Changes recommended for Nunavut electoral boundaries
Report cites current, anticipated population growth as factors in recommendations on boundary realignment
Rick Hunt will be the new president and chief executive officer at the Workers Safety and Compensation Commission, it was announced Tuesday. (File poto)
The territory’s electoral boundaries require small changes to accommodate population growth, but the number of constituencies should remain unchanged at 22, according to a report released Tuesday by the Nunavut Electoral Boundaries Commission.
The report comes nine months after the commission was formed to study possible changes to Nunavut’s election boundaries.
“The Nunavut Elections Act requires the commission to achieve [population] parity” while considering similarities and diversity between communities, the commission said in its report.
The act dictates the boundaries must be reviewed every 10 years.
Among the report’s findings:
- The constituency of Aivilik, which includes Coral Harbour and Naujaat, is currently underrepresented. The commission recommends two constituencies be created, one comprising Rankin Inlet North and Coral Harbour and the second to be made up of Naujaat and Chesterfield Inlet;
- Due to Arviat’s unique geography, it’s expected the population will only grow eastward. The commission recommends “reorientation” of the Arviat North-Whale Cove and Arviat South constituencies to “facilitate equal future growth.”
The commission also recommended the four constituencies that make up Iqaluit be redrawn to accommodate what it called uneven population growth.
The commission was established in October 2022 and includes three appointed members — Justice Susan Cooper, Michael Hughson and John Maurice.
In March this year it embarked on a cross-Nunavut tour to get community feedback and review the existing boundaries.
Nunatsiaq News reached out to commissioners for comment, however a spokesperson for the legislative assembly said “commissioners are not granting interviews or answering questions. The report speaks for itself.”
The report notes the challenges posted by Nunavut’s “unique circumstances” of having a sparse population spread over 25 communities without connecting roads.
Simply giving each community one member of the legislative assembly “would result in unequal voting power,” it said, because communities range in size from 150 to 8,800 residents.
The report will be formally tabled when the legislative assembly reconvenes for its fall 2023 sitting. Members are expected to vote on the new boundaries during that sitting.
So let’s see if I get this. The constituency of Aivillik, which includes two communities is underrepresented. So, the solution is to separate these two communities and join each of them with two other communities, and that fixes the problem??? With respect, that makes absolutely no sense to me. What a pointless exercise in musical chairs or perhaps shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic…. If you’re going to separate these two communities just to join them with two others, why bother???? It’s a waste of time!!! Votes will not be anymore meaningful under this new arrangement. But I guess all of the answers are revealed in this brilliant “report” that was generated. Haha.
From some quick Googling, here are the 2016 population stats:
Naujaat: 1082
Coral Harbour: 891
Chesterfield Inlet: 437
North Rankin: approx. 2842/2 = 1421
Current riding population = 1082 + 891 = 1973
Naujaat + Chesterfield = 1519
Coral Harbour + North Rankin = 1858
In other words, this creates two smaller, better-represented ridings.
And keep in mind these are only 2016 stats. More recent figures may make an even stronger case for this change.
Sorry, I made a mistake in the math in my last comment, and I also just found the 2021 stats that make an even stronger case. Naujaat and Coral’s populations both increased by more than 10% since 2016, whereas Rankin increased only slightly and Chesterfield fell by nearly 10%.
Naujaat: 1225
Coral: 1035
North Rankin: approx. 2975/2 = approx. 1487
Chesterfield: 397
The only possible issue is that Coral and half of Rankin would add up to a large population, but I bet that the line through Rankin is (or will now be) drawn to actually give “North Rankin” less than half of Rankin’s population.
You may have meant it sarcastically, but I suspect the answers ARE in the commission’s report.
But should the predominant consideration be simply numbers, and a small difference in numbers at that??? We know that issues of concern are often different for people in small communities like Coral Harbour, than for people living in regional centres like Rankin Inlet North. Does combining a small community (Coral Harbour) with part of a regional centre (Rankin Inlet North) make any sense given the potential for different issues and concerns in those places?? It makes no sense to me… Remember, it isn’t always just about numbers!!
Even if we go by that metric this is still an improvement: the current map groups Rankin North together with Chesterfield Inlet, and those two have an even more drastic difference in community size than Coral/Rankin North would have.
So, in other words this proposed change is “less bad” than the status quo. Yes, you convinced me! Thanks
Yes, that’s what “improvement” means, and it’s generally regarded as a good thing.
Good talk!
Give each community their own representative… really its not really the number of MLA’s its the quality. And if a small community is able to provide a great MLA then ya their community might prosper more. Perhaps the communities that keep providing useless MLAs will hold theirs more accountable.
I feel this is like the difference between Equal and Fair.
Yes …hold each MLA accountable for lost placements of social housing,jobs,youth programs,on the land programs with elders, land and cultural revitalization programs are needed in every community in this country of ours making nu great again takes responsible MLA’s
What part of town Iqalungmiut live in does not change their needs from the territorial government. Can we please simply have one Iqaluit riding and elect the top four?
While we have the Nunavut Elections Act open, can we please give communities options for better voting systems, maybe even one day use a better system territorially? Iqaluit City Council for example: picking the best 8 councilors from a list of 40 people is impossible for even the most engaged voter. Nobody is reading campaign material for 40 people. Voters also don’t want to “waste their vote” on someone who is definitely getting elected or someone definitely not getting elected.
Two suggestions we should consider:
(1) Let ballots show which local party someone is affiliated with {Greenland style}, and
(2) Let people vote by ranking candidates {Australia and Alaska style}.
It’s important to note that there’s nothing preventing Nunavummiut from forming political parties. When Greenland won Home Rule from Denmark in 1979 a layer of young people formed a left-wing, made-in-Greenland political party called Inuit Ataqatigiit to try and advance the society. Many younger people joined the party, it grew over the years, won the most seats in the most recent election, and is the party in office today (with a coalition party). Why have younger people in Nunavut not attempted a similar project, do you think?
Our population is far less educated than Greenland’s. Listen to a speech in our legislature and you will despair at the tragic comparison.
I appreciate your creative thinking on this. Our electoral practices are antiquated, calcified and rarely yield a properly ‘democratic’ result.
It would just make more sense for Naujaat to have their own MLA and have Coral and Chester together.
Naujaat being the fastest growing town in Nunavut, having their own MLA makes sense.