community of Identity

Paragraph 15(1)(b) of the Act requires that each commission "shall consider community of interest or community of identity ... of an electoral district in the province." As commentators and past commissions have remarked, these are difficult concepts to define and to apply in the federal electoral context, while having regard for units of size as large as 80,000 people or more. Notwithstanding the difficulty involved, the imperative wording of section 15 requires that each commission develop an understanding of the concept and apply it consistently.

At the most basic level, a community of interest or identity may be defined by where people have chosen to live. Having regard for this understanding, the Commission has made every effort not to divide rural or urban municipalities or First Nations reserves. With respect to the division of RMs, the Commission was able to reduce the number that had been divided by the 2013 Representation Order. Indeed, the decision to follow the Northern Saskatchewan Administration District (NSAD) line joined six RMs that had previously been split among ridings. Where a number of First Nations reserves are geographically concentrated, the Commission has respected that fact by including them within the same electoral district.

That brings us to the question of blended urban-rural ridings. Before the Proposal was written and again during the consultation process, submissions were made, urging the Commission to revisit an issue decided by the Saskatchewan Commission in its 2012 Proposal and Report and to create four or five urban-rural ridings in each of Saskatoon and Regina. The identified issue is whether Saskatchewan should have exclusively urban electoral districts in Saskatoon and Regina, where possible, or whether it should have blended urban-rural districts in those cities.

When it comes to the large urban centres, apart from Regina—Qu'Appelle, it is not necessary to divide the municipal unit—i.e., the city—in order to achieve population parity. It is possible to have three exclusively urban ridings in Saskatoon and two such ridings in Regina without going beyond the municipal boundaries. Since it is possible to have five exclusively urban ridings, the question that must be answered is whether a better community of interest or identity would be formed by blending some of or all the ridings in Saskatoon and Regina with rural ridings lying adjacent to these two cities.

With respect for the contrary view, it is the Commission's decision that a better community of interest or identity is achieved by not extending beyond the city limits of Saskatoon or Regina solely for the purpose of creating blended urban-rural ridings. This decision is an application of the same principle mentioned above, which is that a commission would not choose, without good reason, to divide a rural municipality or a smaller urban city because to do so would divide what is clearly a community of interest.

In reaching this decision, the Commission adopts as its own the reasoning of the Saskatchewan Commission in 2012, which focused on the unique challenges of large urban cities, as described by the presenters to it on that occasion. These challenges include affordable housing, homelessness, addressing the needs of an urban Indigenous population, meeting the needs of new Canadians, mass transit, funding of major infrastructure projects, complex policing matters and so on.

Some presenters who argued in favour of blended ridings stressed a community of interest based on individual consumer trading patterns—i.e., shopping, visiting a doctor or dentist, or commuting for work. The Commission agrees with the 2012 Commission that these are important links among communities that should be fostered, but they do not establish a community of interest for federal electoral purposes. Nor does the creation of a federal electoral boundary change these patterns. They exist apart from where the Commission fixes the boundaries.

In its Proposal, the Commission had suggested the creation of two blended urban-rural ridings in Saskatoon. The proposed Saskatoon—Grasswood riding would have included approximately 4,000 people who reside on the outskirts of Saskatoon. The proposed Saskatoon—Wanuskewin riding would have included approximately 15,000 people who reside in Saskatoon in what was essentially a blended urban-rural riding. As will be explained more fully when discussing the Saskatoon ridings, the Commission has decided not to proceed with a Saskatoon Centre riding, which removed part of the impetus for the configuration of Saskatoon—Grasswood and Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, and thus permits the Commission to reaffirm the decision of the 2012 Commission regarding blended urban-rural ridings in Saskatoon and Regina.

There will be situations where a blended urban and rural riding is the best application of Section 15, having regard for all factors. Indeed, 8 of Saskatchewan's current 14 ridings are blended urban-rural ridings, and they remain so. Each of the ridings of Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, Prince Albert, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, Regina—Qu'Appelle, Yorkton—Melville, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and Souris—Moose Mountain combines cities, towns, villages, hamlets and rural municipalities.

Discussion of Individual Ridings

Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan

In its Proposal, the Commission proposed for consideration that these two electoral districts be substantially reconfigured. The Commission proposed one district to follow the transportation corridor running through Swift Current and Moose Jaw almost to the outskirts of Regina and to be named Moose Jaw—Swift Current—Grasslands. The population of this district would have been 85,464, which would have represented a 5.66% variation from the electoral quota and a 2.22% variation from the reference quota.

The Commission also proposed a second, almost exclusively rural, electoral district to recognize the community of interest that lies to the north of the South Saskatchewan River. This district would have absorbed almost all that part of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek that would not have formed part of the proposed riding of Saskatoon—Wanuskewin. It would have been named after the two largest centres in the district and been called Kindersley—Rosetown. Conscious of the large geographic size of this district, the Commission did not extend the district's boundaries to the point of exact equivalence with the electoral quota. The population of Kindersley—Rosetown would have been 78,525. This would have represented a -2.93% variation from the provincial quota and a -6.09% variation from the reference quota. The Proposal met with both support and criticism. Those who supported the Proposal believed that the proposed districts better represented the community of interest that lies north and south of the Trans-Canada Highway. While the Commission remains of the view that this is the case, it is also cognizant of the fact that it received no support for the new riding of Kindersley—Rosetown from those who reside there. They preferred the north-south orientation of the riding that is presently in place.

Without reasoned support from the residents of the area of Kindersley—Rosetown for the creation of their own riding, the Commission decided that it is more important to place greater weight on the historical pattern of this part of the province, which has seen a north-south configuration for electoral purposes.

Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley

The electoral district of Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley will replace the electoral district of Cypress Hills—Grasslands in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Proposed Electoral Boundaries section.

As the Proposal indicated, the only viable alternative to the one that it suggested was to increase the territorial size of Cypress Hills—Grasslands. When presenters who were opposed to reconfiguring this part of the province were questioned about increasing the size of the riding, all were of the view that an increased riding size was preferable to what the Commission was proposing. One presenter suggested that the upper limit of the riding could proceed as far north as the towns of Wilkie and Unity. With these submissions in mind, that is where the Commission has decided to fix the northerly boundary of the riding. In fact, this is as far north as is possible without absorbing Lloydminster into the riding at this time.

The new name for this riding will be Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley.

On the eastern boundary of this riding, some land within Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan will now be in Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley in order to approach population parity.

The Commission did not enlarge this riding to the point of achieving absolute parity. As has been noted, manageable geographic size must also play a role in order to achieve effective representation. Even with this factor in mind, this riding will comprise 83,430 square kilometres.

Taking into consideration population parity, community of interest as understood by the Commission, the historical pattern of the district and manageable geographic size, the Commission fixes the boundaries of Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley according to the map below.

The population of Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley represented by the map is 75,686, which is -6.44% below the electoral quota and -10.12% below the reference quota.

Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan

The electoral district of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan will replace the electoral district of the same name in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Proposed Electoral Boundaries section.

With the above decision not to reorient the ridings in the southwestern part of the province, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan keeps its present shape. In addition to the submissions put forward in opposition to any reorientation of the southwest, the Commission received a particularly strong submission from an industry representing the irrigation centre contained primarily within Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan to keep that riding intact.

As a result, the Commission saw no reason to depart significantly from the existing boundaries of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan except insofar as it was necessary to accommodate the increased territorial size of Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the changes made in conjunction with fixing the boundaries of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

Taking into account the same factors as those that influenced the maintenance of Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, the Commission fixes the boundaries of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan according to the map shown below. Managing geographic size does not play an appreciable role for this riding as it is 41,483 square kilometres in size.

The population of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan represented by the map is 83,319, which is 3.00% above the electoral quota and -1.05% below the reference quota.

Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake

The electoral district of Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake will replace the electoral district of Battlefords—Lloydminster in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Proposed Electoral Boundaries section.

The decisions made in relation to Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley have implications for a number of ridings, but most significantly for Battlefords—Lloydminster, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

Between 2011 and 2021, this district grew from 70,034 to only 70,918; this makes it -12.33% under quota. In addition, the decision not to proceed with the reconfiguration of the southwestern part of the province raises the southern boundary of Battlefords—Lloydminster to create a riding with a population of 63,352 if no other changes are made.

To come closer to population parity, the territorial size of this riding can be increased only by proceeding to the north or to the east. The most obvious choice is to proceed north for Battlefords to be joined again with Meadow Lake, which, given the demographics of the two areas, represents a good community of interest. This is also the configuration that existed before 1994, when the Commission of the day created one northern riding of Churchill River. The riding before 1994 was known as Battlefords—Meadow Lake.

Taking into account population parity, community of interest as understood by the Commission, the historical pattern of the district and manageable geographic size, the Commission fixes the boundaries of Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake according to the map below. The territorial size is 37,373 square kilometres.

Since Battlefords will be rejoined with Meadow Lake, it is only fitting that the name of the riding be changed to reflect that decision. The name of the riding will be Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake.

The population of Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake represented by the map is 83,248, which is 2.91% above the electoral quota and -1.14% below the reference quota.

Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River

The electoral district of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River will replace the electoral district of the same name in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Proposed Electoral Boundaries section.

Using the geographic boundaries of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River as they were set for the electoral district in the 2013 Representation Order, the territorial size of this district would be 358,338 square kilometres, or 55% of the total land mass of the province. If no change were made to its boundaries, its population would be 71,488, or -11.63% below the province's electoral quota.

In its Proposal, the Commission suggested that, having regard for the factor of geographic size alone, a substantial variation from the electoral quota was potentially justified for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. To that end, the Commission proposed a reduction in territorial size from 358,338 to 327,958 square kilometres. The reduction in land size in relative terms was not large, but it would have had the effect of reducing the population covered by the area of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River from 71,488 to 45,524. It would have had this effect because the Commission had chosen the Northern Saskatchewan Administration District (NSAD) line as the southern boundary. The only exception to that boundary would have been for the City of Meadow Lake and the surrounding area, which would have continued to be included in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. The result would have been the creation of a riding that was -43.72% below the quota.

During the consultation process, the Commission heard competing views about whether it was appropriate to change the boundaries of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River in any significant way. By and large, the submissions urged the Commission to make one of four decisions.

1. Ensure that all ridings bear the same population, with little or no deviation from the electoral quota for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, or, in other words, increase the territorial size of this riding.
2. Maintain the boundary for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River as it was in the 2013 Representation Order, which would mean a deviation from the 2021 electoral quota of -11.63%.
3. Follow the 2022 Proposal, which would create a riding that was 43.72% below the quota and keep the RM and City of Meadow Lake in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.
4. Follow the NSAD line more closely than the 2022 Proposal suggested so as to exclude the RM and City of Meadow Lake but include what is known as the Shoal Lake and Red Earth First Nations; this would create a riding that was -53.22% under quota.

In the view of the Commission, option (a) is contrary to the rules contained in section 15 of the Act, which mandate a consideration of not only population parity but also manageable geographic size. With a riding that occupies one half of the land mass of the province, it is not possible to consider both population parity and manageable geographic size without making some adjustment to the former in order to accommodate the latter.

The Commission was also persuaded that option (c) is not appropriate. The Commission was proposing an incremental change that was dependent on the configuration of the southwestern part of the province and the creation of a new Kindersley—Rosetown riding. With the decision to proceed in a northerly direction with respect to the riding of Battlefords—Lloydminster, the extension into the RM of Meadow Lake became a way of addressing population parity with respect to this part of the province.

In addition, it should be noted that the Commission received both positive and negative support for proceeding with option (c). For the most part, those persons residing north of the NSAD line supported the Proposal, but urged the Commission to go further and follow the NSAD line except for the possible inclusion of the Shoal Lake and Red Earth First Nations.

For the most part, those persons residing south of the NSAD line were opposed to this aspect of the Proposal. However, almost all of those who opposed any change were also of the view that if a change were to be made, it should be to keep together the communities lying south of the NSAD line and not to make an exception for Meadow Lake and area. The sitting member of Parliament was also opposed to any change, but, to his credit, he also offered the opinion that if the area between Meadow Lake and Prince Albert were to be excluded from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, the whole of the area presently standing between the westernmost boundary of the province and Prince Albert and lying below the NSAD line should also be excluded.

Thus, by the end of the consultation process, it was clear to the Commission that only options (b) and (d) were viable. And, if option (b) were to be considered, any adjustment would have to take into account the need not to separate the communities of interest around Meadow Lake.

In resolving which of these options it should adopt and how the northern ridings should be configured, the Commission considered it necessary to address two issues. The first is whether extraordinary circumstances exist such that it is open to the Commission to exercise the discretion conferred on it by section 15 of the Act to deviate from the electoral quota by more than 25% and, in doing so, follow the NSAD line. The second is whether it is appropriate, at this time, for the Commission to exercise that discretion. These two issues operate together, with each influencing the other.

Extraordinary Circumstances

In some respects, the case for recognizing the extraordinary circumstances of the region north of the NSAD line has, in effect, already been made by the Saskatchewan Legislature, and in two ways.

First, in 1948, the Legislature passed The Northern Administration Act, 1948, S.S. 1948, c. 19 for the purpose of creating the NSAD. That Act established the NSAD line, marking the border between the boreal forest and the parkland. Unlike the balance of the province, the NSAD serves as a single northern municipality. The special status of the NSAD continues to be specifically recognized by The Northern Municipalities Act, 2010, S.S. 2010, c. N-5.2.

Second, the Legislature has recognized the NSAD as requiring separate consideration for provincial electoral purposes. Following the creation of the NSAD, the Legislature directed successive provincial electoral commissions to fix the boundaries of those ridings lying "south of the northern dividing line" only. The "dividing line" is defined as the line that divides Saskatchewan into a northern area and a southern area and is described in a schedule to The Constituency Boundaries Act, 1993, S.S. 1993, c. C-27.1, s. 2(e) as essentially the NSAD line. In that Act, the Legislature created two provincial ridings lying north of the NSAD line. It is noteworthy that Saskatchewan's Constituency Boundaries Act permits only a plus or minus 5% deviation from the provincial electoral quota and does not allow for an extraordinary circumstances exception below the NSAD line.

Those are the two ways in which the Saskatchewan Legislature has, as a matter of law, confirmed the special status of the province's North. It is nonetheless important for this Commission to make its own assessment.

During the consultation process, whether an individual supported the Proposal or not, there was a general consensus that the North is "different." Presenters described this difference in several ways. Some focused on the land and how the land has shaped the people in many ways, including how they earn their living. Others spoke about the northern-cultural makeup of the population and its social and economic status. These presentations may be assessed against two objective sources—i.e., publicly available information provided by the Government of Saskatchewan and Statistics Canada's demographic information.

The Government of Saskatchewan describes the NSAD in these terms:

Although rich in natural resources, this sparsely populated region is challenged by limited infrastructure, and lower education levels and average incomes when compared to the rest of the province. The isolation of the communities creates special circumstances for northerners working to build their economy and their homes.

The Government of Saskatchewan recognizes these challenges and puts a special emphasis on helping people within the NSAD to realize their goals and to improve their standard of living. (https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/first-nations-metis-and-northern-community-businesses/economic-development/northern-administration-district)

In terms of the people who live there, the following observations may be made based on the Statistics Canada census data alone:

1. based on the 2016 data, 66% of the population of the NSAD identifies as Indigenous;
2. based on the 2021 data, the mother tongue of 31% of the residents is an Indigenous language;
3. based on the 2021 data, 17% of the population speaks an Indigenous language at home;
4. based on the 2016 data, 50% have no post-secondary education.

However, and, perhaps, most important, the remoteness of the riding and the size of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River make effective representation more difficult in this riding than in any other in the Province.

Having regard for this analysis, the Commission finds that circumstances exist in the region lying north of the NSAD line that are extraordinary within the meaning of section 15 of the Act.

Exercising the discretion to recognize extraordinary circumstances

Section 15 requires the commissions to always keep population parity in mind—i.e., they "shall make every effort to ensure that ... the population of each electoral district in the province remains within twenty-five per cent more or twenty-five per cent less of the electoral quota for the province." However, section 15 allows for an exception. In "circumstances viewed by the commission as extraordinary," a commission may exceed this amount. This is a discretionary power. The Commission is not required to exercise it. The issue is whether the Commission should exercise it.

In the hearings, the Commission heard two main arguments against exceeding the 25%: (a) it is a power that has been rarely used in Canada; and (b) it would divide the communities of interest above and below the NSAD line. It is appropriate to address each of these arguments.

Applying a rarely used discretion

According to the last redistribution exercise, only two other jurisdictions in Canada have created a riding that deviates from the quota by more than 25%. As taken from the 2013 Representation Order, they are shown in the table below.

Table 3

Electoral District	Population	Area (km2)	Variance
Kenora	55,977	321,741	-47.30%
Labrador	26,728	294,330	-63.64%

During its consultation process, the Commission heard from those who submitted that Labrador could not be considered a precedent because the NSAD is not separated from the southern part of the province by a waterway.

While each province is different and Commissions will resolve the issue in their own way, it is sufficient to note that when Parliament passed what is now section 15 and made deviations above and below 25% possible, it drew no distinction between lands that are separated by waterways and those that are not. If it had, the amendments to section 15 thought to be significant at the time would have had little effect. Indeed, the specific wording of section 15 directs the commissions to consider "sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province" (emphasis added). Once it is determined that a region meets the extraordinary circumstances exception, the issue is not whether a riding is separated by a waterway from other ridings; the issue is whether it is appropriate to give effect to the extraordinary circumstances finding. The corollary issue is whether there is a sufficient line of demarcation between the ridings in question. In Saskatchewan, such a line exists and has been recognized provincially since 1948. It is the NSAD line.

In its Proposal, the Commission reviewed the reasons why the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Newfoundland and Labrador had decided to make Labrador one riding notwithstanding the high deviation from the electoral quota. It is only necessary to repeat those aspects of the report that stressed "history, geography, community of interest and the strength of its distinct Aboriginal communities" as playing key roles in the creation of a separate riding for Labrador. Coupled with the large size of both ridings, it is these aspects of the Newfoundland and Labrador experience that are relevant to the Saskatchewan situation.

Also during the consultation process, the Commission received one submission suggesting that Kenora could not be considered a precedent because Northern Ontario is considered a region on its own and has 10 ridings as of the 2013 Representation Order. In addition, it was suggested that it is possible in Ontario to share the deviation from the quota with many more ridings. Both these statements are correct, but they do not answer the question whether these distinctions are an impediment to making a decision that is appropriate for Saskatchewan.

Dividing the community of interest or community of identity

Seventeen First Nations reserves, which include 11,675 persons of Indigenous ancestry, reside below the NSAD line and are currently within Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. The Commission has considered this to be an important consideration, but it exists for provincial electoral purposes as well. More important, effective representation for that Indigenous population will not change. They will still live in close proximity to their member of Parliament, either in Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake or in Prince Albert. They will still be linked to their member of Parliament by a sophisticated system of transportation and communication that does not exist for the First Nations reserves lying above the NSAD line. If their member of Parliament resides above the NSAD line in one of the larger communities north of that line, it is difficult to see how the criterion of effective representation for the southerly located First Nations would be met. Conversely, with a reduced population, effective representation for those who reside above the NSAD line will be significantly improved regardless of whether their elected representative resides above or below the line. Finally, it must be noted that a significant Indigenous population presently resides in each of Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake and Prince Albert.

The discretion should be exercised for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River

In 1986, when section 15 was amended to create an extraordinary circumstances exception, the members of Parliament were particularly concerned with northern Saskatchewan, with many specific references being made to it. See, generally, House of Commons Debates, 26th Parl., 2nd Sess. (https://parl.canadiana.ca/browse/eng/c/debates/26-2); House of Commons Debates, 33rd Parl., 1st Sess. (https://parl.canadiana.ca/browse/eng/c/debates/33-1); and House of Commons Committees, 33rd Parl., 1st Sess.: Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, vol. 1 (https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.com_HOC_3301_62_1/1).

From 1986 until now, none of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commissions for the Province of Saskatchewan has invoked the extraordinary circumstances exception. Paradoxically, it is actually the large increase in the populations of Regina and Saskatoon, and the much smaller increases in the rural ridings, that make it feasible to depart significantly from the quota for a northern riding at this time. Further, Canada's increasing awareness of the situation and of the place of Indigenous peoples in the democratic process makes a strong case for acting so as to give effect to these words of Justice McLachlin, taken from the Reference case.

Notwithstanding the fact that the value of a citizen's vote should not be unduly diluted, it is a practical fact that effective representation often cannot be achieved without taking into account countervailing factors.

First, absolute parity is impossible. It is impossible to draw boundary lines which guarantee exactly the same number of voters in each district. Voters die, voters move. Even with the aid of frequent censuses, voter parity is impossible.

Secondly, such relative parity as may be possible of achievement may prove undesirable because it has the effect of detracting from the primary goal of effective representation. Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic. These are but examples of considerations which may justify departure from absolute voter parity in the pursuit of more effective representation; the list is not closed.

It emerges therefore that deviations from absolute voter parity may be justified on the grounds of practical impossibility or the provision of more effective representation. Beyond this, dilution of one citizen's vote as compared with another's should not be countenanced. I adhere to the proposition asserted in [Dixon v. British Columbia (Attorney General) [1989] 4 WWR 393] at p. 414, that "only those deviations should be admitted which can be justified on the ground that they contribute to better government of the populace as a whole, giving due weight to regional issues within the populace and geographic factors within the territory governed."

…

In summary, I am satisfied that the precepts which govern the interpretation of Charter rights support the conclusion that the right to vote should be defined as guaranteeing the right to effective representation. The concept of absolute voter parity does not accord with the development of the right to vote in the Canadian context and does not permit of sufficient flexibility to meet the practical difficulties inherent in representative government in a country such as Canada. In the end, it is the broader concept of effective representation which best serves the interests of a free and democratic society. (Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, III A.)

All these words are important. None should be taken out of context as indicating one truth except the line "deviations from absolute voter parity may be justified on the grounds of practical impossibility or the provision of more effective representation." This summarizes the Reference case and informs the Commission's decision to use its discretion to depart significantly from the quota to give effect to a riding lying above the NSAD line. It is also worth mentioning that the words of McLachlin J. were said in the context of legislation that permitted a deviation from the electoral quota of as much as 50% for a northern Saskatchewan riding.

The northern peoples residing above the NSAD line have particular needs unlike those residing below it. They are separated by vast lands with little infrastructure and few roads. Their economic situation is an aspect of this reality. The Commission has determined that effective representation for them means that the southern boundary of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River should be the NSAD line, with the consequence of a deviation from the electoral quota greater than 25%. Further, the Commission has concluded that this change can be accommodated within the electoral map of the Province.

Making an exception for the Red Earth and Shoal Lake First Nations

The Commission heard from several presenters regarding the special traditional link between the Red Earth and Shoal Lake First Nations and the northeastern region of the Cumberland delta. For them, the link to the region and its traditional people remains important. They share strong kinship ties and a common culture, identity, history and language. The Commission was persuaded by this submission, and, since it is practicably feasible to give effect to it in the context of the other decisions made by the Commission, the electoral map, shown below, is adjusted to reflect the continued inclusion of these reserves in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

The population of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River represented by the map is 37,845, which is -53.22% below the electoral quota and -55.06% below the reference quota. The riding will have a land mass of 326,256 square kilometres.

Prince Albert

The electoral district of Prince Albert will replace the electoral district of the same name in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Proposed Electoral Boundaries section.

The Proposal recommended that the population of Prince Albert be fixed at 85,344, which would have been 5.50% over the electoral quota and 2.07% over the reference quota, with a territorial land mass of 27,050 square kilometres. The proposed changes would have added the Sturgeon Lake First Nation, part of the Little Red River First Nation (106C) and part of the Montreal Lake First Nation (106B). The Commission heard only a few representations regarding these proposed changes to Prince Albert. One representation was to ensure that the RM of Canwood not be split between federal ridings.

The decision to follow the NSAD line will have some additional effect on this riding, but will not change the Proposal significantly. Three additional First Nations reserves lying to the west of Prince Albert will now join that riding—i.e., Ahtahkakoop Cree Nation, Big River First Nation and Mistawasis Nêhiyawak. With this decision, Prince Albert will have nine reserves, creating a total Indigenous population of 7,818, within its boundaries.

The decision to keep the RM of Canwood intact and to bring the First Nation of Big River into the riding of Prince Albert must be offset by some changes to another riding. The most obvious choice is Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. Indeed, the need to expand the territory of Cypress Hills—Grasslands in a northerly direction means that the southerly border of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek must also move north. The RMs of St. Louis, Invergordon and Flett's Springs, formerly within the riding of Prince Albert, will be added to Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

Taking into consideration population parity, community of interest as understood by the Commission, the historical pattern of the district and manageable geographic size, the Commission fixes the boundaries of Prince Albert according to the map shown below. The territorial size is 28,622 square kilometres.

The population of Prince Albert represented by the map is 88,521, which is 9.43% above the electoral quota and 5.13% above the reference quota. It should be noted that, in 2012, this riding was also above the electoral quota, by 7%.

Saskatoon

The 2021 census found that the population of the City of Saskatoon is 266,141. This represents a 19.8% increase since 2011. One option that was available to the Commission—and the one that the Commission has essentially decided to follow—was to absorb this population growth within Saskatoon's existing three urban ridings.

Before writing its Proposal, the Commission invited input and ideas from the public to inform its preliminary deliberations. Of the submissions received by the Commission in relation to Saskatoon, specifically, almost all of them suggested a second option for the city: the creation of a central urban riding, spanning both sides of the South Saskatchewan River and roughly bordered by Circle Drive. On the strength of these submissions, the Commission proposed the creation of a Saskatoon Centre riding. To accommodate Saskatoon Centre, the Commission proposed the creation of a new, blended urban-rural riding, to be named Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

Saskatoon—Wanuskewin would have included neighbourhoods in the northern part of the city and fast-growing communities to the north and east of it. The Commission proposed adjusting the boundaries of Saskatoon—Grasswood to create a suburban riding that would not only include farms and acreages to the south of the city, as it presently does, but also extend across the South Saskatchewan River to include neighbourhoods in the western part of the city, outside Circle Drive. The Commission also proposed adjusting the boundaries of the Saskatoon—University riding to accommodate a significant part of the riding within Circle Drive that would have become part of the Saskatoon Centre riding.

During two full days of hearings in Saskatoon on June 20 and 21, 2022, and during the virtual hearing on July 14, the Committee heard submissions both for and against the Proposal with respect to Saskatoon Centre. Those providing their opinions included members of Parliament, academics, interested individuals and representatives of Indigenous, business and residential associations. Presentations were also made by individuals, who provided specific social and political perspectives on the Proposal.

In general terms, the presenters who were in favour of a Saskatoon Centre riding argued that it would recognize a community of interest that is, to some extent, particular to this central urban area. As indicated in the Proposal, these interests include unique concerns relating to infrastructure for transportation, the development of the downtown core, issues faced by at-risk populations and distinct issues faced by Indigenous people, whose population in Saskatoon is concentrated in the neighbourhoods inside Circle Drive.

Opposition to the proposed Saskatoon Centre riding came from individuals or representatives of neighbourhoods, businesses and other organizations whose members live, work or otherwise operate in what is presently the Saskatoon West riding. A significant theme of opposition to the Saskatoon Centre proposal was that it would separate important communities of interest: they span Circle Drive on the west side and were meant to be captured by this central urban riding. These communities include Indigenous and immigrant populations as well as people newly arrived in Canada.

In relation to the proposed extension of Saskatoon—Grasswood to include neighbourhoods to the west of Circle Drive, it was impressed upon the Commission that significant economic and housing differences exist between residents on the east and west sides of this proposed suburban riding. The Commission was also apprised of the ongoing significance of the South Saskatchewan River as a historic and natural boundary for electoral ridings. In opposition to the Saskatoon Centre proposal, it was consistently suggested that, for better or for worse, the river continues to influence travel and commercial and social activity in the city and the suburbs. Furthermore, opponents of the Saskatoon Centre proposal emphasized the significant economic and social differences that exist between the neighbourhoods on the western and eastern sides of the proposed riding.

After considering these submissions, this Commission has decided that the principles of section 15 of the Act are best addressed by retaining three urban ridings for Saskatoon. This decision is in keeping with the decision of the 2012 Commission and also affirms the Commission's commitment not to divide municipalities or extend beyond city limits unless it is necessary to serve some other purpose under the Act. In this regard, the Commission's Proposal indicated that Saskatoon's population made it no longer possible to retain three strictly urban ridings for the city. However, by more strictly using municipal limits as riding boundaries, the Saskatoon ridings are all within 9% and 11% above the electoral quota and 4% and 6% above the reference quota. Of greatest significance in this regard is the southern boundary of what has been the Saskatoon—Grasswood riding, which will no longer extend into the Grasswood area.

The new name for this Saskatoon riding will be Saskatoon South.

These decisions have obviated the need (a) to create a new, blended urban-rural riding that would include neighbourhoods in the northern part of the city and (b) to extend the Saskatoon—Grasswood riding to include neighbourhoods to the west of Circle Drive.

Saskatoon West

The electoral district of Saskatoon West will replace the electoral district of the same name in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Proposed Electoral Boundaries section.

The Commission fixes the boundaries of Saskatoon West in accordance with the map below. As will be noted, little change has been made to this riding other than to recognize the expansion of the municipal limits of the city. The population of Saskatoon West represented by the map is 87,865, which is 8.62% above the electoral quota and 4.35% above the reference quota.

Saskatoon—University

The electoral district of Saskatoon—University will replace the electoral district of the same name in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Proposed Electoral Boundaries section.

The Commission fixes the boundaries of Saskatoon—University in accordance with the map shown below. The only change from the 2013 Representation Order is to extend the southern boundary west along 8th Street to the South Saskatchewan River. The population of Saskatoon—University represented by the map is 88,714, which is 9.67% above the electoral quota and 5.35% above the reference quota.

Saskatoon South

The electoral district of Saskatoon South will replace the electoral district of Saskatoon—Grasswood in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Proposed Electoral Boundaries section.

As indicated above, the riding formerly named Saskatoon—Grasswood is renamed Saskatoon South. The Commission fixes the boundaries of Saskatoon South according to the map below. The southern boundary of the riding now follows the city limits rather than extending into the RM of Corman Park. The population of Saskatoon South represented by the map is 89,562, which is 10.72% above the electoral quota and 6.36% above the reference quota.

Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek

The electoral district of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek will replace the electoral district of the same name in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Proposed Electoral Boundaries section.

The population of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek increased from 72,607 to 83,395, representing a 14.86% increase from the 2011 census. With the decision not to proceed with Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, the issue is how best to apply section 15 of the Act to Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

The Commission received several representations from individuals residing outside the city limits who believed that their community of interest lies not with southern ridings, but rather with the City of Saskatoon. Given the Commission's decision not to create blended urban-rural ridings if it is not necessary for population parity or another rule mentioned in section 15, the submissions of those individuals could be accommodated only by creating one riding surrounding the City of Saskatoon. In doing so, the Commission was able to bring together the RM of Corman Park in one riding.

In addition, the need to expand the territory of Cypress Hills—Grasslands in a northerly direction means that the southerly border of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek must also move northerly, with a similar effect on the northerly boundary between Prince Albert and Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

The Commission sets the boundaries of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek with the above parameters in mind.

The westerly boundary between Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and Battlefords—Lloydminster remains the same as it was in the 2013 Representation Order. With respect to the northerly and the northeasterly boundaries, the Commission has set them with regard to the decisions made regarding Prince Albert and Yorkton—Melville and to respect population parity.

The Commission fixes the boundaries of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek according to the map shown below. The population of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek represented by the map is 84,111, which is 3.98% above the electoral quota and -0.11% below the reference quota. The riding comprises 24,758 square kilometres.

Regina

Like Saskatoon, Regina has grown significantly, but not to the same degree. The total 2021 population of the three Regina electoral districts, including the blended urban-rural electoral district of Regina—Qu'Appelle, is 265,719, but the growth among the electoral districts is uneven.

Unlike for Saskatoon, the Commission received relatively few submissions regarding how the 2021 population should be divided among Regina's three electoral districts. In the absence of extensive submissions, the Commission presented two options in its Proposal.

The first option was to absorb the increased population within the existing electoral districts and make adjustments to account for the fact that Regina—Lewvan is the largest of the three electoral districts based on the 2021 census. This would have meant moving the boundaries to account, in some manner, for the differences in those increases.

The second option was to decrease the geographical size of Regina—Qu'Appelle and to establish three ridings of relatively equal size. The map contained in the Proposal reflected the second option. It resulted in three ridings with the following variations above the electoral quota: (a) Regina—Lewvan with 84,347 people, which varies by 4.26%; (b) Regina—Qu'Appelle with 85,914, which varies by 6.20%; and (c) Regina—Wascana with 85,642, which varies by 5.90%.

During the consultation process, the Commission heard submissions suggesting the following approaches to the Regina constituencies:

1. Create four blended urban-rural ridings;
2. Divide the current ridings so as to have no part of them extend beyond the city limits—i.e., ensure that Regina is an exclusively urban riding;
3. Add some of the bedroom communities that extend to the west of the city to the riding of Regina—Lewvan or include them in Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan;
4. Create a core urban riding and, if additional rural population is required, proceed west and north rather than east;
5. Divide the current ridings differently to keep the southern part of Regina in one riding;
6. Keep the current ridings largely as they are and readjust the boundaries to make them more or less equal.

Option (a) has been considered and rejected above. Creating four blended urban-rural ridings in Regina would not respect the community of interest represented by those who have chosen to live within the city limits. As a general rule, the better approach to maintaining community of interest is to respect as closely as possible the existing boundaries of a municipal government.

Option (b) is consistent with the Commission's understanding of the meaning of community of interest, but there is insufficient population within the borders of Regina to make three exclusively urban ridings and also create ridings in keeping with the size of other ridings and, specifically, those in Saskatoon. This means that the city limits must be breached to include some rural communities.

Option (c) is consistent with option (b), but the 2012 Commission recommended that the best approach would be to proceed east and north in the direction of Qu'Appelle. The Commission maintains that decision. However, with the Commission's decisions regarding Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, the alternative suggestion contained within option (c) has been accepted.

Options (d) and (e) would best capture the community of interest. However, neither option would allow the Commission to respect the rules of population parity, having regard for the need to maintain some balance with the ridings of Yorkton—Melville and Souris—Moose Mountain. If Regina continues to grow as rapidly in the next 10 years as it has recently, other options may become available.

Option (f) represents the best option because it respects population parity, community of interest, community of identity and historical patterns. This is the option that the Commission has accepted.

Regina—Wascana

The electoral district of Regina—Wascana will replace the electoral district of the same name in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Proposed Electoral Boundaries section.

The member of Parliament for this riding asked the Commission to follow the Canadian Pacific rail line and Albert Street as the northern and western boundaries of the riding. The reason was to keep together a community of interest lying north and south of Victoria Avenue. The Commission accepts this representation. As a result, the boundaries of this riding will remain the same as they were in the 2013 Representation Order; see the map below.

With this decision, the population of this riding represented by the map will be 89,063, which remains well within the statutory limits and maintains relative parity with the Saskatoon ridings. It is 10.10% above the electoral quota and 5.77% above the reference quota.

Regina—Qu'Appelle

The electoral district of Regina—Qu'Appelle will replace the electoral district of the same name in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Projected Electoral Boundaries section.

The Commission's decision not to proceed with the proposed riding of Kindersley—Rosetown has implications for Regina—Qu'Appelle and Yorkton—Melville. The issue is what represents the best community of interest for the lands lying east of Highway 6, which the Proposal suggested should be included in Kindersley—Rosetown.

The Commission received a number of representations from the citizens of Raymore and Wynyard submitting that their community of interest is not with Kindersley—Rosetown. The Commission accepts that submission, but it does not agree with the proposition that the community of interest of these communities for federal electoral purposes lies with Regina. But that does not end the matter. As the Commission indicated earlier, concerns about the best community of interest cannot always be accommodated, taking into account population parity.

In this case, in order to respect the principle of parity among the three Regina ridings and between Regina—Qu'Appelle and Yorkton—Melville, some of the communities lying to the east of Highway 6 must be included in Yorkton—Melville. While the Commission appreciated receiving the submissions from the citizens of Wynyard, it was not able to accommodate them and to have Yorkton—Melville's population approach relative parity with the other ridings. It is noted that Wynyard is about 175 kilometres from Regina via Highway 6, but the distance between Yorkton and Wynyard is 140 kilometres via Highway 16, which is the Yellowhead Highway. Wynyard is better placed within the Yorkton—Melville riding.

Having regard for all the factors in section 15, the Commission fixes the boundaries of Regina—Qu'Appelle according to the map below. The territorial size is 10,962 square kilometres.

The population of Regina—Qu'Appelle represented by the map is 87,014, which is 7.57% above the electoral quota and 3.34% above the reference quota.

Regina—Lewvan

The electoral district of Regina—Lewvan will replace the electoral district of the same name in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Proposed Electoral Boundaries section.

With the decisions previously made and having fixed the boundaries of Regina—Qu'Appelle and Regina—Wascana, the limits for Regina—Lewvan will be fixed in accordance with the electoral map shown below. The population of this riding represented by the map is 85,818. It is expected that this number will continue to grow appreciably. It represents a variation of 6.09% above the electoral quota and 1.92% above the reference quota.

Yorkton—Melville

The electoral district of Yorkton—Melville will replace the electoral district of the same name in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Proposed Electoral Boundaries section.

With the decisions previously made and having fixed the boundaries of Regina—Qu'Appelle and Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, the limits for Yorkton—Melville will be fixed in accordance with the electoral map presented below. The population of this riding represented by the map is 76,531, which is -5.39% below the electoral quota and -9.11% below the reference quota. The land area is 50,075 square kilometres, which justifies some adjustment from the electoral quota.

Souris—Moose Mountain

The electoral district of Souris—Moose Mountain will replace the electoral district of the same name in the 2013 Representation Order. The maps of these two electoral districts can be found in the Maps of Current and Proposed Electoral Boundaries section.

With the decisions previously made and having fixed the boundaries of Regina—Qu'Appelle and Yorkton—Melville, the limits for Souris—Moose Mountain will be fixed in accordance with the electoral map shown below. The population of this riding represented by the map is 75,208, which is -7.03% below the electoral quota and -10.68% below the reference quota. The land area is 48,872 square kilometres, which justifies an adjustment from the electoral quota.