The 2002/2003 Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission Interim Report to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta Proposed Electoral Division Areas, Boundaries and Names for Alberta September 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal Acknowledgements Introduction Establishing the Commission The Law 2001 Canada Census Results	The Alberta Context Population Distribution Effective Representation The Matrix Proposed Distribution of Electoral Divisions Applying the Matrix Issues for Future Consideration

Appendices Appendix A - List of Persons Making Submissions                         - At Hearings                         - In Writing Appendix B - Minority Position of Ms. Bauni Mackay Appendix C - Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission Act Appendix D - Excerpt from 2002 Yukon Electoral Boundaries Commission Report Appendix E - Technical Description of the Matrix Appendix F - Description of Boundaries of Proposed Electoral Divisions Appendix G - Maps

Acknowledgements... A report such as this results from the combined efforts of a great variety of people. The Commission acknowledges the advice and suggestions provided at the hearings and in written submissions from Albertans. The Commission also wishes to acknowledge the support services provided by: O. Brian Fjeldheim, Bill Sage and the staff of Elections Alberta Bill Hyshka, Pamela Steppan and Todd Chorney of the Statistics section, Office of Budget and Management, Alberta Finance Ken Lowe, Kevin Tripp, Yves Laurent, Michael Currie and Robert Mason of the Resource Data Branch, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development the Hansard staff of the Public Information Branch, Legislative Assembly Office the staff of the Air Transportation Service, Alberta Infrastructure and Teresa Griffiths and Doug Olthof for administrative support and Tom Forgrave for assembling this report. Futher Consultation The Commission has found it very interesting and challenging to weigh the concerns and relevant factors put before it during the preparation of this interim report. The Commission is interested in receiving advice and suggestions on the electoral divisions proposed in this interim report. Your submission will be most useful if it identifies the proposed electoral division that you are concerned about specifies your concerns proposes solutions to address your concerns reviews the effect of your solutions on neighbouring proposed electoral divisions Please send written submissions by November 15, 2002, and indicate if you wish to appear and be heard at the public hearings which will be scheduled December 2002. Send your submission to: Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission Suite 100, 11510 Kingsway NW, Edmonton, Alberta T5G 2Y5 Ph: 780 427 8779 Fax: 780 422 2900 (For toll free service, dial 310-0000 and the number above) Email: info@altaebc.ab.ca

INTRODUCTION Establishing the Commission... This Electoral Boundaries Commission was established on March 25, 2002. Robert C. Clark, Alberta Ethics Commissioner was appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as Chair. Appointed as members, by the Honourable Ken Kowalski, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, were: Glen Clegg, Fairview Doug Graham, Calgary Bauni Mackay, Edmonton Ernie Patterson, Claresholm The Commission was appointed, and has carried out its work, under the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act (Revised Statutes of Alberta, 2000, Chapter E-3 as amended and referred to in this report as the Act). Also under the Act, O. Brian Fjeldheim, Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta, was responsible for providing advice, information and assistance to the Commission. The first meeting of the Commission was held on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 and deliberations have continued since then. As required by the Act, the Commission held a series of public hearings across the province. Complete transcripts of the hearings are available on the Commission's website www.altaebc.ab.ca. A list of persons making presentations at the hearings is provided in Appendix A. The Commission has considered the submissions made to it in writing and during the hearings and is now issuing its Interim Report. In a second series of public hearings to be held in late 2002, the Commission will receive comments on this report and will issue its Final Report by March 25, 2003. In undertaking its work, the Commission has been guided by the requirements of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, relevant decisions of the courts, advice received at the public hearings and in written submissions, and by common sense.

The Law... The Act (see Appendix C) directs the Commission to divide the province into 83 electoral divisions, with a population within 25% of the provincial average, in a way that will ensure effective representation for Albertans. The relevant sections of the Act are: 13 The Commission is to divide Alberta into 83 proposed electoral divisions. 1990 cE-4.01 s13;1995 c10 s10 15(1) The population of a proposed electoral division must not be more than 25% above nor more than 25% below the average population of all the proposed electoral divisions. To assist in ensuring effective representation, up to four special consideration electoral divisions may have populations as much as 50% below the provincial average: 15(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), in the case of no more than 4 of the proposed electoral divisions, if the Commission is of the opinion that at least 3 of the following criteria exist in a proposed electoral division, the proposed electoral division may have a population that is as much as 50% below the average population of all the proposed electoral divisions: (a) the area of the proposed electoral division exceeds 20,000 square kilometres or the total surveyed area of the proposed electoral division exceeds 15,000 square kilometres; (b) the distance from the Legislature Building in Edmonton to the nearest boundary of the proposed electoral division by the most direct highway route is more than 150 kilometres; (c) there is no town in the proposed electoral division that has a population exceeding 4,000 people; (d) the area of the proposed electoral division contains an Indian reserve or a Metis settlement; (e) the proposed electoral division has a portion of its boundary coterminous with a boundary of the Province of Alberta. The five "special considerations" are area, distance from the Legislature, no town of more than 4,000 population, presence of an Indian Reserve or Metis Settlement, and a portion of the division boundary contiguous with the boundary of the province. The Act references the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of effective representation and lists factors which must be considered. 14 In determining the area to be included in and in fixing the boundaries of the proposed electoral divisions, the Commission, subject to section 15, may take into consideration any factors it considers appropriate, but shall take into consideration (a) the requirement for effective representation as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (b) scarcity and density of population, (c) common community interests and community organizations, including those of Indian reserves and Metis settlements, (d) wherever possible, the existing community boundaries within the cities of Edmonton and Calgary, (e) wherever possible, the existing municipal boundaries, (f) the number of municipalities and other local authorities, (g) geographical features, including existing road systems, and (h) the desirability of understandable and clear boundaries. 1990 cE-4.01 s16;1993 c2 s12;1995 c10 s12 Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "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." The Final Report of the Yukon Electoral District Boundaries Commission (January, 2002) provides an excellent review of the relevant court decisions (see Appendix D). In discharging its function, the Commission has been particularly mindful of the two leading cases in which the legal principles dealing with the issues it faces have been defined. They are The Attorney General for Saskatchewan v. Roger Carter, Q.C. [1991] 2 S.C.R., a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada; and Reference re: Electoral divisions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993 (Alta.) [1994] A.J. No. 768, DRS 95-02966, Appeal No. 9303-0228AC, a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal. These two cases together define the principles of "effective representation." The Supreme Court of Canada in The Attorney General for Saskatchewan case sets out the principles of effective representation and we quote pertinent passages from the majority decision of Madam Justice McLachlin, as follows: The framers of the Charter had two distinct electoral models before them-the 'one person-one vote' model espoused by the United States Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983), and Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969), and the less radical, more pragmatic approach which had developed in England and in this country through the centuries and which was actually in place. In the absence of any supportive evidence to the contrary (as may be found in the United States in the speeches of the founding fathers), it would be wrong to infer that in enshrining the right to vote in our written constitution the intention was to adopt the American model. On the contrary, we should assume that the goal was to recognize the right affirmed in this country since the time of our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, to effective representation in a system which gives due weight to voter parity but admits other considerations where necessary…. What is that tradition? It was a tradition of evolutionary democracy, of increasing widening of representation through the centuries. But it was also a tradition which, even in its more modern phases, accommodates significant deviation from the ideals of equal representation. Pragmatism, rather than conformity to a philosophical ideal, has been its watchword. C. The Meaning of the Right to Vote It is my conclusion that the purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se, but the right to 'effective representation.' Ours is a representative democracy. Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government as well as the idea of the right to bring one's grievances and concerns to the attention of one's government representative; as noted in Dixon v. B.C. (A.G.), [1989] 4 W.W.R. 393, at p. 413, elected representatives function in two roles-legislative and what has been termed the 'ombudsman role'. What are the conditions of effective representation? The first is relative parity of voting power. A system which dilutes one citizen's vote unduly as compared with another citizen's vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted. The legislative power of the citizen whose vote is diluted will be reduced, as may be access to and assistance from his or her representative. The result will be uneven and unfair representation. But parity of voting power, though of prime importance, is not the only factor to be taken into account in ensuring effective representation. Sir John A. Macdonald in introducing the Act to re-adjust the Representation in the House of Commons, S.C. 1872, c. 13, recognized this fundamental fact (House of Commons Debates, Vol. III, 4th Sess., p. 926 (June 1, 1872)): …it will be found that,… while the principle of population was considered to a very great extent, other considerations were also held to have weight; so that different interests, classes and localities should be fairly represented, that the principle of numbers should not be the only one. 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. The Court then went on to define some of the countervailing factors, as follows: 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, supra, 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.' …this is not to suggest, however, that inequities in our voting system are to be accepted merely because they have historical precedent. History is important in so far as it suggests that the philosophy underlying the development of the right to vote in this country is the broad goal of effective representation. It has nothing to do with specious arguments that historical anomalies and abuses can be used to justify continued anomalies and abuses, or to suggest that the right to vote should not be interpreted broadly and remedially as befits Charter rights… I turn finally to the admonition that courts must be sensitive to practical considerations in interpreting Charter rights. The 'practical living fact,' to borrow Frankfurter J.'s phrase, is that effective representation and good government in this country compel those charged with setting electoral boundaries sometimes to take into account factors other than voting parity, such as geography and community interests. The problems of representing vast, sparsely populated territories, for example, may dictate somewhat lower voter populations in these districts; to insist on voter parity might deprive citizens with distinct interests of an effective voice in the legislative process as well as of effective assistance from their representatives in the 'ombudsman' role. This is only one of a number of factors which may necessitate deviation from the 'one person-one vote' rule in the interests of effective representation. and in commenting on the boundaries set, the Court said: The material before us suggests that not only are rural ridings harder to serve because of difficulty in transport and communications, but that rural voters make greater demands on their elected representatives, whether because of the absence of alternative resources to be found in urban centres or for other reasons. Thus the goal of effective representation may justify somewhat lower voter populations in rural areas. Another factor which figured prominently in the argument before us is geographic boundaries; rivers and municipal boundaries form natural community dividing lines and hence natural electoral boundaries. Yet another factor is growth projections. Given that the boundaries will govern for a number of years-the boundaries set in 1989, for example, may be in place until 1996-projected population changes within that period may justify a deviation from strict equality at the time the boundaries are drawn. The Alberta Court of Appeal case cited above (Reference re: Electoral divisions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993 (Alta.)) dealt specifically with the situation in Alberta in the context of the Supreme Court of Canada decision and therefore was particularly pertinent to the Commission's task. The principles were set down by the Alberta Court of Appeal as follows: 37. In the 1991 Reference we offered this summary of constitutional rights held by all Albertans (Reference Re Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, Alberta, [1992] 1 W.W.R. 481 (Alta. C.A.)): (a) the right to cast a ballot; (b) the right not to have the political force of one's vote unduly diluted; (c) the right to effective representation; and (d) the right to have the parity of the votes of others diluted, but not unduly, in order to gain effective representation or in the name of practical necessity. [p. 486] 38. Before this panel, we heard no suggestions or a re-statement of these rules. The argument, rather, turned over what amounts to 'undue' dilution…. 43. It is one thing to say that the effective representation of a specific community requires an electoral division of a below-average population. That approach invites specific reasons, and specific facts. The constitution of Canada is sufficiently flexible to permit disparity to serve geographical an demographic reality. 44. It is quite another to say that any electoral division, for no specific reason, may be smaller than average. In the 1991 Reference, we affirmed the first, not the second. We affirm again that there is no permissible variation if there is no justification. And the onus to establish justification lies with those who suggest the variation…." 64. With respect, this very natural concern of an elected official for the 'comfort zone' of a vocal portion of the electorate is not a valid Charter consideration. The essence of Constitutionally entrenched right is that it permits an individual to stand against even a majority of the people. Put another way, Canadians entrenched certain traditional rights for minorities in the Constitution because they do not trust themselves, in all times and circumstances, to respect those rights. The fact, then, that a significant number of Albertans do not like the result of an equal distribution of electoral divisions is no reason to flinch from insisting that they take the burden as well as the benefit of democracy as we know it. 76. …That review must identify communities, in every sense of the word. It must look in depth at social history as well as demography and geography. Moreover, that review is unlikely to be effective unless the reviewer gives ordinary Albertans ample opportunity to come forward and describe the communities of interest they see in their lives. It is time-consuming and not inexpensive, but essential to a healthy democratic life. In summary, the principles of effective representation seem to the Commission to be as follows: 1. The tradition of Canada is "effective representation," not absolute parity as in the U.S. 2. The process of achieving effective representation may involve diluting the political force of some votes but not unduly and not without reason. 3. The balancing of these interests is a delicate one, which involves an examination in depth of the social history, geography and demography of communities in every sense of the word. The Commission has been guided by the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada and the Court of Appeal of Alberta. In being guided by these principles, it has been mindful of the principles of "effective representation" as opposed to absolute parity. In determining these issues, the Commission has heard and read the representations and reviewed the circumstances of numerous groups and constituencies who made representations to us, which number exceeded 300. We have reviewed numerous complex factors, including but not limited to those mentioned in the Court decisions, and including geography, demography and social history of the various areas and constituencies which we have visited.

2002 Canada Census Results... In determining population, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act (Section 12(1)) requires the Commission to use "the most recent decennial census of population referred to in section 19(3) of the Statistics Act (Canada)" plus "the population on Indian Reserves that were not included in the census, as provided by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (Canada)". The 2001 Canada Census resulted in an Alberta population of 2,974,807. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada indicated that 9,112 persons resident on Indian Reserves were not included in the census count. Therefore, the total Alberta population to be used by the Commission in recommending the boundaries of electoral divisions is 2,983,919. The "provincial quotient", or the average population per electoral division, is

Population		2,983,919
# Electoral Divisions	=	83	=	35,951

The allowable range for standard electoral divisions under the Act is 44,939 to 26,963 (+/-25%). Any special consideration electoral division could have a population as low as 17,976 (-50%).

THE ALBERTA CONTEXT Population Distribution... During the period since the report of the 1995/1996 Commission, Alberta's robust economy has resulted in significant population growth. Table 1 shows the population of the existing electoral divisions in 1996 and 2001. During the ten year period, 1991 to 2001, the population increased in 68 of the 83 electoral divisions. The population growth was spread throughout the province. The cities of Calgary and Edmonton (40 electoral divisions) increased by 217,434 and the rest of Alberta (43 electoral divisions) increased by 211,707. The significant factor for this Commission is that Calgary (21 electoral divisions) increased by 168,071 (39% of the total growth). At the time of the 2001 Canada Census, fifty-two percent of the population of the province was resident in Edmonton and Calgary. If one considers the electoral divisions within and adjacent to the two major cities as representing the "metropolitan community", nearly 66% of the population resided in the Calgary and Edmonton metropolitan electoral divisions. Dr. Roger Gibbins, Canada West Foundation, told the Commission that the Calgary-Edmonton corridor is now "one of Canada's four metropolitan heartlands. The corridor not only joins the ranks of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver; it is also the fastest growing of the four. A considerable number of submissions to the Commission indicated that this population concentration is giving rise to feelings of marginalization in areas of Alberta outside the corridor. This was reflected in the comment by the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties: "It seems that every few years, we're back trying to defend the right of rural citizens to have a meaningful voice in provincial decision making". This is particularly the case for residents in electoral divisions that are already geographically large. Mr. Hudson Foley, speaking at the Slave Lake hearing, said: We're looking at the erosion, basically, of the sparser populated areas with regard to political representation, and I think that all the best of intentions that have been discussed here today aren't really going to solve the problem. I know that you guys said right at the outset that you've got the act and the legislative laws of the land that you have to follow, but at the end of the day you're going to kind of curtail that with a bit of common sense. But I'm having a hard time understanding how that's going to resolve some of the issues we're dealing with, because as far as I can see, in the next go-round here we're going to be dealing with the exact same problem, if not worse. The way the current setup is, there's no denying the fact that the urban centres are definitely growing at an exponentially higher rate than any of the rural areas, and you're basically looking at a dying breed. I'm a young guy who is settling in northern Alberta, trying to make a living and raise a family, and there are getting to be fewer and fewer and fewer of us. There's no incentive for us. Whether you look at infrastructure, funding, or whatever the case may be, it's becoming less and less attractive for me and people like me to come north or into the rural areas and settle, because we're getting less and less representation. The driving force for any initiatives is going to be the urban centres with the higher ridings, and I guess it really worries me. It worries me and it worries me for my kids, because there seems to be this lack of understanding. It's never written down; it never seems to be right out in the open. While you're definitely dealing with different beasts in looking at our constituency versus, say, Calgary-Shaw, we are all Albertans and we are sharing the exact same problems. Our problems are theirs, and their problems are ours. TABLE 1 -POPULATION OF EXISTING ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Electoral Division		1996*	2,001	%CH		Electoral Division		1996*	2,001	%CH
CALGARY						1	Athabasca-Wabasca	16,621	20,752	25
3	Calgary-Bow	32,611	35,147	8		2	Lesser Slave Lake	19,734	25,919	31
4	Calgary-Buffalo	34,639	37,807	9		43	Banff-Cochrane	28,664	48,517	65
5	Calgary-Cross	35,208	39,454	12		44	Airdrie-Rocky View	30,325	48,517	60
6	Calgary-Currie	34,774	34,694	0		45	Barrhead-Westlock	25,723	24,976	-3
7	Calgary-East	35,136	31,856	-9		46	Bonnyville-Cold Lake	27,647	29,002	5
8	Calgary-Egmont	33,057	36,603	11		47	Cardston-Taber-Warner	28,880	30,588	6
9	Calgary-Elbow	34,348	34,499	0		48	Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan	33,075	38,294	16
10	Calgary-Fish Creek	35,666	33,038	-7		49	Cypress-Medicine Hat	25,983	31,513	21
11	Calgary-Foothills	33,461	55,315	65		50	Drayton Valley-Calmar	25,763	28,149	9
12	Calgary-Fort	34,184	36,883	8		51	Drumheller-Chinook	24,610	25,062	2
13	Calgary-Glenmore	35,533	33,756	-5		52	Dunvegan	25,656	24,657	-4
14	Calgary-Lougheed	33,604	34,443	2		53	Fort McMurray	34,706	38,667	11
15	Calgary-McCall	34,384	48,756	42		54	Grande Prairie-Smoky	27,640	36,158	31
16	Calgary-Montrose	29,887	37,086	24		55	Grande Prairie-Wapiti	28,127	33,007	17
17	Calgary-Mountain View	32,117	32,529	1		56	Highwood	32,310	46,549	44
18	Calgary-North Hill	33,415	33,379	0		57	Innisfail-Sylvan Lake	28,496	37,378	31
19	Calgary-North West	32,453	62,849	94		58	Lac La Biche-St. Paul	27,531	32,278	17
20	Calgary-Nose Creek	34,583	55,393	60		59	Lacombe-Stettler	27,565	32,530	18
21	Calgary-Shaw	34,216	82,516	141		60	Leduc	32,686	37,363	14
22	Calgary-Varsity	33,521	32,339	-4		61	Lethbridge-East	31,483	31,675	1
23	Calgary-West	33,998	50,524	49		62	Lethbridge-West	29,491	35,704	21
	Total	710,795	878,866	24		63	Little Bow	26,842	30,130	12
						64	Livingstone-Macleod	29,731	30,250	2
EDMONTON						65	Medicine Hat	32,196	35,889	11
24	Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview	33,716	34,817	3		66	Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills	27,863	31,781	14
25	Edmonton-Calder	32,995	34,075	3		67	Peace River	26,777	28,072	5
26	Edmonton-Castle Downs	33,275	37,570	13		68	Ponoka-Rimbey	27,810	30,876	11
27	Edmonton-Centre	33,124	33,423	1		69	Red Deer-North	29,976	31,283	4
28	Edmonton-Ellerslie	31,361	32,280	3		70	Red Deer-South	28,169	36,424	29
29	Edmonton-Glengarry	32,328	34,584	7		71	Redwater	30,633	33,342	9
30	Edmonton-Glenora	32,102	31,777	-1		72	Rocky Mountain House	26,025	31,157	20
31	Edmonton-Gold Bar	32,827	31,344	-5		73	St. Albert	32,136	41,001	28
32	Edmonton-Highlands	33,654	32,039	-5		74	Sherwood Park	35,576	46,818	32
33	Edmonton-Manning	33,867	41,129	21		75	Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert	30,180	36,628	21
34	Edmonton-McClung	31,682	38,266	21		76	Stony Plain	30,432	37,480	23
35	Edmonton-Meadowlark	31,353	34,646	11		77	Strathmore-Brooks	29,413	39,099	33
36	Edmonton-Mill Creek	31,271	42,217	35		78	Vegreville-Viking	27,606	27,931	1
37	Edmonton-Mill Woods	30,476	30,699	1		79	Vermilion-Lloydminster	27,675	30,436	10
38	Edmonton-Norwood	32,045	31,036	-3		80	Wainwright	28,714	28,908	1
39	Edmonton-Riverview	32,180	32,267	0		81	West Yellowhead	27,857	29,349	5
40	Edmonton-Rutherford	34,736	34,470	-1		82	Wetaskiwin-Camrose	31,918	34,611	8
41	Edmonton-Strathcona	32,688	32,945	1		83	Whitecourt-Ste. Anne	26,998	31,412	16
42	Edmonton-Whitemud	31,061	46,520	50			Total	1,227,243	1,438,950	17
	Total	616,741	666,104	8

*The 1996 Populations are from the Final Report of the 1995/1996 Commission and are based on the 1991 Canada Census. "%CH" is the % change from 1991 to 2001. Albertans increasingly live in areas of population concentration. Well over 2 million Albertans live in urban communities of 10,000 or more people. About 17% live in municipalities which have traditionally been considered "rural", 12 of which have populations greater than 10,000. These communities are spread throughout the province. The Commission has noted that 76% of Albertans live in urban and rural municipalities with a population of at least 10,000. Only three percent live in communities of less than 1,000. 66% of Albertans live in municipalities with a population = / > 30,000 90% of Albertans live in municipalities with a population = / > 4,000 Several submissions urged the Commission to recognize the projected growth areas, or at least the known growth since the 2001 Canada Census. The Act requires the Commission to determine population using either the 2001 Canada Census information or a later, reliable province-wide census. Since there is no more recent province-wide census, the Commission has used the 2001 Canada Census in determining population. As previously noted, the Act allows variations of up to +/- 25% from the electoral division average population of 35,951. In the extreme this would allow electoral divisions as low as 26,963 and as high as 44,939. The Commission established a target that variations should not exceed +/- 15% if at all possible. In addition, up to four electoral divisions, which meet special conditions specified in the Act, may have populations as much as 50% below the average. These could have populations as low as 17,976. The Commission concluded that despite the legislative provisions, the potential range from 18,000 to 45,000 is too great. The Commission has also noted that there are more Members of the Legislative Assembly representing the people who live in the major cities than there are members of their municipal councils.

Effective Representation... Table 2 compares the population of the existing electoral divisions to the "quotient", the average population per division of 35,951. The Commission concluded, with regard to effective representation, that population density has a major impact on effective representation. In this regard, there appear to be three distinct types of electoral divisions: Major Cities, Urbanized (a population centre of 10,000 or more) and Rural. The "Major Cities" group includes Edmonton and Calgary. Arising from the population density, the geographic area of electoral divisions in the two cities is relatively small. There is one municipality, one regional health authority and one of each type of school authority. Both cities are major regional service centres for a large area of the province, in which most provincial services are delivered including specialized services. Both major cities also tend to be the initial entry point both for Canadians from other parts of the country and for immigrants from other countries coming to Alberta. In both cities there are more MLAs than there are members of the city council.

TABLE 2 - EXISTING ELECTORAL DIVISIONS COMPARED TO AVERAGE

Electoral Division		Population	%AV*			Electoral Division		Population	%AV*
CALGARY						1	Athabasca-Wabasca	20,752	58
3	Calgary-Bow	35,147	98			2	Lesser Slave Lake	25,919	72
4	Calgary-Buffalo	37,807	105			43	Airdrie-Rocky View	47,335	132
5	Calgary-Cross	39,454	110			44	Banff-Cochrane	48,517	135
6	Calgary-Currie	34,694	97			45	Barrhead-Westlock	24,976	69
7	Calgary-East	31,856	89			46	Bonnyville-Cold Lake	29,002	81
8	Calgary-Egmont	36,603	102			47	Cardston-Taber-Warner	30,588	85
9	Calgary-Elbow	34,499	96			48	Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan	38,294	107
10	Calgary-Fish Creek	33,038	92			49	Cypress-Medicine Hat	31,513	88
11	Calgary-Foothills	55,315	154			50	Drayton Valley-Calmar	28,149	78
12	Calgary-Fort	36,883	103			51	Drumheller-Chinook	25,062	70
13	Calgary-Glenmore	33,756	94			52	Dunvegan	24,657	69
14	Calgary-Lougheed	34,443	96			53	Fort McMurray	38,667	108
15	Calgary-McCall	48,756	136			54	Grande Prairie-Smoky	36,158	101
16	Calgary-Montrose	37,086	103			55	Grande Prairie-Wapiti	33,007	92
17	Calgary-Mountain View	32,529	90			56	Highwood	46,549	129
18	Calgary-North Hill	33,379	93			57	Innisfail-Sylvan Lake	37,378	104
19	Calgary-North West	62,849	175			58	Lac La Biche-St. Paul	32,278	90
20	Calgary-Nose Creek	55,393	154			59	Lacombe-Stettler	32,530	90
21	Calgary-Shaw	82,516	230			60	Leduc	37,363	104
22	Calgary-Varsity	32,339	90			61	Lethbridge-East	31,675	88
23	Calgary-West	50,524	141			62	Lethbridge-West	35,704	99
	Total	878,866				63	Little Bow	30,130	84
						64	Livingstone-Macleod	30,250	84
EDMONTON						65	Medicine Hat	35,889	100
24	Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview	34,817		97		66	Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills	31,781	88
25	Edmonton-Calder	34,075		95		67	Peace River	28,072	78
26	Edmonton-Castle Downs	37,570		105		68	Ponoka-Rimbey	30,876	86
27	Edmonton-Centre	33,423		93		69	Red Deer-North	31,283	87
28	Edmonton-Ellerslie	32,280		90		70	Red Deer-South	36,424	101
29	Edmonton-Glengarry	34,584		96		71	Redwater	33,342	93
30	Edmonton-Glenora	31,777		88		72	Rocky Mountain House	31,157	87
31	Edmonton-Gold Bar	31,344		87		73	St. Albert	41,001	114
32	Edmonton-Highlands	32,039		89		74	Sherwood Park	46,818	130
33	Edmonton-Manning	41,129		114		75	Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert	36,628	102
34	Edmonton-McClung	38,266		106		76	Stony Plain	37,480	104
35	Edmonton-Meadowlark	34,646		96		77	Strathmore-Brooks	39,099	109
36	Edmonton-Mill Creek	42,217		117		78	Vegreville-Viking	27,931	78
37	Edmonton-Mill Woods	30,699		85		79	Vermilion-Lloydminster	30,436	85
38	Edmonton-Norwood	31,036		86		80	Wainwright	28,908	80
39	Edmonton-Riverview	32,267		90		81	West Yellowhead	29,349	82
40	Edmonton-Rutherford	34,470		96		82	Wetaskiwin-Camrose	34,611	96
41	Edmonton-Strathcona	32,945		92		83	Whitecourt-Ste. Anne	31,412	87
42	Edmonton-Whitemud	46,520		129			Total	1,438,950
	Total	666,104

*%AV means the population of the electoral division as a percentage of the electoral division average population of 35,951. This is often expressed in terms of the variation from average. For example, Calgary Shaw is 230% of the average population which means it is 130% above average. Athabasca-Wabasca is 58% of the average which means it is 42% below average. The "Urbanized" group includes the electoral divisions in which there are communities with a population of 10,000 or greater. Generally, these electoral divisions include both an urban centre of population and a less densely populated area. The geographical area of these electoral divisions is larger than in the major cities and the division may include more than one of each type of local authority. Exceptions to this general description are the electoral divisions contained entirely within the medium-sized cities. The "Rural" group includes the electoral divisions in which all the urban centres have less than 10,000 population. These electoral divisions generally include several urban centres of medium density population and a significant more sparsely populated area of farmland. The geographical area of these electoral divisions may limit the opportunities for interaction between the residents and the MLA and there may be several local authorities responsible for parts of the division. Table 3 groups the existing electoral divisions by four types: major cities, urbanized (electoral divisions including an urban centre of 10,000 or more population), rural and special. Several submissions, particularly at hearings away from the major centres, emphasized the time spent by an MLA from a geographically large division in travelling has a negative effect on effective representation. Significant time may be required for travel within the division and to and from the division and the Legislative Assembly. Some estimated that MLAs spend up to 800 hours per year in such travel. Former MLA Walter Paszkowski told the Commission at its Grande Prairie hearing: During my time in the Legislature I drove over a million miles by car. I flew commercially over a million miles and probably flew with the government plane somewhere close to what was traveled with commercial air. This of course consumes a great deal of the MLA's time, time Edmonton and Calgary MLAs can spend with their constituents. Travel in and out of Edmonton has become much more of a challenge by air with the almost closure of the municipal airport, and certainly the use of the International Airport is not conducive to rapid movement in and out... Submissions by people from the major centres noted that MLAs in these locations are faced with a great variety of special interest groups, of individuals with special needs, and with a variety of cultural and language traditions. While travel time may be less than in the geographically large electoral divisions, this diversity of interests poses challenges for effective representation. Frequent reference was made in submissions to the difficulty faced by MLAs travelling throughout constituencies with large geographical areas or, conversely, the difficulty faced by constituents in travelling to see their MLAs. A 1999 poll by Environics West indicated that the most important ways that MLAs can make themselves available to their constituents are by participating in town hall meetings, attending community events, one-on-one meetings and telephone conversations. Roughly half the respondents in the poll were from Edmonton and Calgary, indicating that the desire for seeing the MLA in person is not just a rural phenomenon. Submissions from MLAs and from the public both mentioned the increased workload in constituency offices. The suggested reasons for this include decreases in government local offices and limited contact numbers in telephone directories. In other words, the submissions suggested that government generally has become more distant and impersonal and the place for local, personal contact is the MLA's office. These submissions at least implied that more support staff should be available in the constituency offices and that improved staff compensation packages are desirable in some locations. (See "Issues for Future Consideration" section). Some submissions suggested that MLAs from urban electoral divisions may have little understanding of rural issues, particularly since there are now many people in the major cities who do not have a farm background. MLAs addressing the Commission observed that they could not recall any issue that was decided on a purely urban/rural split. LeRoy Johnson, MLA, Wetaskiwin-Camrose, observed to the Commission: … when I hear things like one MLA is representing rural Alberta and another MLA is representing urban Alberta, I would like to say that I'm representing 'rurban' Alberta. I have two cities and I have a lot of rural Alberta here; that is, agricultural Alberta … I think it is possible to represent both rural and urban Alberta as an MLA, and when I hear that one MLA can only represent urban Alberta or another MLA only represent rural Alberta, I don't really like to hear that, because I think that we as MLAs are here to form a government from Alberta. It is not a case of one side that is urban and another side that is rural coming to a table and fighting things out to see who has the greatest vote in the end. I should have a mind-set so that I have a good concept of what Alberta is like. That means I should have made up my mind what is good for Alberta, and that means both rural and urban … if I'm going to do that, I have to be in contact with all of Alberta. So if I have many organizations that I have to be in contact with in my constituency and then also as an MLA have to be in contact with all of Alberta to know what's going on, that's a pretty horrendous job. I think it's important that the rural areas not be too large so that we do not have too many groups to represent because the more we have to represent, the narrower we would tend to be in our thinking that's in relation to the rest of Alberta, and I don't think that's good.

TABLE 3 - EXISTING ELECTORAL DIVISIONS BY CATEGORY