1. Evolution of the Richmond and Delta Electoral Districts P
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
9 PART 9 – PROPOSED SINGLE MEMBER PLURALITY BOUNDARIES J. Richmond and Delta 1. Evolution of the Richmond and Delta electoral districts P ART Immediately prior to the 1966 Angus Commission, the two-member electoral 9 – PRO district of Delta included all of Rich- mond, Delta, Surrey, White Rock and P OSED Langley (see Richmond, Map 1). S INGLE ME M BER PLURALITY B OUNDARIES Richmond, Map 1 216 PART 9 – PROPOSED SINGLE MEMBER PLURALITY BOUNDARIES 9 a. The Angus Commission (1966) The Angus Commission recommended that the electoral district of Delta be divided into four: Richmond, Delta, Surrey and Langley (see Richmond, 9 – PART PRO Map 2). The Richmond district would correspond exactly with the bound- aries of the City of Richmond, while the Delta district would include all of P OSED the municipality of Delta, the south- western portion of Surrey (Crescent S Beach) and White Rock. INGLE ME The Legislative Assembly adopted the Angus Commission’s recom M BER PLURALITY mendations. B OUNDARIES Richmond, Map 2 217 9 PART 9 – PROPOSED SINGLE MEMBER PLURALITY BOUNDARIES b. The Norris Commission (1975) The Norris Commission recommend- ed (see Richmond, Map 3) that the boundaries of the Richmond district P ART remain unchanged, but that it become a two-member electoral district. It also 9 – PRO recommended that the southern areas of the Delta district (Tsawwassen, Cres- P OSED cent Beach and White Rock) be trans- ferred into a new district, to be called S Peace Arch. INGLE ME The Legislative Assembly did not adopt the Norris Commission’s recom- M mendations. BER PLURALITY B OUNDARIES Richmond, Map 3 218 PART 9 – PROPOSED SINGLE MEMBER PLURALITY BOUNDARIES 9 c. The Eckardt Commission (1978) Judge Eckardt recommended (see Richmond, Map 4) that the Richmond and Delta electoral districts continue to elect one MLA each. Richmond should 9 – PART PRO retain its existing boundaries, while the Delta district’s boundaries should be altered to follow the municipal bound- aries, with the exception of Annacis P OSED Island, which should remain part of the existing New Westminster electoral S district. INGLE ME The Legislative Assembly adopted Judge Eckardt’s recommendations. M BER PLURALITY d. The Warren Commission (1982) Mr. Warren recommended that a second MLA be added to seven elec- toral districts, including Richmond and B Delta. The Legislative Assembly did not OUNDARIES adopt Mr. Warren’s recommendation. e. The McAdam Commission (1984) The McAdam Commission recom- mended that a second MLA be added to 11 electoral districts, including Richmond and Delta. The Legislative Assembly adopted the McAdam Com- mission’s recommendation, giving the Richmond, Map 4 region four MLAs. 219 9 PART 9 – PROPOSED SINGLE MEMBER PLURALITY BOUNDARIES f. The Fisher Commission (1988) In order to eliminate dual-member electoral districts, Judge Fisher divided the electoral district of Delta into North P ART Delta (in the northeast quadrant of the municipality of Delta) and Ladner- 9 – PRO Tsawwassen. In the case of Richmond, the elimination of the dual-member P OSED riding would have created two elec- toral districts, but Judge Fisher added S a third, because of the area’s growing INGLE ME population. He proposed names of Richmond East, Richmond North and Richmond South. M BER PLURALITY The Legislative Assembly adopted Judge Fisher’s recommendations for five electoral districts, but changed the names to Delta North, Delta South, Richmond East, Richmond Centre, and B OUNDARIES Richmond-Steveston (see Richmond, Map 5). g. The Wood Commission (1999) The commission noted wide population disparities among the three Richmond electoral districts. For example, Rich- mond East (which had been identified by the municipality as the likely site of high growth in the future) had a deviation of plus 17.3 percent, while Richmond, Map 5 220 PART 9 – PROPOSED SINGLE MEMBER PLURALITY BOUNDARIES 9 Richmond-Steveston had a deviation of minus 10 percent. The commission rec- ommended that the boundary between Richmond Centre and Richmond- Steveston be moved further north, so 9 – PART PRO that it ran east along Blundell Road to Garden City Road, and from there north on Garden City Road (instead of No. 4 Road) to Sea Island Way (see P OSED Richmond, Map 6). This left Richmond Centre with a modest negative devia- S tion, “leaving room for the population INGLE ME growth predicted by the City.” The boundaries of the two Delta dis- M BER PLURALITY tricts also required some adjustment. The northeast boundary of Delta South was proposed to follow Highway 91 from the south arm of the Fraser River to the Delta-Surrey municipal bound- B ary, rather than the Burlington North- OUNDARIES ern Railway right of way, which would also restore residents living south of 64th Avenue to Delta North. In addi- tion, Annacis Island was proposed to be included in Delta North, as it is part of the municipality of Delta. The Legislative Assembly adopted all of the Wood Commission’s recom- Richmond, Map 6 mendations. 221 9 PART 9 – PROPOSED SINGLE MEMBER PLURALITY BOUNDARIES 2. Our analysis of the Richmond and Delta electoral districts Our Richmond and Delta region in- On the other hand Delta, with 97,402 electoral districts wholly within the City cludes the City of Richmond and the residents, would have two electoral of Richmond and two electoral districts P ART Corporation of Delta. This region now districts with an average deviation of wholly within the District Municipality has five electoral districts (see map on minus 6.5 percent, based on 79 dis- of Delta. 9 – PRO page 224.) These electoral districts, tricts. This includes the Corporation of with their deviations at the time of the Delta (pop. 96,723) and First Nations Based on BC Stats’ population projec- P OSED 1996 census, and now, are as follows reserves (pop. 679) situated within the tions to 2013 (Appendix O) and other (see Table 21): Delta South electoral districts. information we have received, we are S proposing several boundary adjust- INGLE ME TABLE 21: CURRENT SMP ELECTORAL Should we retain three Richmond ments within this region (see maps of DISTRICTS IN RICHMOND AND DELTA districts and two Delta districts, out of three proposed Richmond electoral dis- Electoral 1996 2006 respect for their municipal boundaries, tricts pages 226 to 228). We have not M District deviation* deviation** or should we include some of Rich- balanced the population exactly among BER PLURALITY Richmond Centre -1.8% +13.6% mond’s population in Delta in order to the three proposed Richmond electoral Richmond-Steveston +8.3% +6.2% equalize the population among all five districts because population projections Richmond East +9.3% +15.2% electoral districts? indicate the population of the Rich- Delta South -5.2% -12.1% mond Centre electoral district will grow Delta North +8.7% -0.8% The south arm of the Fraser River more rapidly than the population of the B OUNDARIES * based on 1996 census data, and assuming forms a clear demarcation between the other two electoral districts. 79 electoral districts Richmond East and Richmond- ** based on 2006 census data, and assuming 79 electoral districts Steveston electoral districts and the Within Delta, we considered changing South Delta electoral district. The the boundary in order to balance the As with Surrey, we approached our only land connections are the George population, but decided that it would boundary setting exercise for this area Massey Tunnel at Deas Island and be preferable to retain the current with a preference to create electoral the Alex Fraser Bridge at the extreme Highway 91 boundary, which serves as districts that did not cross municipal east end of Richmond East at Annacis a clear and easily identifiable division boundaries, if possible. Based on popu- Island. There are few apparent commu- between North Delta’s residential com- lation considerations alone, Richmond nity interests across this stretch of the munities to the east and South Delta’s (pop. 174,461) has too many residents Fraser River. agricultural and industrial lands to the for three electoral districts, but not west. We believe this to be another enough for four. Redistributing Rich- On balance, we are satisfied that the case where these community interests mond’s population among its three municipal boundaries reflect com- should take precedence over strict existing electoral districts results in an munity interests that should take prior- population parity (see maps of two pro- average deviation of plus 11.7 percent ity over population parity in this in- posed Delta electoral districts (based on 79 electoral districts). stance, and that we should retain three pages 229-230). 222 PART 9 – PROPOSED SINGLE MEMBER PLURALITY BOUNDARIES 9 3. Conclusion Accordingly, we propose that there be three electoral districts in the City of Richmond and two electoral districts in the District Municipality of Delta, as PART follows: 9 – PROPOSED TABLE 22: PROPOSED SMP ELECTORAL DISTRICTS IN RICHMOND AND DELTA SINGLE Electoral District Sq. Km. Population Deviation* Richmond Centre 374 55,942 +10.2% MEMBER Richmond-Steveston 32 60,721 +19.6% Richmond East 92 57,798 +13.8% PLURALITY Delta South 463 45,774 -9.9% Delta North 32 51,628 +1.7% * based on 81 electoral districts, with a provincial electoral quotient of 50,784 BOUNDARIES 223 9 PART 9 – PROPOSED SINGLE MEMBER PLURALITY BOUNDARIES Region: Richmond and Delta – Current Electoral Districts P ART 9 – PRO P OSED S INGLE ME M BER PLURALITY B OUNDARIES 224 PART 9 – PROPOSED SINGLE MEMBER PLURALITY BOUNDARIES 9 Region: