Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 156, Number 27:
July 2, 2022
FEDERAL ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION FOR THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK
Proposal of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of New Brunswick
Part l: Introduction and Overview
After each decennial census, an independent electoral boundaries commission is established for each province. Its task is to revise or, more properly stated, to readjust the boundaries of the federal electoral districts (sometimes called ridings) to reflect changes and movements in the province’s population. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-3 (“the Act”) sets out the procedure for the review.
The Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for New Brunswick (“the Commission”) was established on November 1, 2021. The Chair of the Commission, appointed by the Chief Justice of New Brunswick, is Madam Justice Lucie A. LaVigne, of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick. The other members of the Commission, appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons, are Dr. Conde Grondin, a retired professor of political science from the University of New Brunswick, and the Honourable Thomas Riordon, a retired justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick and Deputy Chair of the Commission. Mr. Riordon served as a member of the previous Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of New Brunswick in 2012–2013, while Dr. Grondin was a member of the 2012 Provincial Electoral Boundaries and Representation Commission for New Brunswick.
The Commission must propose a new electoral map for the Province of New Brunswick; consult with New Brunswickers through public hearings and review written submissions; submit a report on its considerations and propose an electoral map to the House of Commons; consider objections from members of the House of Commons; and prepare a final report outlining the electoral boundaries for the province.
The Commission will consider the input received from the public and from members of the House of Commons when determining the boundaries. However, as an independent body, the Commission makes all final decisions as to where these boundaries will lie.
The Starting Point — The 2021 Census
The 2021 Census established the total population for the province at 775,610. New Brunswick’s representation in the House of Commons is 10 members and the province is accordingly divided into 10 electoral districts. The population of the province divided by 10 gives a provincial electoral quota of 77,561 residents per electoral district. From 2011 to 2021, the population of the province increased from 751,171 to 775,610, which is an increase of 24,439 or 3.25%. Some areas of the province grew faster than others, with Moncton and Dieppe being the province’s fastest-growing cities, showing increases of 10.5% and 10.8% respectively.
Table 1 below shows the current electoral districts with their population counts from the 2021 Census and displays their current variances from the provincial electoral quota of 77,561 if no adjustments were to be made to their electoral boundaries.
| Federal Electoral District |
Population 2021 |
Variance (%) |
|---|---|---|
Acadie—Bathurst |
77,594 |
0.04 |
Beauséjour |
88,797 |
14.49 |
Fredericton |
87,436 |
12.73 |
Fundy Royal |
83,721 |
7.94 |
Madawaska—Restigouche |
60,184 |
-22.40 |
Miramichi—Grand Lake |
57,520 |
-25.84 |
Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe |
101,237 |
30.53 |
New Brunswick Southwest |
67,781 |
-12.61 |
Saint John—Rothesay |
81,996 |
5.72 |
Tobique—Mactaquac |
69,344 |
-10.59 |
Voter Parity and Effective Representation
Section 15 of the Act directs that the population of each electoral district shall correspond as closely as reasonably possible to the electoral quota. The Act, however, also requires the Commission to consider several other factors and permits the Commission to depart from the quota in any case where it considers it necessary or desirable:
- (a) in order to respect the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, or
- (b) in order to maintain a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province.
When considering these factors, the Commission must make every effort to ensure that, except in circumstances it views as extraordinary, the population of each electoral district in the province remain within ±25% of the electoral quota.
In conjunction with the provisions of the Act, the Commission’s decisions must be guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees Canadian citizens the right to vote in federal and provincial elections. In Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.) [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158 (“Carter”), the Supreme Court of Canada held that the purpose of the right to vote, as guaranteed by section 3 of the Charter, “is not equality of voting power but the right to ’effective representation’” (p. 182). At issue was a Saskatchewan provincial electoral map that displayed large deviations from representation by population to the benefit of rural voters and at the expense of urban ones. Effective representation was understood by the Court to entail voter parity as the primary concern, but to permit deviations for reasons such as “geography, community history, community interests and minority representation,” in order to “effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic” (p. 184).
Each of these factors can, like the size of the population in the riding, have an impact on the ability of a member of Parliament to effectively represent the people he or she was elected to represent. Departures from voter parity are permitted where they can be justified as contributing to better government of the populace as a whole. The concept of effective representation is a key consideration for the proper operation of Canadian democracy.
The Commission, being a federal institution, has certain duties pertaining to the Government of Canada’s commitment to promote the development and vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada. Therefore, the Commission must take into account the impact of its decisions on the official-language minority community; in New Brunswick, this refers to the French-language community. There is a strong Francophone and Acadian presence in the Province of New Brunswick; effective representation for this linguistic minority is an important goal, especially in New Brunswick, Canada’s only officially bilingual province.
The Commission has endeavoured to achieve the effective representation of New Brunswickers in Parliament. The sparsely populated northern regions of the province, the topography of certain ridings and New Brunswick’s linguistic profile presented a few challenges in the configuration of appropriate electoral districts.
Public Participation
The Commission invited the public to participate in the creation of its initial redistribution proposal by providing their written suggestions or comments. We received several submissions and refer to some of them in the following two paragraphs and in Part II of this document. The Commission wishes to thank everyone who provided comments for our review and consideration during this advance public consultation process. These comments identified many issues that we discussed and considered. Some were in direct contradiction to each other. The Commission could not accommodate the wishes of all. However, many of the suggestions were incorporated in this redistribution proposal, some in their entirety, others in part.
We received a brief from the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick. It summarized its view of the applicable principles as well as the Commission’s obligations and duties according to the Act, the Charter and the jurisprudence. It noted that New Brunswick presently has three predominantly French-speaking electoral districts (Acadie—Bathurst, Beauséjour and Madawaska—Restigouche), one bilingual district (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe) and six mainly English-speaking districts (Fredericton, Fundy Royal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, New Brunswick Southwest, Saint John—Rothesay and Tobique—Mactaquac), and expressed the hope that this will also be the case at the end of this redistribution process. The Commission is of the view that its redistribution proposal maintains the status quo concerning the linguistic profile of the electoral districts.
Local governance reform is now underway in New Brunswick. However, the new local government boundaries are not expected to come into effect before January 1, 2023. Therefore, as indicated in the Appendix, when describing the electoral districts, “wherever a word or expression is used to denote a territorial division, such word or expression shall indicate the territorial division as it existed or was bounded on the first day of January 2021, unless otherwise stated.” We have made only one departure from the general rule. At the request of the City of Fredericton, when drawing the proposed electoral district of Fredericton—Oromocto, we have included in that riding all of the territory that is expected to be included within the limits of the City of Fredericton after the completion of the local governance reform process. The Commission reserves the right to readjust territorial divisions to take into account some or all of the local governance reform, should we conclude that there is a need to do so before submitting our final report.
The Initial Redistribution Proposal
As shown in Table 1, the current electoral district of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe exceeds the electoral quota by 30.53%, while Miramichi—Grand Lake falls short of it by 25.84%. The Commission is of the view that there are no extraordinary circumstances that would justify allowing any electoral district in New Brunswick to deviate by more than 25% or less than 25% of the electoral quota. In view of the above, it is obvious that changes to the electoral map of the province are required.
The Commission agrees that change should not be made just for change’s sake. Therefore, we set out to make the adjustments with a minimum of disturbance to the current boundaries, while at the same time considering the principles set out in section 15 of the Act, the Charter and the jurisprudence. However, when one adjusts the boundary or boundaries of one electoral district, it necessitates the adjustment of adjoining ridings, which can have a domino effect on other ridings. In the proposal, all electoral districts in New Brunswick have been altered—some more substantially than others—to better promote relative voter parity while maintaining effective representation.
As part of its mandate, the Commission reviewed the names of all 10 electoral districts. Because of the proposed changes to the boundaries, the Commission considers it appropriate to make changes to the names of five of the proposed districts, to better describe their geographic locations. The names of electoral districts in New Brunswick have usually reflected geographic features and historically significant place names. Names such as Madawaska—Restigouche and Tobique—Mactaquac have tremendous historical and cultural significance to the people of those ridings, and therefore we are not suggesting any name change notwithstanding the proposed changes to the boundaries of these districts.
After careful review, the Commission proposes maps and boundaries that reflect the names and population numbers found in Table 2 below.
| Federal Electoral District |
Population 2021 |
Variance (%) |
|---|---|---|
Acadie—Bathurst |
79,581 |
2.60 |
Beauséjour |
88,490 |
14.09 |
Fredericton—Oromocto |
85,540 |
10.29 |
Fundy Royal—Riverview |
74,261 |
-4.25 |
Madawaska—Restigouche |
71,099 |
-8.33 |
Miramichi—Grand Lake |
59,725 |
-23.00 |
Moncton—Dieppe |
91,333 |
17.76 |
Saint John—Kennebecasis |
81,954 |
5.66 |
Saint John—St. Croix |
78,963 |
1.81 |
Tobique—Mactaquac |
64,664 |
-16.63 |
Two of the current electoral districts were beyond the allowable variance of ±25% and another was very close. With its proposal, the Commission effects a redistribution that brings most of the electoral districts closer to the provincial electoral quota and improves relative voter parity, in the sense that no riding is now outside the 25% limit and most of the ridings have a 10.29% variance or less. The Commission is satisfied that effective representation can occur within the proposed boundaries.
Although Part I of this document gives the general reasons for our proposed redistribution plan, Part II provides narrative descriptions of all proposed electoral districts, an overview of the changes proposed for each electoral district and additional reasons for these specific changes.
The Act calls for public hearings so that the Commission can hear representations from interested persons concerning its proposed redistribution plan before submitting its final report to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. The times and places of these public hearings are set out in Part III of this document. The Commission has adopted rules for the conduct of the public hearings and the making of representations. These rules are set out in Parts IV and V. The Appendix contains legal descriptions and maps of the proposed electoral districts.
We look forward to hearing from interested parties, either in person during our public hearings or in writing. The Commission recognizes that matters such as community of interest or identity, historical patterns and manageable geographic size are open to differing interpretations as they apply generally or to particular electoral districts. We welcome submissions on these matters.
Simultaneous translation will be available in both official languages at all public hearings.
Part ll: Overview of the Changes Proposed for Each Electoral District and Additional Reasons for these Changes
Acadie—Bathurst
The Commission proposes that the electoral district of Acadie—Bathurst comprise the current electoral district PLUS that part of the Regional Municipality of Tracadie (which includes the communities of Rivière-du-Portage, Haut-Rivière-du-Portage and Brantville) that is situated in the current electoral district of Miramichi—Grand Lake. The proposed electoral district of Acadie—Bathurst has a population of 79,581 and is 2.60% above the provincial electoral quota.
At the beginning of this redistribution process, the Commission did not believe that this electoral district required any restructuring. However, during our pre-proposal consultation, we received a written submission from Mr. Keith Chiasson, the MLA for Tracadie-Sheila, bringing to our attention the fact that a small section of the Regional Municipality of Tracadie, more specifically the communities of Rivière-du-Portage, Haut-Rivière-du-Portage and Brantville (consisting of approximately 1,990 people), is included in the electoral district of Miramichi—Grand Lake, while the much larger section of the regional municipality is located in the electoral district of Acadie—Bathurst.
Mr. Chiasson submitted that the populations of these communities are predominantly Francophone and Acadian and that their linguistic profile and sense of belonging align with the Acadian Peninsula and the electoral district of Acadie—Bathurst, where they go for services and daily needs, such as schools, health services, shops, businesses, financial and legal services, and provincial and federal government offices. We note that the entirety of the Regional Municipality of Tracadie is included in the Acadian Peninsula Regional Service Commission. We were also copied on a letter sent to the Minister of Local Government and Local Governance Reform by a citizen of Rivière-du-Portage, asking that these communities become part of Acadie—Bathurst, so that its citizens would be represented by the member of Parliament for Acadie—Bathurst.
The Commission believes that these communities can be more effectively represented as part of the electoral district of Acadie—Bathurst, with which they share a community of interest as well as a community of identity based on language and culture. Although the proposed Miramichi—Grand Lake riding has the highest negative variance from the provincial electoral quota, we view this as a case where the need for effective representation clearly trumps the lack of voter parity.
Beauséjour
The Commission is proposing a minor change to the electoral district of Beauséjour, assigning that very small part of the City of Moncton that is currently in the riding of Beauséjour to the proposed riding of Moncton—Dieppe. The proposed electoral district of Beauséjour has a population of 88,490 and is 14.09% above the provincial electoral quota.
We received a submission from the Kent Regional Service Commission suggesting far-reaching changes to several of the current districts, which would require a major restructuring of New Brunswick’s electoral map, including the disappearance of Miramichi—Grand Lake, Fundy Royal, Tobique—Mactaquac, and New Brunswick Southwest; and the creation of Central NB, Albert—Tantramar, Western Valley—Charlotte and Kings—York.
The submission suggested that all communities that are part of the Kent Regional Service Commission be assigned to the proposed electoral district of Beauséjour. Several of these communities (mostly in Kent County but also some in Northumberland County) are in the current and proposed electoral district of Miramichi—Grand Lake, a district that is underpopulated. It further suggested that the southern part of the riding, including the communities of Sackville, Dorchester, Port Elgin, and surrounding areas, be removed from Beauséjour and assigned to the riding that is now called Fundy Royal. Similar suggestions for Beauséjour were made by a citizen of Miramichi—Grand Lake, calling for the transfer from Miramichi—Grand Lake to Beauséjour of communities that are situated in Kent County and the transfer of the southern part of the riding to Fundy Royal.
The removal of the suggested communities from Miramichi—Grand Lake would require further additions to that electoral district, if it is to stay within 25% of the electoral quota. Transferring the suggested communities from Beauséjour to Fundy Royal would mean that some inhabitants and the member of Parliament for Fundy Royal would have to travel through the ridings of Beauséjour and Moncton—Dieppe to reach each other. The Regional Commission also noted that the suggested changes would mean that Beauséjour, along with the two districts of the north, would represent mainly French-speaking communities. As previously noted, our redistribution plan maintains the status quo.
The Commission does not believe that the electoral map of the province or the electoral district of Beauséjour requires fundamental restructuring as suggested. Although the population of Beauséjour has increased, the Commission is of the view that the increase does not warrant a change of its boundaries. Its relatively high population compared to the other rural electoral districts is justified, given that it is geographically the smallest rural electoral district (approximately 4,080 km2). This district has a strong community of interest and, in our view, it is appropriate in both size and character. Although Beauséjour would have a population count closer to the electoral quota if these suggestions were adopted, the Commission did not deem that this would contribute to more effective representation.
Fredericton (suggested name: Fredericton—Oromocto)
The Commission proposes that the electoral district of Fredericton be renamed Fredericton—Oromocto. It would comprise the current existing district PLUS those parts situated in the current district of Tobique—Mactaquac that are included within the new proposed limit of the City of Fredericton, as of April 8, 2022; LESS the Parish of Burton assigned to the proposed electoral district of Saint John—St. Croix; and LESS the Parish of Sheffield and those parts of the parishes of Maugerville and Canning that are in the current riding of Fredericton, assigned to Miramichi—Grand Lake. The proposed electoral district of Fredericton—Oromocto has a population of 85,540 and is 10.29% above the provincial electoral quota.
The Commission received a submission from the City of Fredericton, as well as from two members of the public who live within the city limits but are part of the current district of Tobique—Mactaquac, asking that the entirety of the City of Fredericton be included in one district instead of two as it now stands.
The City of Fredericton is the urban centre of New Brunswick’s Capital Region. The City is of the view that the community of interest shared by the urban electorate is best advanced by combining in one electoral district: the entirety of the City of Fredericton (per the new proposed city limits), the Town of Oromocto, the Village of New Maryland, the St. Mary’s First Nation, and the Oromocto First Nation. There is no doubt that a strong community of interest and historical ties exist among these communities.
The adoption of the City’s suggestions would permit the transfer of the Parish of Sheffield and those parts of the parishes of Maugerville and Canning that are in the current riding of Fredericton to the proposed riding of Miramichi—Grand Lake, which is chronically underpopulated. This factor also militates in favour of accepting the suggestions we received concerning the readjustment of the boundaries of this riding.
The Commission concludes that the arguments made in favour of the suggested changes are reasonable and we are proposing to go along with them. However, we are of the opinion that the proposed electoral district should be renamed Fredericton—Oromocto, to give a better description of the new geography of the district.
Fundy Royal (suggested name: Fundy Royal—Riverview)
The Commission proposes that the electoral district of Fundy Royal be renamed Fundy Royal—Riverview. It would comprise the current electoral district PLUS that part of the Town of Riverview that is in the current electoral district of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe; LESS the Parish of Waterborough assigned to the proposed electoral district of Miramichi—Grand Lake; and LESS the Town of Quispamsis, which would be assigned to the proposed electoral district of Saint John—Kennebecasis. The proposed electoral district of Fundy Royal—Riverview has a population of 74,261 and is 4.25% below the provincial electoral quota.
There exists a community of interest as well as historical ties between the Town of Riverview and the riding of Fundy Royal, because approximately 50% of the population of Riverview is already part of the riding of Fundy Royal. In fact, the Commission received comments from a resident of the Town of Riverview expressing her frustration with the fact that the Town of Riverview was divided between two ridings and commenting that many did not seem to know where the dividing line between the districts was situated. The community of identity is obvious, as the riding of Fundy Royal and the Town of Riverview are both heavily populated with majority-Anglophone communities.
The transfer of the remainder of the Town of Riverview to Fundy Royal is also driven by the fact that the current district of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, with a variance of 30.53% over the electoral quota, is beyond the allowable variance; therefore, a part of this riding must be transferred to another district. Obviously, similar arguments to those made above could also be used, at least in part, to justify transferring the remainder of Dieppe to the district of Beauséjour. Therefore, in the section dealing with the proposed electoral district of Moncton—Dieppe, we explain further why the Commission is proposing to transfer the remainder of the Town of Riverview to Fundy Royal, instead of transferring the remainder of the City of Dieppe to Beauséjour.
The community of Waterborough adjoins the community of Chipman. We assigned Waterborough to Miramichi—Grand Lake, because of its geographic proximity to the communities of Canning, Minto and Chipman, which are all part of the proposed electoral district of Miramichi—Grand Lake. Its addition to Miramichi—Grand Lake will help increase the population count of that riding. The Commission is also of the view that Waterborough has a community of interest and identity with the communities in the proposed riding of Miramichi—Grand Lake.
Bearing in mind relative voter parity, the Commission has assigned the Town of Quispamsis to the proposed electoral district of Saint John—Kennebecasis. We have more to say about this proposed move in discussing the proposed district of Saint John—Kennebecasis.
The proposed district of Fundy Royal—Riverview, while mostly rural, has a landmass that is less than half the size of the two geographically largest electoral districts, Miramichi—Grand Lake and Tobique—Mactaquac. Therefore, a higher population is justified.
As the entirety of the Town of Riverview will be included in this proposed riding, the Commission proposes that the name of the electoral district be changed to Fundy Royal—Riverview. The new boundary changes dictate a change of name to better reflect the new geographic boundary.
Madawaska—Restigouche
The Commission proposes that the electoral district of Madawaska—Restigouche, whose population is 22.40% below the provincial quota, comprise the current electoral district PLUS the Parish of Grand Falls, the Town of Grand Falls, the Parish of Drummond, the Village of Drummond, and the Rural Community of Saint-André, which are in the current electoral district of Tobique—Mactaquac. We are also proposing a small adjustment concerning the boundaries around the Mount Carleton Provincial Park and the Nepisiguit Protected Natural Area, so that the entirety of the Park and Protected Area will be in the proposed district of Madawaska—Restigouche, rather than leaving a very small part of it (which has a population count of zero) in the proposed district of Miramichi—Grand Lake. The proposed electoral district of Madawaska—Restigouche has a population of 71,099 and is 8.33% below the provincial electoral quota.
Travelling from the west to the east of this riding, and vice versa, is challenging, due to the distance and a poor transportation system. More than 300 kilometres separate Connors in Madawaska from Colborne in Restigouche, and it takes more than three and a half hours to travel this distance by car. We believe that the geographical challenges justify it having a population that is 8.33% below the provincial electoral quota.
The Commission received three different submissions making suggestions that would affect the electoral district of Madawaska—Restigouche. None of these submissions seemed to be from residents of the communities being transferred, and the Commission did not retain any of these submissions in their totality. However, all three suggested that the regions of Saint-André, Grand Falls, and Drummond should be in the same riding as Madawaska County. Although this region will add landmass to the riding, it will not increase the distance from the west to the east.
These communities have historical ties, as well as a community of interest, with communities in both Madawaska—Restigouche and Tobique—Mactaquac. From 1966 to 1996, they were in the same riding as the communities of Madawaska County; the riding was then known as Madawaska—Victoria. In fact, the line that separates the two counties runs through the Town of Grand Falls. It is also noted that these communities are included in the Northwest Regional Service Commission, along with the rest of the communities of Madawaska County.
They have a stronger community of identity with the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche than with Tobique—Mactaquac, due to language and culture. The population of this region is predominantly Francophone. More than 78% of the people of the current district of Madawaska—Restigouche are Francophones, while less than 17% of the people of the current district of Tobique—Mactaquac are Francophones.
Furthermore, this readjustment contributes to an increase in the population of the current electoral district of Madawaska—Restigouche, which has a variance that is very close to the allowable limit, at 22.40% below the provincial quota. Extending the boundary of Madawaska—Restigouche to include the Francophone communities that are situated in the northern part of the adjoining riding of Tobique—Mactaquac brings the population of Madawaska—Restigouche closer to the electoral quota, with a variance of -8.33%. We realize that this move will bring the population count of the proposed district of Tobique—Mactaquac further from the electoral quota, from -10.59% to -16.63%, notwithstanding the additions that we are proposing for that district. One district has moved closer to the electoral quota by gaining 14.07%, while the other has lost 6.04%. Therefore, this readjustment promotes relative voter parity in the overall electoral map of the province.
The Commission concludes that, when the factors of relative voter parity, community of interest, community of identity and historical pattern are taken as a whole, the communities being transferred can be more effectively represented as part of the proposed electoral district of Madawaska—Restigouche.
Miramichi—Grand Lake
The Commission proposes that the electoral district of Miramichi—Grand Lake comprise the current electoral district PLUS that part added by extending the district southward to include the Parish of Sheffield and those parts of the parishes of Maugerville and Canning that are in the current electoral district of Fredericton; PLUS the Parish of Waterborough that is in the current electoral district of Fundy Royal; LESS that part of the Regional Municipality of Tracadie currently located in this riding (which includes the communities of Rivière-du-Portage, Haut-Rivière-du-Portage and Brantville) assigned to the proposed electoral district of Acadie—Bathurst; and LESS a very small area within the Mount Carleton Provincial Park and Nepisiguit Protected Natural Area (which has a population count of zero), assigned to the proposed electoral district of Madawaska—Restigouche. The proposed electoral district of Miramichi—Grand Lake has a population of 59,725 and is 23.00% below the provincial electoral quota.
It covers a land area of approximately 18,500 square kilometres, or 25% of the province’s landmass, making it the largest riding in New Brunswick. Tobique—Mactaquac comes in second, at approximately 15,500 square kilometres.
The population of the current electoral district now stands at 57,520, which is 25.84% below the provincial electoral quota. With the transfer to Acadie—Bathurst of that small part of the Regional Municipality of Tracadie that was in Miramichi—Grand Lake (approximately 1,990 residents), this variance increases to approximately 28% under the provincial electoral quota. A variance of more than 25% of the electoral quota is not allowed by the Act, as the Commission concluded that there were no extraordinary circumstances that would justify allowing any electoral district in New Brunswick to deviate by more or less than 25% of the electoral quota. Therefore, additions must be made to this riding to keep it within the allowable variance.
Water is an impediment to expansion on its eastern boundary. Adding to the challenges of the reconfiguration of an appropriate electoral district is the fact that this district is surrounded by the three predominantly Francophone ridings and has large, very sparsely populated areas. Its neighbour to the west, the proposed electoral district of Tobique—Mactaquac, is also substantially underpopulated, with a variance of 16.63% below the provincial quota.
In addition to comments received from the public relevant to this riding (alluded to in the discussion of the riding of Beauséjour), the Commission also received a written submission from Mr. Jake Stewart, the member of Parliament for Miramichi—Grand Lake. He encouraged the Commission to maintain the current riding as is. As explained above, this is not allowed. As an alternative, he suggested that we consider extending the district westerly and assign to it the communities of Juniper, Stanley and other smaller rural communities nearby. As noted, the riding to the west is Tobique—Mactaquac, which is also substantially underpopulated.
It is in part these reasons that prompted the Commission to propose an extension toward the south, where the communities of interest and identity better align and there is more population.
Considering that the parishes of Maugerville and Canning are already partly in the current riding of Miramichi—Grand Lake, the Commission is of the view that the remaining part of the parishes of Maugerville and Canning and the parishes of Sheffield and Waterborough are well suited additions to this riding, because of their character as rural communities, their economic community of interest and their linguistic profile.
Notwithstanding our efforts to increase the population of this district, the deviation from the electoral quota (-23.00%) is still very high. It is the highest in the province, nearing the lower tolerance level. Bearing in mind the main objective of effective representation, the Commission concludes that it is more important to conserve this electoral district with a small population than to create a riding with a population closer to the electoral quota, whose residents feel that they do not belong, by reason of the community of interest or identity binding them to an adjacent riding.
This decision is consistent with the provisions of the Act, which permit the Commission to look beyond the principle of representation by population to consider manageable geographic size for sparsely populated, rural, or northern regions of a province. It is generally recognized that it is more difficult to represent large rural districts than small urban districts. The problems of representing a vast, sparsely populated territory warrants a lower population count in this district.
Notwithstanding its large geographic size, the shared interests of its population makes this electoral district viable. Technological advancement continues to ease communication challenges formerly experienced in large geographic areas. Thus, despite its size, the Commission is of the view this electoral district can be effectively represented.
Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe (suggested name: Moncton—Dieppe)
The Commission proposes that the electoral district of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe be renamed Moncton—Dieppe and comprise the current electoral district PLUS that very small part of the City of Moncton that is in the current electoral district of Beauséjour; LESS that part of the Town of Riverview that is in the current district of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, assigned to the proposed electoral district of Fundy Royal—Riverview. The proposed electoral district of Moncton—Dieppe has a population of 91,333 and is 17.76% above the provincial electoral quota.
The Commission recognizes the ties that bind the three communities that form the current riding. These militated strongly thus far in favour of keeping all of them together within one electoral district. However, we are of the view that keeping them together while continuing to chip away parts of Dieppe and Riverview is no longer the most appropriate configuration for this riding when considering the available alternatives for creating an electoral map for New Brunswick.
The population of the current electoral district of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe grew from 89,484 in 2011 to 101,237 in 2021. Thus, its population is 30.53% over the provincial electoral quota and adjustments are therefore required.
The Commission received a submission from the City of Moncton recognizing that changes to the boundaries of this riding were inevitable, to comply with the Act. It noted that the population count of the City of Moncton is now at 79,470, which is 2.46% above the electoral quota. It stated: “Previous Commissions have drawn our federal electoral district boundaries with a goal of respecting the community of interest and identity that is present […] in the greater Moncton area. Although the merit of this approach is undeniable, our desire to continue to collaborate and share with our regional partners to deliver the best possible services to our combined citizens will continue regardless of the boundaries chosen.” In conclusion, it stated that “the City of Moncton’s preferred option is a Moncton riding that coincides with [the] City’s current municipal boundaries.” We seriously considered this option but, for reasons explained below, the Commission concluded that the part of the City of Dieppe that is currently in this riding and the City of Moncton should be kept together in the proposed district of Moncton— Dieppe.
Transferring both the remainder of the City of Dieppe and the Town of Riverview to other ridings, as suggested, would require major changes to several other ridings. Transferring the remainder of Dieppe (a population of 11,863) to Beauséjour would increase the population of Beauséjour to 100,353, thus bringing it beyond the allowable limit of 25%, at 29.39% above the electoral quota. As previously explained, we are basically proposing that the electoral district of Beauséjour remain as is, because we found it appropriate in both size and character.
As noted earlier, we also received a submission from the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick expressing its wish that the riding currently known as Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe remain bilingual after the redistribution process. The Commission is of the view that it is desirable that the riding encompassing the City of Moncton remain bilingual, provided that this can be done within the confines of the law and jurisprudence that govern us.
Statistics Canada will release the data concerning the linguistic diversity and use of English and French in Canada on August 17, 2022. In the meantime, we are using the 2016 data. For that part of Dieppe that remains in the proposed district, this data shows that 60.6% of its population indicate French as the language spoken most often at home, while 66.6% indicate that their mother tongue is French. For the City of Moncton, this data shows that 23% of its population indicate French as the language spoken most often at home, while 30.7% indicate that their mother tongue is French. By keeping part of the City of Dieppe within the same electoral district as the City of Moncton, these percentages increase to 27.8% and 35.4% respectively. At the end of the last redistribution, these percentages for the current electoral district of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe were 28.95% and approximately 34.5% respectively.
Notwithstanding the bilingual status of the City of Moncton, the Commission is of the opinion that the dilution of the Francophone critical mass and the loss of a Francophone municipality (Dieppe) would endanger the effective representation of the Francophone minority in the suggested new riding, in that it would weaken that minority’s political influence and diminish its ability to voice its concerns effectively.
Furthermore, the Acadians and Francophones of Dieppe and Moncton (in the proposed electoral district of Moncton—Dieppe) represent a community of interest, in that their interests are intrinsically tied in with the substantial Francophone institutional network found in the Moncton area. Keeping Moncton and Dieppe together in the proposed district of Moncton—Dieppe makes it possible to preserve the integrity of the community of interest formed by the Francophone population of Dieppe and Moncton toward the Francophone institutional network located therein, and to preserve a Francophone critical mass in the proposed district of Moncton—Dieppe.
Because the proposed electoral district of Moncton—Dieppe is at most one twenty-fifth the geographic area of the Beauséjour riding, a larger population is to be expected. The variance from the electoral quota for Moncton—Dieppe is high (+17.76%) but, considering the density of the population in a very small area, it should not jeopardize the member of Parliament’s ability to represent the people of the riding effectively. We note that, at the end of the previous redistribution process in 2013, this riding was 19.3% above the provincial quota. Urban electoral districts, by virtue of their smaller geographic size and representative accessibility, are justified in having higher positive variances from the electoral quota.
The 2021 Census revealed that Moncton and Dieppe are the province’s fastest-growing cities; therefore, it is important to leave some room for both to grow. The proposed changes leave both the electoral districts of Moncton-Dieppe (+17.76%) and Beauséjour (+14.09%) well within the 25% range of deviation permitted by the Act.
In our analysis, we concluded that the factors found in section 15 of the Act, especially the community of interest factor, as well as fair representation for New Brunswick’s linguistic minority, militate in favour of keeping part of the City of Dieppe in the same riding as the City of Moncton.
The Commission believes that those factors are, in this case, more important than voter parity is to ensuring effective representation. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter, “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 their ‘ombudsman’ role” (p. 188).
With the removal of Riverview from the Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe riding, it is incumbent on the Commission to rename the riding Moncton—Dieppe to reflect the changes in the boundary of the riding.
New Brunswick Southwest (suggested name: Saint John—St. Croix)
The Commission proposes that the electoral district of New Brunswick Southwest be renamed Saint John—St. Croix. It would comprise the current electoral district PLUS that part of the current electoral district of Saint John—Rothesay lying west of the Saint John River and Saint John Harbour; PLUS the Parish of Burton, which is in the current electoral district of Fredericton; LESS the villages of Harvey and McAdam, the parishes of Dumfries, Kingsclear, McAdam, Manners Sutton and Prince William, the Rural Community of Hanwell, and the Kingsclear Indian Reserve No. 6, assigned to the proposed electoral district of Tobique—Mactaquac. The proposed electoral district of Saint John—St. Croix has a population of 78,963 and is 1.81% above the provincial electoral quota.
The current riding covers approximately 11,800 square kilometres and includes constituents living on three islands, a situation that presents unique travel and representation challenges. With the proposed new boundaries, the size of the riding will decrease to approximately 8,600 square kilometres, making it more manageable.
Concerning the Parish of Burton, as previously explained, the Commission accepted the suggestions from the City of Fredericton, and therefore Burton had to be transferred to its only other adjoining riding, the proposed electoral district of Saint John—St. Croix. We believe that it is better suited to this riding than to the proposed district of Fredericton—Oromocto.
The Commission has given additional reasons for transferring the above-listed communities to the proposed electoral district of Tobique—Mactaquac in the section dealing with that riding. With the transfer of these communities to Tobique—Mactaquac, the addition of part of the City of Saint John to this riding effects a desirable population adjustment between this riding and the current riding of Saint John—Rothesay, to which we have assigned the Town of Quispamsis, increasing its population. However, this means that the City of Saint John will be divided between two ridings.
At the request of the City of Fredericton and the City of Moncton, the Commission proposes that these cities be reunited so that the entirety of the city be in one riding, as was the situation with all other cities in the province, except for Dieppe. In stark contrast to this, we are now proposing that the City of Saint John be divided, by using the Saint John River and Saint John Harbour as a natural topographical division, and transferring the part lying west of this dividing line to the proposed electoral district of Saint John—St. Croix.
The Commission recognizes that, in addition to dividing one city into two electoral districts, this proposal also attaches a small part of the City of Saint John to a largely rural electoral district.
Hybrid electoral districts are sometimes necessary, or desirable, to bring population numbers more in line with the provincial quota or to deal with natural topographical divisions. In the past, Saint John was, in fact, a mixed urban-rural electoral district known as Saint John—Albert. Boundaries can be drawn in many ways, but each case must be determined with regard to its particular facts, the statutory criteria, the population count and the available alternatives for creating an electoral map for the province and a workable electoral district that can be effectively represented.
We are aware that an option similar to what we are proposing for the City of Saint John was suggested in the past and considered by at least one previous commission, in 2003. However, the option was not part of the commission’s original redistribution proposal submitted for public input. Therefore, awareness of the proposal was not widespread and there was little opportunity for public intervention and feedback. That commission was of the view that further public consultation was advisable. By suggesting these changes at the proposal stage this time, we hope to allow for proper public input and debate during the public consultation phase, including the public hearings.
There is an obvious and shared community of interest between the population of the proposed electoral districts of Saint John—St. Croix and Saint John—Kennebecasis. Some would say that they are one and the same community of interest, with common challenges and concerns and historical ties. The community of identity of the proposed ridings of Saint John—St. Croix and Saint John—Kennebecasis is significant, with over 90% of the population of these ridings having English as their first language. Both districts border the Bay of Fundy.
The City of Saint John will remain the major business, economic and service centre for most of the population of this proposed riding, especially the residents from the counties of Charlotte and Saint John.
Finally, the Commission recommends that the name for the electoral district of New Brunswick Southwest be changed to Saint John—St. Croix because of the addition of part of west Saint John to the current district of New Brunswick Southwest. The redistribution proposal of the 2002 Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of New Brunswick contains an extensive review of the names proposed for the electoral districts. In relation to the significance of the Island of St. Croix, which is referred to as “the birthplace of Acadie and of Canada” (page 8), the last paragraph reads: “The name St. Croix is eminently suitable for a federal electoral district that can legitimately claim to be the birthplace of the nation. It should also be borne in mind that the St. Croix River forms a portion of Canada’s international boundary with the United States of America.” The Commission is of the opinion that the renaming better reflects the new electoral district’s culture, history, and geography.
Saint John—Rothesay (suggested name: Saint John—Kennebecasis)
The Commission proposes that the electoral district of Saint John—Rothesay be renamed Saint John—Kennebecasis. It would comprise the current electoral district PLUS the Town of Quispamsis, which is in the current electoral district of Fundy Royal; LESS that part which lies west of the Saint John River and Saint John Harbour, assigned to the proposed electoral district of Saint John—St. Croix. The proposed electoral district of Saint John—Kennebecasis has a population of 81,954 and is 5.66% above the provincial electoral quota.
In the previous section, we gave our reasons for proposing to transfer part of the City of Saint John to the proposed district of Saint John—St. Croix. The present section deals with the addition of the Town of Quispamsis to the proposed district of Saint John—Kennebecasis.
The Commission is of the view that the Town of Quispamsis has a close community of interest with the more urban area of the City of Saint John and the Town of Rothesay. These three communities have a community of identity based on language and historical ties. At one time, Rothesay and Quispamsis were part of the riding of Fundy Royal. After 2003, Rothesay and part of Quispamsis were in the same riding as the City of Saint John. Then, in 2012, Quispamsis was reunited in Fundy Royal, while Rothesay remained with the City of Saint John. In the past, some have asked that the Town of Rothesay and the Town of Quispamsis, commonly referred to as the Kennebecasis Valley, remain in the same electoral district, given the obvious shared economic community of interests and geographic proximity.
The Commission is satisfied that the proximity of communities and commonality of interests in this area provide an excellent basis for an electoral district.
With the addition of the bedroom community of Quispamsis to this riding, the Commission has proposed changing the name to Saint John—Kennebecasis, to reflect the new geography of the boundary readjustment. The lower Kennebecasis River valley includes the municipalities of Quispamsis, Rothesay and surrounding communities, all part of the Saint John region.
Tobique—Mactaquac
The Commission proposes that the electoral district of Tobique—Mactaquac comprise the current electoral district PLUS that part added by extending the southwesterly boundary of the district to include the villages of Harvey and McAdam, the parishes of Dumfries, Kingsclear, McAdam, Manners Sutton and Prince William, the Rural Community of Hanwell, and the Kingsclear Indian Reserve No. 6, which are in the current district of New Brunswick Southwest; LESS those parts that are within the new proposed limit of the City of Fredericton, as of April 8, 2022, assigned to the proposed electoral district of Fredericton—Oromocto; and LESS the communities of the Parish of Grand Falls, the Town of Grand Falls, the Parish of Drummond, the Village of Drummond, and the Rural Community of Saint-André, assigned to the proposed electoral district of Madawaska—Restigouche. The proposed electoral district of Tobique—Mactaquac has a population of 64,664 and is 16.63% below the provincial quota.
A few factors militate in favour of adding the above-named communities to the proposed district of Tobique—Mactaquac. They have many things in common with the other communities in Tobique—Mactaquac, such as their linguistic profile.
The Commission also recognizes a historical pattern shared between these communities and several communities of the proposed district of Tobique—Mactaquac, as they were at one point in the same riding, Carleton—Charlotte, which also included communities from York County.
The communities situated in the proposed district of Tobique—Mactaquac form a potential communal representation of rural New Brunswick interests. The addition is a southwestern extension of the riding, and the elected representative from Tobique—Mactaquac would enjoy practical access to these newly added communities.
However, the most important reason for adding communities to this district is to increase the population of Tobique—Mactaquac, considering the Commission’s mandate to ensure relative voter parity and effective representation. Nevertheless, the geographic size of a district must also be considered in the balance. The Commission believes that it is justified in departing from relative voter parity to ensure more effective representation of the second-largest district of the province.
Part lll: Notice of Public Hearings
The Commission will conduct public hearings to hear representations concerning the boundaries and names it has proposed, at the following locations, dates, and times:
| Location |
Place of hearing |
Date of hearing |
Time of hearing |
|---|---|---|---|
Woodstock |
Best Western Plus |
Wednesday, |
2:00 p.m. |
Saint-Quentin |
Palais Centre-Ville Multifunctional Room 198 Canada Street |
Thursday, |
2:00 p.m. |
Saint-Léolin |
Municipal Hall |
Tuesday, |
2:00 p.m. |
Newcastle |
Kinsmen Centre |
Wednesday, |
2:00 p.m. |
Shediac |
Multipurpose Centre |
Thursday, |
2:00 p.m. |
Moncton |
Hyatt Place Moncton (Rooms 1-2) |
Tuesday, |
2:00 p.m. |
Sussex |
All Seasons Inn |
Wednesday, |
2:00 p.m. |
Rothesay |
Bill McGuire Centre |
Thursday, |
2:00 p.m. |
Saint Andrews |
W. C. O’Neill Arena Complex |
Tuesday, |
2:00 p.m. |
Fredericton |
Fredericton Inn |
Wednesday, |
2:00 p.m. |
Virtual Hearing |
The link will be provided to participants. |
Thursday, |
7:00 p.m. |
Part lV: Requirement for Making Submissions During Public Hearings
Interested persons proposing to make representations must read and follow the rules set out in Part IV and V of this proposal. There is no entitlement to be heard by the Commission unless you comply with these rules.
The Commission encourages representations from interested persons or representatives of interested groups; however, any person or group desiring to make a representation must give written notice in accordance with subsection 19(5) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which states:
- 19(5) No representation shall be heard by a commission at any sittings held by it for the hearing of representations from interested persons unless notice in writing is given to the secretary of the commission within 23 days after the date of the publication of the last advertisement under subsection (2), stating the name and address of the person who seeks to make the representation and indicating concisely the nature of the representation and of the interest of the person.
All notices must be received no later than Tuesday, August 23, 2022, and must be submitted:
By mail: Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for New Brunswick
PO Box 161,
Edmundston, New Brunswick E3V 3K8
OR
By email: NB@redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca
Notices may also be submitted electronically by completing the online form available at redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca (select “New Brunswick” and then click “Public Participation”).
Part V: Rules of Procedure for Public Hearings
The following rules of procedure were adopted by the Commission under the authority of section 18 of the Act for regulating its proceedings and for the conduct of its business.
1. In these rules:
- (a) “Act” means the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-3, as amended;
- (b) “advertisement” means the advertisement or notice published in accordance with subsection 19(2) of the Act giving notice of the times and places of sittings to be held for the hearing of representations;
- (c) “Commission” means the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of New Brunswick, established by proclamation dated November 1, 2021;
- (d) “notice” means a written notice of intention to make a representation in compliance with subsection 19(5) of the Act;
- (e) “representation” means a representation made, pursuant to subsection 19(5) of the Act, by a person with an interest in the geographic boundaries or in the name of one or more electoral districts in New Brunswick;
- (f) “Secretary” means the secretary of the Commission; and
- (g) “sitting” means a public hearing or sitting held for the hearing of representations in accordance with section 19 of the Act.
2. The Commission will hear representations regarding any New Brunswick electoral district at any scheduled sitting that is not cancelled and will also accept any written representations that comply with the Act.
3. Members of the public are not required to appear at a hearing to submit their written representations; however, where a written representation is received by the Secretary without notice of intention to appear at a sitting, the Secretary shall invite the person sending the representation to appear at an appropriate sitting.
4. Any oral or written submission that is sent or presented to the Commission is deemed to be a public submission. As such, it will be accessible to the public upon request. The commission may publish the content of any submission in its reports or on its website.
5. If no notice is received for a sitting, the Commission may cancel the sitting.
6. Two members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the holding of a sitting to hear representations.
7. If a quorum cannot be present or if, for any other valid reason, a hearing cannot be held as scheduled, or the representations cannot be completed within the allotted time, the Commission may postpone or adjourn that sitting to a later date.
8. In the event that a sitting is cancelled, postponed or adjourned, a public notice shall be given by means deemed appropriate by the Commission, and the Secretary shall notify any person who has given notice and has not been heard.
9. The Secretary shall give notice of the date, time and place of any new sitting to the interested persons. A public notice of the new sitting shall be given by means deemed appropriate by the Commission.
10. In accordance with subsection 19(5) of the Act, no representation shall be heard by the Commission at any sitting unless notice in writing is given to the Commission, stating the name and address of the person who seeks to make the representation, and indicating concisely the nature of the representation and the interest of the person.
11. Any person, association or group who wishes to make a representation at a sitting will have only one designated spokesperson unless the Commission decides otherwise.
12. The Commission may restrict the period for oral presentations where conditions so warrant.
13. A person giving notice to make a representation shall indicate the official language in which it is to be made and accommodation needs he or she may have.
14. The Commission shall have the power to waive any requirement it deems necessary in the public interest.
15. Virtual Public Hearing. Given the pandemic situation and in hopes of increasing public participation, the Commission will hold a virtual public hearing. In addition to the rules applicable for in-person public hearings, the following procedures and requirements will apply for virtual public hearings:
- The link to the virtual public hearing is not public and is only shared with participants or observers who have registered with the Commission and to members of the media and is not to be shared.
- A moderator will manage the agenda, speaking time and microphones of the participants.
- Participants will have the option to share their screen.
- The use of a headset by presenters is recommended.
16. In any matter of procedure not provided for by these rules or the Act, the Commission may give directions.
As stated earlier, we most sincerely welcome your views on this proposal. If you are unable to attend the public hearings, please feel free to use the other channels of communication mentioned above.
Dated at Edmundston, New Brunswick, this 2nd day of June, 2022.
The Honourable Madam Justice Lucie A. LaVigne,
Chair
The Honourable Thomas Riordon,
Deputy Chair
Dr. Conde Grondin,
Member
Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of New Brunswick
APPENDIX – Maps, Proposed Boundaries and Names of Electoral Districts
There shall be in the Province of New Brunswick ten (10) electoral districts, named and described as follows, each of which shall return one member.
The following definitions apply to all the descriptions contained in this publication:
- (a) reference to a “county” or “parish” signifies a “county” or “parish” as named and described in the Territorial Divisions Act, Chapter T-3 of the Revised Statutes of New Brunswick, 1973;
- (b) reference to a municipality such as a “city,” “town” or “village” signifies a “city,” “town” or “village” as named and described in the Municipalities Order – Municipalities Act, New Brunswick Regulation 85-6;
- (c) reference to an “Indian reserve” signifies a “reserve” as defined in the Indian Act, Chapter I-5 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985;
- (d) wherever a word or expression is used to denote a territorial division, such word or expression shall indicate the territorial division as it existed or was bounded on the first day of January, 2021, unless otherwise stated;
- (e) all counties, parishes, cities, towns, villages, rural communities and Indian reserves lying within the perimeter of the electoral district are included unless otherwise described;
- (f) all First Nation territories lying within the perimeter of the electoral district are included unless otherwise described;
- (g) reference to “highway,” “drive,” “road,” “boulevard,” “avenue,” “river,” “brook” and “creek” signifies their centre line unless otherwise described;
- (h) all offshore islands are included in the landward district unless otherwise described;
- (i) the translation of the term “street” follows Treasury Board standards, while the translation of all other public thoroughfare designations is based on commonly used terms but has no official recognition; and
- (j) all coordinates are in reference to the North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
The population figure of each electoral district is derived from the 2021 decennial census.
Acadie—Bathurst
(Population: 79,581) (Map 1)
Consists of:
- (a) the County of Gloucester;
- (b) that part of the County of Restigouche comprising:
- (i) that part of the Village of Belledune lying within said county;
- (ii) that part of the County of Restigouche lying northerly and easterly of a line described as follows: commencing at the southernmost intersection of the easterly limit of the County of Restigouche and the boundary of the Jacquet River Gorge Protected Natural Area; thence generally westerly and generally northeasterly along the boundary of said protected natural area to the southerly limit of the Village of Belledune; and
- (c) that part of the County of Northumberland comprising that part of the Regional Municipality of Tracadie lying within said county.
Beauséjour
(Population: 88,490) (Map 1 and 2)
Consists of:
- (a) that part of the County of Kent comprising:
- (i) the towns of Bouctouche and Richibucto;
- (ii) the villages of Rexton, Saint-Antoine and Saint-Louis de Kent;
- (iii) the parishes of Dundas, Richibucto, Saint-Charles, Saint-Louis, Saint Mary, Saint-Paul and Wellington;
- (iv) the Rural Community of Cocagne;
- (v) Buctouche Indian Reserve No. 16 and Indian Island Indian Reserve No. 28; and
- (b) the County of Westmorland, excepting:
- (i) the City of Moncton;
- (ii) that part of the City of Dieppe described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the northerly limit of said city and Dieppe Boulevard; thence southerly along said boulevard to Champlain Street; thence westerly along said street to Pascal Avenue; thence southerly along said avenue to Gauvin Road; thence westerly along said road to Thomas Street; thence generally southerly along said street and Centrale Street to Melanson Road; thence westerly along said road and its production to the westerly limit of said city; thence northwesterly and easterly along the limits of said city to the point of commencement;
- (iii) the villages of Petitcodiac and Salisbury;
- (iv) the Parish of Salisbury;
- (v) that part of the Parish of Moncton lying westerly of a line described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the northerly limit of said parish and Highway 126; thence generally southeasterly along said highway to Homestead Road; thence northeasterly along said road to the westerly limit of the City of Moncton; thence generally southerly, westerly and southerly along said limit to the Petitcodiac River;
- (vi) Soegao Indian Reserve No. 35.
Fredericton—Oromocto
(Population: 85,540) (Map 1)
Consists of:
- (a) the new proposed limit of the City of Fredericton, as of April 8, 2022;
- (b) the village of New Maryland;
- (c) that part of the Rural Community of Hanwell lying easterly of Highway 8 and northeasterly of Highway 2 (Trans-Canada Highway);
- (d) Devon Indian Reserve No. 30 and St. Mary’s Indian Reserve No. 24; and
- (e) that part of the County of Sunbury comprising:
- (i) the Town of Oromocto;
- (ii) that part of the Parish of Lincoln lying northerly of the westbound lane of Highway 2 (Trans-Canada Highway);
- (iii) Oromocto Indian Reserve No. 26.
Fundy Royal—Riverview
(Population: 74,261) (Map 1 and 2)
Consists of:
- (a) the County of Albert;
- (b) the County of Kings, excepting:
- (i) the towns of Grand Bay-Westfield, Quispamsis and Rothesay;
- (ii) the parishes of Greenwich, Kars, Springfield and Studholm;
- (iii) that part of the Parish of Westfield lying northerly and westerly of the Saint John River;
- (c) that part of the County of Queens comprising the Parish of Brunswick;
- (d) that part of the County of Saint John comprising:
- (i) the Village of St. Martins;
- (ii) the Parish of Saint Martins;
- (iii) that part of the Parish of Simonds lying northeasterly of a line described as follows: commencing at the intersection of Old Black River Road and the easterly limit of the City of Saint John (that is to say, the Mispec River); thence generally southeasterly and easterly along said road to West Beach Road; thence southerly along said road to latitude 45°13′44″N; thence southerly in a straight line to a point in the Bay of Fundy lying at latitude 45°12′31″N and longitude 65°50′39″W; and
- (e) that part of the County of Westmorland comprising:
- (i) the villages of Petitcodiac and Salisbury;
- (ii) the Parish of Salisbury;
- (iii) that part of the Parish of Moncton lying westerly of a line described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the northerly limit of said parish and Highway 126; thence generally southeasterly along said highway to Homestead Road; thence northeasterly along said road to the westerly limit of the City of Moncton; thence generally southerly westerly and southerly along said limit to the Petitcodiac River;
- (iv) Soegao Indian Reserve No. 35.
Madawaska—Restigouche
(Population: 71,099) (Map 1)
Consists of:
- (a) the County of Madawaska;
- (b) the County of Restigouche, excepting:
- (i) that part of the Village of Belledune lying within said county;
- (ii) that part of the County of Restigouche lying northerly and easterly of a line described as follows: commencing at the southernmost intersection of the easterly limit of the County of Restigouche and the boundary of the Jacquet River Gorge Protected Natural Area; thence generally westerly and generally northeasterly along the boundary of said protected natural area to the southerly limit of the Village of Belledune;
- (c) that part of the County of Victoria comprising:
- (i) the Town of Grand Falls;
- (ii) the Village of Drummond;
- (iii) the parishes of Drummond and Grand Falls; and
- (d) that part of the County of Northumberland comprising:
- (i) Mount Carleton Provincial Park;
- (ii) Nepisiguit Protected Natural Area.
Miramichi—Grand Lake
(Population: 59,725) (Map 1)
Consists of:
- (a) the County of Northumberland, excepting:
- (i) that part of Mount Carleton Provincial Park lying within said county;
- (ii) Nepisiguit Protected Natural Area;
- (iii) that part of the Regional Municipality of Tracadie lying within said county;
- (b) that part of the County of Kent comprising:
- (i) the parishes of Acadieville, Carleton, Harcourt, Huskisson and Weldford;
- (ii) Richibucto Indian Reserve No. 15;
- (c) that part of the County of Queens comprising:
- (i) the Village of Chipman;
- (ii) that part of the Village of Minto lying within said county;
- (iii) the parishes of Canning, Chipman and Waterborough;
- (d) that part of the County of Sunbury comprising:
- (i) that part of the Village of Minto lying within said county;
- (ii) the parishes of Maugerville, Northfield and Sheffield; and
- (e) that part of the County of York comprising that part of the Rural Community of Upper Miramichi lying within said county.
Moncton—Dieppe
(Population: 91,333) (Map 2)
Consists of:
- (a) the City of Moncton;
- (b) that part of the City of Dieppe described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the northerly limit of said city and Dieppe Boulevard; thence southerly along said boulevard to Champlain Street; thence westerly along said street to Pascal Avenue; thence southerly along said avenue to Gauvin Road; thence westerly along said road to Thomas Street; thence generally southerly along said street and Centrale Street to Melanson Road; thence westerly along said road and its production to the westerly limit of said city; thence northwesterly and easterly along the limits of said city to the point of commencement; and
- (c) the Metepenagiag Urban Indian Reserves No. 3 and No. 8.
Saint John—Kennebecasis
(Population: 81,954) (Map 1 and 3)
Consists of:
- (a) that part of the County of Saint John comprising:
- (i) that part of the City of Saint John lying easterly of the Saint John River and Saint John Harbour;
- (ii) that part of the Town of Rothesay lying within said county;
- (iii) that part of the Parish of Simonds lying southwesterly of a line described as follows: commencing at the intersection of Old Black River Road and the easterly limit of the City of Saint John (that is to say, the Mispec River); thence generally southeasterly and easterly along said road to West Beach Road; thence southerly along said road to latitude 45°13′44″N; thence southerly in a straight line to a point in the Bay of Fundy at latitude 45°12′31″N and longitude 65°50′39″W;
- (iv) The Brothers Indian Reserve No. 18; and
- (b) that part of the County of Kings comprising:
- (i) the Town of Quispamsis;
- (ii) that part of the Town of Rothesay lying within said county.
Saint John—St. Croix
(Population: 78,963) (Map 1 and 3)
Consists of:
- (a) the County of Charlotte;
- (b) that part of the County of Kings comprising:
- (i) the Town of Grand Bay-Westfield;
- (ii) the parishes of Greenwich, Kars, Springfield and Studholm;
- (iii) that part of the Parish of Westfield lying northerly and westerly of the Saint John River;
- (c) that part of the County of Queens comprising:
- (i) the villages of Cambridge-Narrows and Gagetown;
- (ii) the parishes of Cambridge, Gagetown, Hampstead, Johnston, Petersville and Wickham;
- (d) that part of the County of Saint John comprising:
- (i) the City of Saint John lying west of the Saint John River and Saint John Harbour;
- (ii) the Parish of Musquash;
- (e) that part of the County of Sunbury comprising:
- (i) the villages of Fredericton Junction and Tracy;
- (ii) the parishes of Blissville, Burton and Gladstone;
- (iii) that part of the Parish of Lincoln lying southerly of the new proposed limit of the City of Fredericton, as of April 8, 2022; and
- (f) that part of the County of York comprising the Parish of New Maryland.
Tobique—Mactaquac
(Population: 64,664) (Map 1)
Consists of:
- (a) the County of Carleton;
- (b) that part of the County of Victoria comprising:
- (i) the villages of Aroostook, Perth-Andover and Plaster Rock;
- (ii) the parishes of Andover, Denmark, Gordon, Lorne and Perth;
- (iii) Tobique Indian Reserve No. 20; and
- (c) the County of York, excepting:
- (i) that part of the new proposed limit of the City of Fredericton, as of April 8, 2022, lying within said county;
- (ii) the Village of New Maryland;
- (iii) the Parish of New Maryland;
- (iv) that part of the Rural Community of Hanwell lying easterly of Highway 8 and northeasterly of Highway 2 (Trans-Canada Highway);
- (v) that part of the Rural Community of Upper Miramichi lying within said county;
- (vi) Devon Indian Reserve No. 30.
Map 1 – Province of New Brunswick
Map 2 – Cities of Dieppe and Moncton and Town of Riverview
Map 3 – City of Saint John Carte 3
