Don’t blame the boundaries

Whenever members of a public body in Nunavut set out to “consult” people, their most common practice is to hold public meetings in as many communities as they’re able to get to.

Depending on the issue, however, what they hear may or may not represent an accurate reflection of public opinion. Even when it does, if it’s ill-informed public opinion, it may not be very useful for the creation of public policy. At some public meetings, the agenda may end up being set by the biggest loud-mouth, or by some community power clique. In others, people may simply not know enough about the subject under discussion to offer any useful comments.

Members of the Nunavut Electoral Boundaries Commission should take this into account before recommending any radical changes to Nunavut’s electoral districts.

This is not to say that these public hearings are not needed. The commission’s work will determine the shape of the Nunavut legislative assembly for years to come, and it’s essential that they hear what people have to say.

In public hearings, commission members have no doubt heard people talk about their alienation from government, especially in small communities, and they’ve no doubt heard from people who say they’re alienated from their MLAs. And from people in constituencies made up of two or more communities, they’ve no doubt heard complaints from people who don’t like sharing an MLA with other communities with whom they believe they have little in common.

They’ve also heard from people who say that Iqaluit has too much “power” and that Iqaluit shouldn’t get a fourth seat, even if Iqaluit’s population grows. That’s a predictable sentiment. As the seat of an unpopular government, it’s natural that Iqaluit is a target of resentment.

The commision ought to be aware, though, that it’s not unusual for people to use public meetings as a place to disgorge negative feelings about whatever it is they happen to be angry about that day. In Nunavut, where many people don’t like government at any level, it’s the government that often becomes the favoured target.

But when deciding on their recommendations, the commission must not only take public opinion into account. They must also give weight to other factors, especially population growth in communities, and long established principles of equal representation.

Right now, Nunavut’s 19 electoral districts are designed to be roughly equal in population size, each one varying no more than 30 per cent from the average. This means no matter where you live, the weight of your vote is roughly equal to everyone else’s, and no area is either under or over represented.

The only exception to the 30-per -cent rule is the Hudson Bay constituency, where Sanikiluaq, because of its extreme geographic isolation and northern Quebec dialect, gets its own seat.

So with only 373 registered voters as of 2004, Sanikiluaq gets an MLA. If that ratio were applied to Ammituq (958 registered voters in 2004) or to Iqaluit East (940 registered voters), then Ammituq and Iqaluit East would each get three MLAs. If that ratio were applied to the entire city of Iqaluit, then Iqaluit would deserve at least seven MLAs.

This means a ballot cast by a Sanikiluaq voter carries roughly three times the weight of a ballot cast by a voter in Ammituq or Iqaluit East. It’s the constituencies with the smallest populations whose voters are most powerful. Those who complain that Iqaluit is too “powerful” should keep that in mind.

But before deciding if Iqaluit should get a fourth seat, the commission should wait for the latest population statistics from the 2006 census. If the new numbers justify a fourth seat based on the 30-per-cent principle, then so be it. If the numbers don’t justify it, then Iqaluit should continue on with three MLAs.

As for complaints about alienation and poor communication, especially from people in smaller communities, the commission should take care not to jump to hasty conclusions.

There are many obvious reasons for voter dissatisfaction, and none of them are related to electoral boundaries. These include under-performing MLAs, incompetent GN officials who can’t return phone calls, and worsening social and economic conditions.

The biggest reason is likely that most GN officials are either too frightened or too ignorant to know when or how to communicate even the simplest pieces of information. Fiddling with electoral boundaries won’t change that.

In Akulliq, some people complain that their consituency straddles two administrative regions: the Kivalliq for Repulse Bay, and Kugaaruk for the Kitikmeot. But in the 2004 territorial election, the turnout in Akulliq was 96 per cent. Not much sign of alienation there.

Indeed, the 2004 turnout everywhere in Nunavut, though not as high as in February of 1999, was healthy: a high of 100.7 per cent in Nattilik, a low of 61 per cent in South Baffin, with most other communities recording turnouts of between 70 and 90 per cent. Compared with the woeful numbers produced in elections for municipal councils and Inuit associations, that’s remarkable.

Those numbers show that although people may be alienated from their government, they still have faith in the democratic process. So in framing their recommendations, boundary commission members must be careful not to wreck an electoral system that already works well. :JB