FinalReport-e.pdf

Co-chair

Commissioners

Table of Contents

Preface

Introduction from Commissioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Thank Yous and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

How We Did our Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Chapter 1- Our Province. Our Democracy.

Voices and Values – New Brunswickers and Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Renewing Democracy in New Brunswick – The Context for Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Toward a Citizen-Centred Democracy in New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Chapter 2 - Summary of Recommendations

Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Chapter 3 - Making Your Vote Count

A Mixed Member Proportional Electoral System for NB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Implementing a New Proportional Representation Electoral System for New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Drawing Electoral Boundaries in New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

A Fixed Election Date for New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Boosting Voter Turnout & Participation and Modernizing our Electoral Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Chapter 4- Making the System Work

Enhancing the Role of MLAs and the Legislature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Improving Party Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

Opening up the Appointment Process for Agencies, Board and Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84

Chapter 5- Making Your Voice Heard

Stronger Voices for Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

Stronger Voices for Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

Stronger Voices for Aboriginal People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

A Referendum Act for New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

Participatory Democracy and Citizen Engagement in New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108

Chapter 6 - Recommendation Appendices

A. Policy Framework -- A Representation and Electoral Boundaries Act for New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

A-1 Flowchart for a Representation and Electoral Boundaries Act Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123

B. Proposed Mandate – Elections New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125

C. Policy Framework – The Roles and Duties of an MLA and a Code of Conduct

for Members of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

D. Policy Framework – MLA Constituency Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129

E. Policy Framework – Review Committee for MLA Remuneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130

F. Policy Framework – Fixed Legislative Calendar Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132

F-1 Possible Legislative Assembly Calendar for 2006 with Committee Days

and Prescribed Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134

G. Policy Framework – Transparency and Accountability Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140

H. Policy Framework – Improving Party Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

I. Policy Framework – Appointments to Agencies, Boards and Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153

J. Policy Framework – A New Civics Education Program from Kindergarten to Grade12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165

K. Policy Framework – A Referendum Act for New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169

K-1 Flowchart for a Referendum Act Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178

Chapter 7- Background Appendices

I. Mission, Mandate and Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181

II. Example of a Regional Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) Electoral System in New Brunswick . . . . . . . . .183

III. Comparison of the New Brunswick MMP Electoral System with SMP Electoral System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186

IV. Comparison of Boundaries Legislation Across Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187

V. Voter Participation – Ranked by Social Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189

VI. Comparison of MLA Salaries Across Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190

VII. Comparison of MLA Resources Across Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191

VIII. Survey of New Brunswick MLAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192

IX. Comparison of Limits on Election Spending Across Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196

X. Comparison of Disclosure of Contribution Requirements Across Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198

XI. Comparison of Limits on Contributions Across Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199

XII. Comparison of Referendum Legislation Across Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201

XIII. Other NB Electoral and Democratic Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203

XIV. Meetings Held . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .208

XV. Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212

XVI. Academic Research Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214

XVII. Website and E-consultation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216

XVIII. Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217

XIX. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219

Chapter 8

Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction from Commissioners

The Commission on Legislative Democracy, with this report,

concludes a year of exciting challenges, thorough research,

extensive consultation, and thoughtful analysis.

Our mandate was broad, and our time was brief. Although

in this report we confidently and strongly recommend

sweeping changes to our democratic system, we also want

to acknowledge that New Brunswick has grown and

prospered well under our existing system of government,

and we should be thankful to those who have been the

guardians of our government institutions, and served the

public over the last 220 years.

Yet, while our province has achieved great things under the

present system, we feel there is another level that New

Brunswickers can reach if given the right tools, better

information and more effective access to decision-making.

The recommendations that follow are divided into three

broad categories:

In “Making Your Vote Count”, we take on the task of

examining our electoral system and suggesting ways to

more deeply involve New Brunswickers, by developing a

closer connection between the ballots they cast and the

governments they elect. We recommend a move to a Mixed

Member Proportional representation system, while

continuing to honour New Brunswickers’ attachment to local

MLAs who represent them directly.

In “Making the System Work”, we make recommendations

to raise the role of the Legislative Assembly and its

members. We suggest changes to House rules and

procedures, MLA responsibilities, committee work, services,

and a rebalancing of the powers held by the legislative and

executive branches of government.

In “Making Your Voice Heard”, we propose ways to

increase the participation and power of women and youth;

broaden the public’s understanding of and participation in

their local governance institutions; improve access to elected

officials through new technologies; and participate in

important decisions directly through referendums.

The adoption of our recommendations in their entirety would

require many amendments to existing laws, creation of new

legislation, further deliberations by elected officials, and

perhaps even a referendum. Despite those challenges, we

feel strongly that our proposals, if taken together, give each

other more strength.

We therefore hope the government, and the people of New

Brunswick, will consider our report as a complete package.

None of this large body of work would be possible without

the excellent service provided by the Commission’s staff,

headed by its Deputy Minister, David McLaughlin. New

Brunswickers are very fortunate to have such dedicated

people working in the public’s service.

Our thanks are also extended to Dr. Bill Cross, our Director

of Research.

His studies, combined with many submissions from

Canada’s best and brightest academics, give this report a

solid foundation of research that we are sure will become a

valuable record for anyone studying the reform of

government and its institutions.

And, most of all, we Commissioners are grateful to New

Brunswickers who - in groups and individually - took time to

be with us and share their ideas with us at our consultation

meetings, over the Internet, by correspondence, and through

their participation in our surveys. Their dedication to our

province enriches us all. We hope in our report, they will

see themselves and their ideas. We were moved and

enlightened by what they had to say.

Preface

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Thank You’s and

Acknowledgements

The Commission and its Deputy Minister would like to thank

sincerely and acknowledge publicly the many people

around New Brunswick and across Canada who

participated in our work and helped make this report

possible.

We had many partners in our work and the Commission is

grateful to each of them. We would like to thank Dr. Mary

Lou Stirling, Rosella Melanson and staff at the New

Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women; Ryan

Sullivan, Ivan Corbett and staff at the New Brunswick

Advisory Council on Youth; Rebecca Low, Gina Bishop and

Denis Gaudet at the Centre for Research and Information on

Canada and the Canadian Unity Council; Lisa Hrabluk at

Next New Brunswick; Ghislaine Foulem at the Forum de

concertation des organismes acadiens; and Rick Hutchins at

Policylink NB.

The Commission is particularly indebted to its first-class

academic research team led by its Director of Research, Dr.

Bill Cross, Director of the Centre for Canadian Studies at

Mount Allison University. Participating academics and

researchers included: Dr. Chedly Belkhodja - Université de

Moncton; Dr. Gail Campbell - University of New Brunswick;

Dr. André Blais - Université de Montréal; Dr. Lisa Young -

University of Calgary; Dr. Don Desserud - University of New

Brunswick, Saint John Campus; Dr. David C. Docherty -

Wilfrid Laurier University; Dr. Munroe Eagles - University of

Buffalo; Dr. Joanna Everitt - University of New Brunswick,

Saint John campus; Dr. Sonia Pitre - University of Ottawa;

Dr. Paul Howe - University of New Brunswick; Dr. Roger

Ouellette - Université de Moncton; and Dr. Alan Siaroff -

University of Lethbridge.

The Commission’s work was of great interest across Canada

with those governments and individuals engaged in similar

democratic renewal projects. This new “fraternity” was

helpful in sharing ideas, information and research. We

would like to particularly thank Dr. Ken Carty of University

of British Columbia and Director of Research for the BC

Citizens’ Assembly; André Fortier, Associate Deputy

Minister, Secrétariat à la réforme des institutions

démocratiques du Québec, Government of Québec;

Matthew Mendelsohn, Deputy Minister, Secretariat for

Democratic Renewal, Government of Ontario; Stephen

Zaluski and Stéphane Perrault of the Privy Council Office,

Government of Canada; Hon. Norman Carruthers,

Commissioner, PEI 2003 Electoral Reform Commission, and

Nathalie DesRosiers, past President of the Law Commission

of Canada.

The Commission is grateful to each of its outside speakers

and experts who traveled to New Brunswick to participate

in one of our conferences or roundtables. This includes:

Jeffrey Simpson, National Columnist for the Globe and

Mail; Hugh Segal, President of the Institute for Research on

Public Policy; Hon. Ed Broadbent, MP for Ottawa-Centre;

Peter Dobell, Founding Director of the Parliamentary Centre;

Caroline Di Cocco, MPP, Sarnia-Lambton, Ontario; Geoffrey

Kelley, MNA for Jacques-Cartier, Québec; Ian McClelland,

former MLA, Edmonton-Rutherford, Alberta; Andrew Parkin,

formerly at CRIC; Dr. John Courtney, University of

Saskatchewan; Dr. Stewart Hyson, UNBSJ; Leslie Siedle,

formerly with Elections Canada; and David Moynaugh,

CCAF.

The Commission would also like to thank several New

Brunswick MLAs who met with us or participated at various

events. This includes: Hon. Brad Green, Hon. Keith Ashfield,

Hon. Bruce Fitch, Hon. Joan MacAlpine, Shawn Graham,

Elizabeth Weir, Trevor Holder, Cy LeBlanc, Kelly Lamrock,

Eric Allaby, Milt Sherwood, Jody Carr, Michael (Tanker)

Malley, John Betts, Wally Stiles, and Michael Murphy.

Dr. Keith Culver from the University of New Brunswick

provided welcome advice on the emerging possibilities of e-

democracy and assisted in the development of our “Your

Turn” questionnaire. Two New Brunswick ICT firms, xwave

and CGI, gave us advice, support, and services for our

online questionnaire and discussion forum.

We were very fortunate to have the support of universities

and community colleges in the province in co-sponsoring

several of our events. Thank you to Mount Allison

University’s Centre for Canadian Studies for hosting our first

Academic Conference; the Faculty of Law at the University

of New Brunswick for our Roundtable on Electoral

Boundaries; the Université de Moncton, which hosted our PR

Roundtable and second Academic Conference; and St.

Thomas University for hosting our Youth Forum in

partnership with the New Brunswick Advisory Council on

Youth. As well, thank you to the New Brunswick Community

College network for providing us space and administrative

support at campuses around the province for our spring

consultation process.

This Commission was a ‘start-up’ with no office, staff,

budget or equipment and only a short time to complete our

work. Greg Cook at Supply and Services found us space

quickly. Rick Phillips and his team at Finance set up our

budget and administered all of our requisitions and

payments. The staff at the IT help desk at the Department of

Finance, was a big help at all times. Human resources

assistance and guidance was provided by Cecile Guerrette,

Director of Human Resources, Department of Finance and

Beth Clark at the Office of Human Resources.

Communications New Brunswick performed tremendous

work designing and producing all of our consultation

documents, fact sheets, and other materials with very

compressed timelines. Our website was a very important

part of our consultation process and the CNB website team,

comprised of Bonnie Buckingham-Landry, Kevin Lunn,

Norman Richard, Keehwan Jee and Paulette Stewart, was

innovative and flexible in meeting our needs.

Communications New Brunswick’s Design Services, led by

Michael Côté, was a key player in the production of our

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

four public documents. Thank you to Stewart Tower, Lucie El-

Khoury, Ed Werthmann, Jill Wishart and Delia Smith.

Many individuals at various government departments

assisted the Commission in its work by answering our policy

and legal questions, providing data and information, and

giving us advice. The Commission would like to thank the

following persons in particular for their support: Kim

Poffenroth and Heather Hobart (Justice and Attorney

General); Kevin Malone, Judy Wagner, and Greg Lutes

(Executive Council Office); Katherine D’Entremont and

Johnny St. Onge (Environment and Local Government);

Margaret Smith (Education); Mary Ogilvie, Judy Ross

(Service New Brunswick); and Mirelle Cyr

(Intergovernmental and International Relations). Claude

Marquis, Director of the Community Access Centres,

arranged for posting of our consultation papers and

questionnaires on their website.

Sabine Sparwasser, Counsellor of the German Embassy in

Ottawa, provided useful background information on

Germany’s electoral system and arranged for the visit of

Karsten Voigt, a former Bundestag Deputy, with the

Commission.

Thank you to Peggy Scott at Intergovernmental and

International Relations, who was exceptionally helpful in the

early days at finding and organizing a wealth of research

articles and materials.

Peggy Goss and the staff at the Legislative Library were

assiduous in tracking down books, articles, and

monographs on New Brunswick and Canadian electoral

and democratic reform to help us with our research.

The Speaker, the Hon. Bev Harrison, the Clerk of the

Legislative Assembly, Loredana Catalli Sonier, and Peter

Wolters, Donald Forestell and Shayne Davies of the

Legislative Assembly Office were gracious with their time in

meeting with Commissioners and staff, answering our

queries, and providing us with information to complete our

comparative research and policy analysis of the role of

MLAs in legislatures across Canada.

Annise Hollies, Chief Electoral Officer for New Brunswick,

Ann McIntosh, David Owens, and Ron Armitage provided

helpful information and assistance as we studied election

data and results from past provincial elections, and

discussed ideas with us for modernizing our electoral laws.

Mrs. Hollies participated at several conferences and

roundtables contributing her expertise.

Bernard Richard, Ombudsman, was helpful in offering

advice and comments on various ideas being considered by

the Commission, and he also participated at a Commission

event.

Paul Bourque, the Supervisor of Political Financing, met with

Commission staff on the operations of his office, giving us

useful background information.

Thank you to Translation Services who met our very tight

deadlines with courtesy and professionalism. Thanks also to

Interpretation Services and AW Tel-Av for their work

throughout our public consultation process.

Thanks to Julie Legresley who helped get us up and running,

and our summer and co-op students - Kristin Ferguson,

Jessica Holt, and Phillip Gammon.

The most special thanks and acknowledgements are

reserved for the Commission staff without whom none of this

would have been possible - Debbie Hackett (Senior Policy

Advisor); Lisa Lacenaire-McHardie (Policy Advisor); Marie-

Josée Groulx (Director of Communications and

Consultations); and Christyne Duguay (Executive Assistant).

All worked long and difficult hours under the most

demanding timelines to produce exceptional quality work

that was instrumental to the Commission’s learning,

consultation, and deliberations. Their commitment to this

project made a real difference.

Finally, we would like to thank Premier Bernard Lord for his

commitment to the issues of democracy. His willingness to

invite an open and sincere exploration of how our

province’s democracy can be made stronger for citizens is

testament to his own leadership and desire to make New

Brunswick even better.

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

How We Did Our Work

The Commission on Legislative Democracy was formally

established by Premier Bernard Lord on December 19,

2003. It was given approximately one year - until

December 31, 2004 - to report to the Premier and all New

Brunswickers. Speaking in the Legislative Assembly that day,

the Premier set out the Commission’s mandate and invited

all New Brunswickers to participate in its process. He

stated:

“This Commission has a mandate whose scope is

unparalleled in our history as a province. In fact, it

is unique across Canada.”

Specifically, the Commission was instructed to examine and

make recommendations on how to strengthen and

modernize New Brunswick’s democratic institutions and

practices in three main areas:

1. Electoral Reform - changing our voting system;

drawing electoral boundaries; setting fixed election

dates; and boosting voter turnout.

2. Legislative Reform - enhancing the role of MLAs

and the Legislative Assembly; opening up the

appointments process for agencies, boards, and

commissions.

3. Democratic Reform - involving the public more in

decision-making; proposing a Referendum Act.

The Commission’s goal was to present recommendations

that would bring about:

• Fairer, more equitable and effective representation in

the Legislative Assembly;

• Greater public involvement in decisions affecting

people and their communities;

• More open, responsive, and accountable democratic

institutions and practices; and,

• Higher civic engagement and participation of New

Brunswickers.

This large mandate and relatively short time frame set the

stage for how the Commission did its work. While other

jurisdictions are focused on examining single reforms to

their democratic institutions, New Brunswick is unique in

considering each element of democratic renewal fully, at

once, and in an integrated way. A comprehensive

consideration of democratic renewal in New Brunswick was

sought; the Commission was given the challenge to deliver.

To meet this challenge the Commission had to first undertake

significant new research and analysis into each of its

mandate areas. We had to dissect the issues and conduct

our own research and learning. We had to develop

consultation and information documents so New

Brunswickers could participate in our process and give us

their views and suggestions. We had to inform New

Brunswickers about our work as we went along. We had to

hold public hearings and meetings to hear directly from

citizens. Finally, we had to integrate all of this input into our

deliberations to arrive at recommendations that would fulfill

the comprehensive mandate we were given.

Principles

Given the very nature of the topic under study - democracy -

the Commission established four key principles to guide its

work and involve New Brunswickers.

Openness - The Commission’s work and progress would be

as open as possible for all New Brunswickers to follow

through the media, website, and activities.

Participation - New Brunswickers would be invited to

participate in the work of the Commission at each stage of

its progress through as wide a range of events, activities,

and materials as possible, many targeted at specific groups

and communities around the province.

Partnerships - The Commission would establish research or

consultation partnerships with provincial and national

organizations to give it access to additional expertise,

involve even more people in the process, and support our

cost-effective approach to managing the budget.

Research-based - The Commission’s work would be

research-based, giving it a strong independent foundation of

information and learning to assist it in its deliberations.

Three Phases

The Commission undertook three basic phases to its work:

Research; Consultation; and Deliberation.

Research

The Research Phase began with the hiring of Dr. Bill Cross

as Director of Research. Dr. Cross is Davidson Chair and

Director of the Centre for Canadian Studies at Mount

Allison University. He is editor of the Canadian Democratic

Audit series, a published author, and a commentator on

political affairs in Canada.

Dr. Cross directed the Commission’s academic research

program, bringing together noted academic experts from

across Canada and from New Brunswick universities. The

aim of the research program was to ensure the Commission

had access to informed academic research on our mandate,

to stimulate debate and discussion on the subject areas, and

to ensure a specific research focus on the impact and

implications of changes to New Brunswick’s democratic

institutions and practices. Each academic prepared an

original research article for peer-reviewed publication, and

provided important statistical data and insight on each area

of the Commission’s mandate.

The results of their work and expertise were brought

together at two academic research conferences held on

February 5-6, 2004, at Mount Allison University and

September 24, 2004, at Université de Moncton.

Four expert roundtables, focused on specific areas of the

Commission’s mandate, were also held over the course of

2004. These included a Roundtable on the Role of MLAs

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

and the Legislature on March 24-25, 2004, held at the

Legislative Assembly in Fredericton; a Roundtable on

Electoral Boundaries held on April 28, 2004, at UNB Law

School; a Roundtable on Proportional Representation held

on September 23, 2004, at the Université de Moncton; and

a Roundtable on Civic Engagement held on October 7,

2004, in Saint John.

Participating in these events were academic experts from

New Brunswick and across Canada; current and former

elected officials from New Brunswick, Québec, Ontario,

and Alberta; community group leaders and activists; the

Chief Electoral Officer of New Brunswick; the Ombudsman;

the Speaker; representatives from various provincial

associations; and public policy experts from the Centre for

Research and Information on Canada, the Institute for

Research on Public Policy, and the Parliamentary Centre in

Ottawa. Each event was open to the public and media,

with simultaneous interpretation.

Consultation

The Commission undertook a broad consultation process

aimed at providing as many New Brunswickers as possible

with the opportunity to give the Commission their views. To

do so, the Commission produced a wide range of fact

sheets and consultation documents, held public meetings for

direct input from citizens, created an interactive website to

encourage online participation, and organized specific

consultation forums for direct dialogue with interested

groups and communities.

Agendas for each Commission meeting were published on

our website. Presentations prepared for Commissioners or

provided by invited experts were also published on our

website for all to read.

Fourteen public hearings were held across the province in

the spring and fall. Eleven Community Leader Roundtables

were also held around the province. Invitations to

participate in Commission events, or visit our interactive

website, were sent regularly to a provincial mailing list that

grew to almost 1,000 names. Given their unique interest in

our mandate, MLAs were specifically invited to participate

in each event. Synopses of each public consultation event

and forum were then prepared and placed on our website

to provide additional feedback to people on what was said,

and to share those observations with as many New

Brunswickers as were interested.

The Commission produced three main consultation

documents: Your Voice. Your Vote (an introductory paper on

the Commission’s mandate); Your Voice. Your Vote. Your

Turn! - Citizen’s Participation Guide (a comprehensive

backgrounder on the issues with an enclosed 50-question

questionnaire); and Options: A Progress Report to New

Brunswickers (a summary of the main options being

considered by the Commission).

The aim of these consultation documents was to, first, inform

New Brunswickers of the mandate of the Commission;

second, provide useful background information on the key

issues we were studying; and third, solicit feedback on the

options and issues for change being considered by the

Commission. This was designed to ensure a fully-transparent

process of consultation with people and obtain the fullest

possible public input at all stages through our public

hearings, Community Leader Roundtables, and our website.

Given the complexity of the issues and the breadth of the

mandate, the Commission decided it was particularly

important to provide a clear sense of its thinking in advance

to New Brunswickers, which we did, through the Options

progress report, in order to receive a direct response from

people on exactly what we were considering.

Copies of the Commission’s three consultation documents

were distributed by e-mail to thousands of New

Brunswickers. Your Voice. Your Vote and Options were also

distributed as newspaper inserts in March and September

2004 respectively, to over 120,000 New Brunswick

households each time.

The Commission organized targeted consultation forums

based on our formal partnerships with the New Brunswick

Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the New

Brunswick Advisory Council on Youth, The Centre for

Research and Information on Canada, Next NB, the Forum

de concertation des organismes acadiens, and others. These

included:

• Youth and Democracy Forum - May 1-2, 2004.

Over 50 youth participated at this forum held at St.

Thomas University in partnership with the NB Advisory

Council on Youth. The provincial forum was preceded

by 13 regional forums in March which brought

together over 100 young New Brunswickers to discuss

youth democratic participation issues.

• Your Voice. Your Generation: Young New

Brunswickers and Democracy Forum -

September 17, 2004. Over 30 university students

participated at this event co-sponsored with Next New

Brunswick and UNB.

• Women and Democracy Forum - September 25,

2004. Over 65 people participated at this forum in

Moncton, in partnership with the NB Advisory Council

on the Status of Women.

• The Reform of Democratic Institutions in New

Brunswick: Issues for the Francophone and

Acadian Communities - June 12, 2004. Over 25

participants from the Forum de concertation des

organismes acadiens representing a wide and diverse

range of Acadian and Francophone associations

discussed the implications of democratic renewal for

their community.

Formal invitations and follow-up reminders to participate in

each event were sent out. All public hearings were

advertised and a news release was distributed to all daily

and weekly newspapers. All events, conferences, and

roundtables of the Commission were open to the public and

media.

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Each of the 11 public hearings in the spring ran from 4

p.m. to 8 p.m. and included an introductory presentation on

the mandate of the Commission. The three public hearings

in the fall were held on a Saturday or Sunday from 10 a.m.

to 3 p.m. or 4 p.m.

General participation at the public hearings was low.

Participation at the invited Community Leader Roundtables,

by contrast, was generally high. Comments and

interventions were diverse and often detailed in both cases.

Through our consultation process, the Commission was able

to receive important and valuable input from individual

New Brunswickers, students, and a range of provincial and

local groups and associations.

Deliberation

Besides participating in each of the public conferences,

roundtables, forums, and hearings, the Commission

undertook a series of meetings and conference calls to

complete its work. The Commission met 12 times as part of

its overall research, learning, and deliberation process.

Each meeting lasted between two and three days and

involved staff presentations on issues with a discussion and

review of topics and materials. Outside experts sometimes

attended to provide their views on specific issues under

discussion.

In the deliberation phase, the Commission considered input

received from three main sources: First, public comments

and suggestions received through the public hearing

process, the Community Leader Roundtables, e-mails,

questionnaires, and individual submissions. Second, from

the Commission’s own academic research program, staff

presentations and discussions, and expert input generated

from a comprehensive range of meetings conducted by the

Commission. Third, from the various forums and roundtables

held by the Commission.

The deliberation phase of the Commission began over the

summer and was first reflected in the publication of the

Options progress report. Response to Options was an

important part of the Commission’s subsequent

deliberations.

To guide its consideration of issues, the Commission first set

key principles and objectives for each mandate area. It then

developed comprehensive issue documents with supporting

data and materials for discussion at Commission meetings.

Following general discussion on principles and directions,

these were turned into specific recommendations with

supporting policy frameworks.

Conclusion

Our final report and recommendations is very much the

product of the research, consultation and deliberation

process the Commission set out from the beginning. Our

process was open and transparent with New Brunswickers

invited at each step along the way to give us their input.

Many did and their views and suggestions can be found

throughout this report. We believe the research and policy

development work conducted by and for the Commission

provides a strong base of support and integrity that will

serve New Brunswickers well as they consider our report

and recommendations.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Voices and Values:

New Brunswickers & Democracy

Democracy comes from the Greek words “demos” which

means people and “kratia” which means power. Democracy

is about people having power to take decisions on their

own behalf.

Over the centuries, shape and form have been given to this

powerful principle, leading to a myriad of democratic

institutions, practices, and cultures around the world. There

is no one form of democracy - it is as diverse as humanity

itself. But common elements and principles exist that form

the core of any democracy, whether it is here in New

Brunswick, in Britain, Scandinavia, or even in the post-

Communist countries of Eastern Europe.

Free, fair and regular elections. One person, one

vote. Representative legislatures.

These are the original and most basic foundations of any

democracy. Variations abound, however, for each.

Elections, for example, are held every three years in some

countries; every four, five, and six years in others. Voters

have one vote for a single candidate under our single

member plurality system, but two votes or more under

proportional representation or other preferential ballot

electoral systems. Legislatures can be composed of directly

or indirectly elected representatives.

Each of these variations has emerged in response to a

society’s particular political culture. That culture, in turn, has

evolved from the social and demographic circumstances

and historical experiences of each country. Any form of

democracy is therefore unique and singular to the society

from which it springs.

As societies have become more open, diverse, and

pluralistic, so too have our democracies. Where once

Parliament or the legislature was the locus of authority and

decision-making, new voices and interests outside the

Legislative Assembly are demanding and succeeding in

achieving varying measures of influence. No longer are we

content to choose a representative to travel some distance to

a capital city and take all decisions on our behalf with an

electoral accounting every four years. Accountability of our

legislators and government institutions is demanded at all

times, and independent authorities, such as the Auditor-

General, have grown in stature and influence to ensure this

occurs. Together, this has given rise to a reformulation as to

what constitutes true democracy.

Inclusion. Engagement. Participation.

Responsiveness. Accountability.

These contemporary principles bring a more humanistic and

collective focus to the role of our democratic institutions and

practices. They reflect our expanded notion of democracy

today. For many voters, these have become the new

measures of democratic expectation and legitimacy.

New Brunswick Democratic Values

These principles emerge from the basic values of a society.

For democracy is, at its most central core, really about

values. The shape and form of our democratic institutions

and practices are the expressions, indeed, the vision of

which democratic values matter most to us.

Such is the case for New Brunswick. Deliberately or not,

everything from the way we elect MLAs, to how government

operates, to involving people in decision-making, reflects the

importance we place on one or more democratic value

compared to others.

It is important at the outset of our report to note that, in

large measure, New Brunswick has a strong and successful

democracy. Social and economic progress in our province

since Confederation has been significant. Elections are free

and fair. Our elected representatives are, generally,

sincerely motivated. Public debate occurs on many

important issues. Accountability of government has

increased.

The question before us today is not whether our democratic

institutions and practices have served us well; rather, it is

whether it is time to improve them to meet the changing

needs of our society, to allow us to make even stronger

social and economic progress, and to address the

democratic challenges that exist in our province. The issues

behind this question are summed up in the Commission’s

mandate:

To examine and make recommendations on strengthening

and modernizing our electoral system and democratic

institutions and practices in New Brunswick to make them

more fair, open, accountable and accessible to New

Brunswickers.

What kind of democracy do we want? Answering

this fundamental question begins with determining our

democratic values. Which democratic values matter most to

us, as New Brunswickers, and as citizens?

Early in its work, the Commission posed eight values to

consider when looking at our electoral system, the

functioning of the legislature, and how government makes

decisions.

Chapter 1 - Our Province. Our Democracy.

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Eight Democratic Values

Fairness - Fairness means that the electoral system

should be fair to voters, parties, and candidates. It

should not benefit one group of voters or one political

party at the expense of another.

Equality - Equality means that all votes should count

equally when electing MLAs.

Representative - Our legislature should not just

represent voters living in a particular geographic area,

but should also represent the diverse faces and voices

of our society.

Open - Openness is the basis of a transparent and

participatory democracy for people. It is an essential

ingredient to help keep government accountable to

citizens.

Effective - An effective government and legislature is

one that is able to take decisions, consider diverse

viewpoints, and respond to changing economic and

social circumstances.

Accountable - Accountability requires governments

and legislatures to justify their actions on a regular

basis, while allowing voters to pass judgment at

election time on the performance of their

representatives.

Inclusive - Inclusion of different types of people and

differing viewpoints is at the heart of a participatory

democracy.

Choice - Choosing candidates, parties, and leaders at

election time is the central democratic action of voters.

Voters must have real choices in a healthy and vibrant

democracy.

New Brunswickers offered the Commission their opinion on

these values. Voluntary respondents to the Commission’s

questionnaire cited fairness and accountability as their most

important democratic values. As can be seen below, other

values also received significant levels of support.

The importance of accountability as a fundamental

democratic value was reinforced in other responses. When

asked to consider which value was more important to a

strong democracy in New Brunswick, respondents chose

“an effective opposition” more than any other.

Applying Democratic Values to

Democratic Renewal

The Commission believes that it is necessary to address

democratic renewal through a consideration of democratic

values. This is not easy. Values are very personal. Each of

the above values therefore relates to our own personal

conception of democracy. But by considering which values

matter most to us as individual citizens, it helps us determine

more precisely what kinds of changes we need to bring to

our democratic institutions and practices.

Take the case of our electoral system. If fairness or equality

of votes in an electoral system is most important, for

example, then it would suggest a change from our present

single member plurality system which places more emphasis

on effectiveness and accountability. If voter choice rates

high for citizens, then a mixed member PR system allowing

voters to cast two votes, one for the local candidate of their

choice and one for the party of their choice, would likely

come out on top.

The Commission believes that all the democratic values

listed earlier matter, but it is clear to us that when it comes

to making choices about democratic renewal, some values

assume greater importance. Over the course of the past

year, and through our own research, consultation, and

deliberation, the Commission listened to what New

Brunswickers had to say about what was wrong, and what

was right, with our electoral system, the functioning of the

legislature, how decisions are made by government and

many other issues. With the broad mandate the Commission

was given to strengthen and modernize the institutions and

practices of our democracy, it was necessary to apply our

list of democratic values to each area of our mandate in

order to assess both the need for changes and arrive at

specific recommendations.

Unimportant

Not that important

Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important

Party seats vs

popular vote

Must win at

least 50%

Smaller party

representation

Strong majority

governments

More women

and minorities

elected

Effective

opposition

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

How important are the following values to a strong

democracy in New Brunswick?

in per cent, based on an average of 277 respondents

Least important

Somewhat important

Most important

Fair Equal Representative Open Effective Accountable Inclusive Choice

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

How important are the following democratic

values to a strong democracy in New Brunswick?

in per cent, based on an average of 276 respondents

Electoral Reform

It is clear to the Commission that the current single member

plurality electoral system is not meeting the democratic

values and needs of New Brunswickers. Fairness and

equality of the vote, which are central to democratic

satisfaction, must be given more weight when votes are

translated into seats. Fortunately, it is not necessary to

discard the values of effectiveness and accountability - key

benefits of our current system - when making a change. The

Commission’s made-in-New Brunswick, regional mixed-

member proportional representation system would continue

to produce effective single party majority governments while

maintaining the direct link between voters and their riding

MLA - a link that helps keep them accountable to voters.

The Commission believes that setting fixed election dates

will reinforce the value of accountability by ensuring that

elections take place at a regular time and date, well known

in advance to voters, rather than at the time and date

chosen by the Premier.

Electoral boundary drawing brings together a number of

different principles. The Commission’s proposed

Representation and Electoral Boundaries Act will ensure that

electoral boundaries in New Brunswick are drawn on the

basis of clear values of equality of votes, fairness to voters

and parties, and ensuring our legislature is representative of

people, communities, and the two official linguistic

communities.

Declining voter turnout is for many a barometer of a

growing and persistent sense of dissatisfaction and

disaffection with our democratic process. Steps being

recommended by the Commission to boost turnout, will lead

to a reinforcement of the values of inclusion and openness;

in particular, to bringing youth back into the process.

Legislative Reform

The Commission believes that its recommendations to

enhance the role of MLAs and the Legislative Assembly - by

reinforcing the independence of the legislature, giving more

authority and resources to MLAs, providing more effective

scrutiny of government - will help make the legislature more

open, effective, accountable, and representative of all

citizens.

Our recommendations for a new appointments process for

positions on government agencies, boards, and

commissions will make that process more open and

accountable to New Brunswickers.

Democratic Reform

More open and inclusive decision-making that involves the

participation of New Brunswickers is the focus of the

Commission’s recommendations in the area of democratic

reform.

The Commission’s proposed Referendum Act is a careful

and measured instrument to involve New Brunswickers in

decision-making. Allowing referendums on an exceptional

basis only with strict financial regulations about spending

and disclosure, as is being recommended, will ensure that

any referendum held in the province is fair, open, and

accountable, while giving voters a clear “yes” or “no”

choice.

Values and Choices

The Commission’s recommendations for a citizen-centred

democracy in our province are based on our New

Brunswick values. These democratic values helped guide the

Commission in its own choices and decisions. Ultimately,

these same values are the test for whether our current

democratic institutions and practices should be changed to

make them stronger for citizens, and how this should be

done.

Renewing the practice of democracy in our province is

essential for the long-term health of our democracy. Each of

us has a stake in the outcome - MLAs, political parties,

communities, and most of all, citizens. None, however, has

a veto on those outcomes, because to do so is to negate the

fundamental democratic values we all share. The

democratic values of New Brunswickers have made it clear

to this Commission what together we need to do.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Renewing Democracy in

New Brunswick - The Context

for Reform

There is a democratic disquiet in New Brunswick.

New Brunswickers are participating less and less in the

electoral process. Voter turnout is declining. New

Brunswickers have less confidence and trust in their political

leaders and institutions. Their attitudes towards government

are increasingly negative. Young people are less engaged

in the democratic process. Their knowledge levels of

democracy and how government works have diminished.

The tone of political discourse and debate has changed.

People are more demanding and expectant about actions

their elected and appointed officials are taking. They are

also more educated and discerning today about choices

their governments and political leaders make. People want

to be heard before decisions are made. They want

feedback on these decisions. And they want the opportunity

to make some decisions on their own that affect them and

their communities. In short, they are less deferential and

more critical towards institutions and traditions than before.

The face of New Brunswick society is changing. We are

more diverse and pluralistic. We are officially bilingual with

two official linguistic communities. Our urban centres are

growing. Information and communications technologies

have taken root, connecting people, governments, and

communities like never before.

As we have changed, so too have the issues facing

governments and legislatures. Issues and challenges have

become more complex and far-reaching. Decisions and

events taking place elsewhere around the world impact us

here at home more than ever before. Our democratic

institutions have less direct control and accountability over

major economic, social, and environmental issues.

New Brunswick has changed and New Brunswickers with it.

The system and practices we inherited from Britain and

adapted as Canadians more than a century and a quarter

ago, do not fully meet the contemporary needs and

aspirations of New Brunswickers. In fact, they remain quite

similar to their original design. While this has served us

well in many ways, certain democratic warning signs are

already apparent. One of our responsibilities as citizens is

to review our democratic institutions from time to time to

ensure they adequately reflect the contemporary values of

our society and the public policy needs of our province.

So, the question we must be asking ourselves is, “Do our

current democratic institutions and practices need to change

to better reflect the voices of New Brunswick, the values we

share, and the issues we must address?”

The Commission believes the answer is “yes”. We believe

the vast majority of New Brunswickers share our view.

Change is not an admission of failure or a sign of

disrespect. It is not a departure from tradition, but an

updating of tradition. The world of our parents,

grandparents and great-grandparents is vastly different from

ours of today. And the world of our children and

grandchildren will be different in turn. We must

acknowledge this reality and deal with it.

We can update our democracy without altering its basic

principles. We can modernize our democracy while

retaining the traditions that underpin it. The value of

democracy is not just what occurs, but how it occurs.

Democratic renewal is never wrong if it is undertaken by

citizens in a democratic way.

Declining Participation, Engagement and Trust

What is some of the evidence of this democratic disquiet?

First, fewer New Brunswickers are voting. Turnout in the

2003 provincial election was the lowest ever recorded at

69 per cent. Unfortunately, this is just the lowest point in a

trend that has been developing for many years, as the chart

below indicates.

Second, New Brunswickers are not participating in other

democratic opportunities. Many elected positions for District

Education Councils and Regional Health Authorities went

unfilled during the most recent local governance elections,

as the chart below indicates.

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

Percentage of voter turnout

Voter Turnout in New Brunswick Elections

1967 1970 1974 1978 1982 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Third, New Brunswickers rate parties and their political

leaders low when it comes to honesty and being connected

to their concerns. Surveys conducted by the Centre for

Research and Information on Canada demonstrate this

below.

Fourth, there is a severe under representation of women in

the Legislative Assembly. New Brunswick is tied with

Manitoba among provinces as having the second-worst

results in electing women, as can be seen in the chart

below.

It is important to note that not just New Brunswick is

experiencing this phenomenon of political disengagement

and discontent. It is occurring in varying degrees across

Canada. But our challenge, as New Brunswickers, is to

determine what steps we can take to renew our own

democracy, on our own terms.

The Special Challenge of our Electoral System

Democratic renewal requires a special look at our electoral

system. An electoral, or voting system, translates votes into

seats. It is how we determine who will form our government

and who will represent us, as MLAs, in the legislature. Our

most basic democratic values - fairness, choice, equality,

accountability - come together on election night when the

votes are counted. A fair electoral system doesn’t just

produce a government; it produces legitimacy based on

consent. Citizens want to know that their votes count; that

their choices are reflected in the legislature and government.

In short, electoral systems affect citizens’ perception of their

democracy and their satisfaction with it.

New Brunswick’s single member plurality electoral system

(also known as first-past-the-post) has distinct advantages

and disadvantages. Its winner-take-all effect has produced

strong, effective majority governments. This same effect,

however, has produced weak official oppositions with fewer

seats and third party representation than would be awarded

under a more proportional electoral system. Between 1987

and 1999, for example, the opposition never won more

than 20 per cent of the seats in the legislature, despite the

combined opposition parties winning between 40 per cent

and 53 per cent of the vote during this same period. This

has produced an imbalance in our system affecting the

legislature’s ability to hold the government to account.

Original academic research conducted for the Commission

across 20 elections in 19 countries between 1996 and

2001, raises interesting questions about the linkage

between voter satisfaction with democracy and the choice

of electoral system. It shows that the degree of

disproportionality of the electoral system affects citizens’

Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C. Nun.

N.W.T.

Yuk.

Can.

Source: Research Centre on Women and Politics, University of Ottawa and

data from various Legislative Assembly websites

in per cent

Percentage of Women Elected to Provincial

Legislatures Across Canada – Last Elections

Contested

Vacant

Regional Health

Authorities

Councillors

Mayors

District

Education

Councils

Acclamation

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

Contested Positions

Municipal Elections, District Education Councils,

Regional Health Authorities - 2004 Elections

Low Rating

High Rating

Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C.

Source: Environics Focus Canada / Canadian Opinion Research Archive,

Queen’s University, 2002

Honesty and Ethical Standards of Political Leaders

Generally, how would you rate the honesty and ethical standards of the following leaders

these days? Would you give them a very high rating, a high rating, a low rating, or a very

low rating for honesty and ethical standards?... Political Leaders

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

evaluations of fairness and responsiveness of their

democracy more generally. The more disproportional an

electoral system, the lower the evaluation of the fairness of

the election, the less satisfied people were, and the more

negative were their feelings about the responsiveness of

their elected officials. Changing to a form of proportional

representation could positively impact on New

Brunswickers’ satisfaction with, and participation in, their

democracy.

Electoral and Democratic Reform

Across Canada

It is for these reasons - declining turnout, trust, confidence,

and satisfaction - that several provinces across Canada are

examining their electoral systems and considering changing

to a form of proportional representation.

Following a year’s study, British Columbia’s Citizens’

Assembly is recommending a form of proportional

representation known as the Single Transferable Vote (STV).

This option will be put to voters in the form of a referendum

question on May 17, 2005.

Last year, a Prince Edward Island Commission

recommended adopting a form of proportional

representation known as mixed member proportional. The

government has recently announced its intention to hold a

plebiscite giving all Islanders the chance to vote on a new

electoral system.

The Government of Québec tabled in December 2004, a

bill in its National Assembly, which, if adopted, will change

that province’s electoral system to a mixed member

proportional system. This proposal has been developed

following a consultation process begun under the previous

government. The Minister for Reform of Democratic

Institutions has also released major proposals to reform the

rules and procedures of the National Assembly to enhance

the role of members and the legislative branch.

Ontario has indicated that it will be establishing a Citizens

Assembly within a year to consider whether to change its

voting system to a form of proportional representation. The

results will be put to the people in a referendum. The

Ontario government has established a Democratic Renewal

Secretariat with a minister responsible, to examine a range

of reforms including a fixed election date and political party

financing changes.

The federal government is also considering a public process

such as a Citizens Assembly to examine changing Canada’s

electoral system. This issue is now before a House of

Commons committee. Steps to increase the role of

Parliament and individual Members in policy formulation

and to make government more accountable to Parliament

have already been taken by the federal government.

The impetus for electoral change varies for each jurisdiction,

but all hinge on recent electoral results. In British Columbia

and Québec, there have been recent cases where a party

formed a government with a majority of seats but actually

received fewer votes than their main rival. This was also the

case in New Brunswick in 1974. In four of the past five

elections in PEI, the opposition never won more than five

per cent of the seats. For its part, the federal government is

responding to this wave of provincial reforms and its own

democratic deficit with an assessment of democratic

renewal initiatives.

Together, these reform initiatives indicate that there is a

growing consensus that we must at least consider changing

our electoral system to address the broad-based democratic

discontent felt by many Canadians. Each province is

conducting its examination somewhat differently, but all are

considering a form of proportional representation best

suited to their circumstances as a possible solution. This

indicates that our Commission and province are actually in

the mainstream of Canadian thinking, perhaps even leading

it, when it comes to electoral reform.

The table on the next page summarizes democratic renewal

initiatives across Canada.

Canada is not alone in these reform initiatives. Other

Westminster-type democracies, such as in the United

Kingdom and New Zealand, have all recently considered

and even undertaken similar reform projects. Scotland and

Wales adopted forms of proportional representation for

their assemblies in 1999. New Zealand adopted a mixed

member proportional representation system in 1993.

Indeed, a comprehensive report on the UK experience with

proportional representation by an independent commission

concluded earlier this year that these new electoral systems

have not produced an adverse reaction from people, are

not too complicated for voters, have produced stable,

effective governments and are now broadly accepted.

The Historical Context

Democratic renewal has always occurred in New

Brunswick. Our democratic institutions and practices today

resemble, but do not reflect, their original shape or intent.

The founders of New Brunswick would recognize some, but

by no means all, of how we practice democracy today in

our province. From the secret ballot in 1855 to universal

suffrage in 1919 to lowering the voting age in 1971, much

has changed in how democracy is practiced in New

Brunswick. The reason is simple: society evolves and with it,

attitudes and expectations about democratic rights. As the

Commission’s academic expert on the history of democratic

reform in New Brunswick, Dr. Gail Campbell of the

University of New Brunswick, stated in her research paper

for the Commission:

“Historically, the tendency to revisit definitions of

democracy has sometimes reflected a genuine shift

in societal attitudes.”

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

New Brunswick has not been afraid to embrace democratic

renewal. It is not widely known, for example, but New

Brunswick was the first jurisdiction to adopt the secret ballot

in what would become Canada. It did so just one year after

Australia, which is credited with originating this initiative.

By another measure of democratic reform, Equal

Opportunity in the mid-1960s sought to give citizens equal

access to government services no matter where they lived.

The new Official Languages Act breaks new ground in the

protection and promotion of English and French and the two

official linguistic communities in the province.

Each of these steps expanded our concept of democracy to

make it more inclusive of society and reflective of who we

are. The challenge we are facing today is how the

institutions and practices of democracy, put in place a

century and more ago, can be renewed to keep up with our

expanded concept of democracy and meet the changing

expectations and needs of New Brunswickers.

It is for this reason that the Commission on Legislative

Democracy was created. We have been given a broad and

comprehensive mandate to examine and make

recommendations on the full range of issues affecting

democracy in our province. From electoral reform (changing

our voting system) to legislative reform (enhancing the role

of MLAs) to democratic reform (involving New Brunswickers

more in decision-making) - virtually all aspects of our

democracy was up for review.

This is important since there is no obvious single answer to

any form of democratic malaise. Long-term trends and

attitudes cannot be reversed overnight. It will take time and

effort. However, by focusing on a specific and

comprehensive package of reforms as we are

recommending, this Commission is convinced that New

Brunswick’s democracy can be renewed for its citizens; that

citizens will see real benefits from these changes; that New

Brunswickers will believe their votes truly count; that they

can have a real say in decisions and that government is

listening; and that their elected representatives are

responding to their concerns.

In recent years, over successive governments, New

Brunswick has taken a leading role in the country in

governmental reforms dealing with bilingualism, fiscal

responsibility and tax competitiveness, information and

communications technologies, e-government, quality

Electoral Reform Enhancing the Role New Mechanisms for Citizen

of Elected Officials Participation in Decision-Making

Key Issues Key Issues Key Issues

• Electoral system reform • Free votes • Citizen’s assemblies/juries/panels

• Increasing voter turnout • More power to committees • Broader consultation powers

• Fixed election dates and backbenchers for Committees

• Electoral boundaries • Increased resources for • Binding referendums

research and consultation • Online town halls

• Increased accountability • Online questionnaires

and ethical standards

Who’s doing it? Who’s doing it? Who’s doing it?

New Brunswick Commission New Brunswick Commission New Brunswick Commission

on Legislative Democracy on Legislative Democracy on Legislative Democracy

Prince Edward Island Québec Democratic Québec Democratic

Commission on Electoral Reform Reform Secretariat Reform Secretariat

Québec Democratic Ontario Democratic Ontario Democratic

Reform Secretariat Renewal Secretariat Renewal Secretariat

Ontario Democratic Government of Canada Government of Canada

Renewal Secretariat Democratic Reform Agenda Democratic Reform Agenda

British Columbia British Columbia

Citizen’s Assembly Citizen’s Assembly

Democratic Renewal Initiatives Across Canada

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

education, health care sustainability, and devolution of

decision-making responsibility to regional authorities.

Leading the country in democratic renewal is part of this

strong public policy tradition.

We believe the time has come to renew New Brunswick’s

democracy. The case for renewal is clear. In many ways the

real challenge facing us is how. It is this challenge that is

the main focus of this Commission’s Final Report and

Recommendations.

Towards a Citizen-Centred

Democracy in New Brunswick

“Mission - To identify options for an enhanced

citizen-centred democracy in New Brunswick

building on the values, heritage, culture, and

communities of our province.”

The Commission received not just a mandate, but also a

mission - to make recommendations that would lead to an

enhanced citizen-centred democracy in New Brunswick.

Citizens are the central focus of our work - not parties,

politicians, or even government itself. “Will it lead to a

stronger democracy for citizens?” is the test by which the

Commission evaluated each of its recommendations.

Through the prism of democratic values, we concluded our

deliberations each time by asking whether our proposed

recommendations would lead to an enhanced citizen-

centred democracy. Since democracy is fundamentally a

citizens’ exercise - beginning with the exercise of the

franchise or vote - we believe this gave our mandate an

important and cohesive focus.

The comprehensive mandate of the Commission - electoral,

legislative, and democratic reform - placed virtually all

facets of our democracy on the table. The reason is simple:

they are all linked. Changing our electoral system will lead

to shifts in the roles and responsibilities of MLAs. Involving

people more directly in decisions that affect them will

impact on how government currently functions. An

enhanced role for MLAs will change how decisions are

made in government. It is this integrated examination of our

democratic system that makes the Commission and its

mandate unique to our province and, indeed, the country.

There is nothing piecemeal about this report.

The Three Themes

This focus on citizens led the Commission to develop three

themes from which our recommendations flow. Common to

each is how democracy can be made to work better for

“you, the citizen”.

• Making Your Vote Count

• Making the System Work

• Making Your Voice Heard

Making Your Vote Count

Your vote is the most important democratic expression you

have. It must mean something. For it to mean something, it

must first count. The most obvious counting of votes takes

place on election night when we elect MLAs and choose a

government. But it is really our electoral system and the way

it counts votes that determines who wins and loses by

translating those votes into seats. If you voted along with a

sizeable minority of New Brunswickers for a candidate or

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

party that did not win a seat, did your vote actually count

towards the final result? Under our single member plurality

system, commonly known as first-past-the-post, it counts

principally for the winning candidate. Votes cast for other

candidates are not factored into the results and are thus

‘wasted’. Making your vote truly count means that all votes

must be treated equally and none wasted. As we explain in

our recommendation to adopt a New Brunswick regional

mixed member PR system, this change would clearly make

your vote count far more than now towards electing an MLA

and the party of your choice.

Making your vote count begins with voting for a candidate

in your riding. Electoral boundaries determine the riding in

which you cast your vote. But the composition of a riding

changes over time as population shifts occur. Today in New

Brunswick, some ridings are significantly larger than others,

which means a person’s vote in that riding has less weight

in determining the outcome than a person’s vote in a smaller

riding. Whether riding boundaries fit with communities of

interest can determine whether voters will receive effective

representation. Riding boundaries can be the difference

between a community having legitimate influence in the

riding in which it finds itself, or having its votes

overwhelmed by other dominant, majority interests. And

since your vote is personal and does not belong to a

particular political party, the independence from political

parties of the process by which electoral boundaries are

drawn can have a real effect as well on the results of

elections and who represents you. The Commission’s

recommendations for a new Representation and Electoral

Boundaries Act focus on each of these issues to make sure

that all citizens’ votes count equally.

We vote on election day. But we don’t know exactly when

that date will be. The timing of an election call can leave

some people out of the voting process. Fixed election dates

address this problem. They make your vote count since no

premier can adjust the date of an election to suit his or her

own political preference. The Commission’s

recommendation for a fixed election date every four years

in the fall will help make sure you can plan to vote and you

are not left out.

Voting is a right we share as Canadians. But with that right

comes responsibility. Democracy cannot function without the

consent or participation of voters. Every four years when we

choose a government and elect MLAs to represent us, we

are in reality giving our consent to be governed to a

particular group of representatives. When your fellow

citizens do not vote, they are sending a message that this

choice does not matter to them. When your fellow citizens

do not vote, they are effectively inviting the political parties

to pay more attention to some voices rather than others. The

Commission’s recommendations to boost voter turnout and

participation in the democratic process, particularly by

young people, will encourage New Brunswickers to vote.

Together with changes to the electoral system, and a more

meaningful role for MLAs, citizens will have more incentive

to vote. The resulting higher turnout will convey a greater

sense of legitimacy to the democratic choices citizens will

have made.

For your vote to count, it must first be counted. An effective

and independent electoral infrastructure of laws and

machinery is essential for free, fair, and efficient elections.

Votes should not be lost, or miscounted, or counted twice.

People who have the right to vote should have a place on

the list of electors. The electoral law should facilitate voting,

not place barriers in front of it. The Commission’s

recommendations for a new electoral commission called

Elections New Brunswick, and changes to the Elections Act,

will modernize our electoral infrastructure to make it easier

for people to vote, encourage them to vote, and make sure

the administration of the voting process is efficient and

effective.

Making the System Work

After your vote is counted, then what? A government is

formed, the legislature comes back into session, our MLAs

go to work, and decisions are made. How MLAs do their

work, how the Legislative Assembly functions, and how

political parties operate - the political system - all have an

impact on how citizens are served and how they view our

democratic institutions and practices. New Brunswickers are

no longer prepared to wait four years to use the sole

instrument of voting to keep our governments and MLAs

accountable. We expect accountability to occur during each

of those four years.

Making the system work for citizens begins with the

Legislative Assembly. It is at the heart of our democratic

system. For the Commission, this means three things: first,

giving a new sense of independence and authority in the

decision-making process to the legislature so it can be

restored to its proper role as the “People’s House”; second,

giving an enhanced role to MLAs so they can act more

effectively as representatives and contribute more effectively

to policy and legislative development; and third, making

sure government and MLAs are more accountable to us all,

as citizens. The Commission’s recommendations in this area

are comprehensive, covering many aspects of the Legislative

Assembly’s functions. They will result in a change in

approach and behaviour in the legislature. They will help

bring people back into the democratic process and lessen

democratic discontent.

Political parties are the gatekeepers to the democratic

process. They select the candidates and leaders from

among whom you, as a citizen, choose your

representatives. They receive significant public monies. They

are as much a part of the system as government

departments. In many respects, they are the public utilities

of democracy. How parties operate has a real impact on

democratic choices and attitudes in our province. Making

political parties more responsive to people and holding

them to a high standard of democratic ethics and

accountability will help make this aspect of our democratic

system stronger. The Commission’s recommendations to

improve party democracy will cause political parties to be

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

more accountable and open in how they conduct their

business.

Making the system work also means opening it up to more

people. Government agencies, boards, and commissions

(ABCs) are an integral part of the system of government.

They make quasi-legal judgements on our behalf, influence

public policy development and decisions, and make

important financial decisions that affect us all as taxpayers.

Opening up the ABC appointments process to allow more

New Brunswickers to apply and be considered for a

position, based on a more independent and accountable

process, will make the system work better for people. It will

help restore trust and confidence in the system.

Making Your Voice Heard

As citizens, we all want our voices heard. But it is not

always easy. Government is big and often not easily

accessible to people. Decisions taken by government and

the legislature can often seem remote and biased. Despite a

professional public service and hard-working MLAs who

consult and work closely with many groups and

communities, some people feel that government does not

listen to them when decisions are made.

Making your voice heard is really about engaging citizens

in decisions that affect them and their communities. To do

so, government needs to put in place additional

mechanisms to facilitate hearing the views of people and

communities. Participation in decision-making by citizens

and communities can and should be enhanced. Civil society

can be an important contributor to government policy

making. New tools for citizen engagement, such as the

Internet, are creating new opportunities for citizens to

interact and dialogue with government officials and MLAs.

The Commission’s recommendations in each of these areas

point out where citizen involvement can be increased and

improved to make sure your voice and others are heard.

In a democracy, all voices matter. However, some voices

are not heard as well as they should be. Women are under-

represented in the legislature and therefore in Cabinet,

denying their perspective in decision-making. Youth

participate far less in the democratic process than other

New Brunswickers, thereby diminishing their influence in

government. Aboriginal peoples have no dedicated

representation in the legislature, as they do in some other

countries, and participate little in other aspects of the

province’s democratic life. For the Commission, making your

voice heard means hearing from all these voices. Our

recommendations will help fill this democratic gap in our

province by encouraging more women to seek elected

office, by educating young New Brunswickers about how

government works and the importance of voting, and by

seeking a meaningful and respectful process with Aboriginal

people to determine their interest in electoral and

democratic reforms that can benefit all of us.

Making your voice heard can also mean giving New

Brunswickers a direct say through referendums on

exceptional issues or under exceptional circumstances.

Referendums should not be used to displace our current

system of representative democracy. As well, in a province

like ours, protecting minority rights from possible referendum

abuse is very important. Having clear rules and procedures

as to how referendums should be conducted and financed is

necessary to make sure some voices do not drown others

out. The Commission’s recommendations for a New

Brunswick Referendum Act will make certain that when

referendums are held in our province, they meet the

democratic values of New Brunswickers.

Towards a Citizen-Centred Democracy

The Commission on Legislative Democracy is really all about

creating a more citizen-centred democracy. Democracy must

work for people. It is worth reminding us that not everyone

gets his or her own way in a democracy. Acceptance of

decisions that are not always favourable to ourselves but

serve a broader public good is essential for a strong,

functioning democracy. That is why the process of how

decisions are made, how MLAs are elected, and how

government listens between elections all contribute to an

important sense of public trust and confidence in the

institutions and practices of our democracy.

While we cast votes as individuals, the results of those votes

are collective, electing a legislature and choosing a

government on behalf of New Brunswick as a whole. A

stronger citizen-centred democracy is one that is more

responsive to people overall. It is one that produces greater

participation and legitimacy. It is one that has greater

respect and understanding for the work of our elected

officials and leaders.

Because our democratic institutions and practices touch our

lives as citizens in so many ways, we need to renew our

democracy so it reflects our contemporary democratic

values. There is no single solution to curing our democratic

ills. Attitudes and opinions that have developed over time

about what’s wrong with our democracy will take time to

change. What is constant is the citizen. Maintaining that

focus, ensuring that link, is the real solution to renewing

democracy in New Brunswick.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Making Your Vote Count

A Mixed Member

Proportional

Representation

Electoral System for

New Brunswick

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on

implementing a proportional representation

electoral system for the New Brunswick Legislative

Assembly, and propose a specific model best suited

for our province that ensures fairer representation,

greater equality of votes, an effective legislature

and government and a continued role for directly-

elected MLAs representing specific geographic

boundaries.

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends the

following made-in-New Brunswick model of proportional

representation (PR) as the model best suited for our

province:

Recommendation 1

That a regional, mixed member proportional representation

(MMP) system combining 36 single-member riding seats and

20 list PR seats elected within four approximately equal size

multi-member regional districts, as set out below, be

adopted as the model of PR best suited for New Brunswick.

Recommendation 2

That the MLAs for the 36 single member riding seats

continue to be elected using the current first-past-the-post

plurality vote system.

Recommendation 3

That voters in each of the four multi-member regional

districts elect five MLAs from closed party lists on the basis

of the party vote received within the region.

Recommendation 4

That voters cast two separate ballots: one, as they do now,

for the local single member riding candidate of their choice,

and a second ballot for the party of their choice.

Recommendation 5

That parties be required to reach a minimum five per cent

threshold in the separate party vote on a province-wide

basis in order to be eligible to win any list PR seats.

Recommendation 6

That candidates be required to choose to run either as a

single member riding candidate or as a candidate on a

regional PR list, but not both.

Recommendation 7

That the list PR seats be allocated on a regional basis,

based on the D’Hondt electoral formula, so as to partially

correct for disproportionality in the single member

constituency elections.

Recommendation 8

That parties be required to nominate list PR candidates in

open conventions based on clear party nomination,

financing, and disclosure rules, as recommended by the

Commission and set out in detail in the policy framework for

Improving Party Democracy contained in Recommendation

Appendix “H”.

Recommendation 9

That the electoral boundaries for the 36 single member

ridings and the four multi-member regional districts be

drawn by a Representation and Electoral Boundaries

Commission based on the principles and procedures

recommended by the Commission and set out in detail in

the policy framework for a Representation and Electoral

Boundaries Act for New Brunswick contained in

Recommendation Appendix “A”.

Recommendation 10

That a vacancy in a single member riding be filled through

a by-election held no later than six months after the seat has

been declared vacant. That a vacancy in a multi-member

regional district be filled by the next highest-ranking eligible

candidate on the same party list as the previous incumbent

from the general election.

Recommendation 11

That the recommended new electoral commission, called

Elections New Brunswick, initiate a comprehensive public

awareness and education campaign prior to the first

election under the NB MMP voting system to ensure voters

understand how the proposed new system will work.

Chapter 2 - Summary of Recommendations

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Implementing a New Proportional

Representation Electoral System for

New Brunswick

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on future

steps, including amendments to the Elections Act,

required to give effect to a new proportional

representation electoral system.

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following steps be taken to implement a new

proportional representation electoral system for New

Brunswickers:

Recommendation 1

That the government of New Brunswick take the steps

necessary to hold a binding referendum no later than at the

next provincial general election, to allow the people of New

Brunswick to choose whether or not to adopt the

Commission’s proposed regional mixed member

proportional representation electoral system, in order that it

be in place in time for the 2011 provincial general election.

Recommendation 2

That the referendum be held under the rules and procedures

recommended by the Commission and set out in detail in

the policy framework for a New Brunswick Referendum Act

contained in Recommendation Appendix “K”.

Recommendation 3

That Elections New Brunswick initiate a comprehensive

education and information campaign for New Brunswickers

to allow voters to make an informed choice on the proposed

question.

Recommendation 4

That a legislative committee be struck after two elections to

publicly review the results and procedures of the new MMP

voting system to determine any changes or improvements

that might be necessary.

Drawing Electoral Boundaries

in New Brunswick

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on the

principles and procedures to guide future changes

to New Brunswick’s electoral boundaries, including

the number of constituencies to be represented in

the Legislative Assembly, that will be referred to a

Representation and Electoral Boundaries

Commission.

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends the

following principles and procedures to guide future changes

to New Brunswick’s electoral boundaries:

Recommendation 1

That a Representation and Electoral Boundaries Act be

adopted to establish a regular and independent process to

guide redistributions and changes to electoral boundaries in

the province.

Recommendation 2

That the following elements be included in a Representation

and Electoral Boundaries Act:

2.1 Timing of Redistributions - would follow every

decennial census.

2.2 Appointment of a Representation and

Electoral Boundaries Commission - A five

member commission composed of two co-chairs, one

from each official linguistic community, who are

independent of political parties, along with three other

members who are not currently MLAs, MPs or Senators,

would be appointed on a two-thirds vote of the

Legislative Assembly.

2.3 Terms of Reference of Commission - A

Commission would:

1) Recommend readjustments to the boundaries of

electoral districts in the province based on the

principles of representation by population, equality

of votes, and effective representation of electors.

2) Be permitted to deviate from the quotient for each

electoral district by no more than 15 per cent, plus

or minus, with a deviation of up to

25 per cent, plus or minus, in exceptional

circumstances.

3) Take the following into consideration when drawing

boundaries: communities of interest; representation

of New Brunswick’s two official linguistic

communities; geographic considerations, including

the accessibility, size and shape of a region of the

province; existing municipal and other

administrative boundaries; rate of population

growth of any part of the province; and the

challenges of representing rural areas.

2.4 Public Hearings – A Commission would be required

to hold two sets of hearings to allow for substantial

public input by New Brunswickers: one before a

preliminary report and proposed map of boundary

changes is prepared, and one on the proposed map of

boundary changes.

2.5 Final Authority – To reside formally with the

Legislative Assembly. A Committee of the legislature

could consider any amendments proposed by MLAs to

the final report of a Commission. Any amendments to

the Commission’s final report would require a two-

thirds vote of the Legislative Assembly.

Recommendation 3

That the same principles and procedures of a

Representation and Electoral Boundaries Act be applied to

draw boundaries for a new regional, mixed member

proportional representation electoral system for New

Brunswick.

Recommendation 4

That the policy framework for a Representation and

Electoral Boundaries Act for New Brunswick contained in

Recommendation Appendix “A” be considered as a

proposed framework for a new Act.

Recommendation 5

That the number of MLAs in the legislature be increased to

56 under the proposed regional mixed-member proportional

representation system. That the number of MLAs under the

current single member plurality electoral system be

approximately 55.

A Fixed Election Date for

New Brunswick

Mandate

“To examine and make recommendations on

instituting fixed election dates for provincial general

elections while proposing a fixed election date and

procedures best suited for our province.”

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends the

following principles and procedures for the institution of a

fixed election date:

Recommendation 1

That a provincial election be held on a fixed date every four

years commencing Monday, October 15, 2007, and on the

third Monday of October every four years thereafter.

Recommendation 2

That the following policy framework be considered for an

amendment to the Legislative Assembly Act to establish a

fixed election date for New Brunswick:

(1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the

Lieutenant-Governor, including the power to dissolve

the Legislative Assembly, at the Lieutenant-Governor’s

discretion.

(2) In order that a general election may be held on a fixed

date, as set out herein, every four years:

(a) The Premier shall advise the Lieutenant-Governor

that the Legislative Assembly be dissolved so that a

general election may be held on Monday, October

15, 2007, and thereafter, the Premier shall advise

the Lieutenant-Governor that the Legislative

Assembly be dissolved so that a general election

may be held on the third Monday of October in the

fourth calendar year following polling day in the

most recent general election.

(b) In the event that a general election is held after the

day on which this section receives Royal Assent and

before October 15, 2007, because of a dissolution

of the Legislative Assembly, the Premier shall advise

the Lieutenant-Governor that the Legislative

Assembly be dissolved so that a general election

may be held on the third Monday of October in the

fourth calendar year following polling day in the

most recent general election.

Recommendation 3

That the Elections Act be amended to establish a clear 28-

day election period.

Recommendation 4

That the Elections Act be amended to reduce the time period

for by-elections from one year to six months of a vacancy

occurring in the Legislative Assembly, unless the vacancy

occurs during the last calendar year of the legal life of the

Legislative Assembly (i.e. between January 1st and the third

Monday in October of the year of the next fixed date

election).

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Boosting Voter Turnout &

Participation and Modernizing our

Electoral Infrastructure

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on

increasing voter turnout in provincial general

elections, particularly amongst young New

Brunswickers, and improving accessibility to the

electoral process in New Brunswick by modernizing

our electoral laws while reinforcing the democratic

rights and responsibilities of New Brunswickers to

vote.

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends the

following initiatives to modernize our electoral laws and

infrastructure and boost voter turnout:

Recommendation 1

That a new, independent electoral commission, called

Elections New Brunswick, be established. Elections New

Brunswick would combine the current duties and

responsibilities of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

and the Supervisor of Political Financing and have an

expanded mandate to: conduct elections and referendums

in New Brunswick; supervise political party financing and

make it more transparent and accountable; promote

awareness and knowledge of, and democratic participation

in, New Brunswick’s electoral process; and provide regular

and comprehensive reporting of results, activities, policy

issues and promotional activities to the Legislative Assembly.

Recommendation 2

That accessibility to and participation in the election process

for voters be improved, especially for youth, through the

following measures:

2.1 An online voter registration system.

2.2 Targeted approaches to communicate with high school,

university and college students on the registration and

voting process.

2.3 New electronic tabulation technology that would allow

voters who are away from their ordinary place of

residence, especially university and community college

students, to vote from their current location for a

candidate in their home electoral district.

2.4 Placing party logos on the ballot next to the names of

candidates and the parties they represent.

2.5 Identifying and hiring young New Brunswickers to work

during elections, so that they may become familiar with

and interested in the elections process.

2.6 Allowing voters to cast their ballot at any poll within

their electoral district.

Recommendation 3

That, where possible, polling stations be placed in New

Brunswick schools as locations that are familiar, cost-

efficient, and easily accessible to voters, and in order to

create a youth-friendly environment for voting.

Recommendation 4

That the electoral process be updated and streamlined to

make it easier to cast a vote; make the rules around

elections more clear and understandable; and provide a

more flexible and efficient process for administering

elections by:

4.1 Giving the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to

appoint and train returning officers, election clerks,

deputy returning officers, poll clerks, enumerators and

other election workers, and the flexibility to assign

these workers to polling stations and electoral districts

as needed.

4.2 Opening up the advance poll process so that the

procedures to vote in the advance poll are the same as

those for voting on election day.

4.3 Giving the Chief Electoral Officer more flexibility to set

the details of elections procedures.

4.4 Integrating the provisions of the Elections Act regarding

registration of political parties, district associations and

candidates with the provisions of the Political Process

Financing Act to provide a more seamless approach to

supervision of political financing and improving access

to information on financing of candidates and political

parties.

Making the System

Work

Enhancing the Role

of MLAs and the

Legislature

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on

enhancing the role of the Legislative Assembly and

MLAs in decision-making while ensuring greater

accountability of MLAs to their constituents and to

New Brunswickers.

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following steps be taken to enhance the role of the

Legislative Assembly and MLAs, and increase accountability

of government and the legislature to New Brunswickers:

Enhancing the Role of the Legislative

Assembly

Recommendation 1

That party discipline and partisanship be reduced by

encouraging more free votes, fewer confidence measures,

and the introduction of a three-line whip voting system in the

Legislative Assembly.

Recommendation 2

That the role of legislative committees in policy-making be

enhanced by providing the committees with designated staff

and resources allowing them to conduct independent

research and undertake public consultations, including

mandatory public hearings on important bills.

Recommendation 3

That the Legislative Assembly committees be restructured to

create standing policy committees that would facilitate

consideration of bills and encourage stronger MLA policy

expertise. The Standing Committees could be:

1. Standing Committee on Natural Resources

2. Standing Committee on Social Policy

3. Standing Committee on Finance and Economic

Policy

4. Standing Committee on Public Safety

5. Standing Committee on Government Operations

6. Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Crown

Corporations

7. Standing Committee on Legislative Administration,

Procedures, Statutory Officers and Legal Issues

Recommendation 4

That an independent Legislative Library Research Office be

created and funded to serve all MLAs, and to support the

role of strengthened legislative committees, ensuring that

individual MLAs can research policy issues on behalf of

constituents and acquire more legislative expertise in

specific policy areas.

Recommendation 5

That MLAs have the time to review bills before they are

adopted in final form by allowing for more time between

first and third reading of bills.

Recommendation 6

That a new, designated one-hour dialogue and scrutiny time

period every two weeks called, “Interpellation” be

provided. Interpellation would be used firstly, to debate

reports of committees of the Legislative Assembly and

secondly, to allow for more detailed questioning of ministers

on specific policy areas.

Recommendation 7

That Hansard and Legislative Assembly reports be

accessible online, in a more up-to-date time frame in both

official languages. A transcript of Question Period would be

published within 24 hours and a transcript of Hansard

within 48 hours.

Recommendation 8

That the Legislative Assembly be permitted to independently

table its own budget through the Speaker on the same day

and as a component part of the Main Estimates tabled by

the Minister of Finance, as is stated in the Legislative

Assembly Act.

Recommendation 9

That the Statutory Officers of the Legislative Assembly be

permitted to independently submit the budgets for their

offices to the Legislative Administration Committee for

review and approval as part of the overall Legislative

Assembly budget.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Enhancing the Role of MLAs

Recommendation 10

That the formal Code of Conduct for MLAs proposed by the

Legislative Administration Committee and set out in detail in

the policy framework on the Roles and Duties of an MLA

and a Code of Conduct for Members of the Legislative

Assembly in New Brunswick contained in Recommendation

Appendix “C”, be adopted following a debate in the

Legislative Assembly, added as an appendix to the Standing

Rules of the Legislative Assembly, and published on the

Legislative Assembly website.

Recommendation 11

That the annual constituency budget for each MLA be

increased to $50,000, as set out in the policy framework

for MLA Constituency Resources contained in

Recommendation Appendix “D”, to allow the MLAs to offer

more accessible and effective services to their constituents.

This budget would be administered by the Legislative

Assembly Office to ensure full transparency and

accountability. A complete accounting of spending would

be published in an annual report by the Legislative

Assembly Office.

Recommendation 12

That MLAs be supported in drafting more Private Member’s

Bills reflecting their independent policy ideas and

constituency concerns, by providing access to legal drafting

resources and staff through the new Legislative Library

Research Office referred to in Recommendation 4.

Government and Opposition members would adopt a

process to vote on an agreed upon number of such bills

during each legislative session.

Recommendation 13

That an independent remuneration review committee of

three New Brunswick citizens appointed by a two-thirds vote

of the Legislative Assembly be established to determine a

new consolidated salary level for all MLAs, to better reflect

the full-time reality of the occupation, and the need for

regular, appropriate increases, as set out in detail in the

policy framework for a Review Committee of MLA

Remuneration contained in Recommendation Appendix “E”.

Per diems and other expenses for undertaking committee

and other work would be eliminated in favour of this more

transparent and realistic salary level.

Ensuring Greater Accountability of

Government and the Legislature to

New Brunswickers

Recommendation 14

That a fixed Legislative Calendar Session as set out in detail

in the policy framework contained in Recommendation

Appendix “F”, be introduced, setting out in advance when

the legislature would meet each year. This would allow for

more effective and efficient use of House time, ensure that

designated days are set aside for legislative committees to

do their work, and also allow individual Members to more

effectively plan their time to meet both their constituency

and legislative obligations.

Recommendation 15

That a Transparency and Accountability Act, as set out in

the policy framework contained in Recommendation

Appendix “G”, be adopted that would set deadlines for the

publication of Public Accounts and quarterly provincial

financial reports, and would enumerate what information

must be contained in each report. This Act would also set

out Throne Speech and Budget dates.

Recommendation 16

That up to $5,000 annually be allocated to each MLA,

designated specifically for undertaking direct public

consultation with their constituents through town hall

meetings and citizens’ forums on policy issues. This budget

would be administered by the Legislative Assembly Office,

with a regular reporting of activities undertaken by members

publicized each year.

Recommendation 17

That the Legislative Assembly promote the use of information

and communications technology to improve citizen access,

including a more extensive and interactive website, with

sites for individual MLAs, as well as creating a new online

"e-petition" feature that will allow citizens to start and

manage their own petitions through the Legislative Assembly

website.

Recommendation 18

That petitions be given a higher priority in legislative

business by adding petitions to the terms of reference of one

or more appropriate standing committees, which would

regularly examine petitions received, and would be

empowered to invite petitioners to committee meetings to

discuss their concerns. Committees taking up petitions would

include them in their reports to the Legislative Assembly, and

require timely and meaningful responses from government

on the petitioners' concerns.

Recommendation 19

That the Right to Information Act process be improved first,

so that where the scope of a request by an applicant under

the Act is not clear or the request would be best served by

a personal inspection of the information by the applicant,

the appropriate minister would be permitted to invite the

applicant to inspect the information in the offices of the

department, if it was practical to do so, within 30 days of

the receipt of the application as set out in the Act; and,

second, that Regulation 85-68 under the Right to

Information Act be amended to include the Legislative

Assembly in the list of Departments that are subject to the

Act as long as providing the information requested does not

infringe on the privileges of the Legislative Assembly or the

Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Improving Party Democracy

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following steps be taken to improve political party

democracy in New Brunswick:

Recommendation 1

That the Political Process Financing Act (PPFA) be amended

to set contribution and spending limits for political party

leadership and nomination contestants and require public

disclosure of information on the financing of leadership and

nomination contests. That these limits and disclosure

requirements be as follows:

1.1 Leadership campaign expenses would be limited to

$300,000 per candidate.

1.2 Nomination campaign expenses would be limited to an

amount representing 20 per cent of the average of the

spending limits that were allowed for a candidate's

election expenses in the province’s electoral districts

during the immediately preceding general election.

1.3 Contributions would be limited to $3,000 in total to

one or more contestants in a leadership contest and

$1,000 in total to one or more nomination contestants;

these limits would be in addition to the current limit for

contributions to parties under the PPFA.

1.4 Leadership candidates would be required to file a

summary financial return four weeks prior to the date

of the leadership contest and a final leadership

campaign return within 90 days of the date of the

leadership contest. Nomination contestants who

accepted contributions or incurred expenses over

$1,000 would have to file a nomination campaign

return within 90 days of the selection date for the

nomination contest.

1.5 Elections New Brunswick would publish information

disclosed by leadership and nomination contestants on

the financing of their campaigns.

Recommendation 2

That the following new provisions be introduced into the

Elections Act to set clear, open, and transparent rules and

procedures to be followed by political parties during

nomination and leadership contests:

2.1 All of a party’s general election candidates must be

endorsed by a vote of eligible party members, in a

vote that is open to all eligible party members.

2.2 To be eligible for party membership, a person must

meet the same eligibility requirements to vote in a

provincial election.

2.3 To be eligible to vote in a leadership or nomination

contest, a person must belong to the political party at

least seven days prior to the nomination contest and be

a member of the party at the time of the vote.

2.4 If fixed election dates are adopted, riding associations

must hold a vote of their members for the purpose of

choosing their general election candidate no more than

120 days prior to the date of the general election.

2.5 Parties must advertise the date, time and location of a

leadership or nomination contest at least seven days

prior to the closing date for eligible membership.

2.6 Parties shall not charge a membership fee greater than

$5 annually.

2.7 A declaration, signed by the party leader following a

nomination contest and signed by the Party President

following a leadership contest, must be filed with the

Chief Electoral Officer, certifying that all required

procedures were followed and that the nomination or

leadership contest was held in a fair and democratic

manner.

Recommendation 3

That the policy framework for administering these new

political party financing rules contained in Recommendation

Appendix “H” be adopted.

Recommendation 4

That all political parties be encouraged to establish Policy

Foundations as a way to provide a meaningful opportunity

for interested party members to engage in policy study and

development and to help ensure parties present strong

platforms to voters at election time. That Policy Foundations

be established on an arm’s-length, non-profit basis and be

funded through:

1) A one-time, start-up allowance in an amount that is

25 per cent of the annual allowance to which the

party is eligible under the PPFA, in the Policy

Foundation’s start-up year, or $25,000, whichever

amount is greater,

2) An ongoing additional annual allowance of $0.25

per valid vote received during the preceding

provincial general election, and

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

3) Contributions from individuals, corporations and

trade unions, not exceeding $3,000 in a calendar

year, to one or more party Policy Foundations, and

to which the New Brunswick Political Contributions

Tax Credit would be extended. This contribution

limit would be in addition to the current limit for

contributions to parties under the PPFA.

Recommendation 5

That to be eligible for public funding, a party Policy

Foundation would be required to: have a Constitution

separate from the political party’s Constitution; have a

separate board of directors from the provincial party

executive; present annual reports to Elections New

Brunswick on the Foundation’s activities and programs,

including full disclosure of all revenues, expenditures, and

contributions; prohibit any transfers of funds from the

Foundation to the political party for election purposes or

operations; and prohibit the director or any full-time

personnel from participating directly in the preparation of

election-related material or in the conduct of election

campaigns.

Opening up the Appointment

Process for Agencies, Boards

and Commissions

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on

enhancing transparency and accountability in

appointments to government agencies, boards, and

commissions.

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following steps be taken to enhance transparency and

accountability in appointments to government agencies,

boards, and commissions (ABCs):

Recommendation 1

That an ABC Appointments Unit be established within the

Office of Human Resources and assigned overall co-

ordinating responsibility for appointments to government

agencies, boards, and commissions.

Recommendation 2

That the following practices and procedures for making

appointments to ABCs be adopted and implemented by the

ABC Appointments Unit:

2.1 Setting out specific guidelines and processes for

appointments to ABCs, appropriate to the nature of the

ABC;

2.2 Monitoring and reporting on the appointment process

to ensure that the guidelines are followed and

appointments are made on an open, transparent and

consistent basis;

2.3 Advertising vacancies on ABCs in a timely fashion;

2.4 Identifying, seeking and reviewing qualified candidates

for appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council;

2.5 Developing and maintaining a central databank of

ABC appointments, vacancies and applications;

2.6 Providing human resource expertise and assistance in

the process of reviewing applications for appointment;

2.7 Publicizing appointments; and

2.8 Co-ordinating the development and administration of

training and orientation programs for ABC members on

their roles and responsibilities.

Recommendation 3

That a formal process for appointments to the most

significant ABCs be established to ensure merit-based

appointments, and to give qualified and competent persons

the opportunity to serve on these ABCs. Such a process

would include the following steps:

3.1 Preparing a Board Profile defining the skills,

experience, qualifications, and diversity of

representation of members required for the effective

operation of the ABC;

3.2 Developing Position Descriptions which set out the skills

criteria for a vacancy on the ABC;

3.3 Advertising of vacancies and Position Descriptions;

3.4 Identification of potential candidates;

3.5 Formal vetting of applications and a due diligence

check of candidates;

3.6 Preparation of a short-list of qualified candidates with

possible rank-ordering for decision by the Lieutenant-

Governor in Council;

3.7 Advising unsuccessful candidates of outcome of

process;

3.8 Publication of appointments on government websites.

Recommendation 4

That, subject to the agreement of the political parties to such

involvement, the Legislative Assembly be involved in the

preparation and rank-ordering of a short-list of qualified

candidates for the most significant ABCs.

Recommendation 5

That the appointment process facilitate the consideration of

qualified people from regionally and culturally diverse

backgrounds that are representative of the two official

linguistic communities, women, Aboriginal people, and

minorities.

Recommendation 6

That fixed three-year terms for ABC appointments be

established across government, while staggering some

appointments for an initial two-year term; and consecutive

reappointments be limited to no more than two

uninterrupted terms.

Recommendation 7

That the detailed process for appointments to the most

significant ABCs, the detailed process for appointments to

other ABCs, and the suggested classification of ABCs

contained in Recommendation Appendix “I” be considered

as frameworks for developing a new appointments process

for ABCs.

Making Your Voice

Heard

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on

enhancing public involvement in government and

legislative decision-making.

Stronger Voices

for Youth

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following steps be taken to increase knowledge and

understanding of the democratic process by New Brunswick

students and to boost youth voter participation with the goal

of increasing the turnout of 18-29 year-olds to at least the

provincial average by the 2015 provincial general election:

Recommendation 1

That the Mission Statement of the Department of Education

be amended to formally recognize as a learning outcome

for all graduating students the importance of exercising the

responsibilities of citizenship. The new Mission Statement

would read:

“To have each student develop the attributes needed

to be a lifelong learner, to achieve personal

fulfillment, to exercise the responsibilities of

citizenship, and to contribute to a productive, just

and democratic society.”

Recommendation 2

That a new, mandatory provincial Civics Program from

Kindergarten through Grade12 be fully implemented as part

of the current Social Sciences program in schools beginning

in the 2007-2008 school year. This new civics program, as

outlined in the policy framework on a new Civics Education

Program for Kindergarten to Grade 12 contained in

Recommendation Appendix “J”, would help students

graduate with the knowledge, understanding, and critical

analysis skills necessary to become “active citizens”, able to

understand and participate in democratic activities in their

community, province, and country.

This new Civics Program would build on and be integrated

into the current social sciences program curricula being

taught now at various grades under both the anglophone

and francophone school systems. The program would be

based on the following standards: mandatory for all

students; comprehensive in scope and subject matter;

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

integrated with current offerings; practical in application;

non-partisan in material; and supported by teachers,

schools, parents, the Department of Education, and the

Legislative Assembly.

Recommendation 3

That the Department of Education work directly with New

Brunswick teachers, as well as experts in other provinces, to

develop flexible, made-in-NB civics teaching resource

kits/learning modules for teachers, students, and schools to

facilitate teaching and learning of the new mandatory

Civics Program. A designated professional development day

or period would be set aside to enable teachers to become

comfortable with the course materials and learn how to best

teach and engage their students in this new mandatory

course.

Recommendation 4

That a “Teachers in the Legislature” partnership program

between social sciences and civics program teachers and

the Legislative Assembly be established under the auspices

of the Speaker to bring together teachers from across the

province to share ideas and learn more about the legislative

and political process in our province.

Recommendation 5

That the following youth education and support activities be

developed to promote youth awareness and participation in

our democratic system, and support the new focus on civics

educational activities in schools and communities:

5.1 “Youth Vote NB”

Creating “Youth Vote NB”, a province-wide mock

election program to be held in every middle and high

school in the province in conjunction with the next New

Brunswick election and subsequent provincial and

municipal elections. This youth-run organization,

supported by Elections New Brunswick and Student

Councils, would help organize the program, work with

schools, suggest support activities, and produce and

distribute information on issues, candidates, and

parties.

5.2 Democracy Awareness Program

& “You Can Vote!” Mail Out

Creating a “youth-friendly” democracy awareness

program through Elections New Brunswick aimed at

informing young New Brunswickers about the

importance of the democratic process and voting.

Sending a regular mail out from the Chief Electoral

Officer to young New Brunswickers as they turn 18

explaining what the act of voting means together with

an explanation on our electoral and democratic

system.

5.3 “Promoting Democracy in Schools” Program

Developing a “Promoting Democracy in Schools”

program involving speaking tours by MLAs, political

fairs, election simulations, and debates in schools to

promote a more practical understanding of and

exposure to how our democratic system works. This

would be a uniform policy at the District Education

Council level. These activities are to be non-partisan at

all times.

5.4 Youth Websites

Creating youth-focused websites by Elections New

Brunswick, the Legislative Assembly, and political

parties to engage young people to participate in

voting, politics, and democracy. The Elections New

Brunswick website, in collaboration with Elections

Canada, would provide resource materials aimed at

youth and at helping students and organizations learn

about our democratic institutions and practices. It

would also have youth website links.

5.5 Involvement of Parents

Creating a social marketing program to raise the

awareness of parents regarding the importance of

discussing democratic issues at home and voting with

their children. This could be complemented by a “Bring

Your Child to Vote” initiative at election time and even

a “Bring Your Parent to Vote” initiative.

5.6 Democracy Support Fund

Creating a fund administered by Elections New

Brunswick to support events and activities organized by

youth groups aimed at promoting the participation of

young people in our democratic system. The money

could be allocated to a Student Council, for example,

to organize a mock election or hold a political fair.

5.7 Student Legislative Seminar and

Democracy Camps

Broadening the current Legislative Assembly Student

Legislative Seminar to involve more schools and

students. Establishing Democracy Camps to give young

New Brunswickers who are in high school the

opportunity to spend several days to learn more about

our electoral, democratic and legislative processes.

These camps would be administered by the Legislative

Assembly Office and would gather young people from

across the province.

Recommendation 6

That the following steps be taken to facilitate access by

youth to the voting process and make it easier for them to

vote:

6.1 Online Registration

Encouraging youth voters to register online so as to

ease some of the administrative barriers often faced by

youth and students when facing the voting process,

particularly for the first time. The Chief Electoral Officer

would develop targeted approaches to communicate

with high school, university and college students on the

registration and voting process. These approaches

could include contacting students by e-mail in advance

of elections and developing the interactive component

to the website of the Chief Electoral Officer to answer

queries and provide and receive registration

information.

6.2 “Vote Where You’re At”

Placing polling stations with electronic tabulation

machines on university campuses and in community

colleges so student voters residing outside of their home

constituency can choose to vote and have their ballot

count in their home riding or in the constituency in

which they are studying.

Recommendation 7

That the voting age remain at 18 years.

Stronger Voices for Women

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends the

following steps be taken with the goal of increasing the

representation of women in New Brunswick’s Legislative

Assembly to 35 per cent by the year 2015:

Recommendation 1

That amendments be made to the Political Process Financing

Act as a way to achieve gender equality in the Legislative

Assembly that would include an increase of the annual

allowance to political parties by $1 per valid vote to any

party in which women comprise at least 35 per cent of the

candidates in the preceding provincial election. This

incentive would be reviewed once the New Brunswick

legislature reaches a minimum of 45 per cent women.

Recommendation 2

That an educational/policy program be created with the

objective of financially supporting associations in

organizing activities, providing information, or developing

programs that would promote the participation of women in

municipal or provincial politics.

Recommendation 3

That the Elections Act be amended to require political

parties to file with Elections New Brunswick a biannual

report on measures taken to increase women’s

representation in the legislature. Information on the number

and type of positions held by women in provincial and

constituency association executives of registered political

parties would be made public by Elections New Brunswick

as part of its annual report to the Legislative Assembly.

Recommendation 4

That the ABC Appointments Unit be required to actively

solicit applications from women for vacancies on ABCs,

including using established databanks of potential female

applicants.

Stronger Voices for

Aboriginal People

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following step be taken to increase the voices of

Aboriginal people in the democratic life of New Brunswick:

Recommendation 1

That the Government of New Brunswick invite New

Brunswick’s Aboriginal people to meet, discuss and develop

an appropriate process to seek the views of Aboriginal

people on representation of Mi’kmaq and Maliseet people

in the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick and on their

role in the democratic life of New Brunswick.

A Referendum Act for

New Brunswick

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on

enhancing direct democracy by proposing a New

Brunswick Referendum Act that sets out the rules

and procedures for allowing province-wide, binding

referendums on significant public policy issues.

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following principles and provisions be adopted as part

of any New Brunswick Referendum Act in order to ensure

that referendums held in New Brunswick are independent,

fair, open, transparent and efficient, and encourage the

participation and involvement of New Brunswickers:

Recommendation 1

That the following principles governing the use of

referendums in New Brunswick be incorporated in a

Referendum Act:

1.1 Exceptional Issues – referendums should be held on

exceptional issues only.

1.2 Minority Rights Protection – no referendums

should be held that would have the purpose of

undermining or diminishing minority rights as set out in

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, New

Brunswick’s Human Rights Act, New Brunswick’s

Official Languages Act, An Act Recognizing the

Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in

New Brunswick, or any other act that supports,

protects, or advances minority rights in the province.

1.3 Initiated by Government – referendums should be

initiated by government only, not by citizens in the form

of citizen initiatives.

1.4 Clear Question – a referendum question should be

clearly written so that it can be answered with either a

“yes” or “no” response.

1.5 Binding on Government – results of referendums

should be binding on the government to act.

1.6 Double Majority Support – referendum results

should be binding only when more than 50 per cent of

valid votes are in favour of the referendum question

and at least 50 per cent of eligible voters voted in the

referendum.

1.7 Independent & Transparent – referendums should

be independently supervised by Elections New

Brunswick with strict financing, disclosure, and

advertising rules to ensure a level playing field for all

sides with disclosure to voters of who may be funding

or supporting each referendum side.

Recommendation 2

That the following key provisions regarding the independent

supervision and administration of referendums in New

Brunswick be incorporated in a Referendum Act:

2.1 Timing – referendums should be held at the same time

as provincial or municipal elections. In an exceptional

circumstance, government could hold a referendum on

a day other than an election day.

2.2 Consultation and Debate on the Question –

Government would consult on the wording of the

question with the Leader of the Opposition and the

leaders of other political parties represented in the

legislature, and the referendum question would be

tabled, debated, and adopted by the legislature.

2.3 Referendum Committees – An official referendum

committee for each side of a referendum question be

formally established and registered with the Chief

Electoral Officer. Only these committees may make

expenditures in excess of $1,000.

2.4 Spending Limits – Official referendum committees

and their affiliates together be limited to spending no

more than $0.75 per voter during the course of a

referendum campaign, and all expenditures be audited

and reported to Elections New Brunswick.

2.5 Contribution Limits – limits on contributions to

official referendum committees be set at no more than

$3,000 for an individual, corporation, trade union, or

political party.

2.6 Financing Rules – names of contributors of over

$100 to an official referendum committee be disclosed

to Elections New Brunswick.

2.7 Registration –individuals or groups wishing to incur

expenses of $1,000 or less for advertising be required

to register with Elections New Brunswick for

transparency purposes, but not be required to

participate through an official Referendum Committee.

2.8 Information to Voters – Elections New Brunswick

mail to voters a sample referendum ballot and

information containing the arguments for and against

the referendum question at least 25 calendar days in

advance of voting day.

Recommendation 3

That the policy framework for a draft Referendum Act for

New Brunswick contained in Recommendation Appendix

“K” be considered as a proposed framework for a new Act.

Participatory Democracy

and Citizen Engagement

in New Brunswick

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on

enhancing public involvement in government and

legislative decision-making.

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following steps be taken to increase the participation of

New Brunswickers in decision-making:

Participatory Decision-Making

Recommendation 1

That the provincial government conduct an awareness

campaign with information packages for prospective

candidates on the powers and responsibilities of District

Education Councils (DECs) and Regional Health Authorities

(RHAs), to encourage more candidates to offer to

participate in these local decision-making authorities.

Recommendation 2

That Elections New Brunswick promote greater voter

understanding of how and where to vote for DEC and RHA

positions by inserting advertisements similar to the Notice of

Grant of Poll advertisements used during provincial

elections, that include maps of the boundaries of the various

authorities and councils being filled by the elections, the

locations of polling stations, and the names, addresses, and

contact information of the candidates standing for

nomination.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 3

That Elections New Brunswick publish at least seven days

before the date of the quadrennial local governance

elections, a short statement prepared by each DEC and

RHA candidate.

Recommendation 4

That the elected and appointed members of DECs and RHAs

receive formal training and orientation so they can more

fully understand and exercise their powers and

responsibilities.

Recommendation 5

That an appropriate per diem be paid to members of DECs

and RHAs as compensation for the work and time they

undertake as members, and to encourage greater

participation in the process.

Recommendation 6

That the government initiate a review of DECs and RHAs, in

consultation with communities and stakeholders, to

determine what is the most appropriate authority for these

bodies given community expectations, the need to ensure a

more direct correspondence between their mandated

responsibilities and actual legislated powers, and to ensure

ongoing accountability of public expenditures to taxpayers.

Recommendation 7

That following the next municipal elections, the provincial

government evaluate the need to create an independent

commission to examine local and regional governance in

New Brunswick.

Civic Engagement and Civil Society

Recommendation 8

That a central Public Dialogue Office with consultation

expertise be created within government to assist

departments and agencies in undertaking and supporting

meaningful consultation and deliberative dialogue with

citizens and civil society organizations.

Recommendation 9

That a new Civic Engagement Fund, to be administered by

the Public Dialogue Office, be created to support civil

society groups engaged in various consultation activities

with citizens and communities, including conducting

research, preparing resource materials, and cost-sharing

events.

Recommendation 10

That specific guidelines for Open Consultation be

developed, shared, published, and utilized across

government as an ongoing framework for meaningful

consultation with citizens and civil society organizations,

and as an important accountability tool.

Recommendation 11

That the working group model established by the Minister’s

Working Group on Violence Against Women be utilized as

a model for “best practices” engagement on public policy

development for other issues.

Recommendation 12

That government explore the value of utilizing “citizens

assemblies” and “citizen panels” to engage citizens in

deliberative dialogue and/or decision-making on a diverse

range of issues.

Recommendation 13

That an annual pre-budget consultation process be

undertaken by the Minister of Finance that includes a public

information document for citizens, province-wide public

hearings, and a public appearance before a Standing

Committee of the legislature.

E-Democracy

Recommendation 14

That a central “e-Town Hall” site be created on the main

government website, with a link to the new Public Dialogue

Office, listing all consultations being undertaken by

government at any one time; their status; how citizens can

access information on the consultation issue; and a built-in

questionnaire and feedback component for citizens to

participate in each process.

Recommendation 15

That the results of all e-consultation processes be published

on the main government website to share information,

demonstrate transparency, and encourage more

participation in and use of these engagement tools.

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A Mixed Member

Proportional Electoral

System for New

Brunswick

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on

implementing a proportional representation

electoral system for the New Brunswick Legislative

Assembly, and propose a specific model best suited

for our province that ensures fairer representation,

greater equality of votes, an effective legislature

and government, and a continued role for directly-

elected MLAs representing specific geographic

boundaries.

The Commission believes that the regional form of mixed

member proportional (MMP) representation recommended

in this report meets the terms of its mandate and represents

a significant improvement over New Brunswick’s current

single member plurality (SMP) electoral system. In reaching

this conclusion, the Commission considered the advantages

and disadvantages of both the current system and all of the

other major systems currently used in democratic nations

around the world. This chapter begins with consideration of

the principles we believe essential to a New Brunswick

electoral system, then examines how both the current system

and proportional representation systems reflect these

principles. It then explains the New Brunswick mixed

member proportional (NB MMP) electoral system that we

are recommending.

Electoral Systems and Democratic Principles

Elections are the cornerstone of every democracy. It is

largely through elections that citizens exercise their

democratic power. Once every four years or so, as New

Brunswickers, we engage in a debate of who should lead

us, and in what direction. At the end of this discussion, we

go to the polls and cast a vote for the government of our

choice. The electoral system determines how these

individual votes are counted and translated into seats in the

legislature.

The electoral system influences many parts of our

democratic life, including the kinds of individuals who get

elected, the interests that get represented in the legislature,

the partisan composition of the legislature, the way voters

participate in an election and the functioning of the

legislature. These are all important issues, and their

relationship with the electoral system illustrates the

importance of the choice of electoral system. Different

electoral systems can result in significantly different

outcomes without any voters marking their ballot differently.

It is because of the importance of these rules to democratic

outcomes that governments across Canada have embarked

upon processes aimed at examining the appropriateness of

their electoral systems and potentially identifying alternative

ways of choosing elected officials. Responding to the

general democratic malaise that many Canadians are

experiencing, governments are searching for ways to

reinvigorate our democracy and many, including the

governments of British Columbia, Ontario, Québec, and

Prince Edward Island, are engaged in their own electoral

reform projects.

We began our process by identifying four key democratic

principles that we believe should be reflected in New

Brunswick’s electoral system if it is to respect the democratic

values held by New Brunswickers. These are: local

representation, fair representation, equality of

the vote, and effective government. The electoral

system is only one component of our democratic practices

and institutions, and it cannot be viewed in isolation, nor

can it be expected to single-handedly fix all of the

weaknesses one might find with our democracy. That said,

the electoral system plays an important role in how each of

these principles is addressed.

Key principles for a New Brunswick

electoral system

Local Representation - the principle of all

geographic areas of the province having a particular

representative in the legislature to represent their

interests.

Fair Representation - ensuring all New

Brunswickers’ voices are fairly represented in the

legislature.

Equality of the Vote - ensuring each voter’s ballot

has equal influence in determining the election’s

winner.

Effective Government - the ability of the system to

result in the easy selection of a stable government

that is able to govern the province.

All of these principles are related to one another and were

considered by the Commission in arriving at its

recommendation for a New Brunswick mixed member

proportional electoral system. This means that a balanced

approach is taken in considering what changes should be

made to our current electoral system.

Chapter 3 - Making Your Vote Count

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

The next sections of this piece examine how both our

current system and proportional representation (PR) systems

generally measure up against each of these interrelated

principles. Our objective is to identify those areas where the

current system is serving us well and where it falls short. We

then look to proportional representation to see if it offers

ways of improving our electoral system. The four identified

principles are the criteria for this evaluation.

The Current System

New Brunswick elections have been conducted using the

single-member plurality system since the provincial election

of 1974. Prior to then, Members of the Legislative Assembly

were chosen on a plurality basis from multi-member districts

(normally reflecting county and city boundaries). The

Commission believes that the current system has generally

served the province well, as New Brunswick has

experienced substantial progress during recent decades and

has benefited from strong political leadership. Nonetheless,

the Commission believes that the current system can be

improved by better reflecting the changing democratic

norms and values that New Brunswickers currently hold.

Local Representation

In terms of local representation, there is no doubt that New

Brunswickers prefer to have an MLA specifically charged

with representation of their geographic community. This is a

long-standing tradition in both New Brunswick and

Canadian democratic practice that cannot be easily

discarded. Local representation ensures that the views and

interests of New Brunswick’s disparate communities are

conveyed to and represented in the provincial capital.

Similarly, local representation provides New Brunswickers

with an identifiable representative who they can contact not

only with their policy concerns, but also in seeking

assistance in accessing provincial government services and

programs. To many citizens the constituency service role

provided by their MLA is crucial. Approximately one-third of

New Brunswickers live in local service districts; these are

unincorporated areas of the province with no municipal

government. The local MLA takes on added importance in

these areas with responsibilities met by municipal

councillors in other areas. With each member selected from

a relatively small geographic district, voters are able to

identify and contact their MLA with little difficulty. In this

way, local MLAs provide an important link between New

Brunswickers and their government.

While a benefit of the current system is that it provides each

area of the province (and thus each voter) with an

identifiable representative, one of its weaknesses is that it

limits each region (and each voter) to representation in only

one party’s caucus. Those voters not represented in the

government caucus often feel that their voices have less

influence. This concern may be particularly salient for

residents of local service districts who are dependent upon

the provincial government for delivery of many of their local

services.

Somewhat larger, multi-member districts offer the possibility

of an area having representation in more than one party

caucus in the legislature. Voters could therefore have more

than one MLA to turn to when they need assistance from

government. In recent elections we have seen our two major

parties compete almost evenly within a region, yet because

of the workings of the electoral system, one party wins

virtually all of the seats in the region. The result is that voters

in this area have no representation in the other party’s

caucus and conversely, that party has no elected official in

the region. The last provincial election offers examples of

this phenomenon.

In the southeastern part of the province, the Liberals and

Progressive Conservatives enjoyed fairly comparable voter

support, with the PCs winning 47 per cent of the vote in the

13 ridings in this area and the Liberals 45 per cent.

However, when the present electoral system converted these

votes into seats in the legislature, the PCs won 10 of the 13

seats. The result is that the Liberal party’s legislative caucus

has very little representation from this region. No Liberal

MLA is speaking for most of this part of the province in the

legislature, and Liberal voters in this region do not see their

votes resulting in the election of many of their candidates,

even though a large number of voters in the area supported

Liberal candidates. The same situation, only in the reverse,

occurred in the northern part of the province, where the

Progressive Conservatives won an equal vote share with the

Liberals, but Liberal candidates were elected across most of

the region, leaving large areas with no representation in the

government caucus. The “winner-take-all” nature of the SMP

system encourages these distortions that can lead to voters

in a region feeling alienated from one of the major parties,

even though a significant number of them may have voted

for that party.

Fair Representation

The single-member plurality system falls short, in

representational terms, of ensuring that all New

Brunswickers’ voices are adequately represented in the

legislature. This is true in both descriptive terms (who gets to

the legislature) and in terms of which interests or parties are

represented. There are too few women, for example, in our

Legislative Assembly. The Commission heard, from the NB

Advisory Council on the Status of Women and others, that

the single member plurality system acts as a barrier to

getting women elected to the Assembly. This message was

reinforced through the findings of our commissioned

research, which concludes that by limiting each constituency

to the selection of a single member, it is more difficult for

parties and voters to ensure an appropriate gender balance

in the legislature. The electoral system is not the only culprit

responsible for the under-representation of women;

nonetheless, the evidence is clear that single member

constituencies make it more difficult for parties to implement

plans to increase the number of women candidates and

ultimately MLAs. As illustrated in Chapter 5, under Stronger

Voices for Women, countries with single member plurality

systems do not compare favourably with those using other

systems in terms of the number of women elected to their

legislatures.

The single member constituency system essentially favours

candidates who live close to a significant number of voters

sharing their political interests, thus allowing them to win a

plurality of the vote in a constituency. An interest that is

more diverse and spread more thinly throughout the

province has little chance of winning a seat. A party can

run up a sizable share of the vote in constituency after

constituency and not receive any representation in the

legislature, because it does not win the most votes in any

one constituency. This makes it very difficult for new political

interests without a geographic base to break into the system

and have their voices heard in the legislature. The New

Democratic Party provides an example of this in New

Brunswick. While the party routinely wins about 10 per cent

of the popular votes cast, it has difficulty in turning these

into seats in the legislature because their supporters are

found throughout the province and are not concentrated in

just a few ridings. The result is that these voters do not have

their interests represented in the legislature in numbers

comparable to the proportion of the electorate they

represent.

Equality of the Vote

This leads to a discussion of the equality of the vote, and it

is here that we believe the current system is most deficient.

As illustrated in the table below, in only one of the past five

elections has the current system produced a reasonably

equitable conversion of voter preferences into seats in the

Legislative Assembly.

Relationship of votes received by each party and

their share of seats in the Legislative Assembly

% of popular vote % of seats in

the legislature

1987

Liberals 60 100

PCs 28 0

NDP 11 0

1991

Liberals 47 79

CoR 21 14

PCs 21 5

NDP 11 2

1995

Liberals 52 87

PCs 31 11

NDP 10 2

CoR 7 0

1999

PCs 53 80

Liberals 37 18

NDP 9 2

2003

PCs 45 51

Liberals 44 47

NDP 10 2

In terms of equality of the vote, several conclusions can be

drawn from these five election results. The most obvious is

that the current New Brunswick system does not result in an

equitable distribution of seats in the Legislative Assembly.

The party winning a plurality of the vote tends to receive a

significant premium often making its seat share dramatically

disproportionate to its share of the popular vote. As a direct

consequence, parties finishing second and third typically

receive far fewer seats than their share of votes would

warrant. This outcome is troubling for a number of reasons,

not least of which is that election results should reflect the

preferences expressed by voters and not the machinations

of an electoral formula.

This disproportionality can lead to serious problems in terms

of both equality of the vote and representation in the

legislature. Simply put, it is not equitable that 60 per cent of

the voters in 1987 elected 100 per cent of the MLAs. The

votes cast by the other 40 per cent of New Brunswickers

had absolutely no effect on the election results. The outcome

would have been identical had these 161,814 New

Brunswickers simply stayed home. And while this result is

somewhat extreme, the three elections that followed illustrate

that it is not anomalous. In each of these three elections,

about half of the voters elected 80 per cent of the MLAs

while the other half elected just 20 per cent.

The current system results in ‘wasted’ votes. In each riding,

the only votes that count towards deciding the outcome of

the election are those cast for the candidate who receives a

plurality of the vote in that riding. In a typical New

Brunswick riding, candidates of the two major parties may

receive 45 and 40 per cent of the vote respectively with 15

per cent spread among other candidates. The 45 per cent

of the voters supporting the winning candidate have their

votes translated into a seat for that party, while the other 55

per cent of the ballots cast by other voters are essentially

unimportant. They have no impact on the election result.

Surely, this causes a disincentive to participation in

elections. If your favoured party has no chance of winning

the most votes in your constituency, you have no way of

assisting that party to elect members of the legislature. The

sense of political impotency felt by these voters is a serious

concern, and we are not surprised to learn, through

research conducted for this Commission, that more

proportional electoral systems generally lead both to higher

voter turnout and to citizens having greater democratic

satisfaction. While in both cases the increases are modest

(about three to five percentage points in terms of voter

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

turnout) we cannot ignore the fact that we face declining

voter participation rates and significant voter apathy and

that the evidence suggests both might be enhanced through

an electoral system that treats votes equitably and minimizes

the number of wasted votes.

In its most perverse instances, the current system sometimes

produces majority governments for parties receiving fewer

votes than a single opposition party. This result occurred in

New Brunswick in 1974. More New Brunswickers voted for

the Liberal party than for the incumbent Progressive

Conservative government. Nonetheless, the PCs were

returned to comfortable majority status solely because of the

way our system translated votes into seats. This outcome is

not unique. In the past decade, similar results have occurred

in British Columbia, Quebec and Saskatchewan. It is only a

matter of time before it happens again in New Brunswick

under our current system. We think that voters, and not the

machinations of an electoral system, should choose

governments.

Effective Government

In terms of the effectiveness of the legislature and

government, the current system receives mixed grades.

Supporters of the current system point to the likelihood of it

producing strong majority governments. Indeed, New

Brunswick has had a long run of consecutive majority

governments dating back for almost a century. That the

electoral system is an important component in this tradition

is illustrated by the results of the 1991 and 2003 elections.

Winning parties under the current system are not required

to receive a majority of the votes cast in order to win

majority government status. Having a majority of the seats

in the legislature allows governments to pass their legislative

program without legislative gridlock. Nonetheless, the

evidence is mixed as to whether voters favour majority or

minority governments, and many would prefer to see parties

working together in the legislature without one party

dictating the legislative agenda, as is often the case in

unbalanced legislatures. Similarly, some voters complain

that, given the concentration of power on the government

side of the legislature, it is inappropriate for a party to

receive a majority of the seats, and thus the great bulk of

legislative powers, without having received a majority of the

votes.

The tendency of the current system to reward winning

parties with a seat premium, bringing them to majority

status, often comes at the cost of having a sizable

opposition within the Legislature. The Commission is

concerned with the paucity of opposition representation

resulting from several recent provincial elections. Despite the

fact that between 40 and 53 per cent of New Brunswickers

voted for a party other than the governing one in the four

elections between 1987 and 1999, opposition members

never comprised more than 20 per cent of the legislature.

This makes for a lack of balance in the legislature and in its

committee work, as there are often too few opposition

members to effectively hold the government accountable - a

key function of the Legislative Assembly. And, of course, it is

not that long ago that our current electoral system resulted

in a legislature with no opposition members whatsoever. The

Commission believes that New Brunswick’s electoral system

would be improved if it produced a legislature that better

reflected the views of voters, thus providing for stronger

opposition representation while maintaining the possibility

of single-party, majority governments.

The current electoral system, in its production of majority

governments, does encourage government stability. Virtually

guaranteed of majority support in the Legislature,

governments are able to set out long-term plans without fear

of facing an early election. Stability is important for the

effective governing of the province. The Commission is of

the opinion that any change to the electoral system should

attempt to preserve this stability and guard against frequent

defeats of governments and early election calls.

Strengths and Weaknesses of our

Single Member Plurality System

Strengths

• Effective local representation.

• Encourages majority results and stable governments.

Weaknesses

• Often severe disproportionality of results, with electoral

system, not voters, determining relative competitive

position of parties.

• Each constituency represented in only one party

caucus.

• Women are significantly under-represented in the

legislature.

• Smaller interests without geographic concentration are

disadvantaged.

• Often a small or non-existent opposition.

The Need for Change

“I believe that the introduction of a tailor-made

proportional representation model befitting New

Brunswick’s political needs is needed.” Your Turn

Questionnaire, Spring/Summer 2004.

The Commission did not begin this task as critics of the

current system. In fact, we discussed early on the possibility

of fulfilling our mandate by recommending the proportional

representation system best suited for New Brunswick without

passing judgment on whether it would be better than the

status quo. However, after lengthy consideration of the

single member plurality system and the available

alternatives, the Commission believes that the current system

is in need of change to better reflect the modern democratic

needs and aspirations of New Brunswickers. We believe

that a balanced, made-in-New Brunswick system can be

crafted; one that maintains the strengths of the existing

system while incorporating new elements that improve upon

it. In other words, in opting for change, it is not necessary

to throw the baby out with the bath water.

We are not alone in reaching this conclusion. In Prince

Edward Island, a year-long study commission lead by Judge

Norman Carruthers suggested in 2003 that the province

would best be served by replacing its single member

plurality electoral system with a mixed member proportional

representation system. In British Columbia, a Citizens’

Assembly of 160 randomly chosen citizens considered this

question for almost a year before voting 142 to 11 to

recommend that the single member plurality system be

replaced by a form of proportional representation. The

Government of Québec has also concluded that the current

system should be replaced by a regional MMP system and

recently introduced draft legislation to this effect. The

Ontario government has also announced a process

patterned after the B.C. model in which citizens will be

asked to consider whether they too recommend a change to

their electoral system. The interest in reform is not limited to

the provincial level. Earlier this year, the Law Commission of

Canada concluded an extensive investigation of the federal

version of the single member plurality system with a

recommendation to Parliament that the system be replaced

by a regional MMP system.

The past decade has also seen other parliamentary

democracies moving away from the single member plurality

system. In the 1990s, after two referendum votes, New

Zealand abandoned its Westminster based SMP system in

favour of a MMP electoral system. In the United Kingdom,

the new legislatures in Scotland and Wales rejected SMP in

favour of a proportional system, and elections to the

European Parliament in all parts of the U.K. are conducted

using a form of proportional representation. It is also worth

noting that in the wake of the demise of the old Soviet

Union, not one of the new eastern European democracies

adopted SMP as its electoral system. According to a

presentation to the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly by Dr. David

Farrell of University of Manchester, only approximately one

in five democratic countries around the world today use

SMP compared with three-quarters using some form of

proportional representation.

Evaluating Proportional Representation Systems

There are many forms of proportional representation, and

no two are exactly alike. Generally speaking, there are

three principal families of proportional representation: the

single transferable vote, the party list system, and the mixed

member proportional system, and there are many variants

of each of these. The Commission studied each of these

systems in some depth. Rather than detail each in this

section, we identify the general tendencies of proportional

representation systems, and evaluate them against the four

central principles identified above. The purpose of this

investigation is to identify those traits of proportional

electoral systems that would improve New Brunswick’s

system.

Local Representation

By definition, proportional representation requires multiple

member districts. District magnitudes range from a low of

three elected representatives in Ireland’s single transferable

vote system to cases such as the Netherlands, where the

entire country is essentially a single electoral district,

electing all 150 members of the legislature. In between are

the regional party list systems. A crucial difference in terms

of local representation between these systems and our

current one is the absence of single member constituencies,

and the resulting increase in the size of the electoral

constituency.

In our view, it is important for voters to have a strong tie

with their representatives, and this is facilitated through

relatively small electoral districts. Adopting a system of pure

proportional representation would lead to an increase in the

size of constituencies, potentially making MLAs more remote

from voters. Of course, this varies dramatically depending

on the district magnitude of the system. Nonetheless, simply

in terms of providing each voter with an identifiable

representative from their community, SMP on its own offers

more effective and accountable local representation.

PR systems do, however, offer a positive element in terms of

local representation. In all of them, each local area has

more than one MLA, and in most cases this means

representation in more than one party caucus. Under our

proposed NB MMP system, this would likely result in voters

having representation in both the government and

opposition caucuses. This may be a benefit for a number of

reasons. First, it provides access to the government caucus

for voters in all regions of the province; second, it may

spawn competition among MLAs from the same region to

provide better constituency service - something voters would

likely appreciate. The key in terms of local representation

and proportional representation is to ensure that the multi-

member districts are not so large as to make MLAs remote

and essentially unaccountable.

Fair Representation

While there are many factors that influence the under-

representation of women in our legislature, there is no

denying that the electoral system is one of them. Many

studies have established that, all else being equal, electoral

systems based on proportional representation elect a

greater number of women than do those with a single

member plurality system. Electoral systems establish the rules

governing our elections, and can create either structural

barriers or opportunities for the representation of women

and other under-represented groups. Essentially, if a party

desires to increase opportunities for women, proportional

representation offers that party more opportunity to

accomplish this objective than does the single member

plurality system.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

“Proportional representation aims to provide fairer,

more balanced results. One-party sweeps can be

avoided, the Opposition will have a stronger voice

and smaller parties may find a place in the

legislature. A wider range of voter opinion will be

represented in the Legislative Assembly. These are

the benefits of more proportional representation;

they are the objectives that must be kept in mind

when designing the reform.” Response to Options,

New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of

Women, October 2004

The first reason for PR’s positive effect on representation is

the presence of multi-member constituencies. Parties in these

constituencies are able to nominate more than one

candidate. This allows for a balancing of candidates on a

number of bases including gender. When nominating five

candidates in a multi-member district, for example, there

would be strong pressure placed upon a party to ensure

that women are included on the list. This is in contrast to the

SMP system in which each local constituency selects only

one candidate. There is no opportunity for gender

balancing at the constituency level. Rather, each

constituency is charged with nominating only one

candidate. Our research and own experience in New

Brunswick shows that when given this task, local party

associations for a variety of reasons will select a male

candidate more often than not.

The second characteristic of PR systems that provides an

opportunity for an increase in the number of women being

elected is that the central party tends to have more influence

over the nomination of candidates than is the case in SMP

systems. New Brunswick is typical of Canadian jurisdictions

in that authority over the selection of candidates is generally

devolved to the local members. This makes it very difficult

for a party to take effective steps to increase the number of

women nominated. In PR systems, nominations in larger

multi-member districts provide a party with more opportunity

to ensure an equitable number of women are nominated.

Proportional representation systems also make it easier for

relatively smaller, non-geographic interests to achieve

representation in the legislature. Essentially, they allow for

more diversity in the number and types of voices heard.

Because these systems award seats on a proportional basis,

interests that are not geographically concentrated are not

penalized as they are under the SMP system. Increasing the

ability of voters to elect members to the legislature that

represent the interests they are concerned with is an

advantage of PR. This encourages voters to participate

within the electoral and party systems and not to opt out or

to participate solely through interest groups and social

movements. We heard from young New Brunswickers, in

particular, that they are frustrated with an inability for new

interests to find a voice in the existing system.

We are also concerned with regional representation within

party caucuses. In PR systems, the major parties’ legislative

caucuses typically include representatives from all of the

regions of the jurisdiction, providing they win a modest

share of the vote in each region. This differs from SMP,

which, as illustrated earlier in this chapter, often results in

the under-representation of parties in particular regions. We

think that broad regional representation in a province as

diverse as New Brunswick is important to ensuring that the

major parties consider the views of all New Brunswickers in

adopting their public policy positions.

Equality of the Vote

Proportional representation systems do a significantly better

job than SMP systems in treating all votes equally in two

principal ways: first, there is a much closer relationship

between the share of votes a party receives and the share

of seats it wins in the legislature; and second, virtually all

votes influence who gets elected, with substantially fewer

being ‘wasted’.

In the simplest of proportional representation systems, the

percentage of seats a party wins in the legislature is almost

exactly equal to its share of the popular vote. Such a system

truly treats each vote equally with none being wasted. Most

PR systems offer somewhat less proportional results: by

introducing both a threshold share of the vote a party must

receive in order to win seats, and by having their list

members elected from regions, thus introducing some

marginal amount of wasted votes. Nonetheless, all forms of

PR produce a much stronger relationship between the share

of votes a party receives and its share of seats in the

legislature.

An important result of this is significantly greater balance

within the legislature. Under any of the PR systems, we

would not have a recurrence of the pattern observed in the

1980s and 1990s in New Brunswick, when government

parties dominated the legislature. In each of these elections,

if voter behaviour remained fairly similar, a PR system

would have returned between a third and a half of the seats

to the opposition parties - a result considerably more

reflective of the votes cast than that achieved under SMP.

“Winner takes all very poorly represents the voice

of citizens. With essentially two major parties in

NB, this often leads to compromise voting rather

than voting for the candidate of choice.” Your Turn

Questionnaire, Spring/Summer 2004.

Most PR systems include relatively modest thresholds,

commonly in the five per cent range, that parties must reach

in their share of the popular vote in order to be eligible for

seats in the legislature. This is for two reasons: to prevent

fragmentation of the legislature with the election of a great

number of small or fringe parties, and to minimize the

number of wasted votes not counting towards the election

outcome. It is important to remember that this threshold,

while effective in keeping out such parties, would allow a

far greater number of votes to actually count towards the

election result than is the case under SMP, where all votes

except those cast for the candidate receiving the most votes

are essentially wasted.

Effective Government

One effect of the greater proportionality in results in PR

systems is that they are less likely to produce majority

governments. Majority governments only result when a

single party receives (or nearly receives) a majority of the

vote. As we have seen, the SMP system in New Brunswick

has resulted in the winning party receiving a majority of the

vote in only three of the past five elections, although in each

case a majority government was formed. Under a PR system

in which voters have more incentive to support smaller

parties than under SMP, it is likely that this frequency would

decrease somewhat.

Critics of PR argue that the increase in the number of parties

and the increase in minority and coalition governments

create democratic instability. While there is some evidence

to support this argument, a close examination illustrates that

there is a great range of experiences in this regard that

seems to depend not only on the details of the PR system in

use but also on a country’s political culture. PR systems in

countries such as Germany, Sweden and Ireland (all with

different types of PR) do not appear particularly unstable,

while others such as Italy and Israel may raise concerns in

this regard. An independent commission examining Britain’s

experience with PR concluded in 2004 that the Scottish and

Welsh coalition governments have not been “necessarily

weak or ineffective.”

Through original academic research conducted for the

Commission by Dr. André Blais, Peter Loewen and Maxime

Ricard of Université de Montréal, we learned that there is

generally a difference of only seven months in terms of the

longevity of governments between SMP and PR systems,

with governments under the latter lasting for shorter periods.

Again, however, there is substantial range and the

difference seems to be largely an effect of whether a

minority or coalition government is elected. PR systems that

produce majority governments do not appear to change

governments significantly more frequently than do SMP

systems.

There is also some evidence that Canadians are not

opposed to the possibility of minority government. The

Commission heard both from MLAs and the public that they

would like to see more opportunity for members of different

parties to work together in the Legislature.

As seen in the chart below, a majority of New Brunswick

MLAs who responded to the Commission survey conducted

independently by Dr. David Docherty, of Wilfred Laurier

University, believe that minority government might provide

opportunities to produce better public policy.

Minority and coalition governments create these

opportunities. This may partially explain why further

research, conducted for the Commission by Dr. André Blais

and Peter Loewen of Université de Montréal, found that

voters in countries with more proportional electoral systems

report greater overall democratic satisfaction than is the

case in SMP countries.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Proportional

Representation Electoral Systems

Strengths

• Election outcomes closely reflect voters’ preferences as

expressed through their ballots.

• All votes have equal influence in the result and few are

‘wasted’.

• Women and other under-represented groups tend to

have an easier time getting elected.

• Legislatures tend to be more balanced between

government and opposition members, better reflecting

the will of voters.

• Voters often have representation in both government

and opposition caucuses.

Weaknesses

• Some PR systems lead to considerable fragmentation

and thus instability in the legislature.

• Voters do not have a single legislator representing their

geographic community and directly accountable to

them.

This examination of alternative electoral systems leads us to

conclude that there are strengths and weaknesses in both

the SMP and PR systems. On balance, we believe that by

incorporating some of the benefits of PR systems into our

SMP system, we can create a better electoral system for

New Brunswickers. That is, a system that regularly produces

more balanced legislatures, results in a more proportional

translation of votes into seats, removes some of the

obstacles women face in seeking election, no longer is a

disadvantage to smaller parties, and both maintains the

Better Worse No impact

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

56%

30%

14%

Do you believe that minority government might provide

opportunities to produce better public policy?

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

tradition of single member constituencies and creates

opportunity for voters to be represented on both sides of the

legislature. To do this, we look to a system called mixed

member proportional (MMP).

While commonly considered a type of proportional

representation, more accurately, this is a system that brings

together the best characteristics of SMP and PR systems. In

an MMP system, voters have both a single member

constituency representative and representatives chosen in a

proportional way from party lists. By maintaining the

tradition of local representation, producing broadly

proportional results and making it somewhat easier for new

entrants and those traditionally under-represented to

compete, MMP provides a more balanced electoral system

than either the pure PR or SMP systems.

MMP is the system recently adopted by several jurisdictions

with both long-standing SMP traditions and governmental

systems similar to New Brunswick. New Zealand, Scotland

and Wales have all recently adopted MMP in an attempt to

keep the benefits of local, single member representation and

at the same time improve their system by adding elements

of proportionality. Scotland and Wales have even done so

on a regional basis, as we are recommending. We believe

this to be the best approach for New Brunswick. In the next

section, we outline the form of MMP that we believe best

suited for our province.

Fashioning An Alternative Electoral System

For New Brunswick

In considering alternative electoral systems, the Commission

committed itself at its very first meeting to recommending a

system that best reflects the democratic needs and

aspirations of New Brunswickers. This approach means that

the Commission has not simply considered the various

systems used elsewhere and chosen the one it likes best.

Rather, we have considered the component parts that

comprise an electoral system and in each case are

recommending the approach we believe best suited for our

province. The electoral system recommended by the

Commission, while similar in many respects to the electoral

systems used in other countries, is not a carbon copy of

any, but rather a made-in-New Brunswick system that best

reflects the province’s needs, electoral circumstances, and

the democratic traditions and aspirations of New Brunswick

and its citizens.

As discussed above, we decided early on that any

acceptable electoral system would have to include both

broad proportionality and local representation. We are not

of the opinion that absolute proportionality is essential, but

do believe that election outcomes must better reflect voters’

preferences. Similarly, while not wedded to the current

system of 55 MLAs from single member constituencies, we

believe that voters from local communities should continue to

elect their representatives to the provincial Legislative

Assembly. Given these priorities, and after careful

consideration and study of many different systems, we have

ruled out both a pure PR system and continuation of SMP as

the best electoral system for New Brunswick. Rather, we

recommend the mixed member proportional electoral system

as the general type best suited to our needs. We believe this

model offers the greatest opportunity of crafting a made-in-

New Brunswick electoral system that respects our central

principles.

As a further step in our deliberations, and to test the mixed

member proportional representation electoral system we are

recommending for New Brunswick, the Commission invited

leading experts on electoral systems to consider our

proposed model at a PR Roundtable at the Université de

Moncton in September of 2004. There was a general

consensus among those assembled that the elements of our

proposed NB MMP system are sound, and that the system

we are recommending will meet the tests of providing local

representation, fair representation, equality of the vote, and

effective government.

A New Brunswick Mixed Member Proportional

System (NB MMP)

“The mixed member Proportional Representation

System is interesting because it corrects some

weaknesses of the actual system, while keeping

certain advantages, like the single member ridings

and the possibility of an efficient government that

would not be affected by an overly fragmented

Legislature. Another undeniable advantage of this

system is to allow all votes to count, by ensuring

representation of minority voices with a 5 per cent

threshold. Such a system would be more

representative of the growing political diversity in

our society, therefore would be more democratic.”

Submission by the Société des Acadiens et

Acadiennes du Nouveau Brunswick, October 2004.

In a mixed member proportional system, members are

elected in two different ways. Some are chosen through

single member constituencies and some through party lists.

Those chosen from single member constituencies are elected

in precisely the way they are today - the one candidate with

the most votes wins. Those chosen from the party lists are

chosen on a proportionate basis with adjustment made to

correct for disproportionality in the single member

constituency elections. In other words, this type of system

combines the proportional results of a list PR system with the

local representation of a single member riding system.

Balance of Constituency and Party List MLAs

In crafting a mixed member system, our first task is to

consider the appropriate balance of single member

constituency representatives and representatives elected

from party lists. Essentially, we are faced with two

questions: first, what is the appropriate size of a single

member constituency, and second, what proportion of

members need to be chosen from party lists in order to

achieve a broadly proportional result?

In considering the first question, we recognize that the

average number of electors in a current provincial

constituency is 10,238. This gives New Brunswick one of

the fewest number of electors per riding in the country. Of

course, this reflects the small population of the province and

its relatively large geographic size. These numbers suggest

that the average constituency size can be enlarged without

greatly jeopardizing the quality of local representation.

Concerning the second question, the Commission learned

through expert testimony and examination of experiences of

other electoral systems that about one-third of the

legislature’s members have to be elected from party lists in

order to ensure broadly proportional results. Accordingly,

we recommend that New Brunswick adopt an electoral

system with 36 members elected from single member

constituencies and 20 elected from party lists. This increase

from 55 to 56 members is explained below.

This recommendation increases the population of the

average electoral district to 15,641, which is still

considerably smaller than most other provinces. In our

estimation, 36 is a sufficient number of single member

representatives to ensure strong ties between local

communities and individual constituents with their elected

representatives. The recommended increase in resources for

constituency representation set out in the part of Chapter 4

entitled Enhancing the Role of MLAs and the Legislature, will

assist MLAs in meeting any increase in constituency service

demands brought about by this change. It is important to

note that the 20 MLAs elected from party lists will also be

engaging in constituency service, so this responsibility will

not lie completely with MLAs chosen from the single member

constituencies.

Regional Multi-Member Districts

We believe New Brunswick’s particular circumstances are

best served if the MLAs chosen from the party lists are

elected on a regional basis. We recommend the creation of

four regional districts, with each region electing

approximately nine single member constituency MLAs and

five MLAs chosen from a region-wide party list. We believe

that four is the appropriate number of regions to ensure that

party list MLAs represent a distinctive part of the province.

While the drawing of regional boundaries should be left to

a boundaries commission, it is our view that the regional

boundaries should be drawn to create one region across

the northern section of the province, one region in the

centre of the province, one region in the southwest of the

province and one region in the southeast of the province, as

contained in Background Appendix “II”. We believe that

these four regions provide an appropriate reflection of the

cultural and linguistic communities comprising the province.

Electing five party list MLAs from each of four regions will

also allow for broad proportionality. We heard from experts

on electoral systems that electing fewer than five list MLAs

from each region would significantly decrease the likelihood

of achieving overall proportionality. Electing at least five

party list MLAs in each region is also important in

encouraging the election of women and others from under-

represented groups. Smaller lists would make this result less

likely.

Size of the Legislature

We are recommending an increase in the size of the

legislature from 55 to 56 members if the New Brunswick

MMP system is adopted. This very modest increase results

from three conclusions. First, we believe that there should be

no fewer than 36 single member districts. Fewer than this

would make our constituencies too large and weaken the

advantages of single member representation discussed

above. Second, we believe that at least one-third of the total

seats must come from party lists in order to achieve broad

proportionality and increase the diversity of voices elected

to the legislature. And, third, we think it important to leave

open the possibility of a boundaries commission drawing

four regions with the same total number of MLAs in each.

This means that both the number of single member

constituencies and the number of list members must be

divisible by four. Given all of these constraints, and

reflecting our general view that the current legislature size is

more or less appropriate, we recommend an increase of

one additional MLA.

A Two Vote System

A common frustration heard under SMP is that voters are

forced to choose between the party they prefer to govern

and the local candidate of a different party that they believe

would make the best MLA. In the NB MMP system, voters in

future provincial elections will be able to express both of

these preferences by casting two ballots: one for the local

candidate of their choice, and one for their preferred party.

This provides greater voter choice.

As discussed earlier, the province will be divided into 36

single member constituencies. Voters in each constituency

will continue to elect an MLA in exactly the way they do

under the current system. Parties will nominate a single

candidate in each constituency and the one candidate with

the most votes will be elected. As illustrated on the next

page, this ballot is identical to the one currently used in

constituency elections.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

On their other ballot illustrated opposite, voters choose their

preferred party. Voters may choose a candidate of one

party on their constituency ballot and vote for a different

party on the second ballot. The party ballots are counted on

a region-wide basis.

The party list seats are allocated in a manner that achieves

broad proportionality between a party’s share of the party

ballot vote and their share of the 14 seats in the region. The

underlying principle is that each party’s total number of

seats in a region should reflect their share of the party vote.

Party list seats are used to top up seats won in the single

member constituencies to achieve this result.

Current Government Party

Vote for one party

ONLY

Party Vote

This vote will help to decide the total number

of seats for each party in your region. Vote by marking

your preference beside the party of your choice

candidate 1

candidate 2

candidate 3

candidate 4

candidate 5

Official Opposition Party

candidate 1

candidate 2

candidate 3

candidate 4

candidate 5

Other Recognized Party 1

candidate 1

candidate 2

candidate 3

candidate 4

candidate 5

Other Recognized Party 2

candidate 1

candidate 2

candidate 3

candidate 4

candidate 5

John DOE

Current Government Party

Lise LEBLANC

Official Opposition Party

E.V. (Ed) WHITE

Other Recognized Party

Francis LANDRY

Independent Candidate

Vote for one candidate

ONLY

Constituency Vote

This vote will help to decide the local single member

riding candidate of your choice. Vote by marking

your preference beside the candidate of your choice.

D’Hondt Electoral Formula

To calculate the allocation of seats, we recommend the

adoption of the D’Hondt electoral formula, as it best strikes

the balance of broad proportionality while maintaining the

possibility of majority and single party governments. This

counting formula, widely used in PR systems in Europe, can

be summed up as: the highest average and the lowest

divisor in terms of calculating the ‘cost’ of a seat. The

details, along with an example of how this electoral formula

operates, are found at the end of this section.

Vote Threshold

As illustrated in the examples found below, the

recommended electoral system has a built-in threshold of

approximately six to seven per cent of the vote in each

region. This means that in order for a party to win a list

seat, it likely needs to receive at least this share of the party

vote in a region. We believe this is appropriate in order to

protect against undue fragmentation in our party system.

This minimal threshold, while not an explicit requirement but

rather a result of the electoral formula, ensures that parties

with some modest electoral support in a region will have

representation in that region, even if they are unsuccessful

in all of the single member constituencies.

In addition to this implicit regional threshold, we believe

that parties should have some minimal support across the

province in order to win list seats on the basis of their party

vote. This requirement protects against the rise of parochial,

regional parties. We recommend that a party be required to

meet a five per cent provincial threshold in its share of the

party vote in order to be eligible to elect party list members

in any region. A five per cent threshold is consistent with

that used in many other western democracies and is the

level that was recommended to us by experts on

comparative electoral systems.

Closed Party Lists

Party list systems used in different countries vary in terms of

whether the lists are ‘open’ or ‘closed.’ In an open list,

parties nominate a list of candidates and voters are able to

rank order the proposed candidates. In a closed list, the

parties determine the rank order of their nominated list

candidates. The rank ordering is important, as typically only

those names towards the top of a party’s list will be elected.

In our proposed system, each party would present a list of

five names in each region. Often, as illustrated in the

examples below, a party would elect one, two or even three

names from a regional list. The actual candidates elected

are determined by the rank ordering - if a party is entitled

to two list MLAs from a region, the top two candidates on

their list are elected, either as ordered by the party or as

ranked by the voters.

The Commission gave great consideration to the issue of

whether an open or closed list is best for New Brunswick

and we heard conflicting views. Understandably, voters

generally seem to favour open lists as this increases the

amount of choice they have. In an open system, voters not

only determine how many list MLAs each party receives,

their votes directly determine who these MLAs are. On the

other hand, we heard from both the Advisory Council on

the Status of Women and from academic experts that closed

lists are more likely to result in a substantial increase in the

number of women elected. We also heard from both

experienced politicians and from students of political parties

that open lists would lead to a sharp increase in intra-party

competition during general elections that might well lead to

a general decline in the health of our parties, and how they

are perceived by the public. The Commission is also

concerned that an open list might result in voters from a

large city within a region ranking candidates from that city

at the top of the list, at the expense of candidates from

other less populated parts of the region. Finally, we heard

that open lists with a preferential ballot could be confusing

to voters, requiring them to make as few as three and as

many as eight choices for each ballot. This could

significantly increase the number of spoiled or invalid

ballots.

“The Advisory Council believes that the advantages

of the closed list far outweigh those of the open

list.” Advisory Council on the Status of Women,

Public Hearing, Fredericton, October 2004.

After much deliberation, the Commission concludes that

closed lists would be best for New Brunswick. Closed lists

will encourage parties to ensure that their nominated

candidates (and the rank order of candidates) in each

region best reflects their representational values in terms of

gender, geography, language and other important

considerations. Voters will judge them accordingly. In

reaching this conclusion, the Commission recognizes that

this is not really a diminution of current voter choice. In our

single member plurality system, party members choose the

parties’ candidates, not voters. Nonetheless, the

Commission believes that the adoption of closed party lists

makes it imperative that parties conduct open nomination

contests, and voters have easy access to participation in

candidate selection processes. Thus, the Commission is

recommending in the part of Chapter 4 entitled Improving

Party Democracy, a series of steps that parties take to

ensure that all interested voters are able to participate in a

meaningful way in the selection of candidates both in the

single member constituencies and on the party lists.

Prohibition on Dual Candidacies

The Commission recommends that candidates not be able to

present themselves in both a single member constituency

and on a party list for the same election. The Commission

heard that in some jurisdictions where candidates are able

to run simultaneously on both ballots, voters are displeased

with the case where a candidate is not successful in a single

member constituency, but is elected anyway by virtue of

being placed on the top of a party’s list. This is a

particularly salient issue if a closed list is adopted. The

Commission is of the view that if a candidate chooses to run

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

in a single member constituency, the voters in that

constituency should determine whether that candidate is

elected, and that there should be no back door to the

legislature.

Filling Vacancies

The adoption of a mixed member proportional system

requires a new provision for filling vacancies that may result

during the term of a legislature. Vacancies in the single

member constituencies will continue to be filled through a

by-election. There is no need to fill vacancies that result from

the departure of an MLA elected from a party list through a

by-election. Rather, the highest-ranking eligible candidate

from the previous election, on the same party list as the

outgoing MLA, will be deemed elected to finish the

incumbent’s term. As the list MLA is elected by virtue of that

particular party’s share of the vote, it is that party’s

candidate who should be deemed elected. In the

exceptional event where there is no eligible candidate

remaining on a party’s list, the party would hold a

nomination vote of its members within that region to select

an additional candidate to be added to the list, and that

person would complete the term of the departing MLA.

How Does the Proposed New Brunswick

Mixed Member Proportional Representation

System Work?

To illustrate both how the recommended NB MMP system

works and the types of results we can expect it to produce,

we have modeled the 1995, 1999 and 2003 provincial

elections using this system. It must be said at the outset that

these are not predictions of what would have happened in

these elections under the recommended system, as voter

behaviour can change under a different electoral system.

For example, comparative experiences suggest that smaller

parties such as the NDP fare better under a more

proportional system as some voters who believe they are

wasting their vote by supporting such a party in a single

member constituency, where its candidate has no chance of

winning, are willing to cast their party ballot to support the

party. Similarly, we are unable to estimate how many voters

would have chosen a candidate from one party in their

constituency and supported a different party on their second

ballot. Accordingly, in the examples below, we assume that

voters cast both of their ballots for the same party as if they

had a single vote.

Modeling results under this system also requires defining the

borders of the four multi-member districts. The Commission

believes that this is the responsibility of an independent

boundaries commission. Nonetheless, for illustrative

purposes only and consistent with the general guidelines

expressed above concerning where these boundaries should

be drawn, we have created four multi-member districts.

Background Appendix “II” details which current provincial

electoral districts fall within each of the four regional multi-

member districts. The final boundaries as drawn by a

boundaries commission will necessarily differ, as the

boundaries of the single member constituencies, which

influence the larger districts, will change to reflect

population shifts and the reduction from 55 to 36 single

member constituencies.

We begin with the 2003 election and a detailed illustration

of how the system would work in one of the four regions.

This example, using the D’Hondt electoral formula, is for the

proposed multi-member district in northern New Brunswick.

For illustrative purposes, we group the following existing

provincial ridings into this district:

Grand Falls Region Nigadoo-Chaleur

Madawaska-la-Vallée Bathurst

Madawaska-les-Lacs Nepisiguit

Edmundston Caraquet

Restigouche-West Lamèque-Shippagan-Miscou

Dalhousie-Restigouche-East Centre Péninsule

Campbellton Tracadie Sheila

Each of the four multi-member districts elects nine MLAs from

single member constituencies and five from party lists. The

next step in creating an NB MMP system would be for a

boundaries commission to draw nine single member

constituencies in this region. As discussed above, these

elections will be conducted identically to the way we

currently elect our MLAs. The candidate with the most votes

in each constituency is elected.

Step 1 - Election of single member

constituency MLAs.

In the 2003 election, Liberal candidates were elected in

nine of the single member constituencies in this region and

Progressive Conservative candidates in the other five. We

estimate that if this region had been divided into nine single

member constituencies the Liberals would have won six of

these ridings and the PCs three.

Party Liberals PCs NDP

Const. seats 6 3 0

Step 2 - Calculation of the party vote.

Liberals PCs NDP

Party vote 45,116(46.0%) 47,605(48.6%) 5,313(5.4%)

This is the share of the vote received by each party on the

second, party ballot in the entire region (combined for all

nine constituencies). If a party does not receive at least five

per cent of the total provincial party vote, they are

eliminated at this stage. In this example, all parties reached

this threshold.

Steps 3-8 - Allocation of party list seats.

Liberals PCs NDP

/7 /4 /1

The next step in the allocation of the five list seats is to

adjust each party's vote share for seats won in the

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

constituencies. We do this by dividing each party's total

vote by the number of constituency seats won, plus one.

Liberal candidates won six seats so we divide their vote

total by 7 (6 +1), Progressive Conservative candidates won

three seats so we divide their vote share by 4 (3 +1).

Liberals PCs NDP

Step 4 6,445 11,901 5,313 PC seat

The PCs have the highest 'average' so they win the first list

seat.

Liberals PCs NDP

Step 5 6,445 9,521 5,313 PC seat

Next, we again divide the PC vote - this time by 5 (4 +1) -

and award the second seat to the party with the highest

average - the PCs.

Liberals PCs NDP

Step 6 6,445 7,934 5,313 PC seat

We again divide the PC vote - this time by 6 (5 +1) - and

award the third seat to the party with the highest average -

the PCs.

Liberals PCs NDP

Step 7 6,445 6,800 5,313 PC seat

We again divide the PC vote - this time by 7 (6+1) - and

award the fourth list seat to the party with the highest

average - the PCs.

Liberals PCs NDP

Step 8 6,445 5,951 5,313 Lib seat

We again divide the PC vote - this time by 8 (7+1) - and

award the fifth list seat to the party with the highest average

- the Liberals.

Total seats:

With 48.6 per cent of the party vote, we estimate the PCs

would win seven of the 14 seats in this region (three from

the constituencies and four from the list).

With 46.0 per cent of the party vote, we estimate that the

Liberals would win seven of the 14 seats in this region (six

from the constituencies and one from the list).

The NDP, with only 5.4 per cent of the party vote, win no

seats in this region.

This is a far more proportional result than that achieved

under the current electoral system. The PCs won a plurality

of the vote in this region while the Liberals won almost twice

as many seats.

We show below the results we estimate with our

recommended system for each of the four regions,

compared with the actual results from the 2003 election. In

each case, the NB MMP system produces a considerably

more proportional result at the regional level, where the PCs

and Liberals receive seats in each region in proportion to

their vote; and at the provincial level, where the NDP

receives seats more in proportion to their share of the vote.

PCs Liberals NDP

District 1 (North)

Vote share 48.6% 46.0% 5.4%

Seats won 5 (35.7%) 9 (64.3%) 0

Seats won under

PR model 7 (50%) 7 (50%) 0

District 2 (Centre)

Vote share 45.1% 44.1% 10.7%

Seats won 7 (50%) 7 (50%) 0

Seats won under

PR model 7 (50%) 6 (42.9%) 1 (7.1%)

District 3 (Southeast)

Vote share 47.6% 45.1% 7.3%

Seats won 10 (76.9%) 3 (23.1%) 0

Seats won under

PR model 7 (50%) 6 (42.9%) 1 (7.1%)

District 4 (Southwest)

Vote share 40.7% 42.9% 16.4%

Seats won 6 (42.9%) 7 (50%) 1 (7.1%)

Seats won under

PR model 6 (42.9%) 6 (42.9%) 2 (14.3%)

Provincial totals

Vote share 45% 44% 10%

Seats won 28 (50.9%) 26 (47.3%) 1 (1.8%)

Seats won under

PR model 27 (48.2%) 25 (44.6%) 4 (7.1%)

The final result in terms of number of seats is similar for both

the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives. The principal

difference is that the New Democrats’ seat total increases

from one to four. This overall result, however, masks some

important changes within the regions. Note that the actual

results from the SMP system produced highly

disproportionate results in both the northern and

southeastern regions. These worked in opposite directions

and essentially cancelled each other out in the overall result.

Nonetheless, in the northern region of the province, PC

MLAs were elected only in the far corners of that region,

even though a plurality of voters supported their candidates.

With the introduction of party list seats, all voters in this

region would have representation in both the government

and opposition caucuses, reflecting the split vote between

these two parties.

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

1995 Provincial General Election Results Simulation under MMP (4 Regions)

Multi-member District Liberals PC NDP COR

Region 1: North 8 seats 5 seats 1 seat

(1 list; 7 constituency) (3 list; 2 constituency) (1 list)

Region 2: Centre 8 seats 4 seats 1 seat 1 seat

(8 constituency) (3 list; 1 constituency) (1 list) (1 list)

Region 3: Southeast 9 seats 3 seats 1 seat 1 seat

(9 constituency) (3 list) (1 list) (1 list)

Region 4: Southwest 7 seats 4 seats 2 seats 1 seat

(7 constituency) (3 list; 1 constituency) (1 list; 1 constituency) (1 list)

TOTAL 32 seats 16 seats 5 seats 3 seats

(1 list; 31 constituency) (12 list; 4 constituency) (4 list; 1 constituency) (3 list)

% of seats 57% 29% 9% 5%

% of votes 51.6% 30.9% 9.6% 7.1%

Actual 1995 # 48 seats 6 seats 1 seat 0 seat

and % of seats (87%) (11%) (2%)

1999 Provincial General Election Results Simulation under MMP (4 Regions)

Multi-member District Liberals PC NDP

Region 1: North 6 seats 7 seats 1 seat

(3 list; 3 constituency) (1 list; 6 constituency) (list)

Region 2: Centre 6 seats 8 seats 0 seats

(5 list; 1 constituency) (8 constituency)

Region 3: Southeast 5 seats 8 seats 1 seat

(3 list; 2 constituency) (1 list; 7 constituency) (list)

Region 4: Southwest 5 seats 8 seats 1 seat

(4 list; 1 constituency) (1 list; 7 constituency) (constituency)

TOTAL 22 seats 31 seats 3 seats

(15 list; 7 constituency) (3 list; 28 constituency) (2 list; 1 constituency)

% of seats 39% 55% 5%

% of votes 37.3% 53% 8.8%

Actual 1999 # 10 seats 44 seats 1 seat

and % of seats (18%) (80%) (2%)

Similarly, in the southeast region, the Liberals won less than

a third as many seats as the PCs, despite having an almost

equal vote share. The proposed NB MMP system would

correct for Liberal under-representation in this district and

ensure that voters from each region have representation in

both caucuses commensurate with their voting preferences.

Similarly, under the NB MMP model, the NDP would elect

members from three of the four regions reflecting the

breadth of their support.

The tables on the previous page show similar results for the

1995 and 1999 elections. In both cases, the opposition

parties fare significantly better under NB MMP, resulting in

a legislature with a sizable opposition better reflecting the

voters’ preferences and desire for accountability. Again, we

see better regional and overall provincial representation

within party caucuses on both sides of the legislature.

We note that in several cases, parties are electing three,

four, and even five members from a regional list. We see

this as an advantage as it increases the likelihood of non-

traditional candidates such as women being elected.

We also note that our simulations for 1995 and 1999 result

in majority governments reflecting the fact that a majority of

voters voted for one party. The issue of government stability

under the NB MMP system was discussed by experts at the

PR Roundtable convened by the Commission at the

Université de Moncton. There was a general consensus

among those assembled that the proposed system would not

lead to dramatic fragmentation in our party system. Analysts

suggested that while there may likely be a slight increase in

the number of competitive parties, majority and strong

single party minority governments remained highly likely

results. As Dr. Alan Siaroff of the University of Lethbridge,

the Commission’s academic expert on electoral systems in

smaller jurisdictions, concluded in his original research

paper:

“...how many more relevant parties, how much

slower government formations, and/or how much

more unstable governments is one willing to accept

as a likely trade-off for higher proportionality? The

good news here is that these trade-offs are not likely

to be as sharp in small legislatures such as that of

New Brunswick and the four cases of focus in this

analysis.”

Advantages of the New Brunswick Mixed

Member Proportional Electoral System

Local Representation

• All voters will continue to elect a single member from

their local electoral constituency.

• Voters will also elect five MLAs from a regional list,

making it likely that each voter will have representation

on both sides of the legislature.

Fair Representation

• Parties will receive a share of seats in the legislature

broadly corresponding with their share of the popular

vote.

• The major parties will have representation from across

the province in their legislative caucuses.

• Electing 20 MLAs from closed, party lists increases the

likelihood that women and others from under-

represented groups will be elected in greater numbers.

• Smaller parties will have a better chance of winning a

seat in the legislature.

Equality of the Vote

• All votes will count equally in determining election

outcomes.

• The number of “wasted” votes will be dramatically

reduced.

• Election results will be determined by voters and not the

electoral system.

Effective Government

• A more balanced legislature will result, with more

opposition members to keep government accountable.

• The length of governments will remain stable, often

between three to four years as now.

• A more balanced legislature, with minority and

coalition governments, may encourage parties to work

together in the legislature.

Consequences and Expectations of Changing

Electoral Systems

There is no question that there would be some

consequences to changing electoral systems in New

Brunswick. Some are likely, even predictable under our

proposal, while others are less certain. The experience of

other jurisdictions is helpful but not definitive in determining

what might occur here. Our political culture differs from

others. Our democratic experiences have not been the

same. What is most important is managing voters’

expectations as to what these changes might be.

Voting behaviour tomorrow cannot be predicted exactly on

the basis of behaviour today. That, in fact, has been the

case in New Brunswick and Canada for some time.

Massive shifts in public opinion even occur over a month-

long election period. Voters are far less attached to political

parties than in the past, making them far more likely to

consider switching their allegiances from election to

election. This has occurred in our province recently, as

massive swings in public support dramatically changed

governments in 1987 and 1999.

The Commission’s research does provide some initial

indicators of what could occur under our proposed New

Brunswick regional MMP system.

Single party majority governments could still occur, although

not in every instance. Majority coalition governments or an

occasional minority government may emerge from time to

time. Governments would remain stable and could last as

long as they do now. Stable governments could be equally

effective as now in carrying out their electoral platform and

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

agenda. A rise in third party support would probably occur,

but New Brunswick is unlikely to see any substantial

increase in the actual number of parties in the legislature.

The House should not, therefore, become radically

fragmented.

The legislature would matter more. It would possess greater

accountability and authority, since our proposed system

would produce a more balanced House with a larger

opposition than what we have usually seen under SMP. The

NB MMP system would clearly prevent the massive sweeps

of the past, which reduced the opposition benches to a tiny

number.

The face of the legislature would change. The number of

women MLAs would likely increase from the current level

along with, perhaps, other groups in society.

Each region of the province would have representation in

both the government and opposition caucuses - from either

the single member MLAs or the list PR MLAs from their

region. Voters seeking redress or action on an issue in their

region would now have more avenues to raise a concern.

They could choose to contact a local MLA from either side

of the legislature or both, something they cannot do at

present.

If the composition of the Legislative Assembly changes, so

too would its conduct. Governments might well be required

to negotiate more with the opposition and secure a greater

degree of consensus on their legislative program and

budget. A majority of the MLAs responding to the

Commission’s independent survey indicated that a

legislature that more accurately reflects the population in

terms of gender, Aboriginal people and language can

produce legislation and policy that more closely matches the

needs of the public.

Voter participation could also rise, along with general

satisfaction with our democracy as voting becomes more

meaningful. Such an increase in voter turnout might be

modest, however, as there are other factors beyond the

electoral system that dampen voter turnout. Given the

decline in participation we are witnessing, the new electoral

system could help arrest that decline as a first step to

restoring voter trust and confidence in our democratic

process.

The two-vote system would give voters more choice. A

significant minority of voters could be expected to exercise

that choice and split their ballot, casting one vote for a local

candidate from one party, and their second party vote for a

different party.

Recommendations

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends the

following made-in-New Brunswick model of proportional

representation (PR) as the model best suited for our

province:

Recommendation 1

That a regional, mixed member proportional representation

(MMP) system combining 36 single-member riding seats and

20 list PR seats elected within four approximately equal size

multi-member regional districts, as set out below, be

adopted as the model of PR best suited for New Brunswick.

Recommendation 2

That the MLAs for the 36 single member riding seats

continue to be elected using the current first-past-the-post

plurality vote system.

Recommendation 3

That voters in each of the four multi-member regional

districts elect five MLAs from closed party lists on the basis

of the party vote received within the region.

Recommendation 4

That voters cast two separate ballots: one, as they do now,

for the local single member riding candidate of their choice,

and a second ballot for the party of their choice.

Recommendation 5

That parties be required to reach a minimum five per cent

threshold in the separate party vote on a province-wide

basis in order to be eligible to win any list PR seats.

Recommendation 6

That candidates be required to choose to run either as a

single member riding candidate or as a candidate on a

regional PR list, but not both.

Recommendation 7

That the list PR seats be allocated on a regional basis,

based on the D’Hondt electoral formula, so as to partially

correct for disproportionality in the single member

constituency elections.

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Recommendation 8

That parties be required to nominate list PR candidates in

open conventions based on clear party nomination,

financing, and disclosure rules, as recommended by the

Commission and set out in detail in the policy framework for

Improving Party Democracy contained in Recommendation

Appendix “H”.

Recommendation 9

That the electoral boundaries for the 36 single member

ridings and the four multi-member regional districts be

drawn by a Representation and Electoral Boundaries

Commission based on the principles and procedures

recommended by the Commission and set out in detail in

the policy framework for a Representation and Electoral

Boundaries Act for New Brunswick contained in

Recommendation Appendix “A”.

Recommendation 10

That a vacancy in a single member riding be filled through

a by-election held no later than six months after the seat has

been declared vacant. That a vacancy in a multi-member

regional district be filled by the next highest-ranking eligible

candidate on the same party list as the previous incumbent

from the general election.

Recommendation 11

That the recommended new electoral commission, called

Elections New Brunswick, initiate a comprehensive public

awareness and education campaign prior to the first

election under the NB MMP voting system to ensure voters

understand how the proposed new system will work.

Implementing a New Proportional

Representation Electoral System for

New Brunswick

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on future

steps, including amendments to the Elections Act,

required to give effect to a new proportional

representation electoral system.

The Commission was asked not only to recommend a

system of proportional representation (PR) best suited to

New Brunswick, but also the steps necessary to implement

such a system. Changing electoral systems is a significant

decision for any democratic society and it needs to be

considered carefully. Nonetheless, the Commission believes

that the necessary changes can be accomplished, within a

reasonable period of time, and with voters’ understanding

and consent.

The challenges involved in shifting electoral systems were an

important part of the Commission’s deliberations on the

choice of PR system that would be best suited for our

province. A radically different system that was entirely

unfamiliar to voters’ experiences would require a different

kind of approach to implementation, than one that had

more familiar elements. The fact that the Commission’s

recommended regional MMP system features some of the

same aspects of the current SMP system - namely electing

local MLAs from single member ridings based on a plurality

of votes - should make it more familiar and more easily

understood by voters.

The Commission’s Role

This Commission is a study commission. Our mandate was

to “examine and make recommendations” to the Premier

and all New Brunswickers in the form of this report.

Decisions on implementation would then follow. As part of

coming to its recommendations, the Commission conducted

a thorough examination of proportional representation

systems around the world, reviewed the proposals of other

provinces considering electoral system reform, developed a

proposed model for New Brunswick, and ultimately tested

and refined our model based on consultations and expert

advice received at our public roundtable discussion and

from independent academic research papers. Much of that

information has already been made available to New

Brunswickers through the Commission’s fact sheets, website,

and consultation papers. The previous section setting out our

proposed New Brunswick regional MMP system is

particularly detailed in order to provide readers and

decision-makers with useful background context on the

issues and considerations of changing to a new electoral

system. The Commission believes that much of the analytical

work for implementing our proposed NB MMP electoral

system can be found in this report. It should be the basis for

moving forward.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Implementing PR in Other Jurisdictions

In coming to our recommendations on how our proposed PR

system should be implemented in New Brunswick, the

Commission studied the experiences and approaches of

other jurisdictions. In each instance, change was preceded

by some form of study commission or process which

engaged in public consultation and recommended a

particular approach that set the stage for public debate.

Ratification followed in the form of a referendum and/or a

government bill. The time between when a proposal was

made to change electoral systems, and when that

jurisdiction actually decided on that change, was in most

cases relatively short. The table below sets out the

procedures undertaken by those countries or provinces that

have changed or are considering changing their electoral

systems to a form of proportional representation.

Political circumstances were different in each case, causing

some differences in approach. New Zealand held two

referendums, for example, while the current Québec

government is proceeding directly to a draft bill following

the reports of the Commission Béland and the États

généraux, established just a few years before by the

preceding government. British Columbia’s referendum on

the STV PR system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly will

be held on May 17, 2005, just five months after the

recommendation was made public. Ontario has not, as of

release of our report, established a date for the

commencement of a Citizens’ Assembly and a referendum,

but has indicated its intention to do both. Each jurisdiction,

therefore, considered what was best for its own situation

and needs. New Brunswick should do the same.

Considerations to Implementing PR

The Commission believes several key considerations to

implementing PR for New Brunswick need to be taken into

account.

First, this Commission’s report. The Commission’s

Final Report and Recommendations should be the basis for

any next steps taken by the province. Our research and

process was the most extensive ever conducted on this issue

in the province. It is clear to the Commission that the

principles behind our proposed New Brunswick regional

MMP system are best suited to the democratic values of

New Brunswickers and the most fundamental realities of our

province and democracy, including: our two official

linguistic communities, the regional nature of New

Brunswick with its urban and rural features, our current

dominant two-party system, the progress we have made

through effective governments, and the traditions of our

current SMP system. A second “ground-up” study would

very likely arrive at the same conclusions. The realities of

who we are as New Brunswickers, where we live, and what

we value most in our democracy will not change.

Second, knowledge and engagement by New

Brunswickers. As a result of the Commission’s work,

there is a stronger base of knowledge and understanding

today in New Brunswick of the concept of PR, the issues

surrounding it, and the implications of possible change.

Nonetheless, we believe voters would benefit from learning

more about our report and the proposed New Brunswick

regional MMP system. Wide dissemination of the

Commission’s report by the government, to encourage

broader discussion and debate amongst New Brunswickers,

would make more people aware and comfortable with the

prospect of change. It would also help boost voter

participation in any referendum asking voters to approve a

change. Momentum for change is important. Voters must

know their political leaders are serious about change. This

Commission has taken the first step in response to the

invitation from the Premier. The Commission believes that a

direct statement on the proposed NB MMP system, with

details sent to every household by the government, along

with a website dedicated to the report and its issues, would

help generate the necessary interest and engagement on the

part of New Brunswickers.

Commission Referendum Bill Citizens Assembly Timing to Decision

New Zealand Y Y(two) Y N 6-7 years

Scotland Y Y Y N 1 year

Wales Y Y Y N 1 year

B.C. N Y N Y 1 year

Quebec Y N Y(f) N 2-3 years

PEI Y(two) Y - N 2 years

Ontario N Y(f) - Y(f) 2 years (a)

Y = yes N = no f = forthcoming a = anticipated

Third, ratification by New Brunswickers. A change

to an electoral system is of such significance to our

democracy that the Commission believes it requires the

consent of voters. A referendum is the only feasible and

legitimate mechanism available to secure that consent.

Given the obvious impact of the electoral system on political

parties, it is important that voters have the final say on such

a change, and not just the current actors in the political

system. It would be understandably difficult for parties and

elected officials to completely divorce themselves from this

debate given their particular interests. The only fair way

and democratic way - for them as well as for citizens - is to

seek the consent of people for such a change. The

Commission believes a binding referendum is necessary to

ask New Brunswickers directly for their approval to change

electoral systems. The referendum question should be clear

with a yes/no choice - ‘yes’, change to the NB MMP

system; ‘no’, retain the current SMP system. As well, the

Commission believes that its proposed Referendum Act

would provide a fair and effective basis for holding such a

referendum in New Brunswick.

Fourth, timing of implementing PR. There are two

immediate windows of opportunity to implement PR in New

Brunswick: the 2007 provincial general election and the

2011 election. Based on our assessment, either is feasible,

but one may be more desirable. There are several possible

steps that may be taken prior to voters actually participating

for the first time in the new system. This includes: drafting a

bill to create the new electoral system; engaging in public

consultation and discussion; drawing electoral boundaries

for the proposed 36 single member ridings and four multi-

member regional districts; and holding a referendum to

secure voters approval for the new system. A minimum of

two years is required to undertake all of these steps. It is

therefore possible to have a new electoral system in place

in time for the 2007 general election. More time, principally

to draw new boundaries and draft a bill for consideration

by the legislature, would be offered by a 2011 date.

Fifth, reviewing the new electoral system. Just as

this Commission has reviewed our current system and

recommended a change, there should be the possibility of a

review of the new system at a later period. New Zealand

conducted a parliamentary review after two elections with

its MMP system. The review found the system had many

positive features and had achieved several positive results,

while acknowledging it had some detractors. Their review

went on to identify some improvements that could be made

to the new system, but did not recommend reverting back to

the previous SMP system. The United Kingdom established

an independent commission to study Britain’s experience

with PR. It concluded: “The Commission’s analysis suggested

that the impact of using new electoral systems has not been

as dramatic, as either supporters and opponents of

proportional representation have suggested.” Our

Commission believes that a formal review, built into any Act

that created the new electoral system, would be a useful

means of introducing other improvements to the system.

There is no ideal electoral system - in any jurisdiction.

Equally, there is no ideal process for implementing a

change to a new electoral system. Roadmaps exist, but

each has navigated different terrain than that of our

province. The Commission believes that a citizen-centred

electoral system should flow from citizens. That is why we

recommend that New Brunswickers be given the opportunity

to decide for themselves through a referendum whether to

adopt the Commission’s proposed NB MMP system, or

retain the current system. We recommend further that the

government take the necessary steps to hold a referendum

no later than the 2007 provincial general election. This

should be preceded by a significant awareness and

education campaign conducted by Elections New Brunswick

to give voters all possible details of the new system. Finally,

we recommend that a public review of the new system be

conducted by the Legislative Assembly after two elections to

determine how well it is working and what changes or

improvements, if any, should be brought to it.

Recommendations

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following steps be taken to implement a new

proportional representation electoral system for New

Brunswickers:

Recommendation 1

That the government of New Brunswick take the steps

necessary to hold a binding referendum no later than at the

next provincial general election, to allow the people of New

Brunswick to choose whether or not to adopt the

Commission’s proposed regional mixed member

proportional representation electoral system, in order that it

be in place in time for the 2011 provincial general election.

Recommendation 2

That the referendum be held under the rules and procedures

recommended by the Commission and set out in detail in

the policy framework for a New Brunswick Referendum Act

contained in Recommendation Appendix “K”.

Recommendation 3

That Elections New Brunswick initiate a comprehensive

education and information campaign for New Brunswickers

to allow voters to make an informed choice on the proposed

question.

Recommendation 4

That a legislative committee be struck after two elections to

publicly review the results and procedures of the new MMP

voting system to determine any changes or improvements

that might be necessary.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Drawing Electoral Boundaries in

New Brunswick

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on the

principles and procedures to guide future changes

to New Brunswick’s electoral boundaries, including

the number of constituencies to be represented in

the Legislative Assembly, that will be referred to a

Representation and Electoral Boundaries

Commission.

Electoral districts are the basic building blocks of our

representative democracy in New Brunswick. It is within

each electoral district, or riding, that the essential

democratic contest occurs between candidates, parties, and

among voters. It is within each electoral district that the

basic democratic franchise - the vote - is exercised. And it is

from each electoral district that candidates for the Legislative

Assembly are elected or defeated, as the most direct

expression of voters’ choices we have.

Clearly, electoral district boundaries matter. The number,

size, shape, and constituent parts of electoral districts are

significant factors in determining who represents our

interests, and governs our province. Dr. Munroe Eagles of

the University of Buffalo, the Commission’s academic expert

on electoral boundaries, put it this way in his original

research paper:

“Their characteristics, along with those of their

residents, define the representational relationship

between electors and politicians. The nature of

electoral districts comprising an electoral system -

and the criteria used in their determination -

profoundly shape the kind of political interests that

are given privileged expression in the political

process.”

Having a fair and effective electoral boundary drawing

process in New Brunswick is therefore a crucial element to

providing effective representation to citizens and free and

fair electoral outcomes.

The New Brunswick Situation

Today, New Brunswick is the only province in Canada not

to have an independent, regular electoral boundary

drawing process set out in legislation to change the number

of MLAs or set new electoral boundaries for each

constituency. Past boundary changes and the principles

guiding them have been decided on an ad hoc basis. All

other provinces and the federal government have passed

laws setting out how and when electoral boundaries are

redrawn. A comparison of boundary drawing legislation

across Canada considered by the Commission may be

found in Background Appendix “IV”.

“ Electoral boundaries drawing should be revised

regularly to reflect the shifting population,”

Community Leaders Roundtable, Moncton, May

2004.

New Brunswick’s electoral boundaries are set out in the

Elections Act. Previously, the government established a

Representation and Electoral Boundaries Commission to

review current boundaries, consult the public, and

recommend changes. A Select Committee of the legislature

then reviewed the Commission’s recommendations.

Amendments to the Elections Act were subsequently

introduced to formally set out the boundary descriptions and

make the changes official.

The last time electoral boundaries were changed in our

province was just prior to the 1995 election. Three elections

have therefore been held under the current boundaries.

Since then some obvious population shifts have occurred

across the province as can be seen in the maps below.

These population shifts have led to some significant

variances in the size of ridings in the province. Whereas in

1995, two ridings had a variance of +/- 25 percent or

greater from the provincial average, by 2003, six ridings

did. Currently, 22 ridings have population variances of +/-

15 percent or greater. The map on the next page indicates

the current situation.

Population Growth and Out Migration

Population

decrease

by county

1991-2001

Population

increase,

by county

1991-2001

Municipal

Growth

2 per cent +

1996-2001

Municipal

Out migration

2 per cent +

1996-2001

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Variations

9349

10539

10234

9517

9889

7979

9990

16718

13777

11847

12545

14260

12597

10965

10003

9768

10489

10524

4057

14096

10917

13744

8796

9070

+/- 15 %

+/- 20%

+/- 25 %

8158

9219

9864

9050

10219

10190

8505

8003

8146

12378

12839

7602

9080

11897

8871

9882

11188

9240

8453

7929

9167

11791

9340

11923

10601

10971

10906

10258

8315

9127

8298

Riding Variances from Provincial Average, 2003 Election

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

1 Restigouche West

2 Campbellton

3 Dalhousie-Restigouche-East

4 Nigadoo Chaleur

5 Bathurst

6 Nepisiguit

7 Caraquet

8 Lamèque-Shippagan-Miscou

9 Centre-péninsule

10 Tracadie-Sheila

11 Miramichi Bay

12 Miramichi-Bay du Vin

13 Miramichi Centre

14 Southwest Miramichi

15 Rogersville-Kouchibouguac

16 Kent

17 Kent South

18 Shediac-Cap-Pelé

19 Tantramar

20 Dieppe-Memramcook

21 Moncton East

22 Moncton South

23 Moncton North

24 Moncton Crescent

25 Petitcodiac

26 Riverview

27 Albert

28 Kings East

29 Hampton-Belleisle

30 Kennebecasis

31 Saint John Fundy

32 Saint John Kings

33 Saint John Champlain

34 Saint John Harbour

35 Saint John Portland

36 Saint John Lancaster

37 Grand Bay-Westfield

38 Charlotte

39 Fundy Isles

40 Western Charlotte

41 Oromocto-Gagetown

42 Grand Lake

43 Fredercton North

44 Fredericton Fort Nashwaak

45 Fredericton South

46 New Maryland

47 York

48 Mactaquac

49 Woodstock

50 Carleton

51 Victoria-Tobique

52 Grand Falls

53 Madawaska-la-Vallée

54 Edmundston

55 Madawaska-les-Lacs

Average 10238

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

In the 1995 election, the average deviation in constituency

electoral size above or below the provincial average was

10.9 percent; by the time of the 2003 election, the average

deviation had grown to more than 15 percent.

Today, the average constituency size in New Brunswick is

10,238 voters. Constituency sizes range from a high of

16,718 voters in Dieppe-Memramcook to a low of 4,057

voters in Fundy Isles. The largest riding in the province is

therefore four times as big as the smallest. In such cases, the

value of one vote in smaller ridings is effectively worth more

in electing an MLA than one vote in larger ridings. Since all

votes should count as equally as possible in electing MLAs,

the variance in population sizes between ridings is an

important indication of the need to redraw boundaries on a

regular basis to account for changing population realities.

What New Brunswickers Said

Having an independent boundary drawing process was

cited strongly by respondents to the Commission’s

questionnaire. This was preferred over a committee of

MLAs.

Respondents also indicated that it is important that electoral

boundaries be based on shared services, shared language

and culture, matching community boundaries, and contain

an equal number of voters. Matching provincial riding

boundaries with federal boundaries or having a shared

economic base was cited as much less important.

“The problem that I have with restructuring

boundaries is that often language, culture, common

areas of interest and issues, as well the preservation

of important infrastructures, is not included in the

thought process,” Public Hearing, Bathurst, June

2004.

“A boundary commission should be established

every 10 years, and impose redistribution

according to local needs and demographics,”

Public Hearing, Fredericton, June 2004.

“Ridings and regions must take into account

communities of interest and linguistic communities,”

submission by the Société des Acadiens et

Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, October 2004

Boundary Drawing Principles

Boundary drawing processes across Canada have been

reinforced and clarified based on important legal rulings

and interpretations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms by the Supreme Court of Canada. Some of these

rulings have affected New Brunswick directly. Two key

principles have been established in case law that need to

be considered in drawing electoral boundaries in New

Brunswick. These include:

• Representation by population/Equality of

voting power - The population of each electoral

district in New Brunswick should be as close as

possible to an average population per district. This is

crucial to ensure that the weight of a vote in one

electoral district is equal to that of a vote in another

electoral district. As stated by the Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court of BC as she then was, Beverley

McLachlin, in Dixon v. British Columbia (Attorney

General): “The concept of representation by population

is one of the most fundamental democratic guarantees.

And the notion of equality of voting power is

fundamental to representation by population.”

• Effective representation - While equality of voting

power is the primary principle, deviations from

population equality may be justified if they contribute

to effective representation of the population leading to

better government of New Brunswick as a whole.

Within these two principles, deviation from population

equality may be allowed to ensure effective representation.

Deviation factors may include, but are not limited to:

• Communities of interest - it is important that

communities sharing a linguistic, cultural or historic

identity be kept together in an electoral district.

• Geographic factors - natural boundaries and the

accessibility of certain areas of the province to other

areas should be considered and respected.

Unimportant

Not that important

Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important

Electoral districts

have equal # of voters

Shared language,

culture, etc.

Shared services

Comm & dist

boundaries match

Shared economic

base

Provincial & federal

boundaries match

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

How important are the following electoral

boundary statements to you?

in per cent, based on an average of 328 respondents

• Percentage deviation allowed - this number should be

large enough to allow for flexibility but not so large

that significant variances between riding sizes develop,

thereby diluting the value of individual votes around the

province.

Similarly, several key principles governing the actual

process of drawing boundaries have emerged that must be

taken into account. Any boundary drawing process should

be:

• Independent of political parties.

• Fair to political parties and voters.

• Non-partisan in how it operates.

• Open to New Brunswickers to participate.

It is for these reasons that the Commission believes that a

made-in-New Brunswick boundary drawing act and process

are required.

Considerations for a Representation and

Electoral Boundaries Act

In determining the procedures and principles for drawing

electoral boundaries in New Brunswick, the Commission

considered a comprehensive range of issues and factors.

These included the processes established by other provinces

and the federal government; key legal principles which must

be taken into account; the most recent provincial and

federal New Brunswick boundary drawing experiences; as

well as the unique realities and circumstances that make up

New Brunswick. The Commission believes that while we

must take into account the broader Canadian context and

legal requirements, we must apply these to our own

priorities, values, and needs.

The Commission is guided by the need to frame any such

principles and procedures in a proposed Representation

and Electoral Boundaries Act. A statute is a fundamental

component of ensuring a regular and independent

boundary drawing process. This means focusing on two

main components that should form the basis of any such

Act:

1. The guiding principles and considerations that make up

the formation and terms of reference of a

Representation and Electoral Boundaries Commission;

and

2. The process by which a commission should consider

boundary changes and consult the public.

To assist us in this process, the Commission sponsored a

Roundtable on Electoral Boundaries at UNB Law School on

April 28, 2004, with leading academic and other experts

to discuss boundary drawing issues in New Brunswick and

across Canada. The main issues that emerged are as

follows:

• Timing of redistributions - how often and on what

basis should boundaries be redrawn?

“New Brunswick needs its boundaries revised every

ten years, “ Community Leaders Roundtable,

Shippagan, May 2004.

Redistributing electoral districts and drawing electoral

boundaries at regular intervals is important to take account

of population shifts leading to variances in riding size and

the changing composition of our population. Two

possibilities exist: redistribution could be held after every

two elections or after every decennial (10-year) census. The

Commission considers that it would be better to redraw

boundaries on the basis of accurate population figures

emerging from a decennial census. This timing would ensure

that new boundaries would be in place in time for every

third election, which is a reasonable period to allow for

population changes.

• Composition of a Commission - how should a

Representation and Electoral Boundaries Commission

be appointed, and who should be eligible to be

appointed to such a commission?

Electoral boundaries should be drawn to reflect population,

community, and representational interests, not to reflect

political party interests. A boundary commission’s

composition is therefore a key assurance of its

independence. In New Brunswick, it is also necessary to

reflect the realities of the two official linguistic communities.

Composition should also take into account the specific

legal, political, academic, and community expertise needed

by the commission to do its work. Involving the legislature in

choosing members will foster multi-party support for the

commission and its work.

We believe that a future Representation and Electoral

Boundaries Commission should be composed of five

persons: two co-chairs, one from each official linguistic

community, and three other members. The co-chairs should

be independent with no affiliation with any political party.

No other member may be serving as an MLA, Member of

Parliament or Senator. All members should be approved by

a two-thirds vote of the legislature. Five persons are

necessary to give the Commission the appropriate balance

and perspective, as well as to lessen the prospects of a

minority report, which has occurred under the three-person

federal boundaries commission model.

• Terms of Reference of a Commission - what

specific principles and considerations should guide the

work of a commission?

The terms of reference of a commission will determine what

factors it must consider when drawing electoral boundaries.

Statutes across Canada are usually framed around the core

legal principles of representation by population, equality of

voting power, and effective representation. These guiding

principles also provide the framework for allowing any

deviations from population equality among ridings. Since

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

these principles will be set out in law, they provide an

important avenue of appeal for affected citizens, should

disputes arise. The terms of reference will also allow a

commission to consider “New Brunswick-specific” issues

above and beyond the core legal principles that we share

as Canadians.

The Commission believes that comprehensive and specific

terms of reference should be set out in a new Representation

and Electoral Boundaries Act. These terms of reference

should reflect the core legal principles for boundary

drawing of representation by population/ equality of voting

power and effective representation. In applying these

principles, a commission should be required to take into

account specific other factors unique to New Brunswick such

as community of interest, representation of both official

linguistic communities, rural representation challenges,

population growth, and existing municipal and

administrative divisions. Deviation in riding size should

normally be allowed up to + /- 15 percent, and up to +/-

25 percent only under exceptional circumstances.

• Public Hearings - how and when should a

commission seek public input on new boundaries?

Gathering public input is an essential part of any boundary

drawing process. It allows individuals and communities to

speak to the representational issues and requirements they

feel most important to them. As drawing boundaries can

sometimes be contentious, it is important to give the public

sufficient opportunity to provide their views and have them

considered.

The Commission believes that two sets of public hearings

should be conducted by a representation and electoral

boundaries commission: one set before a preliminary report

and proposed map is prepared, and a second set based on

the proposed map so the public can view exactly what

changes are being proposed. This two-step process will

maximize public input and allow citizens and communities

ample opportunity to put their views forward.

• Final Authority - who should have the final say on

the new boundaries - the legislature or the commission

itself?

Granting final authority on any boundary changes to the

commission itself would ensure the full independence of a

boundary commission. It would, however, remove MLAs

from a process that fundamentally affects them and the

people they are elected to represent. Our elected

representatives bring an important and realistic perspective

to representing citizens and this should be factored into any

final determination of electoral boundaries. The most recent

New Brunswick boundary drawing process involved MLAs

at the final stage and produced what is widely considered

to be a fair electoral map. Having independent co-chairs,

as we recommend, will mitigate against any political

influences, as well.

The Commission believes that since the legislature is

ultimately sovereign, it is important to grant our MLAs the

final authority in determining any boundary changes. Such

authority should be limited, however, to making only minor

adjustments to a proposed map within a defined time

frame. The legislature should not be allowed to redo,

rewrite or veto the work of the independent Representation

and Electoral Boundaries Commission.

A specific legislative committee process conducted in public

would be required to allow for any objections by MLAs to

the recommendations of a boundaries commission to be

considered. This committee would have equal representation

between government and opposition parties. Finally, there

would be a requirement for a two-thirds vote in the

Legislative Assembly for any amendments to the final report

of the boundaries commission to reinforce the need for multi-

party support.

Drawing Boundaries for a Mixed Member

Proportional Voting System

Under the Commission’s proposed regional MMP model, a

representation and boundaries commission would be

required to first draw the boundaries of the 36 single

member ridings and then group these into four

approximately equal size regions with five list PR seats

each. As the issues of boundary drawing set out above are

valid for any electoral system, the Commission believes the

principles and procedures contained in its proposed

Representation and Electoral Boundaries Act could serve as

the basis to draw boundaries for the NB MMP voting system

as well.

Number of MLAs

“Our population does not merit having 55 MLAs, I

propose 53 for the present.” Your Turn!

questionnaire, Spring/Summer 2004.

The number of MLAs in New Brunswick has been reduced

gradually over the past 35 years. Currently, New Brunswick

has the third smallest size ridings in Canada based on

population, after PEI and Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Commission heard quite divergent views on whether the

current number of MLAs is too many or too few. Some

thought the size of our population warranted a reduction in

MLAs, while others worried about the need for our elected

officials to be close to the people they represent.

The Commission believes that the size of the legislature

should not be reduced if New Brunswick decides to adopt a

new regional mixed member proportional voting system. In

fact, the Commission’s proposed model would work best if

the legislature increased by one seat to 56: 36 single

member seats and 20 list PR seats. This would allow for

approximately equal size regions and ensure no diminution

of representation now enjoyed by communities and regions

around the province. It would also allow the proposed 36

single member ridings to be small enough for voters to

receive effective representation from their MLAs.

Should New Brunswick retain the current single member

plurality system, then the Commission believes that the size

of the Legislature should be approximately 55. Significantly

lower than this number would impact on the effective

operation of the House and its committees.

“(55) might be too high, but if we take the number

down, people might feel removed from their MLA.”,

“Your Turn” questionnaire, Spring/Summer 2004.

Recommendations

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends the

following principles and procedures to guide future changes

to New Brunswick’s electoral boundaries:

Recommendation 1

That a Representation and Electoral Boundaries Act be

adopted to establish a regular and independent process to

guide redistributions and changes to electoral boundaries in

the province.

Recommendation 2

That the following elements be included in a Representation

and Electoral Boundaries Act:

2.1 Timing of Redistributions - would follow every

decennial census.

2.2 Appointment of a Representation and

Electoral Boundaries Commission - A five

member commission composed of two co-chairs, one

from each official linguistic community, who are

independent of political parties, along with three other

members who are not currently MLAs, MPs or Senators,

would be appointed on a two-thirds vote of the

Legislative Assembly.

2.3 Terms of Reference of Commission - A

Commission would:

1) Recommend readjustments to the boundaries of

electoral districts in the province based on the

principles of representation by population, equality

of votes, and effective representation of electors.

2) Be permitted to deviate from the quotient for each

electoral district by no more than 15 percent, plus

or minus, with a deviation of up to

25 percent, plus or minus, in exceptional

circumstances.

3) Take the following into consideration when drawing

boundaries: communities of interest; representation

of New Brunswick’s two official linguistic

communities; geographic considerations, including

the accessibility, size and shape of a region of the

province; existing municipal and other

administrative boundaries; rate of population

growth of any part of the province; and the

challenges of representing rural areas.

2.4 Public Hearings – A Commission would be required

to hold two sets of hearings to allow for substantial

public input by New Brunswickers: one before a

preliminary report and proposed map of boundary

changes is prepared, and one on the proposed map of

boundary changes.

2.5 Final Authority – To reside formally with the

Legislative Assembly. A Committee of the legislature

could consider any amendments proposed by MLAs to

the final report of a Commission. Any amendments to

the Commission’s final report would require a two-

thirds vote of the Legislative Assembly.

Recommendation 3

That the same principles and procedures of a

Representation and Electoral Boundaries Act be applied to

draw boundaries for a new regional, mixed member

proportional representation electoral system for New

Brunswick.

Recommendation 4

That the policy framework for a Representation and

Electoral Boundaries Act for New Brunswick contained in

Recommendation Appendix “A” be considered as a

proposed framework for a new Act.

Recommendation 5

That the number of MLAs in the legislature be increased to

56 under the proposed regional mixed member

proportional representation system. That the number of

MLAs under the current single member plurality electoral

system be approximately 55.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

A Fixed Election Date for

New Brunswick

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on

instituting fixed election dates for provincial general

elections while proposing a fixed election date and

procedures best suited for our province.

“A four-year guaranteed term is a step in the right

direction”, participant, Bathurst Public Hearing,

October, 2004.

Election day is the culmination of our democratic process. It

marks simultaneously the end of one electoral cycle and the

beginning of another. On this day, citizens choose their

representatives, their government and opposition, and the

policies and directions that find most favour with them. And,

on this day of decision, citizens effectively choose whether

to participate in the democratic process by voting, or not.

When elections are held - the day, the month, the year - can

have a significant impact on voter participation and turnout.

Some times of the year are busier and more inconvenient

than others for voters. Summer or winter or holiday periods

will find voters on vacation or otherwise away from their

place of residence where they would normally vote. The

timing of an election can also affect the participation of

election workers needed to staff polls, act as scrutineers, or

enumerate voters.

Election timing has another important impact: on credibility

and trust. The choice of an election date is often seen by

voters as a source of political manipulation by political

leaders and parties. This has the effect of increasing

cynicism about the political process and contributing to a

lack of confidence in many facets of our democracy.

For all these reasons, the Commission believes that adopting

fixed election dates in New Brunswick is necessary. We

believe in doing so that New Brunswickers will be taking a

concrete step towards restoring political trust in our

province.

The Basis of Election Dates in New Brunswick

& Canada

The timing of elections is traditionally the prerogative of the

Premier. Under our Westminster or British parliamentary

system the only legal constraint on when elections must be

held is the length of term of the legislature in question. In

New Brunswick and elsewhere in Canada, the term of a

legislature cannot extend beyond five years. The New

Brunswick Legislative Assembly Act states:

2(1) The present and every future Legislative Assembly of

this Province shall, subject to the provisions contained in

subsection (2), continue for five years from the day of the

issue of the writ for choosing the same, unless sooner

dissolved by the Lieutenant-Governor; and no Legislative

Assembly of this Province shall be affected by the demise of

the Crown.

In other words, the term of a legislature cannot extend more

than five years, plus the length of the election writ period.

But as to the exact timing of when that election must be

held, our election law is silent. This means, for all intents

and purposes, that an election can be called at any time

during this five-year period.

The Prerogative of the Lieutenant-Governor

There is an additional legal and constitutional factor to be

considered in the setting of a fixed election date: the

prerogative of the Lieutenant-Governor, as the Queen’s

representative, to formally dissolve a legislature and issue

the writs of election. This power of dissolution forms part of

the constitutional convention of election law in Canada,

again as an inheritance of our British parliamentary system.

In practice, the Lieutenant-Governor dissolves a legislature

on the basis of a formal request by the Premier, in the form

of “advice.” As Dr. Don Desserud of UNBSJ, the

Commission’s academic expert on fixed election dates,

stated in his original research paper:

“Responsible government dictates that the governor

general or lieutenant-governor will only dissolve the

legislature if so requested to do so.”

Under our system of responsible government, governments

govern only when they have the confidence of the

legislature. A majority vote of non-confidence in the

government by MLAs, such as on a budget, would require

the government to resign. At that time, the Lieutenant-

Governor would in almost every circumstance dissolve the

legislature and issue the writs of election. That this would be

done on the advice of the Premier does not detract from the

principle that only the Lieutenant-Governor can legally

initiate an election.

In practice in New Brunswick, the Lieutenant-Governor has

never refused to act upon the advice of the Premier to

dissolve the legislature and hold an election. The power to

call an election has, therefore, accrued directly and fully to

the Premier.

Historically, elections in New Brunswick have been held on

average every 48.3 months, or four years, since 1785.

Only once in the past 65 years has the government of the

day gone the full five-year mandate - in 1987. Elections

have been held in New Brunswick in almost every month of

the year, but most often in either the spring or fall. The most

popular months for holding elections have been June (14

times) and October (11 times).

In fact, New Brunswick already has fixed election dates for

municipal elections as well as for District Education Council

(DEC) and Regional Health Authority (RHA) positions. These

take place every four years on the second Monday in May.

As noted, the average time span between elections is almost

exactly four years or, put another way, the average

electoral term for a government is four years. This has

become the accepted norm. A fixed election date that set a

fixed electoral term of four years would thus be consistent

with current practice.

The choice for citizens, therefore, is between an open-ended

provincial general election date called at any time by the

Premier within a five-year term, or a fixed election date that

sets regularized election dates based on a four-year cycle,

which has become the accepted norm for the electoral life

of a government.

An open-ended election date really means that the Premier

of the day can call an election at any time he or she deems

fit. That is exactly what happens. An election will be called

at a certain time for a certain date because that is usually

viewed as the most politically advantageous time to hold an

election for the governing party. This has become a

contributing factor to heightened voter cynicism about the

democratic process.

What New Brunswickers Said

“L’AFMNB thinks that this particularity of our

Westminster parliamentary system is not relevant in

today’s world and does not reflect the needs and

values of a more equitable and democratic system

as requested by New Brunswick’s citizens,”

Submission, Association francophone des

municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick, October

2004.

Increasingly, the majority of New Brunswickers no longer

accept this way of doing business. Setting a specific

constraint on the current open-ended political and legal

prerogative of the Premier to call an election at his or her

discretion is viewed as a reasonable limitation on an

arbitrary form of political self-interest that puts parties ahead

of voters. Repeatedly, New Brunswickers told the

Commission that they favoured a fixed election date and

term for their legislature and government. They see it as

more democratic, transparent, and fair to all political

parties.

Responses to the Commission’s questionnaire and website

also showed strong support for legislating four-year fixed

election dates in the province.

Advantages to a Fixed Election Date

“Fixed election dates would allow people who do

not have the financial ability or time availability to

start to make arrangements to be able to run. It

would make it easier for women in particular to

run,” Participant, Saint John Community Leaders

Roundtable, May 2004.

There are many advantages to setting a four-year fixed

election date for provincial general elections in New

Brunswick:

• Citizens would be better able to plan to participate or

involve themselves in the elections process - as voters,

as candidates, and as volunteers for political parties.

• Women candidates, in particular, would be better able

to plan and organize their time to run as candidates

knowing the exact date of the election.

• Particular groups of voters, such as seniors and

students, who are most affected by when an election is

held, would not be effectively disenfranchised by an

inconvenient election date.

• By knowing the actual election date, all New

Brunswickers could judge the actions of governments

and political parties knowing that an election was

forthcoming.

• Elections planning, such as preparing an up-to-date

voters list through an earlier enumeration, hiring and

training staff, and producing elections materials by the

Chief Electoral Officer, would be made simpler and

more efficient.

• Political parties would be in a better position to attract

qualified candidates willing to serve as MLAs, knowing

that they could better plan their career and personal

lives around the certainty of when an election was

coming.

Yes No

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

77.5%

Are fixed election dates every four years a good

idea for New Brunswick?

22.5%

in per cent, based on 324 respondents

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

• Legislative sessions and the work of MLAs could be

better organized around the certainty of a fixed

election date.

• By-election dates could now take place on a reduced

time frame from the vacancy occurring, knowing

exactly when the general election date is going to be,

ensuring citizens do not go an unreasonable time

without legislative representation.

• The length of the actual election campaign could now

be standardized and reduced as the necessary

preparatory work by the Chief Electoral Officer could

now take place in advance.

Getting to a Fixed Election Date

There are several specific questions and issues that must be

addressed when deciding a fixed election date for New

Brunswick.

“A fixed date every four years, in the Spring or the

Fall, seems to be the better choice. However, it seems

to us that provincial elections should not be held at the

same time as others in order to avoid that the latter

become less important,” Submission, Association des

enseignants et enseignantes francophones du

Nouveau-Brunswick, September 2004.

First, timing. When should elections be held in the

province?

Spring and fall are the only viable options. Views and

comments provided to the Commission preferred both times.

As noted, New Brunswick has experienced elections during

both periods. Two key factors should be taken into account:

first, municipal, DEC, and RHA elections are already held in

the spring in May and avoiding a conflict is desirable;

second, student participation, which is already lower than

the provincial average, could be affected by having an

election at the close of the university year when students are

preoccupied with exams or are in the process of moving,

making it difficult for them to be enumerated in either their

home riding or at their university location.

For these reasons the Commission believes a fall election

date would be better. New Brunswickers are comfortable

voting in the fall, the weather is usually accommodating,

there would be no conflict with local governance elections

in the spring, and the possibilities of turnout would likely be

greater.

“Fixed election dates would be preferable in the

Fall,” Community Leaders Roundtable, Shippagan,

May 2004.

Second, legislation. Is new legislation required to set a

fixed election date for New Brunswick?

Getting to a fixed election date is relatively straightforward.

A whole new act would not be required. It would simply

require amendments to existing legislation, setting out a

specific date for holding elections in the future. The

Legislative Assembly Act and the Elections Act are the

governing pieces of legislation for the length of a Legislative

Assembly’s life and conduct of elections in New Brunswick.

They would need to be amended to set out the date for the

next general election, the process for dissolving the

legislature, and provisions around holding subsequent

elections.

Third, the powers of the Lieutenant-Governor. Can

the constitutional authority of the Lieutenant-Governor to

dissolve the legislature and issue the writs of election for

any date be fettered?

There is no need to amend the Constitution or formally

affect the powers and authority of the Lieutenant-Governor

to establish a fixed election date. Legislation could simply

require the Premier to formally advise the Lieutenant-

Governor to dissolve the legislature for a certain date every

four years, thereby preserving the formal prerogatives of the

Lieutenant-Governor. This would create a clear political

imperative on the part of the Premier to adhere to the fixed

election date schedule. The Commission believes this can be

accomplished by appropriate wording in a fixed election

date amendment to the Legislative Assembly Act.

Fourth, non-confidence elections. What would

happen to the fixed election date if an election were held

before the next fixed date, such as in the spring, due to a

vote of non-confidence in the legislature?

Providing for such an eventuality in the fixed election date

legislation would preserve the formal authority of the

Legislative Assembly to determine if a government has the

confidence of its members. The fixed election date “clock”

would simply be re-set so that the next election would take

place four years later at the fixed date.

Fifth, ongoing election campaigns. Would a fixed

election date result in parties campaigning earlier and for a

longer period?

There is a demonstrable rise in political rhetoric and

activities in the run-up to a possible election, all of which is

covered by the media at present. Instead of “guessing

game” stories as to when the Premier will call an election,

this would be replaced by demands for all leaders and

parties to provide their platforms and responses to issues

sufficiently in advance of the known election date for voters

to consider. Parties are already limited by the Political

Process Financing Act to nominal non-election period

advertising spending of $35,000 in any one year. The

Commission believes this provision should remain.

Other Provinces

New Brunswick is not alone in considering a fixed

provincial general election date. British Columbia has

passed legislation setting its fixed election date for May 17,

2005. The Ontario legislature has a bill before it that would

set the next provincial election for October 4, 2007.

Newfoundland and Labrador is about to consider a fixed

election date bill. The Commission has studied carefully the

legislative provisions of these and other jurisdictions in

making its own recommendations.

It’s Time for Fixed Election Dates

“The FÉÉCUM is in favour of fixed election dates.

When elections are called in the Summer, we are

not able to act and motivate young people to vote.

In the Fall, our membership is on campus and we

could produce awareness campaigns, in

partnership with Elections New Brunswick, in order

to motivate youth to vote. “ Submission, Fédération

des étudiants et étudiantes de centre universitaire

de Moncton, October 2004.

The Commission believes fixed election dates are an idea

which most New Brunswickers are ready for and support.

New Brunswickers deserve to know in advance when an

election is being held so they can weigh their vote

accordingly. A fixed election date would help restore

confidence and trust in the political process. By removing

the absolute authority over the timing of elections from the

Premier and restoring it to the legislature and people

through legislation, citizens would come first.

The Commission believes that this departure from tradition is

far outweighed by the benefits and advantages set out

above. In fact, our recommendations go some distance to

preserving important elements of this tradition, including the

formal prerogative of the Lieutenant-Governor and the

possibility of non-confidence motions in the House leading

to an earlier election date.

The Commission also believes that voter participation will

likely be enhanced by a fixed date. Elections planning

would be smoother and more efficient.

Recommendations

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends the

following principles and procedures for the institution of a

fixed election date:

Recommendation 1

That a provincial election be held on a fixed date every four

years commencing Monday, October 15, 2007, and on the

third Monday of October every four years thereafter.

Recommendation 2

That the following policy framework be considered for an

amendment to the Legislative Assembly Act to establish a

fixed election date for New Brunswick:

(1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the

Lieutenant-Governor, including the power to dissolve

the Legislative Assembly, at the Lieutenant-Governor’s

discretion.

(2) In order that a general election may be held on a fixed

date, as set out herein, every four years:

(a) The Premier shall advise the Lieutenant-Governor

that the Legislative Assembly be dissolved so that a

general election may be held on Monday, October

15, 2007, and thereafter, the Premier shall advise

the Lieutenant-Governor that the Legislative

Assembly be dissolved so that a general election

may be held on the third Monday of October in the

fourth calendar year following polling day in the

most recent general election.

(b) In the event that a general election is held after the

day on which this section receives Royal Assent and

before October 15, 2007, because of a dissolution

of the Legislative Assembly, the Premier shall advise

the Lieutenant-Governor that the Legislative

Assembly be dissolved so that a general election

may be held on the third Monday of October in the

fourth calendar year following polling day in the

most recent general election.

Recommendation 3

That the Elections Act be amended to establish a clear 28-

day election period.

Recommendation 4

That the Elections Act be amended to reduce the time period

for by-elections from one year to six months of a vacancy

occurring in the Legislative Assembly, unless the vacancy

occurs during the last calendar year of the legal life of the

Legislative Assembly (i.e. between January 1st and the third

Monday in October of the year of the next fixed date

election).

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Boosting Voter Turnout &

Participation and Modernizing our

Electoral Infrastructure

Mandate

“To examine and make recommendations on

increasing voter turnout in provincial general

elections, particularly amongst young New

Brunswickers, and improving accessibility to the

electoral process in New Brunswick by modernizing

our electoral laws while reinforcing the democratic

rights and responsibilities of New Brunswickers to

vote.”

Voting is our most basic democratic expression. It is at the

heart of our democracy. Voting is the instrument by which

we choose who will represent us and who will govern us.

Strong voter turnout gives legitimacy to democratic

outcomes. It acts as an accountability measure on

governments and MLAs.

A healthy and vibrant democratic society begins with

participation by citizens. Voter turnout is therefore a key

barometer of democratic satisfaction. Voting must be

supported by a strong electoral infrastructure - laws and

procedures - not just to ensure free and fair elections, but to

encourage voter participation in the first place. In our

modern society, voters face many daily pressures and

conflicts that can distract from the need or responsibility to

vote when it comes to voting day. Some voters, such as

seniors and youth, face particular administrative obstacles

that make the voting system less accessible to them.

Voter Turnout & Participation in New

Brunswick Elections

Participation in provincial general elections in New

Brunswick is declining. Fewer people are voting overall,

and young people are voting at a lower rate than other

New Brunswickers. Disturbingly, as can be seen in the part

of Chapter 5 entitled Stronger Voices for Youth, there is little

evidence to suggest that as younger New Brunswickers age,

they will automatically start voting at a significantly higher

rate.

Turnout in the 2003 election was the lowest ever recorded

at just 69 percent. Twenty years ago, it was around 80

percent. The chart below indicates voter turnout in every

provincial election since 1967.

Voter participation is dropping across Canada, not just in

New Brunswick. With the exception of PEI, turnout in each

of the most recent federal and provincial elections has

dropped.

Low voter participation is not confined to provincial

elections. The most recent federal and municipal elections,

as well as the 2001 referendum, show an even lower level

of voter participation by New Brunswickers.

Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C.

Canada

Source: Provincial and federal election offices websites

in per cent

84.86

Provincial participation rate across Canada

(most recent elections)

65.79

68.67

70.42

56.9

54.17

70.95

60.9

72.53

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

Percentage of voter turnout

Voter Turnout in New Brunswick Elections

1967 1970 1974 1978 1982 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003

It is revealing that New Brunswickers vote at different rates

depending upon where they live. Based on the 2003

provincial election, voter participation is higher in rural

New Brunswick and in ridings with a predominantly

francophone population. This may suggest that, in fact, the

issue of voter turnout varies depending upon where people

live.

Who Votes? Who Doesn’t?

The most important indicators of voter participation are age,

education, and income. Other participation indicators are

knowledge of issues, leaders, and parties; civic literacy;

participation in volunteer and community organizations; and

a sense of civic duty. A profile of the most likely voter

therefore would be someone who is older, with a post-

secondary education, higher income, and involved in

community or volunteer associations.

The table contained in Background Appendix V, Voting

Participation – Ranked by Social Background, ranks

participation in the 2000 federal general election by a

range of social background factors including age,

education, generation, and gender. It cross-references each

factor with general interest in politics, knowledge, comfort

with online technology or the digital divide, and

membership in voluntary associations. It reinforces the

profile noted above.

Age is the most pronounced indicator of voting. Young

people vote at a lower rate than the Canadian average,

while seniors vote at a much higher rate than the Canadian

average. The chart below from the 2000 federal general

election study clearly illustrates this pattern.

Preliminary results from the 2004 federal general election

indicate a slight increase in youth voting from 2000.

No statistics are collected in New Brunswick on age or

demographic participation in voting during provincial

elections. However, original academic research conducted

for the Commission on youth participation indicates that in

the 2003 provincial election, turnout amongst 18-29 years

olds was around 50 percent, compared to the provincial

average of 69 percent.

In the past, many more Canadians voted due to a stronger

sense of civic duty. This was at a time when more

Canadians were members of political parties or, at least,

considered themselves as steady supporters of a party at

election time. Fewer Canadians are members of political

parties today and identification or attachment with one

party or another has significantly declined.

New Brunswickers are no more likely to belong to a

political party than other Canadians. Overall political

engagement by New Brunswickers, when measured on a

range of activities, is also no higher than other Canadians,

as a recent Statistics Canada survey shows.

Did Not Vote

Voted

68+ 58-67 48-57 38-47 30-37 25-29 21-24 18-20

Source: Jon H. Pammett, Lawrence LeDuc, Explaining the Turnout Decline in Canadian

Federal Elections: A New Survey of Non-Voters (Elections Canada, March 2003)

in per cent

Voter Turnout by Age Group -

2000 Federal Election

Average Rural average Urban average Francophone

average

Anglophone

average

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

in per cent

68.67%

Comparison of Voter Participation Rates

by Category, 2003 Election

72.74%

62.12%

77.34%

64.65%

2003 Provincial

Election

2004 Federal

Election

2004 Municipal

Election

2001 Referendum

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada

* for municipalities that had an election

in per cent

69%

Comparison of voter participation rates across

various elections in New Brunswick

49.5%*

62.8%

44%

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Why Are Citizens Choosing Not To Participate?

There are many reasons why people decide not to vote.

They may sense that their vote does not matter, that it really

will not make a difference. They may hold a view that their

vote is wasted, that it does not really count towards electing

a government or MLA. Finally, they may be concerned that

our political leaders and institutions cannot be trusted. A

recent Elections Canada study found that 67 percent of non-

voters from the 2000 federal election cited negative public

attitudes towards political institutions and leaders as reasons

for people not voting.

Some Canadians choose not to vote because they believe

their vote or the election does not matter or they did not like

the choices. This was the view of 37 percent of the

respondents to the Elections Canada study, while 34

percent gave the reason of being unable to vote due to

work, illness or travel.

That same study also gave the breakdown by age group. It

showed that personal and administrative reasons were the

factors most often given for not voting by the younger and

the older age groups. In fact, 55 percent of the 65+ age

group, and 43 percent of the 18-24 aged group, cited this

as the main reason they did not vote in the 2000 federal

general election.

What New Brunswickers Said

The decline in voter turnout was a matter of real concern to

those individuals who met or responded to the Commission.

A range of solutions were commented on through the

Commission’s questionnaire. Changing our voting system so

there was a better relationship between votes cast and seats

won was favoured by over 77 percent of respondents. As

mentioned in the part of Chapter 3 titled A Mixed Member

Proportional Electoral System for New Brunswick, a form of

proportional representation electoral system such as the one

we are recommending could result in higher voter turnout.

When offered a menu of steps to make voting easier,

respondents favoured fixed election dates, encouraging

more youth to vote, and online or e-voting.

Voting is not just a right, but also a responsibility. It has

been suggested that compulsory voting would increase voter

turnout by reinforcing this broader societal obligation and

sense of civic duty. Australia has had compulsory voting for

decades and enjoys a turnout rate of around 95 percent.

The Commission considered this idea but does not

recommend it. Just as there is a right to vote, it can be

argued that there is a right not to vote. The vast majority of

respondents to our questionnaire were of the same view.

Yes

Online or e-voting Fixed election dates

More voting days/times

Encouraging more

youth to vote

100

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

Which of the following steps do you think should be

taken to make voting easier and more

meaningful in New Brunswick?

68.9%

31.1%

81.5%

18.5%

49.1%

50.9%

90.2%

9.8%

in per cent, based on an average of 265 respondents

Yes No

in per cent, based on 313 respondents

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

77.6%

Would voter turnout increase if our electoral system

were changed so there is a better relationship

between votes cast and seats won?

22.4%

Age: 18-24

25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

in per cent

Source : Jon H. Pammett, Lawrence LeDuc, Explaining the Turnout Decline in Canadian

Federal Elections: A New Survey of Non-Voters (Elections Canada, March 2003)

Percentage of people, by age, who said they did not vote because

of personal / administrative reasons in the 2000 election

43%

32%

28%

40%

55%

35%

Signed

a petition

Searched

for political

info

Attended a

public

meeting

Boycotted/

chose a

product

Contacted

newspaper

or politician

Participate in

demonstration

or march

Volunteered

for political

party

New BrunswickCanada

Source: Statistics Canada, General Social Survey, 2003

Political Engagement:

Canadians and New Brunswickers

in per cent

Addressing the Problem

No single solution exists to boost voter turnout in New

Brunswick or across Canada. It will take time to reverse the

current trend, a trend that has taken years to develop and

appears quite deeply embedded. That’s why the

Commission believes that a comprehensive and long-term

approach with a variety of solutions is necessary to arrest

this decline in voter turnout. A change to our electoral

system that more exactly translates votes cast into seats

awarded could be one component of a solution. Raising

awareness and knowledge about our democratic system

and the importance of voting can help motivate people to

vote. Taking concrete steps to modernize our electoral

process and make access to voting easier and more “voter-

friendly” can also make a difference. Fundamentally, voting

must matter to people. We must, as a society, reinforce the

sense of civic duty that comes with voting.

The Commission believes that, taken together, all of our

recommendations will help boost voter turnout and

participation by New Brunswickers in their democracy. We

have seen that changing to a regional mixed member

proportional voting system could help increase voter

participation, as voters see their votes counting more

directly towards seats in the legislature. Enhancing the role

of the legislature and MLAs so voters can see that it works

better for them would be a positive step. A fixed election

date that reduces voter cynicism about election timing can

also help. Specific measures aimed at youth will bring a

positive benefit over time with greater youth participation.

Specifically, the Commission believes that we must focus on

two key areas to boost voter turnout and participation. First,

we must modernize our electoral infrastructure - agencies

and laws - so it can effectively support the electoral process.

Second, we must facilitate access to voting, by making it

easier for people to vote and removing administrative

barriers that can get in the way.

Modernizing Our Electoral Infrastructure

A modern democracy requires a modern electoral

infrastructure. This is essential to ensure a free and fair

exercise of the franchise. As voting is a voluntary act of

democratic participation, it is essential that we promote the

value of voting and facilitate participation by making it

easier for citizens to register and cast a ballot. The

Commission heard from the Office of the Chief Electoral

Officer on suggestions we could take to modernize our

current electoral laws and procedures to make them more

accessible to voters.

There are two main components of any electoral and

political process: elections management and administration,

and political party financing and conduct. Both must be

examined when considering modernizing our electoral

infrastructure.

The legal basis for voting and elections in New Brunswick is

the Elections Act. It sets out the rules and procedures for

administering provincial general elections, as well as

municipal and local governance elections. The Office of the

Chief Electoral Officer is the independent agency

responsible for managing the electoral process. The CEO is

an officer of the legislature and is appointed on the

recommendation of the members of the Legislative

Assembly.

Political party financing is regulated through the Political

Process Financing Act. Individuals, corporations, and unions

are limited in the amount of money they can donate to a

political party; parties are obligated to disclose and provide

audited statements on the amounts they receive; and parties

are limited in the amount of money they can spend during

an election. A Supervisor of Political Party Financing is

appointed to enforce the Act and receive information from

political parties for review and approval. The Supervisor is

also an officer of the legislature and is appointed on the

recommendation of the members of the Legislative

Assembly.

These two offices have worked well to date based on the

legal frameworks they have been given. But new challenges

and demands are emerging that are having an impact on

voter participation and the conduct of political parties within

the electoral and political process.

New Brunswick’s Office of the CEO operates basically as a

provincial returning office. Its mandate is “to exercise

general direction and supervision over the administrative

conduct of elections, to enforce on the part of the election

officers fairness, impartiality and compliance with the

Elections Act and to issue to election officers such

instructions as are necessary to ensure effective execution of

the Elections Act.”

Unlike other electoral agencies or commissions, the Office

of the CEO has no mandate to promote awareness or

participation in the electoral process or even conduct

research on voting patterns or issues. The office relies

heavily on political party support and participation in the

recruitment of election workers - a carry-over from the

period when political parties essentially ran elections. It has

piloted some new technologies and practices in an attempt

to make voting easier and more accessible, but has not

done so on a province-wide basis.

Yes No

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

28.0%

Is compulsory voting a good idea?

72.0%

in per cent, based on 328 respondents

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

The Supervisor’s mandate is clear: it is to administer the

Political Process Financing Act and monitor compliance with

its provisions. To that end, financial contribution limits and

disclosure rules were put in place to enhance accountability

of political parties and overall trust in the political process.

Transparency of reporting and easy access to information is

an essential ingredient of this accountability.

At present, the Supervisor has no website on which

documentation or summaries of disclosed information can

be posted and viewed. The information contained in the

Supervisor’s annual reports is limited and does not cover the

most recent years for which information has been filed by

parties. Citizens may access the information filed by parties,

in its original form, but only by attending in person at the

Supervisor’s office. The Office of the Supervisor simply does

not have adequate resources to enhance transparency and

accessibility of information on political financing.

New Brunswick is the only province in Canada that keeps

separate these two electoral regulatory functions. All other

provinces and the federal government combine the

responsibilities of elections management with political party

financing oversight in one office.

Elections NB

The Commission believes a concerted effort to boost voter

participation must start at the top with the creation of a new

independent electoral commission called Elections New

Brunswick. This agency would combine the current duties

and responsibilities of the Office of the Chief Electoral

Officer and the Supervisor of Political Financing in all

aspects. It would be responsible for administering provincial

and municipal elections and referendums in the province. It

would also be responsible for supervising the increased

financial and political conduct obligations on political

parties we are recommending for leadership selection and

nomination contests, as contained in Recommendation

Appendix “H”, and reporting on political financing. It

would have the responsibility to raise awareness and

knowledge of the electoral process, especially with young

people through education and information programs, and

promote the value and importance of voting to all New

Brunswickers. Finally, it would report publicly and regularly

to the Legislative Assembly to ensure transparency and the

involvement of MLAs in its work.

The Commission’s proposed detailed mandate for Elections

New Brunswick may be found in Recommendation

Appendix “B”.

Facilitating Access to Voting

Access to voting is regulated through the Elections Act. This

is a highly detailed and complex statute. As written, it does

not provide the Chief Electoral Officer with flexibility to

independently manage the electoral process in a more

efficient and effective way. Streamlining and updating the

Elections Act to meet the demands of our modern society is

a necessary part of making it easier for people to vote and

encouraging them to do so.

Over 5,000 New Brunswickers are hired to work in every

provincial election. They are essential to running a smooth

and fair election. Yet, the CEO does not currently have the

authority to hire and train workers and assign them to the

ridings and positions needed. A truly independent electoral

commission able to meet the modern needs of administering

an election today requires that authority.

The processes set out in the Elections Act are in some cases

archaic; for example, the current advance poll process. In

today’s busy society, people should be allowed to vote

when they can, not when they are told to. Opening up the

advance poll process so voters can vote just as they would

on election day, even if they did not plan to be away from

the riding on election day, would send an additional

message that voting is valued and supported. Similarly,

voter literacy is a reality we must acknowledge. Placing

party logos on the ballot will provide an easy visual cue for

voters to assist when marking their ballot.

Technology today is a great enabler. Yet, elections are

conducted very much as they were when we first started

voting with paper ballots and hand-counting. Tradition and

safeguarding against voter fraud or party manipulation are

some good reasons for this. Voting technology has evolved,

however, increasing the speed and accuracy in which

counting can occur. It has also enabled greater flexibility in

how and where people can vote. This is a matter of some

interest to more transient populations like students. Online

registration through the Internet is also now a possibility.

Electronic voter tabulation technology was used successfully

in the recent Saint John municipal election. It can serve as a

pilot for applying this technology on a province-wide basis

with the resultant flexibility for voters and appropriate

safeguards for security and accuracy.

The Commission believes each of these measures are

important and should be explored and applied to facilitate

access to voting by New Brunswickers.

Higher Turnout and Modern Infrastructure

The Commission believes a modern electoral infrastructure is

essential to contributing to a boost in voter turnout. The two

work together. The steps recommended will help meet this

overall goal and are necessary now. A general increase in

participation will take time to accomplish. Lower turnout is

the result of numerous factors - some institutional, others

related to the election issues and choices at any given time.

No one single measure recommended by the Commission

will “fix” the problem. Taken together, however, our

solutions will make a difference.

Recommendations

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends the

following initiatives to modernize our electoral laws and

infrastructure and boost voter turnout:

Recommendation 1

That a new independent electoral commission, called

Elections New Brunswick, be established. Elections New

Brunswick would combine the current duties and

responsibilities of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

and the Supervisor of Political Financing and have an

expanded mandate to: conduct elections and referendums

in New Brunswick; supervise political party financing and

make it more transparent and accountable; promote

awareness and knowledge of, and democratic participation

in, New Brunswick’s electoral process; and provide regular

and comprehensive reporting of results, activities, policy

issues and promotional activities to the Legislative Assembly.

Recommendation 2

That accessibility to and participation in the election process

for voters be improved, especially for youth, through the

following measures:

2.1 An online voter registration system.

2.2 Targeted approaches to communicate with high school,

university and college students on the registration and

voting process.

2.3 New electronic tabulation technology that would allow

voters who are away from their ordinary place of

residence, especially university and community college

students, to vote from their current location for a

candidate in their home electoral district.

2.4 Placing party logos on the ballot next to the names of

candidates and the parties they represent.

2.5 Identifying and hiring young New Brunswickers to work

during elections, so that they may become familiar with

and interested in the elections process.

2.6 Allowing voters to cast their ballot at any poll within

their electoral district.

Recommendation 3

That, where possible, polling stations be placed in New

Brunswick schools as locations that are familiar, cost-

efficient, and easily accessible to voters, and in order to

create a youth-friendly environment for voting.

Recommendation 4

That the electoral process be updated and streamlined to

make it easier to cast a vote; make the rules around

elections more clear and understandable; and provide a

more flexible and efficient process for administering

elections by:

4.1 Giving the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to

appoint and train returning officers, election clerks,

deputy returning officers, poll clerks, enumerators and

other election workers, and the flexibility to assign

these workers to polling stations and electoral districts

as needed.

4.2 Opening up the advance poll process so that the

procedures to vote in the advance poll are the same as

those for voting on election day.

4.3 Giving the Chief Electoral Officer more flexibility to set

the details of elections procedures.

4.4 Integrating the provisions of the Elections Act regarding

registration of political parties, district associations and

candidates with the provisions of the Political Process

Financing Act to provide a more seamless approach to

supervision of political financing and improving access

to information on financing of candidates and political

parties.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Enhancing the Role

of MLAs and the

Legislature

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on

enhancing the role of the Legislative Assembly and

MLAs in decision-making while ensuring greater

accountability of MLAs to their constituents and to

New Brunswickers.

The Legislative Assembly is at the centre of the democratic

process and our system of responsible government. We

elect Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) to

represent our interests, give us a voice in the legislature,

help solve our problems with government, and take

decisions on our behalf. The legislature is the essential link

between citizens and their government. Improving this

aspect of our democracy so that our Legislative Assembly

becomes more relevant, responsive, and accountable to

citizens is a key focus of making the system work for New

Brunswickers.

What are the Issues?

Much has changed in our province and country since New

Brunswickers adopted the present form of representative

government and sent their first MLAs to the capital. A new

set of issues is creating a new set of demands for change.

Government and governing have changed.

Governing is much more complex and the issues are more

far-reaching. Legislation and regulations are more

comprehensive and detailed, touching our lives more than

ever before. The sums of public monies spent by

government are enormous. This tremendous growth in public

expenditures has, in turn, made legislative oversight and

scrutiny not just more complicated but essential.

Society and citizens have changed. It’s not just the

business of governing that has become more complex;

society has too. Diverse voices in our society demand to be

heard about decisions. Civil society organizations have

emerged insisting their views be taken into account.

Different urban and rural needs, and regional and linguistic

issues, all require attention. The media’s impact on

government and politics has grown influencing not just how

politicians are perceived, but often how and when decisions

are taken. Information and communications technology

access - from the cellular phone to the Internet - has

exploded, giving citizens and government more power to

communicate with each other. Collectively, this has

significantly increased the pressures and demands on

government to be more responsive to voices and views from

outside the legislature and the traditional legislative process.

Party discipline has taken root in our political

system. MLAs don’t just represent ridings, they represent

their political parties. Supported by an increasingly

sophisticated campaign apparatus and a media focus on

the leader, modern political parties have constrained the

role and influence of the private member and in turn, the

traditional purpose of legislative debate and decision-

making. Question Period has more questions than answers.

Set speeches and arguments precede entirely predictable

outcomes. This cycle goes on year after year, reinforcing the

adversarial political system where the government proposes

and the opposition opposes.

The executive branch overwhelms the legislative

branch. This development has contributed to the most

significant change of all: the enormous expansion in power

and influence of the executive branch - the Premier,

ministers, the civil service, and the Premier’s office - at the

expense of the legislative branch. A majority government

can develop policy, write legislation, and pass bills through

the House without a meaningful role for the legislature. The

legislature now matters less. Real debate and discussion

occurs rarely in the legislature as a result of party discipline.

With key decisions increasingly taken by the Premier and

Cabinet away from the legislature, except in a minority or

close majority government situation, its role as a forum for

debate and decision-making has withered.

“There is a lack of accountability from MLAs, it’s

hard for them to represent their constituents when

they have to follow the party line. Once elected,

they disappear from the radar screen,” Community

Leaders Roundtable, St. Andrews, June 2004.

Finally, citizens are more disenchanted. Our own

expectations as citizens about what we want from our

governments and MLAs, and when we want it, have also

changed. These changing expectations have, not

surprisingly, coincided with declining confidence and trust in

our political leaders and institutions. It is this that has led to

the charge that a “democratic deficit” exists at the

legislative level with too little accountability from our MLAs,

too much authority resting with the government, and not

enough responsibility given to the legislature.

Chapter 4 - Making the System Work

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

What is the Role of an MLA?

MLAs are first and foremost, representatives. They represent

the people who live in a geographic area - a riding. They

also represent the political party to which they belong as a

member. Finally, they represent themselves with individual

judgment and principles. On this basis, there are three

ways of looking at the representative role of an MLA.

1. Trustee - This traditional role requires MLAs to rely on

their own independent judgment and opinion to take

decisions. They will represent the broader provincial

interest, even if this conflicts with the local wishes of

their constituents. Therefore, they act as a “trustee” for

their constituents.

2. Delegate - This populist role suggests MLAs act as the

direct voice of their constituents and represent them

directly, even if this conflicts with the broader provincial

interest or their own personal views. Therefore, they act

as their constituents’ “delegate”.

3. Politico - This contemporary political role assumes

MLAs are party representatives acting as an advocate

for their political party. Therefore, they act as a

“politico” operative tied to party discipline.

As no formal job description exists for MLAs in New

Brunswick, a conflict between these roles is inevitable. To

act as either a trustee or a delegate, an MLA must become

more independent of party discipline. A delegate role

requires an MLA to suspend his or her own judgment in

some matters - a difficult task when citizens are also calling

for leadership from their elected officials. Together, this

leaves some citizens cynical about how MLAs carry out their

roles, their performance and behaviour as legislators, and

their real obligations to the people who elected them.

The role of an MLA is tied closely to the role of the

legislature. The legislature has the responsibility to debate

issues, pass laws, and scrutinize government to hold it

accountable. And, as we have seen, it represents citizens

through individual MLAs. From this perspective, MLAs have

three main jobs:

First, to represent their constituents and their ridings by

raising issues within the legislature, cabinet, or caucus and

acting as an ombudsman to help people solve problems.

Second, to hold government accountable by asking

questions and scrutinizing legislation and expenditures.

Third, to pass laws by debating and voting on them in

public.

The representative role is strongly felt by New Brunswick

MLAs. An independent survey of members, conducted for

the Commission by Dr. David Docherty of Wilfrid Laurier

University, found that the vast majority of respondents

considered their most important role is to represent their

constituents and riding. For example, of those MLAs

responding:

• 90 per cent said they entered politics first to improve

conditions in their riding.

• 45 per cent of their time was spent dealing with

constituency matters, compared to 28 per cent on

legislative work, 16 per cent on policy development,

and 11 per cent on party work.

• 84 per cent of MLAs said they would devote more

resources, if they had them, to hiring a full-time person

to deal with constituency matters.

This is illustrated in the charts below:

Ideal time

Actual time spent

Constituency work Legislative work Policy and issue

development

Party work

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

How MLAs spend their time on duties

in per cent

45%

51%

28%

20%

16%

17%

11%

12%

Not at all important

Not very important

Somewhat important

Important

Improve the social

and economic

conditions in my riding

Serve in

cabinet

Serve in

shadow cabinet

Engage in

policy making

Help individuals in

my constituency

100

Why Enter Politics and Career Goals?

in per cent

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

“It is difficult in rural areas to differentiate between

the role of the mayor and the role of the MLA,”

Public Hearing, Bathurst, June 2004.

A particular representation challenge in New Brunswick is

posed for MLAs whose riding includes a significant portion

of unincorporated areas. Thirty-seven per cent of New

Brunswickers live outside of municipalities with no formal

local government.

These MLAs find they must spend more time dealing with

constituency matters that would normally be handled by a

municipal entity. This is indicated in the next chart.

The small size of the province and the relatively small

ridings reinforces this focus on constituency service by our

MLAs. Based on his research, Dr. Docherty concluded that,

“In New Brunswick, members spend slightly more time on

constituency work than the typical Canadian MLA.” A more

complete presentation of the survey may be found in

Background Appendix VIII.

Hearing From New Brunswickers

“If MLAs had an opportunity to vote the way we

want, it would be an improvement.” Community

Leaders Roundtable, Sussex, May 2004.

New Brunswickers responding to the Commission’s

questionnaire expressed a strong view that MLAs should

represent their ridings first. When asked whether it was

more important for an MLA to represent their riding or New

Brunswick as a whole, respondents chose the riding.

Their riding

New Brunswick

as a whole

Their party Special interests

in per cent, based on 260 respondents

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

69.2%

What is the most important role for an MLA?

Is it to represent:

30.8%

0.0% 0.0%

Percentage of riding that is an

unincorporated area

Time spent on constituency work

that should be handled

by municipal level

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

Unincorporated areas in riding

39%

61%

Live in

municipalities

Live outside of

municipalities with

no local government

Source: Department of the Environment and Local Government

Where people live in NB

37%

62%

Constituency work Legislative work

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

If members of the NB Legislature were provided with a budget

to hire an additional full-time staff person, what percentage of

that person’s time would you dedicate to constituency versus

legislative work?

in per cent

84%

16%

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

This view tempered somewhat when respondents were

asked how an MLA should vote if there is a conflict between

the interests of their riding and the broader interest of the

province.

“MLAs should be focused on moving the province

forward, not just parochial/local concerns. They

shouldn’t just argue with each other.” Community

Leaders Roundtable, Saint John, May 2004.

Respondents were also quite clear in what they thought was

the most important part of the legislature’s business. Holding

government accountable and debating issues in public -

forms of accountability - were selected more than others,

including the daily question period and legislative

committee work.

Comments provided to the Commission from citizens

indicated a desire that MLAs should be freed of party

discipline and be able to vote as they see fit. We want

“representation, not regurgitation”, as one individual put it.

People want to see their MLA more - they “should appear

more than once every four years on my doorstep”, said

another.

A Profile of New Brunswick’s Legislature

The budget in 2004-2005 for Legislative Assembly

operations (Members pay and allowances, Legislative

Assembly Office, and caucus research offices) is $10.3

million. The budget in 2004-05 for officers of the Legislative

Assembly (Chief Electoral Officer, Ombudsman, Auditor-

General, Commissioner of Official Languages, and

Superintendent of Political Financing) is $4.015 million. This

represents approximately 0.3 per cent of total provincial

spending in this fiscal year. The chart below sets out the

share of funding each receives.

** Does not include the $3.960 million amount allocated for running the municipal election.

*** Does not include transfers to political parties.

Source: Main Estimates of the Province of NB for 2004-2005

in per cent

Legislative Assembly Operating Budget

Members

Allowances

and Committees

Leaders of

Registered

Parties

Office of the

Legislative

Assembly

Office of

the Auditor

General

Office of

the Chief

Electoral

Officer**

Office of the

Ombudsman

Office

of the

Supervisor

of Political

Financing***

Office of the

Commissioner

of Official

Languages

42%

12% 12%

18%

* Includes the budget of the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner

Legislative Assembly

Operating Budget

* Officers of

the Legislative

Assembly

* Officers of

the Legislative

Assembly

Source: Main Estimates of the Province of NB for 2004-2005

($14.146 million)

Budget of the New Brunswick

Legislative Assembly, 2004-2005

72%

28%

Unimportant

Not that important

Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important

Daily question

period

Passing

new laws

Approving

public expenses

Committee work

on policy issues

Debating issues

in public

Holding

government

accountable

in per cent, based on an average of 259 respondents

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

What is the most important part of the

legislature’s business?

Local riding Province as a whole

in per cent, based on 253 respondents

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

59.3%

How should an MLA vote if there is a conflict between the local

interests of their riding and the broader interest of the province as

a whole (for example balancing the budget)?

40.7%

Since 1999, the Legislative Assembly sits an average of 66

days per year, within the range of most legislatures. As can

be seen in the chart below, this is a significant increase

from the 1980s and 1990s.

The average number of bills adopted over the past eight

years has been 65, from a high of 96 in the 1996-97

session, to a low of 49 in the 1999-2000 session.

While the legislature is efficient in passing government bills,

it is far less responsive to passing private member’s bills, as

the chart below shows. It is only in the past two years that

an increase in the number of private member’s bills tabled

has occurred. It is worth noting that this is happening when

the party standings in the House have been close.

New Brunswick MLAs are not extravagantly paid. Out of 16

jurisdictional comparisons, remuneration figures indicate

that in 2003-04, their basic salary ($40,565) was 12th-

lowest, and their total salary was ninth-lowest. This is set out

in Background Appendix VI.

Constituency resources are another issue. New Brunswick

MLAs receive $25,000 per year to staff and operate a

constituency office. This is the lowest in the country for

jurisdictions that provide such funding despite, as we have

seen, MLAs spending a higher proportion of their time on

constituency matters than the typical MLA in Canada. A

comparative table is set out in Background Appendix “VIII”.

New Brunswick is the only jurisdiction in Canada that does

not publish a timely record of its daily proceedings and

deliberations. In fact, all other provinces provide online, up-

to-date access to Hansard. In New Brunswick, the last

published volumes date back to the 1995-1996 session.

The volumes of the next four sessions are almost ready for

publishing, while the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001

sessions still need to be translated. The last three sessions

have not yet been completely transcribed.

While our legislature can be said to operate efficiently and

effectively on behalf of taxpayers with the resources it

receives, the question can be asked, “At what cost to

citizens?” There is a financial cost to democracy; a cost that

perhaps can only be measured when it is lacking.

“Roles of MLAs and their responsibilities should be

increased, as well as the number of free votes they

have.” Public Hearing, Fredericton, June 2004.

Roundtable on Empowering the

People’s House

On March 25, 2004, the Commission held a one-day

expert roundtable discussion on how we could enhance the

role of MLAs and the legislature. This event was co-

sponsored with the Centre for Research and Information on

Private Member's Bills

Opposition Bills

Government Bills

96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04

100

120

Source: Legislative Assembly

Number of bills introduced in the

New Brunswick Legislature

Average

100

96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04

Number of Bills adopted by session

Source: Legislative Assembly

June 1999 to

April 2003

1987 to 19981977 to 1986

Source: Legislative Assembly

Sitting days of the New Brunswick Legislature

per session

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Canada. MLAs from Alberta, Ontario, and Québec gave us

their perspective on legislative reform initiatives occurring in

their provinces. A panel with a government and an

opposition MLA from New Brunswick discussed their own

experiences and some of the realities of being an MLA in

this province. Academic experts from the Parliamentary

Centre in Ottawa and elsewhere set out the issues and

challenges in this area. The discussion was rounded out by

the participation of the Ombudsman and a representative of

the media.

There were many common concerns expressed by

participants about the partisan nature of politics today and

the adversarial system in the legislature. Virtually all stated

these were barriers preventing private members from having

more influence, and causing people to look more negatively

upon their political leaders and institutions. One elected

official expressed a desire to return to the original ideals

that made it the “People’s House”. Many participants

believed there was a need to circumscribe partisanship, and

allow more time for thoughtful consideration of bills and

issues. The New Brunswick MLAs participating called for

more resources for MLAs to serve their constituents better.

There were suggestions for more public input into the

legislative process and to make debates more relevant and

meaningful.

The need to change the culture in the legislature was seen

as critical to successfully enhancing the role of MLAs. All

participants at the Commission’s roundtable felt this was

necessary to help correct the current state of citizen

disengagement and cynicism about politics and politicians

in the country.

Making the Legislature More Relevant

and Effective

The Commission believes that enhancing the role of MLAs

really begins with enhancing the role of the legislature in

democratic governance. Simply put, the legislature must

matter more. It must become more relevant to decision-

making in our province and more effective in how it

functions. A rebalancing of authority away from the

executive branch back to the legislature is required. In the

process, our MLAs must become even more accountable to

the people they serve.

There are several major barriers to achieving these goals.

• Party Discipline. Votes along party lines are entirely

predictable today. There are no free votes in today’s

legislature. Party discipline reinforces the adversarial

nature of our political system. It creates a sense that

legislators do not listen to people; that MLAs cannot act

independently on behalf of their constituents. Free votes

and a more relaxed definition of what constitutes a

vote of “non-confidence” could help address this issue.

• Adversarial Politics. Governments propose and

oppositions oppose. This traditional formula leaves little

room for bipartisan compromise and can prevent good

ideas from being adopted in a collaborative way. It

causes MLAs to engage in personal attacks and

political grandstanding that devalues the currency of

political life. A stronger focus on legislative committee

work and private members bills, offering more

possibilities for cross-party co-operation, could help

make the House less adversarial in these areas at least.

“I used to bring my class to the Legislative Assembly

but I no longer do. I am embarrassed with the way

MLAs act and speak during Question period. I

would discipline my students if they behaved in

such ways.” Teacher, Colloque provincial de

l’Association des enseignants et enseignantes

francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick, Bouctouche,

September 2004.

• Legislative Assembly Resources. From legislative

committees to policy research and legislative drafting,

the New Brunswick legislature does not have the

resources to allow MLAs to fulfill their broad role as

legislators and fulfill their professional obligations to the

quality New Brunswickers deserve. This is contributing

to the current lack of influence of the legislature.

Providing adequate resources to the legislature to do its

job of legislative review and government scrutiny is

necessary to redress this.

• MLA Resources. Individual MLAs have few

professional resources to provide effective constituency

services to citizens. Recent improvements have not kept

pace with either the ongoing demands from

constituents or the desire of MLAs to serve their ridings

more effectively. Providing sufficient resources to

individual MLAs to represent and communicate with

their constituents more effectively is important.

Adequately fulfilling their representative function is the

top priority of citizens, as it is of MLAs.

• House Rules. Traditions and practices have been

established over time that reinforce the adversarial

system and make it difficult for MLAs to act outside this

culture. Providing more flexibility in the rules of the

House would allow MLAs to more effectively carry out

their scrutiny and accountability functions as well as

take on more policy development and legislative

review roles. At the same time, a more efficient and

accountable House could emerge from fixed legislative

calendars and set Budget and Throne Speech dates.

• The “full-time” MLA. MLAs have historically been

“citizen politicians”, spending time in the capital city

when the legislature is in session, but otherwise

remaining in their ridings. Today, the demands of

constituency representation, legislative and policy

work, and the media, make even the private member’s

role a full-time one. Members work longer hours than

the average person in the province. It has become in

fact, if not in name, a formal full-time profession in our

province and should be considered as such.

Accordingly, it requires a different approach than at

present, with appropriate remuneration and support to

allow MLAs to perform the roles that are now expected

of them.

Strategies for Enhancing the Role of MLAs

and the Legislature

The Commission believes that the following six strategies

should be implemented to achieve our goals of enhancing

the role of MLAs and the legislature:

First, give the legislature more independence and

authority. The Commission believes that the House must

matter more. This means reinforcing its independent ability

from government to manage its own business, to debate

bills and issues, scrutinize government and hold it

accountable, and interact with citizens. The Commission

believes, as a first step, that the legislature should be

allowed to set its own budget, together with the budgets of

the officers of the Legislative Assembly. The legislature and

legislative officers are independent of government and

should be treated as such. The Commission is also

recommending the creation of a new Legislative Library

Research Office to provide dedicated access to professional

research expertise for members. More resources for

research and committee work are necessary to give

members the ability to study issues, engage citizens, and

offer their own solutions to public policy challenges. Our

recommendation for restructuring legislative committees

along policy lines will underline the authority and expertise

of these committees and their members. The Commission

believes that the legislature needs to operate more efficiently

as well. Fixed legislative calendars with set Budget and

Throne Speech dates will contribute to a stronger sense of

legislative independence and authority, requiring the

government to plan its business around the legislature rather

than the other way around.

Second, give private MLAs more independence

and authority. The Commission believes MLAs must

matter more. MLAs need to be reinforced in their roles as

both legislators and constituency representatives. This means

giving them the resources to draft private members bills and

provide more effective representation to their constituents.

Private members should, as legislators, be able to introduce

bills on public policy and constituency matters of importance

to them and have them debated. Access to drafting

expertise is required for this to occur. Citizens and MLAs

want closer interaction with each other. This is a strong part

of New Brunswick’s political culture. That is why the

Commission is recommending, in both instances, that MLAs

be supported in drafting private members bills through more

resources at the new Legislative Library Research Office,

and that the annual constituency budget for MLAs be

increased from one of the lowest amounts in the country to

a more appropriate and meaningful amount that reflects the

needs and expectations of their job.

Third, reduce party discipline and the adversarial

political culture of the legislature. The Commission

believes a less partisan dynamic is essential to restore true

independence and authority to the House and raise

people’s trust and confidence in their political institutions

and officials. The Commission is recommending several

specific measures aimed at reducing overt party discipline

and contributing to a less adversarial political atmosphere.

This particularly includes allowing more free votes on issues

and instituting a three-line whip system. Not every bill

should automatically divide along party lines. Established

procedures and traditions exist in our form of parliamentary

system to give more freedom to private MLAs to exercise

their “trustee” and “delegate” roles while still allowing a

government to carry out its legislative agenda and program.

Similarly, partisan ties can be less acute in legislative

committees where members work more closely together over

a longer period of time on issues. This can lead to more

consensus building and unanimous reports to government

for action. The Commission believes that encouraging policy

development and legislative review through committees will

help reduce rampant party discipline, give MLAs more

flexibility to work together in a more collaborative manner,

and demonstrate to the public how effectively the system

can work for citizens.

Fourth, make MLAs more accountable to the

legislature. The Commission believes that ongoing

accountability of MLAs to the legislature is an essential

component of legislative democracy. It would enhance

public trust. Simply providing more resources without

requiring accountability for the expenditure of those

resources would not meet this obligation. The Commission is

therefore recommending that MLAs provide a complete

accounting on an annual basis of increased constituency

and communications expenditures to the Legislative

Assembly Office, the independent administrative office of

the legislature. Annual reports of these expenditures would

be made public by the Speaker.

Fifth, make the legislature and MLAs more

accountable to New Brunswickers. The Commission

equally believes that ongoing accountability of MLAs and

the legislature to New Brunswickers is essential to a

renewed democracy. New Brunswickers need to know more

about what their MLAs do, and how they conduct their

business. The public performance of our elected officials has

a strong bearing on how citizens perceive their democratic

institutions. Since accountability starts with conduct, the

Commission believes that MLAs need to adopt a clear Code

of Conduct for MLAs through a public debate, and make

this Code a formal part of their Standing Rules. The work of

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

the Legislative Administration Committee already completed

in this regard should serve as this Code. Equally important

to accountability is how MLAs set their salaries and

remuneration. The Commission believes that citizens should

have their say, rather than leave it entirely to MLAs

themselves. Our recommendations for a three-person

citizens commission to independently recommend the

remuneration for MLAs will achieve this objective. They

should do so on the basis of an MLA as a full-time

profession, consolidating the current confusing structure of

per diems, indemnities, and expenses into a single,

transparent salary befitting the importance of the job, the

need to attract quality individuals and qualified candidates,

and the expectations of citizens. Similarly, the Commission

is also recommending that the Right to Information Act now

apply to MLAs by adding the Legislative Assembly to the list

of departments designated as coming under the provisions

of the Act. Together, these steps will make for a more

accountable legislature, which will help restore the essential

commodity of political trust so necessary in a democracy.

Sixth, promote more citizen engagement with the

legislature. The Commission believes that MLAs need to

be more engaged with citizens if the legislature’s role is to

be truly enhanced in their eyes. New Brunswickers want to

interact more with their elected officials on issues that matter

to them. The Commission is recommending that several

steps be taken to promote more citizen engagement with the

legislature, including a stronger public consultation role for

committees, greater use of petitions, including e-petitions,

and more online consultation and interaction by MLAs with

their constituents. As well, the Commission believes that

MLAs should be encouraged to engage citizens directly on

issues to hear their views. To do so, we are recommending

a small, dedicated budget for each MLA to access as

required to hold town hall meetings, engage in mini

citizens’ assemblies, or other means that work best to

communicate with their constituents.

The Commission believes that these strategies, together with

the specific recommendations set out below, will go a long

way toward enhancing the role of MLAs and the legislature

in the democratic life of our province. Changing the culture

of an institution is quite difficult. Changing a political culture

is probably most difficult of all. Nevertheless, the

Commission heard clearly from New Brunswickers,

including MLAs themselves, that they are not satisfied with

the present situation. It has helped contribute to a rise in

discontent with the current political system and with our

political leaders. Individually and collectively, they are

being held responsible for a situation that has developed

over time and are now paying the professional and

personal price for it. It is a price that involves significant

sacrifices of personal and family time, for an uncertain

future and an often angry and frustrated set of voters with

which to deal.

All the evidence suggests our MLAs are positively motivated

and sincere about their desire to serve their constituents and

to make our province stronger. We believe that they need

more resources to do their job and serve us, as citizens. We

believe they are in many ways underpaid for what they do

and what we, as citizens, expect of them.

At the same time, it is sometimes true that MLAs’ strongly

partisan behaviour, perhaps as a result of the system in

which they find themselves, creates a sense of mistrust with

voters and contributes to this more pervasive lack of

confidence in our democratic process. This is helping to

erode the legitimacy of our democratic institutions and

processes.

The Commission believes the time has come to bring about

change.

Who Can Make Changes?

MLAs themselves are first and foremost responsible for bring

about the changes we are recommending. There is an

ancient privilege that the House is sovereign; in its own

matters, it is its own master. This is a fundamental guarantee

of the legislature’s independence from outside influences

and, by extension, anything that gets in the way of

members representing their constituents. Standing on

traditional prerogatives, however, is no answer to the desire

for change being expressed by New Brunswickers. The

history and internal mechanics and business of legislative

operations should not act as a barrier to change.

Our changes will make a positive difference. They will make

private members matter more. The legislature will become

once again the central focus of our democracy. The roles

and responsibilities of MLAs will become clearer and more

supported. We believe it will lead to a stronger

understanding by New Brunswickers of what MLAs do,

which should lead to an increase in confidence in our

political system.

But our report comes with a warning too. Adopting these

recommendations on a piecemeal basis, particularly those

that lead to higher expenditures for MLAs without, for

example, giving them real responsibility and making them

more accountable for their actions, will only heighten

cynicism. The Legislative Assembly matters too much to our

democracy. It is worth the effort to make it matter even

more.

Recommendations

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following steps be taken to enhance the role of the

Legislative Assembly and MLAs, and increase accountability

of government and the legislature to New Brunswickers:

Enhancing the Role of the Legislative

Assembly

Recommendation 1

That party discipline and partisanship be reduced by

encouraging more free votes, fewer confidence measures,

and the introduction of a three-line whip voting system in the

Legislative Assembly.

Recommendation 2

That the role of legislative committees in policy-making be

enhanced by providing the committees with designated staff

and resources allowing them to conduct independent

research and undertake public consultations, including

mandatory public hearings on important bills.

Recommendation 3

That the Legislative Assembly committees be restructured to

create standing policy committees that would facilitate

consideration of bills and encourage stronger MLA policy

expertise. The Standing Committees could be:

1. Standing Committee on Natural Resources

2. Standing Committee on Social Policy

3. Standing Committee on Finance and Economic

Policy

4. Standing Committee on Public Safety

5. Standing Committee on Government Operations

6. Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Crown

Corporations

7. Standing Committee on Legislative Administration,

Procedures, Statutory Officers and Legal Issues

Recommendation 4

That an independent Legislative Library Research Office be

created and funded to serve all MLAs, and to support the

role of strengthened legislative committees, ensuring that

individual MLAs can research policy issues on behalf of

constituents and acquire more legislative expertise in

specific policy areas.

Recommendation 5

That MLAs have the time to review bills before they are

adopted in final form by allowing for more time between

first and third reading of bills.

Recommendation 6

That a new, designated one-hour dialogue and scrutiny time

period every two weeks called, “Interpellation” be

provided. Interpellation would be used firstly, to debate

reports of committees of the Legislative Assembly and

secondly, to allow for more detailed questioning of ministers

on specific policy areas.

Recommendation 7

That Hansard and Legislative Assembly reports be

accessible online, in a more up-to-date time frame in both

official languages. A transcript of Question Period would be

published within 24 hours and a transcript of Hansard

within 48 hours.

Recommendation 8

That the Legislative Assembly be permitted to independently

table its own budget through the Speaker on the same day

and as a component part of the Main Estimates tabled by

the Minister of Finance, as is stated in the Legislative

Assembly Act.

Recommendation 9

That the Statutory Officers of the Legislative Assembly be

permitted to independently submit the budgets for their

offices to the Legislative Administration Committee for

review and approval as part of the overall Legislative

Assembly budget.

Enhancing the Role of MLAs

Recommendation 10

That the formal Code of Conduct for MLAs proposed by the

Legislative Administration Committee and set out in detail in

the policy framework on the Roles and Duties of an MLA

and a Code of Conduct for Members of the Legislative

Assembly in New Brunswick contained in Recommendation

Appendix “C”, be adopted following a debate in the

Legislative Assembly, added as an appendix to the Standing

Rules of the Legislative Assembly, and published on the

Legislative Assembly website.

Recommendation 11

That the annual constituency budget for each MLA be

increased to $50,000, as set out in the policy framework

for MLA Constituency Resources contained in

Recommendation Appendix “D”, to allow the MLAs to offer

more accessible and effective services to their constituents.

This budget would be administered by the Legislative

Assembly Office to ensure full transparency and

accountability. A complete accounting of spending would

be published in an annual report by the Legislative

Assembly Office.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Recommendation 12

That MLAs be supported in drafting more Private Member’s

Bills reflecting their independent policy ideas and

constituency concerns, by providing access to legal drafting

resources and staff through the new Legislative Library

Research Office referred to in Recommendation 4.

Government and Opposition members would adopt a

process to vote on an agreed upon number of such bills

during each legislative session.

Recommendation 13

That an independent remuneration review committee of

three New Brunswick citizens appointed by a two-thirds vote

of the Legislative Assembly be established to determine a

new consolidated salary level for all MLAs, to better reflect

the full-time reality of the occupation, and the need for

regular, appropriate increases, as set out in detail in the

policy framework for a Review Committee of MLA

Remuneration contained in Recommendation Appendix “E”.

Per diems and other expenses for undertaking committee

and other work would be eliminated in favour of this more

transparent and realistic salary level.

Ensuring Greater Accountability of

Government and the Legislature to

New Brunswickers

Recommendation 14

That a fixed Legislative Calendar Session as set out in detail

in the policy framework contained in Recommendation

Appendix “F”, be introduced, setting out in advance when

the legislature would meet each year. This would allow for

more effective and efficient use of House time, ensure that

designated days are set aside for legislative committees to

do their work, and also allow individual Members to more

effectively plan their time to meet both their constituency

and legislative obligations.

Recommendation 15

That a Transparency and Accountability Act, as set out in

the policy framework contained in Recommendation

Appendix “G”, be adopted that would set deadlines for the

publication of Public Accounts and quarterly provincial

financial reports, and would enumerate what information

must be contained in each report. This Act would also set

out Throne Speech and Budget dates.

Recommendation 16

That up to $5,000 annually be allocated to each MLA,

designated specifically for undertaking direct public

consultation with their constituents through town hall

meetings and citizens’ forums on policy issues. This budget

would be administered by the Legislative Assembly Office,

with a regular reporting of activities undertaken by members

publicized each year.

Recommendation 17

That the Legislative Assembly promote the use of information

and communications technology to improve citizen access,

including a more extensive and interactive website, with

sites for individual MLAs, as well as creating a new online

"e-petition" feature that will allow citizens to start and

manage their own petitions through the Legislative Assembly

website.

Recommendation 18

That petitions be given a higher priority in legislative

business by adding petitions to the terms of reference of one

or more appropriate standing committees, which would

regularly examine petitions received, and would be

empowered to invite petitioners to committee meetings to

discuss their concerns. Committees taking up petitions would

include them in their reports to the Legislative Assembly, and

require timely and meaningful responses from government

on the petitioners' concerns.

Recommendation 19

That the Right to Information Act process be improved first,

so that where the scope of a request by an applicant under

the Act is not clear or the request would be best served by

a personal inspection of the information by the applicant,

the appropriate minister would be permitted to invite the

applicant to inspect the information in the offices of the

department, if it was practical to do so, within 30 days of

the receipt of the application as set out in the Act; and,

second, that Regulation 85-68 under the Right to

Information Act be amended to include the Legislative

Assembly in the list of Departments that are subject to the

Act as long as providing the information requested does not

infringe on the privileges of the Legislative Assembly or the

Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Improving Party Democracy

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on

strengthening and modernizing our electoral system

and democratic institutions and practices in New

Brunswick to make them more fair, open,

accountable and accessible to New Brunswickers

and to seek the views of New Brunswickers on

more open, responsive, and accountable

democratic institutions and practices.

Overview

Political parties are central players in New Brunswick’s

democratic life. Many New Brunswickers experience politics

almost exclusively through our parties. Parties choose

leaders from among whom we select our Premier, they

nominate candidates from among whom we select our

MLAs, and they organize our legislature along party lines.

The manner in which parties conduct these key activities has

a significant impact on our democratic culture. The

Commission believes that efforts to create a more citizen-

centered democracy in New Brunswick must include steps to

make parties more open, democratic and accountable.

Therefore, we are making recommendations concerning the

conduct of parties in candidate nomination, leadership

selection and policy study and development.

Public or Private Organizations?

Some will argue that political parties are private

organizations and thus should be left to regulate themselves.

We do not agree with this sentiment for two reasons. The

first is that our political parties engage in decision-making

that has a profound effect on public affairs in the province

and the second is that they receive substantial amounts of

New Brunswickers’ tax dollars. In 2004, the three principal

parties received approximately $646,000 in direct public

subsidies - the annual allowances that the political parties

receive under the Political Process Financing Act (PPFA) - as

well as significant additional public funding through the tax

credit for contributions to parties estimated to cost the

provincial treasury more than $500,000 in 2003.

The annual allowance to which each party is entitled is

calculated using a formula set out in the PPFA, indexed for

inflation, to obtain a dollar amount per valid vote (currently

$1.73) received by each party in the previous provincial

general election. Parties also receive public funding through

an election expense reimbursement and a reimbursement for

the cost of auditing their financial returns to the Supervisor.

In terms of private financing, the PPFA allows parties to

accept contributions, for which income tax receipts are

issued, from individuals, corporations and trade unions. All

these contributions must be reported to the Supervisor of

Political Financing along with the value of contributions of

property and services, or “in-kind contributions”.

As the chart below shows, public funding made up on

average between 35 and 40 per cent of the total financing

of each of the three main political parties in New Brunswick

over the five-year period 1997- 2001. In terms of private

financing, the Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties

both received approximately one-quarter of their overall

financing from individuals and one-third from corporations

for this same period. The NDP received most of its private

contributions from individuals.

The value of the political contributions tax credit to both

individuals and corporations - which is funded by taxpayers

- from 1998 to 2003, totalled $2,436,891. The chart

below shows the value of this tax credit over this period.

We believe public support of our political parties is

appropriate given the important role they play in our

society. In fact, in other parts of this report, we recommend

an increase in the amount of public funds available to

parties. However, these dollars should not simply be handed

over without greater assurance that our parties are meeting

the democratic expectations of our citizens.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003*

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Value to individuals

Value to Corporations

Total

Source: “The Commissioner’s Annual Report to the Government of New Brunswick”,

Canada Revenue Agency and Tax Sharing Statements

in dollars

New Brunswick Political Contributions Tax Credit

1998-2003

Progressive

Conservative

Liberal New Democratic

Source: Annual Reports of Supervisor of Political Financing

NOTE: Numbers rounded to the nearest dollar

Average Annual Political Financing Amounts in NB:

1997 – 2001

P & SUnionsCorporationsIndividual

Public

Public $367,195.00

Private $682,189.00

Total $1,049,384.00

Public $398,439.00

Private $624,157.00

Total $1,022,596.00

Public $74,411.00

Private $115,537.00

Total $189,948.00

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Through the selection of candidates and leaders and the

drafting of policy platforms, the activities of New

Brunswick’s political parties have significant impact on the

quality of our democratic practices and institutions. Citizens

have the right to believe that these activities are conducted

in a fair, open and transparent manner.

Party Nomination and Leadership Contests

Among the central activities of our political parties is the

selection of general election candidates and party leaders.

Both of these activities have a significant impact on our

politics. It is only by first winning a party nomination contest

that a candidate has any realistic chance of being elected

to the legislature. In the 12 provincial elections held since

1960, every successful candidate was first nominated by a

political party. This means that when voters go to the polls

to select their MLA, the political parties have already

narrowed the choice down to three candidates from among

whom voters get to choose. In ‘safe’ seats, where one party

is almost certain to win the general election, the nomination

contest is arguably more important than the general

election.

In terms of leadership selection, the parties again narrow

the field down to a small group of individuals from among

whom we choose our premier. On occasion, the parties

directly choose a premier. For example, when Premier

McKenna resigned in 1997, his successor, Camille

Thériault, was chosen by Liberal party members and served

as premier for one year before the next general election.

This is not to suggest that this is inappropriate; rather, it

makes clear the importance of these events in our

democratic life.

Similarly, when we concern ourselves with access to elected

office for under- represented groups, such as women, we

must begin our investigation with an examination of

candidate nomination and leadership selection contests. The

parties act as gate keepers, determining who has access to

public office. As illustrated in the chart below, women are

under-represented among the groups of candidates

nominated by our political parties, leading almost inevitably

to an under-representation of women in our legislature.

Financing

“To ensure a true democracy, we must introduce

measures that would prevent wealthy groups to be

able to influence, through money, citizens’ vote,”

Submission by l’Association acadienne et

francophone des aînés et aînées du Nouveau-

Brunswick, May 2004.

New Brunswick’s Political Process Financing Act provides a

comprehensive and effective regulatory scheme for the

financing of our provincial general elections. There are

limits on contributions to and election expenditures of

candidates and parties, and full public disclosure is

required. These requirements of the PPFA work toward

providing a level playing field between candidates and

parties, restricting the influence of non-voters, and ensuring

transparency in the financial dealings of the parties and

their candidates. However, the PPFA falls short in not

covering the financial activities of party leadership and

candidate nomination contests. As suggested above, these

events are as consequential as general elections, and the

rationale supporting regulation of general election financing

applies readily to these contests as well. Therefore, the

Commission recommends that the relevant provisions of

New Brunswick’s PPFA be amended, as described below, to

set limits on contributions to and expenditures of leadership

and nomination candidates.

Spending limits

In general election campaigns, there are limits on the

amount candidates and parties are able to spend. In the

case of individual candidates, while the limit is calculated

based on the number of voters and thus varies by

constituency, the average spending limit was $26,756 in

the 2003 election. The principal rationale for this is to

ensure that one candidate or party with easy access to

financial resources is not able to spend enormous amounts

gaining an unfair advantage over their opponents. We

believe that the same logic that supports limiting candidate

spending in a general election applies equally to

nomination contests. The Commission heard that women are

Women

elected

Women

candidates

1991 1995 1999 2003

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

Comparison of Women Candidates vs Women

Elected – Provincial Elections

in per cent

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

dissuaded from entering nomination contests because of the

uncertain financial costs and the possibility of being

dramatically outspent by an opponent. We also note that

the federal government moved in 2003 to limit the amount

candidates for party nominations at the federal level can

spend to 20 per cent of the amount they are allowed to

spend in a general election campaign. We are in

agreement with the approach taken at the federal level and

recommend a similar formula for New Brunswick. This

would result in limiting spending by a candidate for a

party’s nomination to approximately $5,300.

The evidence suggests that this spending ceiling would not

be a limiting factor in most nomination contests. Our survey

of MLAs suggests that the mean amount spent by a

successful candidate in a nomination contest prior to the

2003 provincial election was about $2,000. Nonetheless,

the Commission heard some evidence that this amount

increases dramatically in a few cases, particularly those

where a party has an open seat in a riding where it stands

a good chance of being successful. It is in these cases

where a spending limit is required to protect against a well-

heeled candidate raising and spending an inappropriate

amount of funds, and by doing so, gaining an unfair

advantage.

The rationale supporting a limit on candidate nomination

spending applies with even greater force to leadership

selection contests. These are among the most consequential

activities in our democratic politics. As illustrated above,

they occasionally result directly in the selection of a premier

and in every case, choose men and women who will be

influential players in our democratic life. The Commission

believes that it is important that all legitimate candidates be

able to compete in these contests without fear of being

vastly outspent by an opponent. Simply put, the ability to

raise vast amounts of money should not determine the

outcome of these contests. At the same time, because these

are such important events, and because we encourage

leadership candidates to engage large numbers of citizens,

it is important that they be permitted to spend enough funds

to campaign vigorously throughout the province. Given that

leadership candidates must campaign in all 55 ridings, an

appropriate spending limit is arrived at by multiplying the

amount a nomination candidate is allowed to spend by fifty-

five. This amount is approximately $300,000 ( $5,000 x

55), which we believe is an appropriate level at which to

cap spending in a party leadership contest.

The Commission respects the fact that individual parties may

have different values that they wish to reflect in the

spending rules governing their nomination and leadership

contests. There is nothing in these recommendations to

prevent a party from establishing a lower spending ceiling.

The proposed limits are the outer amounts above which

candidates in these contests would be prohibited by law

from exceeding.

Contribution limits

The PPFA limits the amount any individual, corporation or

trade union may contribute to a political party or general

election candidates to $6,000 per annum. The rationale for

this provision is to attempt to ensure that no candidate or

party is overly dependent on one source of campaign

funding. The concern is that if one person or corporation is

able to contribute excessive amounts, the recipient

candidate or party may be overly dependent on continued

financial contributions from this source and thus may be

overly responsive to their influence. By limiting contributions

to relatively modest amounts, we are able to protect against

the possibility of quid-pro-quo arrangements.

At present, a donor may contribute an unlimited amount to

nomination and leadership candidates. The absence of

contribution limits for candidate nomination and leadership

contests essentially negates any potential benefits achieved

by the general election limits. A donor seeking influence,

who is limited in the amount she or he can contribute to a

candidate during a general election, can easily circumvent

this limit by making the contribution during the nomination

period. Given that we are proposing a spending limit of

approximately $5,000 for nomination campaigns, the

Commission recommends that no single donor be able to

contribute more than $1,000 to nomination candidates. This

ensures that no candidate, in a highly contested race, is

overly dependent on a single contributor and that no single

contributor has undue influence over the nomination contest.

Given the considerably larger fund raising demands on

leadership candidates and their significantly larger

campaign budgets, the Commission recommends a $3,000

limit be placed on the amount any one individual,

corporation or trade union may contribute to the candidates

for a party’s leadership. In both cases, we also recommend

that these contributions not count against the limits already

in place for contributions to political parties and general

election candidates, so as not to impact the abilities of

parties to raise funds for their own campaigns.

Disclosure

Financial disclosure requirements serve two main purposes.

First, they provide transparency into a candidate or party’s

financial relationships, and second, they facilitate

enforcement of spending and contribution limits. The PPFA

currently requires financial disclosure from general election

candidates and parties, but not from nomination and

leadership contestants. The Commission sees no justifiable

reason why these contests should be excluded from

disclosure requirements. Voters have as much, and perhaps

more, interest in knowing who is funding a leadership

campaign as they do in knowing who is funding the

campaigns of their local general election candidates.

Disclosure requirements are also necessary to ensure

compliance with the proposed spending limits.

The Commission recommends that nomination candidates

be required to file a full financial disclosure report with

Elections New Brunswick, consistent with the provisions of

the PPFA, within 90 days of the date of the nomination

contest in which they were a candidate. In the case of

leadership contests, we recommend both pre and post

contest reporting. Given that these contests often last for

several months, which is longer than general election

campaigns, we recommend that candidates file a first

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

financial report with Elections New Brunswick four weeks

prior to the date of the leadership vote, and a second report

90 days after the leadership selection contest. The first

report should include all relevant financial transactions to

that date, and the second report should include the period

between the filing of the two reports. These reports should

be made public by Elections New Brunswick as soon as

practical after their receipt.

The Commission recognizes that these proposals will place

an additional administrative burden on those seeking public

office, and is concerned that this burden not be placed

unnecessarily on those nomination candidates who do not

raise or spend considerable amounts of money in support of

their candidacy. And, given that our MLA survey

respondents, all of whom were successful nomination and

general election candidates, suggest that their mean

spending in nomination contests was $2,000, we propose

that the disclosure and reporting requirements be limited to

candidates who raise or spend in excess of $1,000 on their

nomination campaign. Candidates should have the option

of filing a signed affidavit stating that they both raised and

spent less than $1,000 on their nomination campaign in

lieu of filing a full financial disclosure report.

The table below summarizes the Commission’s proposed

change to financial rules governing party leadership and

nomination contests:

Rules Governing Nomination and

Leadership Contests

At present, party nomination and leadership contests are

subject to no public regulation. The parties conduct these

contests as they deem appropriate. The Commission heard

from New Brunswickers that there should be a standard set

of rules to ensure that these contests are conducted in a fair,

open and transparent manner. We suspect that the public

attention brought to these issues during the 2004 federal

election, both in and out of New Brunswick, has heightened

the saliency of these concerns with voters. Given the

importance of these contests, the Commission recommends

that there be a standard set of basic rules governing both of

these types of contests.

Our recommendation for a New Brunswick mixed member

proportional representation electoral system with closed

party lists makes it especially important that each party’s

general election candidates be chosen in a fair, open and

transparent process. Our first recommendation is that all of

a party’s general election candidates be chosen through a

vote of the party membership in the relevant constituency or

multi-member district. This is the norm today. Most often a

party holds a nominating convention to which all of its

members are invited to attend and vote for their preferred

candidate. Our current laws also allow for a party leader to

unilaterally appoint a candidate without first holding a vote

of the membership. In order to ensure that candidates are

chosen by party members in an open and transparent

manner, the Commission recommends that all of a party’s

general election candidates be endorsed by a vote of

eligible party members. This provision should apply both to

Summary Table of Recommended Changes to PPFA

Nomination Contestants Leadership Contestants

Contribution $1,000 from an individual, corporation or trade union, $3,000 from an individual,

Limits in the aggregate, to the nomination contestants of corporation or trade union, to

each registered political party. one or more of a party’s

leadership contestants.

Spending Approximately $5,300 per nomination contestant $300,000 per leadership contestant

Limits (based on 2003 election spending limits). in a contest.

Formula: 20% of the average of the limits that were

allowed for a candidate’s election expenses in the

province’s electoral districts during the immediately

preceding general election.

Disclosure Nomination contestants to file with Elections Leadership contestants to file

Requirements New Brunswick a full financial disclosure report with Elections New Brunswick:

90 days after the date of the nomination a) a first financial report, detailing

contest in which they were a candidate. financial transactions to date,

four weeks prior to the date

of the leadership vote, and

b) a second, full disclosure report

90 days after the leadership vote.

the current single member constituency nominations and to

nominations in party lists in the proposed New Brunswick

MMP system.

Voting in New Brunswick general elections is restricted to

those at least 18 years of age who are resident of the

province and hold Canadian citizenship. As we commented

on above, party leadership and nomination contests are

every bit as consequential as general elections, and voters

should have the same confidence that only appropriate,

qualified electors are participating in them. The Commission

sees no valid reason why the eligibility for voting in these

contests should differ from general elections. We note that

parties have in the past used participation in these contests

as a way of recruiting younger New Brunswickers into party

activity, and we find this a laudable objective. However, we

do not find this rationale compelling enough to justify a

different set of voter eligibility rules than those used for

general elections.

While being an eligible voter should be a requisite for

voting in these contests, it must be coupled with party

membership. The parties are right to insist that only their

supporters choose their leaders and candidates. However,

membership requirements inevitably lead to recruitment

drives, which can lead to complaints regarding the fairness

of the contests. Given the consequential nature of these

decisions, we believe that long cut-off dates serve no

purpose other than to impose an unnecessary obstacle on

would-be voters. Similarly, the absence of a cut-off date

leads to an influx of instant members and little ability to

confirm their voting eligibility. Therefore, the Commission

recommends that any eligible New Brunswick voter who

belongs to a political party seven days prior to a

nomination or leadership contest be eligible to vote in that

contest. Consistent with this, and in order to encourage full

participation in these contests, we further recommend that

parties be required to advertise the date, time and location

of a leadership or nomination contest at least seven days

prior to the closing date for eligible membership. This will

allow sufficient notice for interested New Brunswickers to

become members of the party and participate in the contest.

New Brunswick’s political parties have been at the forefront

in imposing little financial barrier to participation in

candidate nomination or leadership contests. Parties in other

jurisdictions have imposed relatively large fees, essentially

poll taxes, on those wishing to participate in these contests.

We think it important to ensure that this not occur in New

Brunswick, and accordingly recommend that parties not

charge a membership fee greater than $5 annually, and

that there be no other fee charged in relation with voting in

a nomination or leadership contest.

There is currently no standard timetable for candidate

nomination contests. To some extent this results from the

uncertainty surrounding election dates. We have heard from

women’s groups that this lack of predictable timing, together

with the possibility of a long lead time between a

nomination contest and a general election, raises another

obstacle for the participation of women in our politics. Very

early nomination contests might also catch voters unaware

and potentially lower participation rates. Consistent with our

recommendation in this report for fixed election dates, the

Commission recommends that the timing of candidate

nomination contests be standardized through an amendment

to the Elections Act requiring that they be held no more than

120 days prior to the date of a general election.

Recognizing that these contests essentially will continue to

be conducted by the political parties themselves, albeit

consistent with the general regulatory system recommended

here, the Commission recommends that each party’s leader

be charged with filing a declaration with the province’s

Chief Electoral Officer certifying that each nomination

candidate was chosen in a fair and democratic process that

was consistent with the requirements set out above. Such a

certification should be a prerequisite to a candidate having

party affiliation noted on a general election ballot. In the

case of leadership selection, the declaration should be

made by the Party President.

Party Policy Foundations

We believe that our political parties need to be reinforced

as institutions for policy study and development. Because

parties play such a significant role in the selection of our

elected officials and the operation of our legislature, it is

important that they be capable of ongoing policy study and

development. Generating new and dynamic policy options

is imperative to the long term progress of our province, and

we believe that parties should be encouraged to play a

central role in this activity.

The Commission is particularly concerned to learn that

voters generally, and young citizens in particular, do not see

parties as effective instruments of policy advocacy and often

prefer interest groups instead. This is troubling, as New

Brunswick’s political parties have traditionally played an

important role in building consensus across the various

communities that make up our province, and it is important

that they remain vital institutions, capable of accomplishing

this important task. Interest groups often do not have this

accommodative function as one of their central concerns.

We also believe that strengthening the policy development

capacities of parties will make them more attractive to

young voters who are interested in policy questions and

who the evidence suggests often view parties as too

hierarchical. To accomplish these objectives the Commission

recommends that parties be supported in establishing arm’s-

length, non-profit policy foundations. Policy foundations with

grassroots participation from across the province and

regions will help to ensure that all voices are heard and

considered in the development of public policy.

The establishment of policy foundations will provide a more

meaningful opportunity for interested citizens to engage in

policy study and development within our political parties.

This will provide stronger ties between voters and their

political parties and help to revitalize parties. We think it

important that much of this activity occur within parties, as it

is parties that are charged with governing and in this

capacity with finding accommodations across different

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

interests. Party policy foundations can also play an

educating function in increasing information levels

regarding both public policy and the operation of our

democratic institutions. In order to attract the best and

brightest to participate in political parties, it is important

that they have the opportunity to play a meaningful role in

policy development.

Policy foundations would provide parties with an arm’s-

length vehicle for policy study and development between

election campaigns. This will prove most useful to parties in

developing thoughtful, detailed election platforms,

developing policy alternatives while in government and in

transition-to-government preparation while in opposition. As

arm’s- length organizations, they may be able to attract

participants not wanting to engage directly in partisan

electoral activity, and will be somewhat removed from the

daily cut-and-thrust of political life, encouraging more long

term thinking.

Key Benefits of Party Policy Foundations

• They provide a meaningful opportunity for interested

party members to engage in policy study and

development.

• They provide parties with wider connections to

traditionally non-partisan groups in universities, think

tanks, private and non-profit sectors.

• They provide the space to re-examine policy directions

in a manner that does not imply that a change is

necessarily forthcoming and does not require

immediate response by competing parties.

• Their advice to the party is not based solely on short

term electoral considerations.

• They provide political/policy education to their

members and to the general public, generally

increasing information levels regarding public policy.

Funding Policy Foundations

In order to meet the objectives set out above, party policy

foundations will require financial support. Given the

important role they can fill in helping to advance public

policy in our province, we believe it appropriate that they

be funded through a mix of public financial support and

private contributions.

We recommend the following public support to party policy

foundations:

• Political parties currently represented in the legislature

be entitled to a one-time start-up allowance equal to 25

per cent of their 2005 eligible annual allowance under

the PPFA, or $25,000, whichever amount is greater,

for purposes of starting a policy foundation.

• In each subsequent year, established policy foundations

of all registered parties represented in the legislature

will receive an annual allowance equal to 25 cents per

valid vote received by the party in the previous

provincial election.

• The New Brunswick Political Contributions Tax Credit

be extended to include contributions made to party

policy foundations as an incentive for individuals and

others to make contributions.

These provisions will provide the start-up funds necessary for

the parties to get a policy foundation off the ground and a

modest amount of guaranteed annual funding to support

their activities. The extension of the tax credit will assist

parties in raising private funds to support their foundation’s

ongoing activities.

Consistent with the spirit of the contribution limits found in

the PPFA, the Commission recommends that contributions to

party policy foundations be limited to no more than $3,000

and that this be separate from limits on contributions to

candidates and parties. We recommend that in order to

protect the integrity of these limits, there be no permissible

commingling or transferring of funds between political

parties and their policy foundations. In order to ensure

compliance with these requirements, and to provide full

disclosure of their financial dealings, the Commission also

recommends that party policy foundations be required to file

annual financial disclosure reports with Elections New

Brunswick consistent with the requirements of the PPFA.

Improving Party Democracy

Party democracy is a matter that concerns all New

Brunswickers. It is not just a private matter to political

parties. How parties choose candidates and conduct their

business is an essential ingredient to a strong citizen-centred

democracy for our province. It contributes to citizens’

perception of the political process and our elected officials.

Ensuring parties function in an open, accountable way, and

are healthy and vibrant, reinforces the importance we

attach, as citizens, to their role in a renewed democracy in

New Brunswick. The Commission’s recommendations will

improve party democracy in our province and make the

system work better for citizens.

Recommendations

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following steps be taken to improve political party

democracy in New Brunswick:

Recommendation 1

That the Political Process Financing Act (PPFA) be amended

to set contribution and spending limits for political party

leadership and nomination contestants and require public

disclosure of information on the financing of leadership and

nomination contests. That these limits and disclosure

requirements be as follows:

1.1 Leadership campaign expenses would be limited to

$300,000 per candidate.

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

1.2 Nomination campaign expenses would be limited to an

amount representing 20 per cent of the average of the

spending limits that were allowed for a candidate's

election expenses in the province’s electoral districts

during the immediately preceding general election.

1.3 Contributions would be limited to $3,000 in total to

one or more contestants in a leadership contest and

$1,000 in total to one or more nomination contestants;

these limits would be in addition to the current limit for

contributions to parties under the PPFA.

1.4 Leadership candidates would be required to file a

summary financial return four weeks prior to the date

of the leadership contest and a final leadership

campaign return within 90 days of the date of the

leadership contest. Nomination contestants who

accepted contributions or incurred expenses over

$1,000 would have to file a nomination campaign

return within 90 days of the selection date for the

nomination contest.

1.5 Elections New Brunswick would publish information

disclosed by leadership and nomination contestants on

the financing of their campaigns.

Recommendation 2

That the following new provisions be introduced into the

Elections Act to set clear, open, and transparent rules and

procedures to be followed by political parties during

nomination and leadership contests:

2.1 All of a party’s general election candidates must be

endorsed by a vote of eligible party members, in a

vote that is open to all eligible party members.

2.2 To be eligible for party membership, a person must

meet the same eligibility requirements to vote in a

provincial election.

2.3 To be eligible to vote in a leadership or nomination

contest, a person must belong to the political party at

least seven days prior to the nomination contest and be

a member of the party at the time of the vote.

2.4 If fixed election dates are adopted, riding associations

must hold a vote of their members for the purpose of

choosing their general election candidate no more than

120 days prior to the date of the general election.

2.5 Parties must advertise the date, time and location of a

leadership or nomination contest at least seven days

prior to the closing date for eligible membership.

2.6 Parties shall not charge a membership fee greater than

$5 annually.

2.7 A declaration, signed by the party leader following a

nomination contest and signed by the Party President

following a leadership contest, must be filed with the

Chief Electoral Officer, certifying that all required

procedures were followed and that the nomination or

leadership contest was held in a fair and democratic

manner.

Recommendation 3

That the policy framework for administering these new

political party financing rules contained in Recommendation

Appendix “H” be adopted.

Recommendation 4

That all political parties be encouraged to establish Policy

Foundations as a way to provide a meaningful opportunity

for interested party members to engage in policy study and

development and to help ensure parties present strong

platforms to voters at election time. That Policy Foundations

be established on an arm’s-length, non-profit basis and be

funded through:

1) A one-time, start-up allowance in an amount that is

25 per cent of the annual allowance to which the

party is eligible under the PPFA, in the Policy

Foundation’s start-up year, or $25,000, whichever

amount is greater,

2) An ongoing additional annual allowance of $0.25

per valid vote received during the preceding

provincial general election, and

3) Contributions from individuals, corporations and

trade unions, not exceeding $3,000 in a calendar

year, to one or more party Policy Foundations, and

to which the New Brunswick Political Contributions

Tax Credit would be extended. This contribution

limit would be in addition to the current limit for

contributions to parties under the PPFA.

Recommendation 5

That to be eligible for public funding, a party Policy

Foundation would be required to: have a Constitution

separate from the political party’s Constitution; have a

separate board of directors from the provincial party

executive; present annual reports to Elections New

Brunswick on the Foundation’s activities and programs,

including full disclosure of all revenues, expenditures, and

contributions; prohibit any transfers of funds from the

Foundation to the political party for election purposes or

operations; and prohibit the director or any full-time

personnel from participating directly in the preparation of

election-related material or in the conduct of election

campaigns.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Opening up the Appointments

Process for Agencies, Boards and

Commissions

Mandate

“To examine and make recommendations on

enhancing transparency and accountability in

appointments to government agencies, boards, and

commissions.”

Agencies, boards, and commissions (ABCs) are an integral

part of providing provincial government services to people

and developing public policy. They also decide on

important matters affecting all New Brunswickers, such as

increases to our electricity bill and the cost of our car

insurance. They make decisions on employment appeals as

well as major financial investments of our tax dollars. It is

important, therefore, that appointments to and

representation on these ABCs reflect the needs and interests

of all New Brunswickers, and not just those of the political

party in power.

Why Look at ABC Appointments?

There are three main reasons why we need to look at how

appointments are made to government agencies, boards,

and commissions. First, there is an overall need to improve

public trust and confidence in the integrity of the political

process and ABCs themselves, in the face of a widespread

perception that patronage is the deciding factor in

appointments. Second, there is a need to ensure the

competence of arm’s length governance boards that have

significant regulatory, adjudicative and service

responsibilities. Third, there is a need to ensure quality

governance for these ABCs to avoid putting the public purse

at risk.

Together, these objectives - trust and confidence,

competence, quality governance - suggest a new approach

to ABC appointments in New Brunswick is required: one

that is more transparent and accountable than at present;

one that opens up the appointments process to all New

Brunswickers.

The Commission’s mandate is to recommend a more

transparent and accountable process for making

appointments to the approximately 130 government

agencies, boards, and commissions. By transparent, we

mean a process that is more open and independent than at

present and allows New Brunswickers to apply for a

position. By accountable, we mean a process that leads to

consideration of qualified candidates, has oversight and

monitoring, and provides information to the public.

“Depoliticize the Agencies, Boards and

Commissions. Make places for citizens according to

their competencies and not their political

preferences.” Your Turn questionnaire,

Spring/Summer 2004

ABCs in New Brunswick

There are approximately 130 agencies, boards, and

commissions existing through legislation to which

government makes appointments. Together, these ABCs

include over 1,000 positions. Not every appointment is a

“public” appointment, open to anyone. Some positions are

reserved for public servants or representatives of

professional bodies, based on the purpose of the ABC.

The size, type, and mandate of each ABC can vary

significantly. Some have significant regulatory and

adjudicative authority or control the expenditures of tens of

millions of dollars each year. Examples of these include the

NB Power Board, the Public Utilities Board, and the Labour

and Employment Board. Other ABCs have an important

public policy influence and representative function. These

include the various advisory councils on issues related to

women, disabled persons, youth and seniors. Still others,

such as certain environmental and farm commodity boards,

provide a useful vehicle for government to communicate

with and receive advice from individuals and groups having

specific technical and professional expertise.

ABCs in the province may be grouped into four basic

categories:

1. Crown agencies (such as NB Power)

2. Adjudicative tribunals (such as the New Brunswick

Human Rights Commission)

3. Operational (such as the NB Forest Products

Commission)

4. Advisory (such as the New Brunswick Advisory Council

on the Status of Women)

A complete listing of ABCs by category may be found in

Recommendation Appendix “I”.

Differences may be found within each category. Not all

Crown agencies, for example, have the same type of

mandate or significance. This is notable since the

appointment qualifications for a position obviously vary

depending upon the nature of the ABC itself. The process

for making these appointments should also then vary

depending upon the significance of the ABC.

There are several factors that determine an ABC’s

significance. The most obvious are:

Financial - does the ABC control or influence a significant

amount of tax dollars?

Policy - does the ABC have a significant, direct impact on

public policy?

Adjudicative - does the ABC have a significant

adjudicative or legal impact on individuals, businesses, or

organizations?

Regulatory - does the ABC have a significant regulatory

function for consumers, businesses, communities, or regions?

On this basis, the Commission considers the most significant

ABCs are:

Crown Agencies

1. New Brunswick Investment Management Corporation

2. New Brunswick Liquor Corporation

3. New Brunswick Power Corporation

4. Service New Brunswick

5. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Commission

Adjudicative Tribunals

(Those making decisions with a province-wide, precedent-

setting impact)

1. Assessment and Planning Appeal Board

2. Criminal Code Board of Review

3. Human Rights Commission

4. Labour and Employment Board

5. New Brunswick Insurance Board

6. New Brunswick Securities Commission

7. Public Utilities Board of Commissioners

8. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Commission - Appeals Tribunal

The Commission does not consider this a closed list.

Government may feel that the proposed list should be

expanded in the future to include other agencies, boards

and commissions.

The Current ABC Appointment Process

Appointments to ABCs currently are made by the Lieutenant-

Governor in Council (Cabinet) on the basis of advice

received from the Premier or a minister. Cabinet makes an

Order-in-Council for each appointment, which is then

published in the Royal Gazette. In most cases, no formal

search or vetting process is undertaken. Names are

recommended to Cabinet, approved, and then published.

This has been the practice for many, many years.

Changes to this practice have been occurring. Several of

the recent appointments to the NB Power Board, for

example, were made following a formal executive search

process using an outside consultant.

The figure below sets out how the current ABC appointment

process in New Brunswick works.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Current Process for ABC Appointments:

1 “Job”

Description

Department

responsible for

ABC determines

criteria; no formal

job description.

2 Advertising

of Vacancies

No formal

advertising.

3 Applications

Candidates (solicited

or unsolicited) apply

with CV to

department or

Minister; formal

application not

required for all

appointments.

4 Vetting

Candidates screened

and processed by

departments, ministers’

offices and Premier’s

Office. No central

authority vetting.

5 Approval

Preferred candidate

approved by Minister

or Cabinet.

6 Publicity of

Appointments

OIC appointments

have to be made

public in Royal

Gazette only.

7 Training for

for New

Members

Informal

orientation/no

formal guidelines.

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Reform Efforts Across Canada and in

New Brunswick

Reform of the way ABC appointments are made is occurring

across Canada. The federal government now allows for

prior Parliamentary review of appointments of Crown

Corporation CEOs, chairs, and directors. Nova Scotia

advertises all vacancies in newspapers and on its

government website. Appointments to the Nova Scotia

Utility and Review Board are now made through formal

advisory committees of human resource professionals, the

Public Service Commission, and other independent

representatives who recommend a short-list of candidates to

Cabinet. Alberta allows ministers to appoint a citizen-based

Review Panel to review candidates and prepare a short-list

for the minister or Cabinet.

The most extensive reforms have been put in place in British

Columbia. A central appointments agency, called the Board

Resourcing and Development Office (BRDO), establishes

guidelines for all provincial appointments to government

agencies. It monitors the process to ensure appointments are

based on merit and conducted through an open,

transparent, and consistent process. The BRDO recommends

qualified candidates for appointment following a formal

vetting process. Vacancies are advertised and appointments

are posted online.

Here in New Brunswick, an all-party Select Committee was

formed to review appointments to key ABCs between 1999

and 2000. Its mandate was to “highly recommend,

recommend, or not recommend” names provided to them

from the government. Members had no authority to propose

alternate names or to call nominees to appear before the

Committee and review qualifications. This committee ceased

meeting and reviewing any names after 2000.

The 2003 Report of the Auditor General reviewed Crown

Agency governance practices. The Auditor General made

the following recommendations, amongst others, regarding

appointments to Crown agency boards:

• “Crown agency boards of directors should be

providing responsible departments with selection

criteria against which to evaluate candidates for board

appointments.”

• “Selection of a Crown agency board member should

be primarily based on the demonstrated ability of a

candidate to contribute to improved outcomes for the

organization, and not their membership in a particular

stakeholder or demographic group.”

• “Processes should be established to ensure the expiry

dates of board appointments are staggered to ensure

continuity on Crown agency boards.”

• “The level of compensation currently provided to board

members should be reviewed to ensure it is sufficient to

attract the best candidates to directorial positions and

to adequately reward board members for their efforts.”

These types of recommendations fit entirely within the

approach being recommended by the Commission for a

new ABC appointments process.

What New Brunswickers Said

“We need to change the appointment process to

Agencies, Boards and Commissions; it’s too

political.” Community Leaders Roundtable,

Miramichi, May 2004.

How people are appointed to ABCs is a matter of concern

to New Brunswickers. Virtually every respondent to the

Commission’s questionnaire on this subject (97 per cent)

said the current process was not open or transparent.

Almost 80 per cent said MLAs should have less say in the

appointment process. Respondents were attracted to a

range of solutions proposed by the Commission including

advertising publicly all positions, having fixed terms for

appointments, requiring legislative review, and making

appointments based on merit.

Submissions to the Commission reinforced these views.

Several organizations supported our options to recommend

an appointments process that was open to the public, and

resulted in the appointment of qualified individuals as well

as more women, Aboriginal people, and others.

“One of the ways to improve transparency and

accountability regarding nominations to Agencies,

Boards and Commissions is to implement clear

directives to that effect that are non-partisan and

known from the general public.” Submission by

Association des enseignants et enseignantes

francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick, August 2004.

It is clear to the Commission that the current process for

ABC appointments does not find general public favour or

support. It is fair to say that many New Brunswickers

believe the appointments process should be above politics

and parties; that there is a stated desire for qualified

individuals to fill these positions; and that all New

Brunswickers should be allowed to apply for such positions.

“Regular New Brunswickers should have the

opportunity to apply for a position on an Agency,

Board or Commission,” Public Hearing, St.

Andrews, June 2004.

Issues and Principles for a New

ABC Appointments Process

“There needs to be a central location or office responsible

for appointments to ABCs...It needs to be opened to

everyone,” Public Hearing, Bathurst, October 2004.

Recommending a new appointments process requires

consideration of a series of issues and possible trade-offs.

These include:

• Independent - how independent from government

can the process be without compromising ministerial

accountability?

• Merit - should only the most qualified candidates be

appointed even if this means excluding some

candidates who could bring about greater

representation and diversity of groups, regions, and

gender?

• Legislative review - can this be realistically

accomplished in an adversarial political system based

on partisan politics?

The table below illustrates these kinds of trade-offs:

The Commission believes that these issues must be

realistically considered in drawing up a new appointments

process that can work well and meet expectations. At the

same time, we are of the view that the current appointments

process must clearly be improved to respond to the

concerns expressed by New Brunswickers. To accomplish

this goal, the Commission believes the following six key

principles and approaches should be adopted:

First, make the process more accountable by establishing

a central agency of government to co-ordinate and monitor

the application process.

Second, make the process more appropriate to the nature

and importance of the ABC itself, as with significant ABCs.

Third, make the process more independent by

establishing formal application guidelines and procedures to

identify potential candidates and review their qualifications.

Fourth, make the process more open by advertising

vacancies in newspapers and on the government website,

seeking out potential candidates, and setting fixed terms for

appointments and re-appointments.

Fifth, make the process more transparent by posting

appointments and remuneration on the government website.

Sixth, make the process more representative of New

Brunswick by encouraging consideration of a diverse set of

individuals and backgrounds.

Certain steps must be put in place to make these principles

and procedures reality. A unit or branch of government must

be assigned co-ordinating responsibility. Specific, formal

application processes with guidelines and procedures will

have to be instituted. Regular monitoring and oversight of

the process must be conducted. Information on vacancies

and remuneration must be gathered and made public. To

assist in drawing up these steps, the Commission is

recommending consideration of the detailed ABC

Appointments Process it has developed, which is set out in

Recommendation Appendix “I”.

The Commission does not believe that an overly rigid and

bureaucratic set of processes should be put in place to

make appointments for every ABC. Rather, the process

should be appropriate to the type of ABC involved and the

particular skill sets and competencies required for each

position. This requires an appointments process that is more

intensive and detailed for the most significant ABCs and less

so for others. Common guidelines and procedures, co-

ordinated by the ABC Appointments Unit, however, would

apply to all ABCs.

The flowchart on the next page summarizes the process the

Commission is recommending for the most significant ABCs:

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Best/most qualified Representation and diversity

Independence Ministerial accountability

Involvement of Legislature Partisan politics

Trade-offs in Appointments

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Involving the Legislature

Legislative oversight of some ABC appointments is a

desirable objective in principle. It would improve

accountability of the process by making it more public. It

would encourage the submission of names of candidates

who are more likely to receive approval, if that was the

authority granted to any Legislative Assembly process. It

would also enhance the role of the Legislative Assembly -

another key part of the Commission’s mandate.

There are several difficult issues to consider for such a step.

Under our system of responsible government, accountability

for ABCs and their membership resides, often by statute,

with the executive branch or minister, not the legislature. The

minister is accountable for the actions of these boards and

their members to the legislature. Preserving that

accountability principle, or at least not compromising it, is

therefore quite important.

Partisan politics can intrude very quickly into any

appointments process. The government’s duty to propose

and the opposition’s duty to oppose can lead both to adopt

adversarial positions. Candidates may not wish to subject

themselves to a public review where their qualifications and

reputation may be questioned. The image of the legislature

could wind up being diminished even more in people’s

eyes, rather than enhanced.

Nevertheless, the Commission believes an appropriate

middle ground can and should be found. Any role for the

legislature should be meaningful and not simply a rubber

stamp. But such a role must emerge from and be accepted

by the political parties themselves. There may well be merit

in proceeding on an incremental basis at first to establish

trust and procedures that work for all involved. Our

recommendation that, subject to the approval of all political

parties, the Legislative Assembly be involved in the

preparation and rank-ordering of a short-list of candidates

for significant ABCs meets this test.

Recommended New Process for Appointments to the Most Significant ABCs:

1 Position

Description

ABC Appointments

Unit, ABC and

department

responsible for ABC

determine skills

criteria required for

the vacancy and

prepare a formal

position description.

2 Advertising of

Vacancies

Vacancies and

position descriptions

are advertised on

government websites

and in newspapers.

3 Applications

Candidates submit a

formal application with CV

to ABC Appointments Unit;

potential candidates are

also identified through a

databank maintained by

ABC Appointments Unit;

referrals of names from

Ministers, MLAs and

others; and use of

executive search

consultants where

appropriate.

4 Vetting

A Selection Committee

with representatives

from ABC

Appointments Unit,

responsible department,

and the ABC review

applications and carry

out a preliminary

screening; Selection

Committee interviews

candidates who meet

criteria in position

description and checks

references. A due

diligence check is done

on candidates.

Selection Committee

prepares a short-list

and possible rank-

ordering of candidates,

which is forwarded to

LG in C or Minister

responsible for ABC.

5 Approval

LG in C or Minister

responsible for ABC

makes appointment

from the short-list of

qualified candidates.

6 Publicity of

Appointments

OIC appointments

are published in

Royal Gazette and

names, terms of

appointment and

remuneration of

appointed persons

are published on

website of ABC

Appointments Unit or

responsible

department/ABC.

7 Training of

New Members

ABC Appointments Unit

works with ABC and

responsible department

to develop and

administer training and

orientation programs for

new board members

and provide ongoing

training on corporate

governance.

A New ABC Appointments Process

The Commission believes it is time to institute a new

appointments process for ABCs in New Brunswick. Our

recommended principles and procedures will give more

New Brunswickers a chance to apply for positions and help

ensure qualified individuals are appointed. It will lead to a

renewed trust and confidence in the institutions of

government. It will help make the system work better for

citizens.

Recommendations

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following steps be taken to enhance transparency and

accountability in appointments to government agencies,

boards, and commissions (ABCs):

Recommendation 1

That an ABC Appointments Unit be established within the

Office of Human Resources and assigned overall co-

ordinating responsibility for appointments to government

agencies, boards, and commissions.

Recommendation 2

That the following practices and procedures for making

appointments to ABCs be adopted and implemented by the

ABC Appointments Unit:

2.1 Setting out specific guidelines and processes for

appointments to ABCs, appropriate to the nature of the

ABC;

2.2 Monitoring and reporting on the appointment process

to ensure that the guidelines are followed and

appointments are made on an open, transparent and

consistent basis;

2.3 Advertising vacancies on ABCs in a timely fashion;

2.4 Identifying, seeking and reviewing qualified candidates

for appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council;

2.5 Developing and maintaining a central databank of

ABC appointments, vacancies and applications;

2.6 Providing human resource expertise and assistance in

the process of reviewing applications for appointment;

2.7 Publicizing appointments; and

2.8 Co-ordinating the development and administration of

training and orientation programs for ABC members on

their roles and responsibilities.

Recommendation 3

That a formal process for appointments to the most

significant ABCs be established to ensure merit-based

appointments, and to give qualified and competent persons

the opportunity to serve on these ABCs. Such a process

would include the following steps:

3.1 Preparing a Board Profile defining the skills,

experience, qualifications, and diversity of

representation of members required for the effective

operation of the ABC;

3.2 Developing Position Descriptions which set out the skills

criteria for a vacancy on the ABC;

3.3 Advertising of vacancies and Position Descriptions;

3.4 Identification of potential candidates;

3.5 Formal vetting of applications and a due diligence

check of candidates;

3.6 Preparation of a short-list of qualified candidates with

possible rank-ordering for decision by the Lieutenant-

Governor in Council;

3.7 Advising unsuccessful candidates of outcome of

process;

3.8 Publication of appointments on government websites.

Recommendation 4

That, subject to the agreement of the political parties to such

involvement, the Legislative Assembly be involved in the

preparation and rank-ordering of a short-list of qualified

candidates for the most significant ABCs.

Recommendation 5

That the appointment process facilitate the consideration of

qualified people from regionally and culturally diverse

backgrounds that are representative of the two official

linguistic communities, women, aboriginal people, and

minorities.

Recommendation 6

That fixed three-year terms for ABC appointments be

established across government, while staggering some

appointments for an initial two-year term; and consecutive

reappointments be limited to no more than two

uninterrupted terms.

Recommendation 7

That the detailed process for appointments to the most

significant ABCs, the detailed process for appointments to

other ABCs, and the suggested classification of ABCs

contained in Recommendation Appendix “I” be considered as

frameworks for developing a new appointments process for

ABCs.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Stronger Voices

for Youth

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on

increasing voter turnout in provincial general

elections, particularly amongst young New

Brunswickers, and improving accessibility to the

electoral process in New Brunswick by modernizing

our electoral laws while reinforcing the democratic

rights and responsibilities of New Brunswickers to

vote.

“The high level of cynicism of youth toward our

institutions is expressed though their low

participation rate to the democratic process. Our

democracy is sick, we must act quickly.” Reactions,

from the Fédération des étudiants et étudiantes du

centre universitaire de Moncton, to Options,

November 2004.

The Commission was given the specific mandate of making

recommendations on boosting voter turnout and

participation of young New Brunswickers in the electoral

process. Young Canadians and young New Brunswickers

are today more disengaged and disconnected from the

traditional political process than ever before. A significant

and serious decline in electoral participation by young

people has occurred.

The challenge this represents to our democracy is profound:

since voting is a habit based on an acquired sense of civic

duty, we are in danger of “growing a generation” of non-

voters. Having not voted the first time they were eligible,

many will not vote at subsequent elections. Renewing our

democratic institutions and practices demands that we

examine urgently what is behind this phenomenon and

determine what steps we can take as a province to reverse

this very disturbing trend and address perhaps the most

important democratic challenge facing our province.

“Politics is a turn-off. Politicians would say anything

to get elected. It’s all about a popularity contest.”

Participant, Regional Youth Forum, March 2004.

Youth Voting and Participation

Youth, aged 18-24, make up nine percent of the New

Brunswick population today, a proportion that has been

declining over the years.

Compared to Canada as a whole, New Brunswick’s

population is older, a trend that has been growing for many

years, as the following two charts indicate.

2003

1993

1983

1973

0-14 15-29 30-54 55-64 65+

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

NB is Getting Older

Total population by age group for New Brunswick, by thousands, 2003

Source: Statistic Canada

New Brunswick

Canada

0-14 15-29 30-54 55-64 65+

Source: Statistics Canada

2003 Snapshot of Age Populations:

Canada vs. New Brunswick:

per cent of population

18.28

16.9

20.32

19.84

38.32

38.68

10.24

11.04

12.84

13.55

Source: Projection for NB’s population by age for 2004. Statistics Canada, Annual

Demographic Statistics, 2001

Age Profile of New Brunswick’s population, 2004

0-17

21%

18-24

25-34

14%

35-49

24%

50-64

19%

65+

13%

Chapter 5 - Making Your Voice Heard

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

There will be about 39,500 new voters at the 2007

provincial general election. The table below shows an

estimation of the number of youth who will be new voters

for the next three provincial elections.

Number Of Youth Who Will Be Turning 18*

Years Number

2004 - 2007 39, 455

2008 - 2011 38, 984

2012 - 2015 34, 957

* Based on the 2004 demographic projections for

New Brunswick numbers, from Statistics Canada, Annual

Demographic Statistics 2001.

Like other young Canadians, young New Brunswickers

participate in elections at a much lower rate than the

provincial average. This age gap can be seen clearly in the

chart below based on original research conducted for the

Commission by Dr. Paul Howe of the University of New

Brunswick. It shows that while 69 per cent of New

Brunswickers voted in the 2003 provincial election, this

number is estimated to have dropped to approximately 50

per cent of those aged 18-29.

This is consistent with national trends, although perhaps not

as pronounced. An Elections Canada study entitled:

“Explaining the Turnout Decline in Canadian Federal

Elections: A New Survey of Non-Voters” found that voter

turnout in the 2000 federal election amongst young

Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24 was estimated

at around 25 per cent. National turnout for the same

election was 61.3 per cent. Preliminary data from Elections

Canada shows a slight decrease in overall voter turnout for

the 2003 federal election, but a slight increase in turnout

amongst first time voters, which rose by three or four

percentage points. Even with this slight increase, youth voter

turnout remains much lower then the national average.

Young voters have always voted at lower rates than older

voters. This life-cycle effect suggests that voting habits will

eventually assert themselves as voters age. However, the

evidence is that the current generation of young voters are

voting at a significantly lower rate than previous

generations of young voters did. The growing difference in

this age gap suggests that a generational effect is

occurring; an effect that will persist as they age and not

automatically correct itself.

What’s driving this? Many theories have been offered from

a decline in young people’s involvement in community

networks and associations, or social capital, to an increase

in post-materialist values by youth who take prosperity for

granted and place greater value on personal autonomy and

quality of life issues instead. It is also suggested that the

general decline in deference among Canadians towards

their institutions and authority is stronger among youth,

causing them to opt out of voting. A decline in deference

and community sentiment coupled with a rise in

individualism - if younger voters are in fact growing up

under these influences, it reinforces the generational effect

noted above.

The strongest factors, however, can be summed up in three

words: duty, attachment, and interest. Young New

Brunswickers are far less likely than others to agree that

voting is a civic duty. Similarly, they exhibit a weaker

attachment to their community that makes voting an ongoing

investment in that community. Finally, they have less interest

and knowledge in politics and pay less attention to it than

older New Brunswickers - in other words, less civic literacy.

“Voter apathy is due to the lack of political

conversation at home and/or school. The youth

respect the process too much to damage it by

participating and making a bad decision, the key is

education.” Your Turn! Questionnaire,

Spring/Summer 2004.

Dr. Howe’s research indicates that each of these factors has

a direct impact on voting participation by young New

Brunswickers, as the charts below illustrate. When it comes

to duty, only 49.3 per cent of young New Brunswickers

aged 18-29 strongly agree that voting is their duty as a

citizen, compared to 75.1 per cent of all New

Brunswickers. The research also indicates that 65.8 per cent

of New Brunswickers cite a strong attachment to their

community, compared to only 45.4 per cent of young New

Brunswickers aged 18-29.

Ages: 18 - 29 Provincial Average

Source: Howe, Paul, Voter Participation in New Brunswick and the Political

Disengagement of the Young (research based on the 2003 NBSCS)

in per cent

Adjusted Youth Voter Turnout in

the 2003 Provincial General Election

50%

69%

The same research also finds that young New Brunswickers

are significantly less able than other New Brunswickers to

name some provincial premiers; they express a lower level

of interest in politics; and are less likely to read newspapers

three or more hours per week, as the chart below indicates.

When it comes to voting, Dr. Howe’s research finds that the

likelihood of voting is greater amongst those age groups

who score higher on each of the above indicators. This is

not surprising. Information and interest are clearly linked to

both a willingness and ability to participate in the voting

process.

This indicates that a range of solutions must be sought to

reverse this trend of non-participation in the democratic

process by young New Brunswickers. Increased political

knowledge and interest, greater overall civic literacy,

together with a stronger sense of civic duty, must all be

reinforced to boost voter turnout and participation of New

Brunswick youth.

A Profile of Youth and Politics Today

Based on a CRIC presentation in August 2003 prepared

from academic articles and published research, it is

possible to construct a more complete profile of youth

participation and attitudes towards politics.

Youth are far more likely to express confidence in

environmental groups, youth and women’s groups, and

business leaders before expressing confidence in their

political leaders. This confidence declines with those

Canadians who are older, reinforcing the age divide in

attitudes, not just voting. Youth are also somewhat less likely

to agree that voting matters and that their vote counts.

When it comes to participation in organized politics another

divide appears. In their article entitled: Contours of Political

Party Membership in Canada, Dr. William Cross and Dr.

Lisa Young show that only about five percent of federal

political party membership is made up of youth under the

age of 30, compared to 46 percent of members who are

65 years of age and older. The chart below illustrates this.

A further difference in opinion and attitude appears

between younger and older Canadians when it comes to

what might be called “political idealism”. Here, the shoe is

on the other foot. Youth aged 18-24 have a more positive

view of political parties and are less likely to say they are

disconnected from the concerns of average voters compared

to every other age group. In this instance, the most

“cynical” are those aged 55-64. Youth are also more likely

to say that government can be a force for good - 32

percent from the CRIC survey said government can have a

positive impact, compared to 21 percent in the 55-64 age

group. Tellingly, only 25 percent of youth said government

has a negative impact on people’s lives compared to 44

percent of the older age group.

The more nuanced picture is as follows: youth are much less

engaged in the act of voting or participating in the political

process. They think their vote does not matter that much.

They have far less confidence in political leaders than other

leaders and groups. But they retain, or have yet to lose,

their early ideals about the positive impact of government.

This suggests, in the most general way, that there remains

an opportunity to bring those disaffected youth back into the

electoral process.

55-64 years

65 years plus

40-54 years30-39 yearsUnder 30

Party

Members

General

Population

Source: William Cross and Lisa Young, Contours of Membership in Canadian

Political Parties.

Political Participation: Political Parties

Distribution of Party Members, by Age Group

Provincial average

Ages 18-29

Able to name at least 2

of 3 provincial premiers

High level of political

interest

Read newspapers 3 or

more hours per week

Civic Literacy

in per cent

17%

26.9%

14.9%

45.2%

Source: Howe, Paul, Voter Participation in New Brunswick and the Political

Disengagement of the Young (research based on the 2003 NBSCS)

45.6%

27.9%

Provincial average

Ages 18-29

Strongly agree that it is a duty to vote

Strong attachment to community

Factors that impact youth voter

participation

in per cent

49.3%

65.8%

45.4%

75.1%

Source: Howe, Paul, Voter Participation in New Brunswick and the Political

Disengagement of the Young (research based on the 2003 NBSCS)

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Hearing from Young New Brunswickers

Given the importance of this issue in our mandate, the

Commission established a comprehensive consultation

process to hear directly from young New Brunswickers. We

partnered with the New Brunswick Advisory Council on

Youth to hold 13 regional meetings and a provincial youth

forum; with Next NB at the University of New Brunswick to

hold a one day student forum; with the Centre for Research

and Information on Canada to receive focus group research

they conducted with young New Brunswick leaders; and

with the Canadian Unity Council’s Young Leaders series

though presentations and group discussions. We also

received formal submissions from the New Brunswick

Advisory Council on Youth, the Fédération des étudiants et

étudiantes du centre universitaire de Moncton, and two

grade 12 classes, one from Oromocto High School and the

other from Fredericton High School.

Young New Brunswickers told us the following:

• Youth do not see the connection between voting and

government decisions that affect them.

• There is a disconnect between politicians and young

people. They do not relate, engage, or interact

effectively with youth.

• Young people don’t care about voting the way older

people do.

• Youth don’t feel qualified to vote. They believe they

lack the political knowledge of how the system works

including some of the fundamentals of democracy.

• Youth do not receive formal civics education.

• It is not the time to go voting when you are starting a

family, buying a house, or going to school.

• Politicians don’t talk about youth issues.

• Youth are more interested in issues rather than

organized political parties.

• The process of politics is too negative, especially the

media coverage.

• The political and voting process is too traditional and

not interesting to youth.

“Young people don’t feel included or comfortable in

the current system,” Your Voice, Your Generation.

Young New Brunswickers and Democracy Forum,

Fredericton, September 2004.

These types of comments indicate a deep sense of

frustration, discomfort and even disillusionment with the

current political process. It is clear that many young New

Brunswickers are alienated from the way politics is

conducted and the relevance to them of voting in the first

place.

Solutions & Strategies

The Commission believes that increasing voter turnout

amongst young New Brunswickers is an urgent issue

requiring comprehensive, long-term, and targeted strategies.

Realistically, no single solution exists and just as it took time

to develop, reversing the current trend will take time to

correct. But we must begin now if we are to achieve lasting

results, by first setting a provincial goal to focus and

mobilize us. That goal must be to raise youth voter

participation to the provincial average within three

elections.

To start us down the path of achieving this goal, the

Commission believes we need to implement the following

four strategies:

First, we must create “active citizens” through the

education system. Students graduating from high school

must have a greater formal knowledge and awareness of

democracy and the political process taught through a

mandatory civics program. They must have the analytical

skills to participate more fully in that process through voting

or other means. In this way, we can reinforce the concept of

civic duty so necessary to voting. The Commission’s

recommendations for a new, mandatory Civics Education

Program, a revised mission statement for the Department of

Education, and working closely with teachers and schools

are aimed at creating “active citizens”.

“Schools must be more opened to society. In the

same line of thought, schools must produce young

citizens capable of interacting within our society,”

Reactions, from the Fédération des étudiants et

étudiantes du centre universitaire de Moncton, to

Options, A Progress Report to New Brunswickers,

November 2004.

Second, we must bring the democratic process into the

schools and classroom giving students practical and fun

exposure to what it is and how it works. It is in the schools

that youth first socialize and participate in many group

activities. We need to bring the world of politics,

government, and democracy to students so they can

experience and learn about it and from it. Initiatives like

mock elections, political fairs, democracy camps, and

legislative seminars will all help make the process more

real, interesting and alive to youth. The Commission’s

recommendations for a “Promoting Democracy in Schools”

program, “Youth Vote NB” (a province-wide mock election

initiative), and a “Democracy Support Fund”, focus on the

important role the school environment can play in giving

students positive exposure to the political and democratic

process.

Third, we must raise awareness of the importance of voting

and the electoral process for young New Brunswickers. To

reinforce the concept of civic duty, the proposed Elections

NB electoral commission can play a crucial role in this

area. Turning 18 should be a rite of citizenship, with a

formal reminder and information from the Chief Electoral

Officer that you can now vote. Numerous websites aimed at

youth exist that can be linked to provide helpful, interesting,

and easily accessible information on voting and democracy

in a form that young people are familiar and comfortable

with. The Commission’s recommendations for youth

websites, involving parents, the student legislative seminar

and democracy camps, and a “You Can Vote!” program

will increase awareness amongst young people of

democracy.

Fourth, we must make it easier for youth to vote in ways

they relate to. Fixed election dates in October will facilitate

voting for university and community college students by

giving them more time to register or get enumerated for

voting in a more settled environment. Political parties will be

better able to organize and mobilize them to vote. Online

registration of voters should bring more young people into

the electoral process. New electronic tabulation technology

that allows a voter to choose to have their vote counted in

either their home riding or at the university or community

college where they are studying should facilitate access to

the voting process for students in particular. The

Commission’s recommendations for online registration of

youth, and a “Vote Where You’re At” initiative are aimed at

reducing those barriers to voting that youth cite as an issue

for them.

Stronger Voices for Youth

The future health of democracy depends upon the interest

and participation of the next generation of voters. That

interest and participation is now lacking. It is so well

documented that the only issue is really what should be

done about it. We have many clues as to the core,

underlying social and educational factors affecting youth

participation in the political and electoral process. These

will take time to correct. But a comprehensive range of

initiatives - as recommended by the Commission - aimed

directly at youth beginning in the classroom will, over time,

reap dividends for New Brunswick’s democracy.

Recommendations

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following steps be taken to increase knowledge and

understanding of the democratic process by New Brunswick

students and to boost youth voter participation with the goal

of increasing the turnout of 18-29 year-olds to at least the

provincial average by the 2015 provincial general election:

Recommendation 1

That the Mission Statement of the Department of Education

be amended to formally recognize as a learning outcome

for all graduating students the importance of exercising the

responsibilities of citizenship. The new Mission Statement

would read:

“To have each student develop the attributes needed

to be a lifelong learner, to achieve personal

fulfillment, to exercise the responsibilities of

citizenship, and to contribute to a productive, just

and democratic society.”

Recommendation 2

That a new, mandatory provincial Civics Program from

Kindergarten through Grade12 be fully implemented as part

of the current Social Sciences program in schools beginning

in the 2007-2008 school year. This new civics program, as

outlined in the policy framework on a new Civics Education

Program for Kindergarten to Grade 12 contained in

Recommendation Appendix “J”, would help students

graduate with the knowledge, understanding, and critical

analysis skills necessary to become “active citizens”, able to

understand and participate in democratic activities in their

community, province, and country.

This new Civics Program would build on and be integrated

into the current social sciences program curricula being

taught now at various grades under both the anglophone

and francophone school systems. The program would be

based on the following standards: mandatory for all

students; comprehensive in scope and subject matter;

integrated with current offerings; practical in application;

non-partisan in material; and supported by teachers,

schools, parents, the Department of Education, and the

Legislative Assembly.

Recommendation 3

That the Department of Education work directly with New

Brunswick teachers, as well as experts in other provinces, to

develop flexible, made-in-NB civics teaching resource

kits/learning modules for teachers, students, and schools to

facilitate teaching and learning of the new mandatory

Civics Program. A designated professional development day

or period would be set aside to enable teachers to become

comfortable with the course materials and learn how to best

teach and engage their students in this new mandatory

course.

Recommendation 4

That a “Teachers in the Legislature” partnership program

between social sciences and civics program teachers and

the Legislative Assembly be established under the auspices

of the Speaker to bring together teachers from across the

province to share ideas and learn more about the legislative

and political process in our province.

Recommendation 5

That the following youth education and support activities be

developed to promote youth awareness and participation in

our democratic system, and support the new focus on civics

educational activities in schools and communities:

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

5.1 “Youth Vote NB”

Creating “Youth Vote NB”, a province-wide mock

election program to be held in every middle and high

school in the province in conjunction with the next New

Brunswick election and subsequent provincial and

municipal elections. This youth-run organization,

supported by Elections New Brunswick and Student

Councils, would help organize the program, work with

schools, suggest support activities, and produce and

distribute information on issues, candidates, and

parties.

5.2 Democracy Awareness Program & “You

Can Vote!” Mail Out

Creating a “youth-friendly” democracy awareness

program through Elections New Brunswick aimed at

informing young New Brunswickers about the

importance of the democratic process and voting.

Sending a regular mail out from the Chief Electoral

Officer to young New Brunswickers as they turn 18

explaining what the act of voting means together with

an explanation on our electoral and democratic

system.

5.3 “Promoting Democracy in Schools” Program

Developing a “Promoting Democracy in Schools”

program involving speaking tours by MLAs, political

fairs, election simulations, and debates in schools to

promote a more practical understanding of and

exposure to how our democratic system works. This

would be a uniform policy at the District Education

Council level. These activities are to be non-partisan at

all times.

5.4 Youth Websites

Creating youth-focused websites by Elections New

Brunswick, the Legislative Assembly, and political

parties to engage young people to participate in

voting, politics, and democracy. The Elections New

Brunswick website, in collaboration with Elections

Canada, would provide resource materials aimed at

youth and at helping students and organizations learn

about our democratic institutions and practices. It

would also have youth website links.

5.5 Involvement of Parents

Creating a social marketing program to raise the

awareness of parents regarding the importance of

discussing democratic issues at home and voting with

their children. This could be complemented by a “Bring

Your Child to Vote” initiative at election time and even

a “Bring Your Parent to Vote” initiative.

5.6 Democracy Support Fund

Creating a fund administered by Elections New

Brunswick to support events and activities organized by

youth groups aimed at promoting the participation of

young people in our democratic system. The money

could be allocated to a Student Council, for example,

to organize a mock election or hold a political fair.

5.7 Student Legislative Seminar and

Democracy Camps

Broadening the current Legislative Assembly Student

Legislative Seminar to involve more schools and

students. Establishing Democracy Camps to give young

New Brunswickers who are in high school the

opportunity to spend several days to learn more about

our electoral, democratic and legislative processes.

These camps would be administered by the Legislative

Assembly Office and would gather young people from

across the province.

Recommendation 6

That the following steps be taken to facilitate access by

youth to the voting process and make it easier for them to

vote:

6.1 Online Registration

Encouraging youth voters to register online so as to

ease some of the administrative barriers often faced by

youth and students when facing the voting process,

particularly for the first time. The Chief Electoral Officer

would develop targeted approaches to communicate

with high school, university and college students on the

registration and voting process. These approaches

could include contacting students by e-mail in advance

of elections and developing the interactive component

to the website of the Chief Electoral Officer to answer

queries and provide and receive registration

information.

6.2 “Vote Where You’re At”

Placing polling stations with electronic tabulation

machines on university campuses and in community

colleges so student voters residing outside of their home

constituency can choose to vote and have their ballot

count in their home riding or in the constituency in

which they are studying.

Recommendation 7

That the voting age remain at 18 years.

Stronger Voices for Women

Mandate

Fairer, more equitable and effective representation

in the Legislative Assembly.

The Commission was given a mandate to make

recommendations that would result in “fairer, more equitable

and effective representation in the Legislative Assembly”.

Women are one of the most under-represented voices in the

legislature and our democratic process. A 2004 survey by

the Centre for Research and Information on Canada found

that nine out of ten Canadians support “increasing the

number of women in elected office in order to achieve a

well-functioning political system.” Fairer, more equitable

representation in the legislature clearly means electing more

women to the legislature. The record to date in New

Brunswick, however, has been dismal. Unfortunately, there

is little evidence this will change for the better soon without

specific measures taken to redress this problem.

The Commission believes that the time has come to take

significant new steps to ensure the voices of women are

heard in New Brunswick politics.

Representation of Women in New Brunswick

Women received the right to vote in New Brunswick

provincial elections in 1919. It took almost 50 years to elect

the first woman MLA in 1967. It was a slow start that has

remained slow. Despite comprising 51 percent of the

population, at no time in our history have women won more

than 19 percent of the Legislative Assembly seats. More

disturbingly, the last provincial election saw a decline in the

number of women that were elected to the legislature. It

now stands at 12.7 percent, the lowest since 1987.

At 12.7 percent, New Brunswick is currently tied with

Manitoba as having the second-lowest level of women’s

representation in a provincial legislature in the country. It is

well below the level for the Parliament of Canada, at 21

percent. Québec has the best level of representation

amongst provinces at 32 percent, principally because the

political culture in that province encourages the nomination

of women by political parties.

“New Brunswick women were only 19 percent of

the candidates in the last provincial election and

just 13 percent of the elected MLAs, down from

recent years. This imbalance means that the

different experiences and concerns of women are

not adequately represented and undermines the

very legitimacy of government,” Submission by the

Advisory Council on the Status of Women, June

2004.

It is not just in the Legislative Assembly that women are

under-represented. Women make up only ten percent

(1/10) of the Members of Parliament from New Brunswick,

12 percent of mayors, 25 percent of municipal councillors,

and 28 percent of elected Regional Health Authority’s

members. It is only at the District Education Council level

that we see a more acceptable level of representation with

44 percent of women being elected on District Education

Council positions.

The Views of Women

To ensure the Commission heard the perspective of New

Brunswick women in legislative reform, the Commission

struck a formal partnership with the New Brunswick

Advisory Council on the Status of Women to share research

and co-sponsor a provincial forum. The Advisory Council

held a series of regional meetings around the province and

the Council and the Commission jointly sponsored a forum

on “Women and Democracy” in Moncton with over 65

participants. The Advisory Council also submitted two briefs

to the Commission on ways to increase women’s

representation.

Here are some of the main points that were made by a

majority of participants during our different meetings with

women:

• The electoral system needs to be changed to a form of

proportional representation.

Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C. Nun.

N.W.T.

Yuk.

Can.

Source: Research Centre on Women and Politics, University of Ottawa and

data from various Legislative Assembly websites

in per cent

Percentage of Women Elected to Provincial

Legislatures Across Canada – Last Elections

1967 1970 1974 1978 1982 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003

Source: NB Legislative Assembly

in per cent

Percentage of Women MLAs

in the New Brunswick Legislature 1967-2003

1.7%

3.4%

6.9%

12.1%

17.2%

16.4%

18.2%

12.7%

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

• The political system and culture is very adversarial

which discourages women from running.

• Politics is an “old boys club” that is uninviting to

women.

• There is little effort by political parties to recruit

women.

• Quotas are not the solution to electing more women.

• Financial incentives for parties to nominate women

could be effective.

• There needs to be more education for young people,

especially young women, if we want to change

attitudes.

• Women need to organize to become more effective.

• There must be clear objectives for women’s

representation in the legislature.

• Fixed election dates and fixed legislative sessions

would make it easier for women to plan to seek elected

office.

Institutional Barriers to Women’s

Representation

The Commission’s own research shows that numerous

barriers exist to women running for a party’s nomination

and getting elected to the legislature. These include the

present single member plurality electoral system; party

nomination processes and financial requirements that can

discriminate against female candidates; the adversarial

political culture and environment; and the timetable of

elections. There is no grand conspiracy that keeps women

out. But singly and together, each of these factors acts as a

significant barrier that effectively makes it much less likely

and fundamentally more difficult for women to run and get

elected to the New Brunswick legislature. Each of these

issues is examined below with specific recommendations to

bring these barriers down.

The Electoral System

There is a direct relationship between our single member

plurality electoral system and electing more women.

Comparisons across countries and electoral systems

demonstrate clearly that countries with proportional

representation electoral systems elect a greater number of

women then countries that use the single member plurality

system, as can be seen in the table below.

Percentage of women elected under

different electoral systems in

representative western democracies*

Sweden 45.3 list PR

Denmark 38.0 list PR

Finland 37.5 list PR

Netherlands 36.7 list PR

Norway 36.4 list PR

Argentina 34.0 list PR

New Zealand 28.3 MMP

Australia 25.3 Alternative Vote

Canada 21.1 SMP

United Kingdom 17.9 SMP

United States 14.3 SMP

Ireland 13.1 STV

New Brunswick 12.7 SMP

* (As of 31 July 2004, www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm)

“This “first-past-the-post” or single-member plurality

system also tends to discourage the election of

women and other under-represented groups, since

parties usually run candidates with the broadest

appeal. The Advisory Council supports the

introduction of a mixed member proportional system

for electing provincial politicians ,” Submission by

the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, in

reaction to Options, a Progress Report to New

Brunswickers, October 2004.

Original academic research conducted for the Commission

by Dr. Joanna Everitt of the University of New Brunswick

(Saint John) and Dr. Sonia Pitre of the University of Ottawa,

identified district magnitude - the number of elected

positions per electoral district - as a principal reason for the

low number of women elected under SMP systems. Under

SMP, the parties can only nominate one member per riding

and will therefore look for who they consider the candidate

most likely to win. More often than not, this turns out to be a

man.

By contrast, under a PR system a party can nominate more

than one candidate on its party list. Accordingly, parties will

almost always nominate a significant portion of women on

their party lists in response to the political pressure from

voters to be as representative of society as possible. Since

votes are allocated under a PR system principally on the

basis of the popular vote a party receives, this means that

more women get elected. A higher position on the list is a

stronger guarantee of getting elected, and it is here that

parties have often adopted internal rules for list nominations

to ensure women have equitable positioning on the list.

New Zealand, Scotland, and Wales have all recently

adopted mixed member proportional representation voting

systems. All have elected more women than under our

single member plurality system. New Zealand actually

changed from SMP to MMP in the 1990s. In response, the

percentage of women elected rose from 21.2 percent in

1993 to 29.1 percent at the first MMP election in 1996.

Scotland and Wales were new legislatures dominated by

major parties that adopted proactive measures to ensure

more women were nominated in either the list or single

member seats. Again, the results show a far greater

proportion of women elected in these two legislatures using

a regional mixed member proportional voting system

(similar to what the Commission is recommending) than

New Brunswick’s current single member plurality system.

Percentage of Women Representatives in

Legislatures in Wales and Scotland, 2003 Elections

National Assembly for Wales 50%

Scottish Parliament 39.5%

Under the Commission’s proposed New Brunswick regional

mixed member proportional system, our simulations have

shown that it is very likely that even a woman placing

second or third on the regional list will get elected. The

Commission believes that changing from the single member

plurality system to our proposed regional mixed member

proportional system is essential to electing more women to

the New Brunswick legislature. We further believe that no

significant improvement in the level of women’s

representation is likely to occur in the near future under the

current electoral system.

Party Nominations

Through the nomination process, parties are the real

gatekeepers to the legislature. Women cannot get elected if

they are not first nominated. Since there is no evidence that

women are discriminated against in Canada by voters once

they have become candidates, we must look to the party

nomination process as the first and most significant barrier

outside the electoral system itself.

The experience of women being nominated by parties in

New Brunswick tells the tale. As very few are nominated,

very few are elected. The table below shows the

performance of each political party over the past four

elections in nominating women candidates.

Party culture and attitude has a lot to do with whether or not

women are successfully nominated. The NDP has adopted a

policy of striving for equality in nominations. But as they

have typically been unable to elect more than one member,

it has had little effect on increasing the number of women

MLAs elected.

Strategies

The Commission believes that four strategies must be

adopted to nominate more women: first, encouraging

parties to do so through financial incentives; second,

encouraging women to run by levelling the financial

playing-field and making it easier for women to serve in

politics; third, adopting timetables for elections and the

legislature; and fourth, educating women on how to get

involved in the political process.

The Commission does not believe that party incentives

should include any form of legislated or mandatory quotas

or penalties. That is anathema to our political tradition.

Politics is still a voluntary profession and women should be

encouraged to offer for elected office. It is not clear that

quotas would even work, since nominations are typically the

responsibility of the local riding association. Instead, it is the

parties themselves that should be encouraged to seek out

and nominate more women. This is in recognition of the

central role parties play in our political life, and that a

concerted effort must take place at the party level under the

present single member plurality electoral system if we are to

ever change the current situation. As parties receive a

significant portion of their funding from the province through

tax credits and an annual allocation from the legislature,

there is an obvious obligation on their part to strive to meet

certain democratic goals - including the nomination of more

women. Parties cannot elect women, only voters can. But

parties control the nomination process and it is here that the

Commission believes we must focus most.

Financial Incentives for Parties

The Commission believes that parties should receive

additional funding through the annual allocation they are

entitled to under the Political Process Financing Act if they

nominate more women. Under this allocation formula,

New Democratic

Liberal

Progressive Conservative

1991 1995 1999 2003

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

Number of Female Candidates by Party,

by Provincial Election 1991-2003

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

parties are entitled to an annual monetary amount for each

vote they won during the previous provincial election. In

2004 this amounted to approximately $646,000 in total to

the three main parties. This amount is based on a formula

that is adjusted annually with the Consumer Price Index and

is currently $1.73 per valid vote. This provides them with

ongoing financial support from provincial taxpayers for their

operations. It is an investment by the province in the

democratic health and well-being of political parties as the

principal vehicles for democratic expression in New

Brunswick.

This funding formula has been in place for approximately

25 years. Accordingly, it is an established, effective, and

publicly regulated mechanism to support political parties.

The Commission believes that the most effective financial

incentive for parties to nominate more women is one with

which they are most familiar and has proven effectiveness.

The Commission recommends that the amount per valid vote

be increased by $1.00 for parties nominating a certain

percentage of women candidates in future elections. We

believe this would be a significant and effective financial

incentive for political parties to nominate more women.

Two eligibility thresholds for parties to receive this funding

would have to apply: basically, when it kicks in and when it

kicks out. The Commission’s research indicates that a critical

mass in the legislature of women would be around one-third

of all members. This would have a pronounced effect upon

the public discourse in the province and the conduct of the

legislature. The Commission therefore believes that parties

must be “stretched” and should receive the additional

financial incentive only if women constitute at least 35

percent of their candidates in a general election. With an

overall goal of equality of representation in the legislature in

the future, this incentive should be reviewed once the

legislature’s composition reaches 45 percent women. The

Commission believes that with these incentives in place,

New Brunswick can reach an initial goal of electing women

to 35 percent of the seats in the Legislative Assembly within

three elections, or by 2015.

Spending Limits for Nominations

Levelling the nomination playing field will also have a

positive effect on nominating more women. The Commission

heard that many women do not have access to established

fundraising networks. This acts as a deterrent to seeking a

nomination. By setting a spending limit of approximately

$5,000 for nomination contests, as we are recommending

in our chapter on improving party democracy, this will help

level the playing field for women to finance a competitive

nomination campaign.

Timetables for Elections and the Legislature

“That the provincial government set fixed dates for

elections so that candidates and politicians can

make plans to reorganize their paid work and

family commitments to meet their political

obligations.” Submission by the New Brunswick

Advisory Council on the Status of Women, June

2004.

The Commission heard that planning is a particular

challenge for women interested in running for elected office.

The uncertainty of when an election will be held or when

the legislature may meet and conduct business, again acts

as a deterrent to women seeking a nomination. The reality

is that women have more pronounced family or child care

obligations. Political life is difficult and demanding. MLAs

are expected to be “on call” every day, with events and

meetings taking place most weekends and evenings. This

lifestyle is not for everyone and is unlikely to change no

matter who is elected. The Commission’s recommendation

for a fixed election date every third Monday in October,

and for a fixed legislative calendar with set opening and

closing dates of the House, will help alleviate this problem

for women.

Education

It is not enough to simply create the opportunity to

participate - that opportunity must be encouraged. Many

qualified women do not run for elected office because the

political process is unfamiliar to them. They often do not

have the contacts needed to discuss a possible candidacy.

Political parties themselves may not know women who are

possibly interested in running. And they may not be fully

aware of the barriers and challenges within their own

parties to women running for office.

There are several third-party groups in the province at the

provincial, regional, or local level who could act as

facilitators for women interested in entering politics. They

could also help provide information to parties. The

Commission believes that supporting such groups to operate

in a non-partisan way, with the objective of providing

information, education, and mentoring to interested women,

would help create a talent pool of qualified potential

candidates.

Stronger Voices for Women

Our legislature is meant to represent who we are as a

society. A modern conception of democracy supports

hearing more voices in the decision-making process. To

make our voice heard as New Brunswickers, we must

ensure those voices are elected to the public forum that

counts most: the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick.

The Commission’s recommendations for direct financial

incentives to parties to nominate more women, establishing

spending limits for party nominations, setting fixed election

dates and legislative calendars, and instituting an education

100

program for women and parties will together have a real

and positive effect on encouraging and supporting more

women to seek elected office. The role of parties as

gatekeepers to the legislature cannot be overstated.

Focusing efforts on the party nomination process, as the

Commission is recommending, is a necessary step to bring

about results.

Similarly, the Commission believes these same voices

should, wherever possible, be represented in positions on

government agencies, boards and commissions.

Encouraging the new ABC Appointments Unit to use, as we

are recommending, established databanks with the names

of women as potential applicants for such positions would

facilitate this objective.

Finally, there is the question of accountability. The most

obvious outcome of these measures will be the most visible:

more women sitting in the Legislative Assembly. Parties

should take the proactive step of telling New Brunswickers

what steps they are doing in this whole area. A bi-annual

reporting to the legislature through Elections New Brunswick

of measures they are taking to increase women’s

representation will underscore the importance of this feature

of our democracy and help make your voice heard.

Recommendations

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends the

following steps be taken with the goal of increasing the

representation of women in New Brunswick’s Legislative

Assembly to 35 percent by the year 2015:

Recommendation 1

That amendments be made to the Political Process Financing

Act as a way to achieve gender equality in the Legislative

Assembly that would include an increase of the annual

allowance to political parties by $1 per valid vote to any

party in which women comprise at least 35 percent of the

candidates in the preceding provincial election. This

incentive would be reviewed once the New Brunswick

legislature reaches a minimum of 45 percent women.

Recommendation 2

That an educational/policy program be created with the

objective of financially supporting associations in

organizing activities, providing information, or developing

programs that would promote the participation of women in

municipal or provincial politics.

Recommendation 3

That the Elections Act be amended to require political

parties to file with Elections New Brunswick a biannual

report on measures taken to increase women’s

representation in the legislature. Information on the number

and type of positions held by women in provincial and

constituency association executives of registered political

parties would be made public by Elections New Brunswick

as part of its annual report to the Legislative Assembly.

Recommendation 4

That the ABC Appointments Unit be required to actively

solicit applications from women for vacancies on ABCs,

including using established databanks of potential female

applicants.

Stronger Voices for

Aboriginal People

Aboriginal people in New Brunswick have not traditionally

been active in participating or voting in the democratic

process in the province. Aboriginal voter turnout in New

Brunswick provincial elections between 1978 and 1991was

below 50 percent, and turnout by Aboriginal voters in

the1991 provincial general election was measured at 27.6

percent. This compares with a turnout rate for all New

Brunswickers ranging from 75.6 to 82 percent over that

same 1978-1991 period.

Participation by Aboriginal people in the democratic life of

their own First Nation communities is much higher. Over the

1972 to 1992 period, voter turnout in New Brunswick band

elections ranged from 81 percent to 97 percent.

More recently, as part of a study on Youth and Leadership,

the Centre for Research and Information on Canada carried

out in-depth discussions with young leaders in New

Brunswick in April 2004. The Aboriginal participants in the

Fredericton groups were more likely than non-Aboriginal

participants to be interested in politics at the community-

based level; were more aware of local government and

politicians and better able to see the relationship between

government and politics and their everyday life; and were

more likely to feel ownership and responsibility in terms of

their community.

Views of Aboriginal People

In order to seek the views of Aboriginal people in New

Brunswick on the issue of their participation and

representation in provincial politics, the Commission

partnered with the University of New Brunswick’s Next NB

project to hold Talking Circles with First Nations in New

Brunswick.

A Talking Circle is a traditional way that Aboriginal people

discuss issues, concerns, and problems. In a Talking Circle

all persons are equal. The person holding an Eagle Feather

is the only one to speak in the circle on the subject of the

discussion, while the others in the circle listen and learn.

Talking Circles are based on the principles of respect,

harmony, interdependence and balance.

Talking Circles were held at Tobique First Nation and St.

Mary’s First Nation. Planned Talking Circles with members

of the Elsipogtog and Burnt Church First Nations and one

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

101

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

with off-reserve Aboriginal people were not held. David

Perley, a member of the Tobique First Nation, facilitated the

Talking Circles. Mr. Perley was a consultant on Aboriginal

education with the provincial Department of Education and

is currently a lecturer with UNB’s Mi’kmaq-Maliseet Institute.

Participants in the Talking Circles were asked to discuss their

views on the reasons for lack of participation by Aboriginal

people in provincial politics, and on having designated

seats in the Legislative Assembly for Aboriginal

representation.

During the Talking Circles, we heard that many Aboriginal

people see participation in provincial elections as going

against their rights, autonomy and goal of self-governance.

While this was not a unanimous view of all Aboriginal

people, it was strongly held and expressed by many of the

participants. It is clear that the idea of designated seats for

representation of Aboriginal people in the New Brunswick

legislature needs much more discussion among Aboriginal

people and the provincial government before any firm

conclusions can be drawn.

In the past, provincial governments have raised the idea of

designating seats in the Legislative Assembly for Mi’kmaq

and Maliseet representatives. The 1991 Representation and

Electoral Boundaries Commission was charged with

considering this idea, but was unable to secure Aboriginal

support for their process or this idea.

The Commission on Legislative Democracy heard that any

further discussion of such representation should envisage a

model wherein Aboriginal representation is full

representation, unlike the Maine model where Aboriginal

representatives in the State legislature do not have full

voting rights. We also heard that such a model would likely

have two designated seats: one for a representative of the

Mi’kmaq people and one for a representative of the

Maliseet people. In addition, any such discussion would

likely have to address the concern that representation of

Aboriginal people in the New Brunswick Legislative

Assembly would not be a revocation of Aboriginal and

treaty rights and claims.

However, the primary message the Commission heard is

that if Aboriginal people in New Brunswick choose to have

discussions on participation and representation in the

legislature, the provincial government should open the door

to such discussions. The most important first step is to

determine if there is interest among Aboriginal people in

having such discussions. From there, a process to engage in

such discussions could be developed collaboratively by

Aboriginal people and representatives of the provincial

government. The focus of any further discussion must be to

bring Aboriginal people into provincial government

decision-making and to help non-Aboriginal people

understand the culture and unique realities of Aboriginal

people.

Recommendation

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following step be taken to increase the voices of

Aboriginal people in the democratic life of New Brunswick:

Recommendation 1

That the Government of New Brunswick invite New

Brunswick’s Aboriginal people to meet, discuss and develop

an appropriate process to seek the views of Aboriginal

people on representation of Mi’kmaq and Maliseet people

in the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick and on their

role in the democratic life of New Brunswick.

102

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

103

A Referendum Act for

New Brunswick

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on

enhancing direct democracy by proposing a New

Brunswick Referendum Act that sets out the rules

and procedures for allowing province-wide, binding

referendums on significant public policy issues.

We live in a representative democracy where we elect

members to represent us in the Legislative Assembly.

However, public trust and confidence in our political

institutions and in our elected representatives is quite low.

As a result, people want a stronger voice in decision-

making by their governments. This has led governments and

others to consider the use of referendums.

Referendums provide perhaps the most direct form of public

input into decision-making that exists in a democracy. They

have been used by governments in New Brunswick and in

Canada as a means to complement representative

democracy, by allowing the government and the legislature

to seek public guidance on important and often

controversial issues, and allowing voters to participate more

directly in decisions affecting them. In the past ten years,

Canadians have voted in national and provincial

referendums on issues ranging from constitutional change to

Sunday Shopping.

Recent Referendums Across Canada

2004 – Nova Scotia on allowing Sunday Shopping

2001 – New Brunswick on retaining VLTs

1997 – Newfoundland and Labrador on retaining

denominational schools

1995 – Quebec on sovereignty-association

1992 – Canada on approving the Charlottetown

Constitutional Accord

The principle of direct democracy embedded in referendums

is, however, contrary to the principle of representative or

indirect democracy where we elect MLAs to take decisions

on our behalf. No government in Canada has resorted to

referendums as a regular or effective tool of decision-

making, or even public consultation. Numerous concerns

surround the use of referendums to take political decisions

or make public policy, particularly as they affect minorities

and their rights. They can be divisive in outcome and

unclear in results. Instead of fostering political legitimacy,

they can undermine it. Nevertheless, there may be some

issues and certain exceptional circumstances in which the

decisions of people exercised through a referendum process

can be sought and acted upon.

Use of Referendums in New Brunswick

“There is no doubt that referendums can breathe

new life into representative democracy. These days,

it seems that they have become the panacea for the

infamous “democratic deficit”. However, it is

necessary to proceed with caution and be mindful

of certain issues associated with the use of

referendums.” Draft research paper, “The

Referendum Experience in New Brunswick” by Dr.

Chedly Belkhodja for the Commission on Legislative

Democracy.

Referendums have been used infrequently in New Brunswick

on a province-wide basis. In the past 40 years there have

been two provincial referendums: one in 1967 on whether

the voting age should be lowered from 21 to 18 years, and

one in 2001 on retaining Video Lottery Terminals (VLTs) in

the province. In the first case, the results of the referendum

were advisory only, while in the second, specific legislation

drafted for the holding of the referendum made the result

binding on government.

In 2003, the New Brunswick legislature passed a Taxpayer

Protection Act. It would require a referendum to be held if

the government wants to introduce a new tax, increase the

HST, or place tolls on a provincial highway. The results of

any such referendum would be binding on the government

to act. This Act has not been proclaimed.

The Municipalities Act also has a “plebiscite” provision

allowing for individual municipalities to ask voters to decide

on a particular local governance issue. To pass, a question

must receive at least 60 percent of votes cast.

However, New Brunswick has no general legislation setting

out consistent principles and procedures to be applied if a

referendum is held. The federal government and five

provinces have this type of specific referendum legislation.

A table comparing referendum legislation in other

jurisdictions is found in Background Appendix “XII”.

Should New Brunswick wish to hold referendums in the

future, a specific Referendum Act is essential. It is important

that clear rules of the road exist for the holding of

referendums, the participation of various interests, the

development of a clear question, and the counting of votes.

This is the case for elections. It should also be the case for

referendums.

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

104

What We Heard From New Brunswickers

“Non-elected people should have the right to

participate in government decision-making process

by either plebiscite or referendum.” Community

Leaders Roundtable, Miramichi, May 2004.

We expect our elected officials to make the

decisions, not the public through referendums,”

Community Leaders Roundtable, Saint John, May

2004

New Brunswickers were by no means unanimous in their

views on referendums, as the quotes above suggest.

Respondents to our website questionnaire were also split on

the appropriateness of referendums.

Several of the associations which submitted briefs to the

Commission, especially those from francophone

organizations in the province, cautioned strongly against

the use of referendums in general because of their potential

to divide, and to allow majorities to override the rights of

minorities in the province. Others, like the Advisory Council

on the Status of Women, were more disposed to the use of

referendums, but only if they were limited to exceptional

circumstances, had appropriate financial and spending

guidelines, and were binding on government to act. The

Commission considered all of these views in arriving at its

recommendations.

Key Considerations Around a Referendum Act

for New Brunswick

Several important questions must be addressed in proposing

a Referendum Act for New Brunswick to ensure that

referendums held in our province are fair, open and

efficient.

What kinds of issues should be decided by

referendum?

A criticism of the use of referendums is that they can

weaken the will of legislatures and governments to deal with

difficult issues. Governments can and should address

complex and controversial matters by seeking the views of

citizens on these matters, deciding on a course of action

and allowing a full debate on the issue in the legislature.

Also, referendums can lead to divisions among the

population and can potentially undermine minority rights

through the votes of the majority. This is discussed in more

detail below.

The Commission is of the view that resorting to referendums

on a regular basis and using them as a tool to replace

decision-making by the legislature and government would

be an unacceptable practice. As we have seen,

referendums are not a regular feature of our democracy in

this province, which indicates that governments have

implicitly acknowledged their exceptional nature.

The Commission believes that a Referendum Act for New

Brunswick must state explicitly that referendums should be

used under exceptional circumstances only and for

exceptional issues only. In the Commission’s view, issues

that would be considered exceptional would be those that

have a significant impact on the province as a whole, such

as seeking ratification by voters of an amendment to the

Canadian Constitution or of a fundamental change to the

province’s electoral system as recommended in this report.

“Clearly, direct democracy in a province comprising two

linguistic communities has the potential to stir division

and confrontation. That makes it an instrument to be

handled with much circumspection and discernment.

Having said this, the use of referendums in New

Brunswick should not be systematically ruled out, but

referendums should be subject to strict rules regarding

compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms and the four underlying constitutional

principles mentioned earlier [federalism, democracy,

constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for

minority rights].” Issues for New Brunswick’s Acadian

Community, Draft research paper by Dr. Roger Ouellette

for the Commission on Legislative Democracy.

How can minority rights be protected?

We heard from academic experts and representatives of

community organizations, especially francophone and

Acadian associations, that referendums can create and

exacerbate divisions among linguistic, cultural, and religious

communities. While this does not need to be true, there is a

very real, serious, and legitimate concern that the majority

could override the rights of minority groups through

referendums. It is an issue to which the Commission has

given much consideration in its deliberations on

referendums.

New Brunswick has been at the forefront of the protection of

minority rights, especially the rights of francophones and of

the francophone linguistic community. Through the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“the Charter”),

New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act, and An Act

Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic

Regularly Occasionally Never

in per cent, based on 215 respondents

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

Should referendums be held regularly, occasionally,

or never?

40.9%

41.4%

17.7%

Communities in New Brunswick, the English and French

languages have equality of status and equal privileges as to

their use in all provincial institutions, and the equality of the

province’s two linguistic communities is expressly

recognized. Other minority rights are protected through the

Charter and the New Brunswick Human Rights Act.

The Commission believes that limiting referendums to

exceptional issues only is an important component of

addressing the concern that established minority rights could

be overridden by a majority of voters in a referendum. The

Commission further believes that the use of a referendum

should be prohibited in any case where the purpose of the

referendum question is to undermine or diminish the minority

rights protected through the Charter and the other

legislation mentioned above, or any other act that supports,

protects, or advances minority rights in the province.

Who should initiate a referendum?

In some jurisdictions in Canada, for example British

Columbia, citizens may initiate a referendum to introduce a

new piece of legislation or amend an existing law by

obtaining a certain level of support from voters in the

province, as evidenced by their signatures on a petition.

In BC, the threshold of signatures required on a petition for

an initiative to proceed to a vote is ten percent of the

registered voters in each of the electoral districts of the

Province, who were registered to vote on the date the

petition was issued, obtained within a 90-day canvassing

period. Although six initiatives have been approved in

principle by the Chief Electoral Officer since BC’s Recall

and Initiative Act was introduced, none has succeeded,

either because the proponent did not receive the required

number of signatures or they failed to file the petition in the

time frame required.

The BC experience indicates that referendums initiated by

citizens - or citizen’s initiatives as they are commonly called

- can be quite problematic. The threshold of support for the

initiative must be high enough to prevent a proliferation of

initiatives and therefore not create the divisiveness discussed

above.

In the interests of ensuring that referendums are only used in

exceptional circumstances, and that they create the least

amount of division among communities possible, the

Commission believes that only government should be able

to initiate a referendum.

How should the question be set?

Yes or No

A referendum is a vote on an issue. It is essential that the

question put to voters in the referendum be clear and easily

understood. The Commission believes that a Referendum Act

for New Brunswick should require that the question put to

the people be one which can be answered by simply

marking, yes or no. The recently-announced PEI Electoral

Reform Commission was given a specific mandate to

develop “a clear and concise” plebiscite question on

adopting a new proportional representation electoral

system, demonstrating the importance of this aspect of

referendums.

Approval of Question

As noted above, the Commission believes that government

should not propose any referendum question, which has as

its purpose the undermining or diminishing of minority

rights. The Commission believes a further approval process

involving the Legislative Assembly is necessary to ensure the

referendum question is clear, unambiguous and free of any

bias, unintended or not.

To this end, the Commission recommends that prior to any

referendum being held, the government should submit its

proposed referendum question to the legislature for its

approval. Following a period of consultation with the Leader

of the Opposition and the leaders of other parties

represented in the House, the government would table the

question in the Legislative Assembly and a Committee of the

House would then be established to consider the wording of

the referendum question.

It would be open to the Committee to hold public hearings

on the question and hear from expert witnesses on the

issues related to the question, if necessary to assist the

Committee in its work. The Committee would report back to

the Legislative Assembly with its recommendations on the

wording of the question, for debate and a vote of all

members.

What size of majority is required for a

referendum to pass?

Because of the exceptional nature of referendums, and the

desire to ensure minority rights are not undermined, some

jurisdictions in Canada and around the world require more

than a simple majority of votes (50 percent + one) for a

referendum question to pass. For example, BC has

introduced special legislation for a referendum to be held at

the time of the next provincial election on changing the

electoral system in that province. For the referendum to pass

and become binding on the provincial government, the

referendum would have to win with a “double majority” of

60 percent of valid votes cast province-wide representing

60 percent of total ridings. This is known as a “super

majority”.

Other jurisdictions demand a “double majority” requiring

both a majority of votes in favour of the question, and a

minimum level of voter turnout, for example, 50 percent.

The rationale for adopting this type of double majority is to

ensure legitimacy of the referendum results. If a referendum

was held and voter turnout was extremely low, it may be

that the people who stayed home were in fact against the

referendum question. Therefore, even if a majority of those

who voted cast their ballots in favour of the question, the

validity of the result is called into question.

The Commission does not agree that a super majority

requiring both a majority or greater of votes cast and the

support of a majority of areas of the province, is necessary.

In light of our recommendations that referendums only be

held on exceptional issues, that they never be held on a

question that has as its purpose the undermining or

diminishing of minority rights, and that the referendum

question be approved by the members of the legislature, we

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

105

believe these provisions would provide sufficient protection

for minorities in the province.

However, the Commission is concerned with the legitimacy

of referendum results and therefore recommends a double

majority with a turnout threshold, as follows: the referendum

would pass if more than 50 percent of valid votes are in

favour of the referendum question and at least 50 percent of

eligible voters voted in the referendum.

Should the results be binding on the government?

Since referendums should only be used under exceptional

circumstances for exceptional issues only, a government that

initiates such a referendum will have thought long and hard

about the consequences prior to taking steps to hold a

referendum under the principles and procedures the

Commission is recommending. Therefore, the Commission

believes that, provided the double majority described above

is reached, the result of the referendum should be binding

on the government that initiated the referendum to take the

steps necessary to implement the result.

Timing - when should referendums be held?

Referendums are a huge administrative undertaking. Every

eligible voter must have the opportunity to vote at a

referendum, making the cost of administering a referendum

approximately equivalent to the cost of holding a provincial

general election. The Commission therefore recommends

that referendums be held at the same time as a provincial

general election or with the quadrennial municipal elections.

This would realize cost savings and reduce the burden on

the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, as the election

machinery required to prepare the voters list, staff polling

stations, count ballots and so forth will already be in place.

How should referendums be administered?

The legitimacy of a referendum depends on it being

administered in a fair, transparent, and neutral way. Since it

is the government that makes the decision to initiate the

referendum and proposes the referendum question, the

legitimacy of the result would be called into question if it is

perceived that the referendum was controlled or directed by

the government in order to achieve a certain outcome. The

Commission therefore recommends that all referendums be

administered independently by Elections New Brunswick.

What rules should govern financing and spending

in a referendum?

New Brunswick has extensive regulation of political parties

and spending by parties and candidates during election

campaigns to make them fair and free of influence. Similar

rules should apply to the conduct of referendums and be

administered by Elections New Brunswick. However,

political parties are not the main actors in a referendum

campaign. Interest groups or ‘third parties’ who have a

stake in the outcome of the referendum are usually the ones

who take the lead in campaigning for or against the

referendum question. The interest groups on either side of

the question involved may have vastly different resources to

work with. This raises the fear that a referendum can be

‘bought’ by the side with the most money and influence.

The Commission believes that referendum campaigning, like

election campaigning, should be regulated in order to level

the playing field. The Commission believes that such

regulation needs to include spending limits, contribution

limits, and disclosure requirements along the same lines as

those in the Political Process Financing Act. These should

include:

Registration

A first step in regulating the referendum campaign is to

provide a mechanism for the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO)

to know who the players are. To do this, any individual or

group that plans to incur expenses for the purpose of

supporting or opposing the referendum question should be

required to pre-register with the CEO. This will promote

transparency in the process.

Referendum Committees

Campaigning should be conducted through official

Referendum Committees established for each side of a

referendum question and registered with the Chief Electoral

Officer. Only these committees may make expenditures in

excess of $1,000. Individuals or groups wishing to incur

expenses of $1,000 or less for advertising should be

required to register with Elections New Brunswick for

transparency purposes, but not be required to participate

through an official Referendum Committee.

Spending Limits

The Referendum Committees and their affiliates should be

limited to spending no more than $0.75 per voter during

the course of a referendum campaign. This amount would

be approximately $400,000 on a province-wide basis,

which is about one-half of what a political party may spend

in the course of a general election campaign. At the same

time, this amount will allow effective province-wide

campaigns to be conducted by the Referendum Committees.

Contribution Limits

We recommend that limits on contributions to official

Referendum Committees be set at no more than $3,000 for

an individual, corporation, trade union, or political party.

(Again, one-half of the current amount permitted on an

annual basis for each political party.) All contributions over

$100.00 to an official referendum committee would be

disclosed.

How should voters get information?

Elections New Brunswick should be mandated to provide

the public with appropriate information from both the “yes”

and “no” committees, to assist voters in making an informed

decision.

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

106

A Referendum Act for New Brunswick

The Commission believes that referendums should only be

held in New Brunswick on an exceptional basis. Any

referendum should be initiated by government only and be

binding. Minority rights should be protected. Referendums

should be independently administered with clear financial

rules and procedures governing contributions and spending.

The Commission’s recommendations set out how, when, and

on what basis referendums should be undertaken in New

Brunswick. They will ensure that referendums held in New

Brunswick are fair, open, and transparent - to make your

voice heard.

Recommendations

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following principles and provisions be adopted as part

of any New Brunswick Referendum Act in order to ensure

that referendums held in New Brunswick are independent,

fair, open, transparent and efficient, and encourage the

participation and involvement of New Brunswickers:

Recommendation 1

That the following principles governing the use of

referendums in New Brunswick be incorporated in a

Referendum Act:

1.1 Exceptional Issues – referendums should be held on

exceptional issues only.

1.2 Minority Rights Protection – no referendums

should be held that would have the purpose of

undermining or diminishing minority rights as set out in

the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, New

Brunswick’s Human Rights Act, New Brunswick’s

Official Languages Act, An Act Recognizing the

Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in

New Brunswick, or any other act that supports,

protects, or advances minority rights in the province.

1.3 Initiated by Government – referendums should be

initiated by government only, not by citizens in the form

of citizen initiatives.

1.4 Clear Question – a referendum question should be

clearly written so that it can be answered with either a

“yes” or “no” response.

1.5 Binding on Government – results of referendums

should be binding on the government to act.

1.6 Double Majority Support – referendum results

should be binding only when more than 50 percent of

valid votes are in favour of the referendum question

and at least 50 percent of eligible voters voted in the

referendum.

1.7 Independent & Transparent – referendums should

be independently supervised by Elections New

Brunswick with strict financing, disclosure, and

advertising rules to ensure a level playing field for all

sides with disclosure to voters of who may be funding

or supporting each referendum side.

Recommendation 2

That the following key provisions regarding the independent

supervision and administration of referendums in New

Brunswick be incorporated in a Referendum Act:

2.1 Timing – referendums should be held at the same time

as provincial or municipal elections. In an exceptional

circumstance, government could hold a referendum on

a day other than an election day.

2.2 Consultation and Debate on the Question –

Government would consult on the wording of the

question with the Leader of the Opposition and the

leaders of other political parties represented in the

legislature, and the referendum question would be

tabled, debated, and adopted by the legislature.

2.3 Referendum Committees – An official referendum

committee for each side of a referendum question be

formally established and registered with the Chief

Electoral Officer. Only these committees may make

expenditures in excess of $1,000.

2.4 Spending Limits – Official referendum committees

and their affiliates together be limited to spending no

more than $0.75 per voter during the course of a

referendum campaign, and all expenditures be audited

and reported to Elections New Brunswick.

2.5 Contribution Limits – limits on contributions to

official referendum committees be set at no more than

$3,000 for an individual, corporation, trade union, or

political party.

2.6 Financing Rules – names of contributors of over

$100 to an official referendum committee be disclosed

to Elections New Brunswick.

2.7 Registration –individuals or groups wishing to incur

expenses of $1,000 or less for advertising be required

to register with Elections New Brunswick for

transparency purposes, but not be required to

participate through an official Referendum Committee.

2.8 Information to Voters – Elections New Brunswick

mail to voters a sample referendum ballot and

information containing the arguments for and against

the referendum question at least 25 calendar days in

advance of voting day.

Recommendation 3

That the policy framework for a draft Referendum Act for

New Brunswick contained in Recommendation Appendix

“K” be considered as a proposed framework for a new Act.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

107

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Participatory Democracy

and Citizen Engagement in

New Brunswick

Mandate:

To examine and make recommendations on

enhancing public involvement in government and

legislative decision-making.

New Brunswickers want their voices heard when

governments take decisions. They want a direct say in

certain aspects of decision-making. Civil society

organizations - voluntary and community-based

organizations - are also seeking more involvement in policy

development and greater political access to decision-

making. People are asking for information when decisions

affect them directly. They are increasingly insisting on

receiving feedback from government when they are

consulted.

It is not the case that citizens want to displace their elected

representatives and public servants with themselves as the

ultimate decision makers. There are no calls for a move to

systematic direct democracy in our province. Rather, it is a

desire to make our form of responsible government and

representative democracy more responsive to people.

Citizens are unwilling to write government and MLAs a

‘blank cheque’ every four years after one election and

simply wait until the next election to pass judgment. To

many people, government is seen as an ‘interest’ like any

other, with its own motivations and objectives that may not

completely reflect those of citizens. People want an ongoing

opportunity to interact with government, have their views

sought, and give their opinion. In short, citizens are

demanding democracy more and more on their own terms.

The challenge for government is clear: to connect better with

citizens; to hear their views, and seek their input into

decisions, while ensuring government’s ongoing ability to

take decisions in the best interests of the province as a

whole. The objective for government is equally clear: to

have more meaningful engagement with citizens leading to

improved trust and confidence in government.

The “Big Picture” Problem

What’s behind this state of affairs? What’s the ‘big picture’

problem with which we are dealing?

Many of the reasons have been noted earlier in this report.

Lower trust and confidence in governments and leaders and

a general decline in deference towards institutions are

major contributing factors. A disconnect between citizens

and their governing institutions is apparent. There is no

question that people look at their politicians far differently

than before. A recently released survey by the Centre for

Research and Information on Canada shows how

confidence in political leaders remains below that of other

leaders in our society, although the more recent trend line

has been positive.

Similarly, there is some evidence that the way the media

reports the activities of politicians and governments has

been a contributing factor to this decline in trust in the view

of many Canadians.

An additional factor appears to be information and the

sense of empowerment that goes with it. Citizens have far

more avenues - from the Internet to e-mail to 24-hour news

channels - to gather information and communicate than ever

before.

The problems faced by governments - health care

sustainability, education achievement, fiscal capacity,

economic growth - are large and complex. They are difficult

to explain quickly to people and do not lend themselves to

obvious consultation processes. They defy instant or easy

solutions. Yet, the demand for the latter from people often

outpaces the realities of the former, causing people to

become disenchanted. To complicate matters, these long-

term challenges are themselves challenged by various short-

Disagree

Agree

Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C.

100

Source: Environics Focus Canada / Canadian Opinion Research Archive,

Queen’s University, 2002

The Media and Politics

Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each of the following

statements? Political leaders often look bad because the news media focus their

attention on the mistakes they make rather than the things they do right

Business Leaders

Religous Leaders

Political

Leaders

1983 1985 1986 1987 1988 1990 1992 1995 2002 2004

2002-2004: Can you tell me if you have a great deal of confidence, some, not very much, or

no confidence at all in each of the following: political leaders; religious leaders; business

leaders.

1983-1995: Can you tell me if you have a lot of confidence, some confidence, little

confidence or no confidence at all in the following persons or organizations, political

leaders; religious leaders; business leaders. Source: Environics Focus Canada / Canadian

Opinion Research Archive, Queen’s University.

Source: Environics Focus Canada / Canadian Opinion Research Archive,

Queen’s University.

“A lot /some confidence” or “a great deal/some confidence”

Confidence in Leaders (1983 - 2004)

108

term interests and time pressures upon government to take

any sort of action, even if this appears contradictory to the

long-term need.

The most effective mechanisms and processes for meaningful

engagement by government with citizens vary from issue to

issue. Some work better than others. The Working Group on

Violence Against Women was cited by many to the

Commission as a model mechanism to collaboratively

develop solutions with stakeholders. But to many civil society

groups, this is too often the exception, rather than the usual

way of doing business.

The ‘Small Picture’ Problem

There’s a ‘small picture’ problem as well - how citizen

engagement actually happens. For citizens willing and able

to engage in consultation with government, there are still

barriers to effectively doing so. Often there is a lack of

easily accessible information on the issues being discussed.

Insufficient time may be provided to give views. The

consultation method is sometimes ‘forced’ upon groups and

citizens, requiring them to fit the model or process, rather

than having a process crafted around their needs. When

asked for their input, citizens and groups might receive no

guarantees that it will actually be listened to by government.

In turn, the feedback they want in exchange for their input

can equally be lacking. These problems can compromise

any consultation or engagement process, fostering even

more frustration on the part of people.

Citizen Engagement - What Do We Mean?

There are several definitions of citizen engagement. The

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

gives this definition:

“Active participation recognizes the capacity of citizens

to discuss and generate policy options independently. It

requires governments to share in agenda-setting and to

ensure that policy proposals generated jointly will be

taken into account in reaching a final decision.”

Many of the small and big picture problems cited above

find their way into this definition - “capacity” implies the

need for information as well as the ability of civil society to

actually be able to participate; “jointly” implies

collaboration between government and citizens; “taken into

account” implies some form of guarantee of listening by

government; “share in agenda-setting” implies a mutually-

developed consultation process.

There is a way of situating public participation and citizen

engagement processes in decision-making, as the figure

below demonstrates.

At the low end of participation is “information” provided by

government. This could take the form of government

statistics or a background policy paper. But information

without a process to hear from citizens is useful, but not

really helpful to bring citizens more directly into the process.

At the high end is “empowerment”, where citizens are

actually given authority to make decisions. Examples of this

include District Education Councils (DECs) and Regional

Health Authorities (RHAs). Moving upward along this scale

leads to more active citizen engagement.

What New Brunswickers Are Saying

The Commission heard from many New Brunswickers

saying they wanted more of a say in decisions affecting

them and their communities. Interestingly, respondents to the

Commission’s website questionnaire were not insisting on a

say on all issues, just ones that were most important to

them. This typically included health care, education, local

governance, and the environment. Respondents also had

suggestions on the best means to engage with them. The

table below shows that town hall meetings with their MLA

and public hearings were most preferred.

“You need to get out and meet people where they

are at.” Roundtable on Civic Engagement, Saint

John, October 2004.

Unimportant

Not that important

Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important

Consultation

Papers

Public

Hearings

Government

website

Mailings

from MLA

Legislative

committee hearings

MLA town

halls

Direct public

input in Leg.

in per cent, based on an average of 221 respondents

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

How effective are the following ways for

government to listen to your concerns?

Inform

Consult

Involve

Collaborate

Empower

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

Public Participation Spectrum

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

109

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

The Commission co-sponsored a Roundtable on Civic

Engagement in Saint John on October 7, 2004, with

PolicyLink NB, a multi-sectoral network of federal and

provincial departments, voluntary associations, business

groups, and academics. Over 25 participants gathered to

discuss the challenges and solutions to better citizen

engagement in the province. Roles and responsibilities were

assessed. The main themes reached by participants were:

• There is a need for more overall and regular

engagement by government with community groups.

• Community groups should be seen as experts in their

areas who can facilitate understanding of community

issues for government.

• It is difficult under current structures and processes to

access politicians as key decision-makers.

• There is a need to move beyond consultation to

collaboration and empowerment.

• No one model of effective consultation or engagement

exists; it needs to be adapted to groups and issues.

• Relationship-building to build trust is necessary for

successful civic engagement.

• The capacity of civil society organizations to engage in

meaningful consultation is limited by their resources

and time of staff and volunteers.

Changing Relationship - Changing Needs

The implication of more meaningful citizen engagement is a

stronger participatory democracy in which citizens share

more of a role in setting the agenda of government and

participating in the decisions of government. This means a

changed relationship between government and “the

governed” that is not easily defined.

“We recommend that the New Brunswick

government actively promote and expand

mechanisms for bridging the gap between citizens

and government, so that groups and women from

diverse realities may become true players in the

decision-making process.” submission by the NB

Advisory Council on the Status of Women, October

2004

It also raises substantial questions about the current capacity

of citizens and civil society to actually engage with

government, however much they may want to. People are

busy with their own lives. Many are already active in their

community, giving what spare time they have. Civil society

groups at the community level are in many ways closer to

people and problems. They can bring a practical

perspective on issues and solutions. Many, however, have

limited means and resources to engage in broad-based

policy development. Association volunteers are stretched

providing services, often preferring this commitment of their

time to attending meetings with government, particularly if

they are not convinced it will lead to something.

Government itself can be hampered by its own culture and

procedures. Getting information from government on policy

issues, options, and statistics is not always easy. Public

servants are often on the front lines dealing with people and

communities, particularly at the regional level. But policy

making is typically a central function of a department or

government as a whole that may not effectively bring these

views into the process. At the same time, public servants are

for the most part accountable ‘upwards’ in their

departments, and not always measured for their

performance in dealing with citizens. Individual departments

have their own policy branches that operate in silos, but

public policy issues today cut across departments. Skills

development issues, for example, could touch the

departments of Training and Employment Development,

Education, Family and Community Services, Health and

Wellness, Finance, and Business New Brunswick. Citizens

and groups do not fit into departmental silos. This suggests

that the structures and processes of government policy

development requires a ‘re-think’ as to how it is can best be

organized to seek meaningful input on a regular, consistent

basis from citizens and communities.

Consultation occurs, but how well is it practiced?

Consultation is a professional skill requiring specific tools

and expertise. Again, some departments are better

equipped than others to undertake this task. There is a need

to build up this capacity government-wide so it can

effectively meet the demands and expectations of citizens

and civil society.

The Prospect of e-Democracy

Rapid advances in information and communications

technologies (ICTs) are redefining how we communicate,

work, live, and play. Can it redefine our democracy and

how we engage with each other? Is e-democracy just

around the corner?

Information and knowledge have become the principal

drivers of economic growth and prosperity worldwide. ICTs

are realigning traditional governance relationships and the

notion of service to citizens. From paying your tax bill to

getting a moose licence, more and more online services are

now being provided. Service New Brunswick is increasingly

recognized as a Canadian and world leader in the

provision of online services, recently signing agreements

with the Government of Québec and the International

Teledemocracy Centre in Scotland.

The boundaries between government and citizens are

changing. With government as the single largest producer

of information, there is a need to consider information as a

public resource, essential for citizens to engage with

government with new standards of transparency and

accountability. Evidence of this is the formation of the

Crossing Boundaries National Council

110

(www.crossingboundaries.ca). This unique national forum

brings together federal and provincial governments, elected

officials and public servants, the private and non-profit

sectors, municipalities and Aboriginal organizations to

consider how ICTs are changing traditional democratic

governance and the citizen’s interaction with government.

Because ICTs provide citizens with virtually instant access to

information and the ability to communicate with government

and each other, there is the possibility that these same

technologies can be used on a systematic basis to create a

more informed and engaged citizenry. ICTs can be used to

disseminate information, to engage in two-way consultation

with online questionnaires for example, and even

deliberative dialogue with discussion forums. An e-petition

feature pioneered by the Scottish Parliament allows citizens

to engage directly into the legislative process. These are

enhanced forms of participatory democracy. Traditional

consultation is top-down; ICTs offer the potential for bottom-

up consultation. They can make time and distance irrelevant

and lower the cost of entry to democracy for citizens.

Everyone with access to a computer and Internet - and New

Brunswick has one of the fastest-growing access networks in

the country - can participate, provided the tools are put in

place by government. Even then, simply providing

information via the Internet and government website (as all

governments now do) is still just a form of top-down

consultation. In that sense, ICTs are to date really just

strengthening existing democratic institutions at present,

rather than redefining them. Much more has to be done to

realize the full potential of these new technologies.

Who participates in this form of e-democracy also matters.

A digital divide between those who understand and use

ICTs and those who do not has already grown up across

Canada. Education, income, and generational differences

all show through. The 2000 General Election Survey found

that almost a third of university graduates used the Internet

to search for political information, but only about five

percent of individuals with less than high school education

did so. Similarly, those with higher incomes were almost

three times as likely to use the Internet compared to those

with lower incomes, while post-Generation X individuals

(youth) were more than two and one-half times more likely

to use the Internet compared to pre-baby boomers (seniors).

Finding ways to bridge that divide is essential if e-

democracy is going to prove a real option for citizens and

government.

The Commission extensively utilized ICT tools through its

website (see Background Appendix XVII Website and

e-Consultation). Our online questionnaire provided useful

feedback as to how users rated the value of this medium to

communicate with the Commission in particular and

government in general. A full 93 percent of respondents

said that the discussion questions posted by the Commission

were either “very useful” or “somewhat useful”. Eighty

percent of respondents said there was “the right amount” of

information in the Commission’s Citizen’s Participation

Guide for them to answer the discussion questions and 70

percent said the information provided by the Commission

“was easily understood”. Interestingly, people were willing

to spend time through this tool to fill out a rather long

questionnaire and offer their input. Fifty percent said they

spent between 20 and 30 minutes on the questionnaire,

while approximately 30 percent spent one hour or more.

Not surprisingly, respondents saw great value in online

questionnaires as a means of receiving input and feedback

from citizens. Over 95 percent of respondents said it was a

“valuable addition” to traditional consultation methods.

Specific advantages cited were “convenience”, and “filling

out questionnaires” as the table below indicates.

At present, the Government of New Brunswick does not

systematically utilize the Internet as a two-way consultation

mechanism. But the trends are positive. The government

website has improved significantly with video of news

events, for example. Since the Commission began its own

examination of this issue, there has been a noticeable rise

in the number of departments and agencies offering online

questionnaires and discussion papers. Indeed, the

Commission was the first government entity to utilize the

website for systematic online consultation. Nevertheless,

there is much more that could be done by government.

Unimportant

Not that important

Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important

Convenience Opp. to hear

other opinions

Access to

background info

Filling out

questionnaires

Getting feedback

on my views

in per cent, based on an average of 164 respondents

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

How important are the following features of

online consultation?

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

111

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Examples of online consultation offered by

departments and other government agencies

over the past year:

Quick Quiz – short question

• Commission on Legislative Democracy

• NB Advisory Council on Youth

Speak Up! – email comments

• Commission on Legislative Democracy

• Legislative Assembly Committees

• Finance

• NB Advisory Council on Youth

Online Questionnaires

• Commission on Legislative Democracy

• Auditor General

• NB Advisory Council on Seniors

• Executive Council (Violence prevention)

• Finance

Not everyone uses ICTs. That should not be a reason for

them to be avoided. Traditional mechanisms should continue

to exist for those who choose not to use ICTs or do not have

access to them. Waiting for everyone to be ‘ready’ will

leave our province behind and perhaps contribute to the

existing sense of democratic disconnectedness amongst

young New Brunswickers.

Participatory Democracy and

Citizen Engagement

The Commission believes our province needs to take more

definitive steps towards engaging citizens and communities

in decision-making and democracy. We have identified

three main areas for democratic renewal to help make

citizens’ voices heard:

• Participatory Decision-Making - encouraging

more New Brunswickers to offer for DEC and RHA

positions and making these authorities more effective

and accountable;

• Civic Engagement and Civil Society - building the

capacity of civil society organizations to engage in

consultation with government and the expertise of

government to engage with citizens in consultation;

• E-Democracy - utilizing more effectively ICTs to

engage New Brunswickers in dialogue and decisions

with their government.

Participatory Decision-Making

New Brunswickers have, in certain respects, enviable

opportunities to participate in the public affairs of their

province. New decision-making authorities, such as DECs

and RHAs, exist with locally elected positions. But

participation in these contests, as we have seen, is low with

numerous vacancies, raising questions about the extent of

their actual authority in the eyes of citizens.

The Commission believes that more New Brunswickers

should be encouraged to serve on DECs and RHAs. The

Commission heard from a number of people that these

authorities do not have enough real power, and this acts as

a deterrent to participation. Our assessment has shown that

this is not entirely correct, but the perception persists. The

Commission believes that government needs to take real

steps to address this perception by first, supporting

candidates running for these positions through Elections

New Brunswick; second, paying an appropriate per diem to

attract qualified individuals to run and serve on these

bodies; and third, conducting a more formal review of the

powers and responsibilities of these local authorities prior to

the next DEC and RHA elections. At that point, each body

will be over five years old, which seems to the Commission

to be an appropriate time to consider how to improve their

effectiveness.

Local government issues were also raised by New

Brunswickers during the Commission’s public hearings and

Community Leader Roundtables. Questions of effective

democratic governance were mentioned, as well as

appropriate authority to make decisions. The Commission

believes that a more extensive review of local and regional

governance might be necessary following the next

municipal elections.

Civic Engagement and Civil Society

The Commission believes that more effective consultation

methods are necessary to bring New Brunswickers into the

public policy development process. Government itself needs

to acquire more specific expertise in this area. Civil society

must have its own capacity strengthened so it too can

participate effectively. The Commission concluded that a

number of steps needed to be taken.

There is a need for a central support mechanism to assist all

departments and agencies across government to engage in

more meaningful consultation with citizens, communities,

and civil society. The Commission believes the creation of a

Public Dialogue Office having specific consultation expertise

within government would meet this need. This office would

act as a resource to public servants seeking expertise and

support to initiate or carry out consultations with citizens or

groups, particularly on a time-sensitive basis. It could

organize the consultation process, hire independent

consultants or facilitators to participate, and meet with third-

party groups to determine how to incorporate their needs

and expectations into a particular consultation process.

Similarly, it could act as a resource for civil society groups

needing financial support through a consultation fund in

carrying out research, conducting preliminary consultations,

or producing a discussion paper. Supporting civil society

organizations to participate in consultations is important

given their actual capacity to do so.

There is no one best method to consult New Brunswickers.

Each method should be adapted to the issues and

112

audiences. Models such as the Working Group on Violence

Against Women appear to be a positive one that works.

The Commission believes that serious consideration should

be given to adapting it across government as a means to

engage stakeholders and public servants in horizontal or

integrated policy development.

While there is no common model of consultation, common

characteristics for successful consultations exist. Specific

guidelines and principles for Open Consultation should be

developed and shared across government to foster more

‘sincere’ consultation and engagement and address

expectations with people as to the process and results. Such

guidelines should be based on the following principles:

Guidelines for Open Consultation

Openness - The process should be open and

transparent in how it is conducted with clear parameters

and guidelines.

Honesty - Participants should be honest with each

other about their expectations and perceptions so mutual

trust and confidence in the process can be developed

leading to successful results.

Adaptable - The process should be adapted to the

particular needs of participants by arranging the

consultation process at times and locations that

maximize participation.

Dialogue - Participants should arrive at each

consultation process prepared to dialogue and

exchange ideas and viewpoints rather than simply state

prepared positions.

Respect - Participants should be respectful of each

other’s opinion and in their conduct throughout the

consultation process.

Information - Adequate and timely information should

be made available to participants in order to achieve

positive outcomes based on accepted data.

Feedback - Participants should receive direct regular

feedback on the results of the consultation process, both

during and after it is completed.

While consultation and citizen engagement should occur

regularly, the Commission believes that some issues, such as

the budget, require a higher level of legislative and public

consultation than other types of issues. Indeed, some of this

has recently taken place, but we believe it needs to be

formalized as a regular occurrence. The Commission

therefore recommends that the Minister of Finance

undertake annual pre-budget consultations with a formal

discussion paper for citizens. Public hearings should also be

held around the province to receive input. The Minister

should appear before the proposed new Standing

Committee on Finance and the Economy to allow MLAs to

question the Minister and provide their comments as well.

e-Democracy

The Commission believes that there is great potential to

utilize ICTs to engage New Brunswickers more directly in

public policy development and democratic discussion.

Important steps have already been taken and the

technology currently exists. Many people in the province are

both willing and able to communicate with government via

this means.

But government’s efforts remain fragmented with its

engagement potential unrealized. Expertise is not readily

available in each department or agency. This will change

over time. The prospects are for greater use, not less. The

Commission believes this should be enhanced by creating a

central space in government for public dialogue through the

use of ICTs. Attaching an “e-democracy” function to the

proposed new Public Dialogue Office would help

accomplish this. Innovative uses should be encouraged such

as e-town halls, and student discussion forums connecting

schools. Training of public servants on how best to utilize

these technologies should commence. Best practices on

what works should be shared. The Commission’s

recommendation elsewhere in this report to promote the use

of e-petitions in the legislature also fits into this overall effort.

Government undertakes consultation all the time, on many

subjects. New Brunswickers should be made aware of this

activity. The Commission believes a central consultation

portal should be created on the government website - such

as www

.etownhall.gnb.ca - so visitors are able to find out

easily the status of any consultation process. Regular

updates should also be provided on this site.

Participatory Democracy & Citizen

Engagement

Democracy is about citizens and their relationship with

government. With our changing democratic values and

society attitudes, governments and legislatures need to think

differently about how they engage citizens in their

democracy. An essential part of renewing democracy in

New Brunswick is finding new, meaningful ways for

people’s voices to be heard. This is not an easy task. It

requires commitment on the part of government as well as

citizens. Participating in democratic decision-making does

not always mean getting your own way - for government or

every citizen. The strength of our democracy will come from

our ability to engage citizens, communities, and civil society

in a more effective way to make government and legislative

decision-making more open and responsive to the needs of

citizens. The Commission’s recommendations will increase

the opportunities for New Brunswickers to participate more

in their democracy and have their voice heard by

government.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

113

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Recommendations

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommends that

the following steps be taken to increase the participation of

New Brunswickers in decision-making:

Participatory Decision-Making

Recommendation 1

That the provincial government conduct an awareness

campaign with information packages for prospective

candidates on the powers and responsibilities of District

Education Councils (DECs) and Regional Health Authorities

(RHAs), to encourage more candidates to offer to

participate in these local decision-making authorities.

Recommendation 2

That Elections New Brunswick promote greater voter

understanding of how and where to vote for DEC and RHA

positions by inserting advertisements similar to the Notice of

Grant of Poll advertisements used during provincial

elections, that include maps of the boundaries of the various

authorities and councils being filled by the elections, the

locations of polling stations, and the names, addresses, and

contact information of the candidates standing for

nomination.

Recommendation 3

That Elections New Brunswick publish at least seven days

before the date of the quadrennial local governance

elections, a short statement prepared by each DEC and

RHA candidate.

Recommendation 4

That the elected and appointed members of DECs and RHAs

receive formal training and orientation so they can more

fully understand and exercise their powers and

responsibilities.

Recommendation 5

That an appropriate per diem be paid to members of DECs

and RHAs as compensation for the work and time they

undertake as members, and to encourage greater

participation in the process.

Recommendation 6

That the government initiate a review of DECs and RHAs, in

consultation with communities and stakeholders, to

determine what is the most appropriate authority for these

bodies given community expectations, the need to ensure a

more direct correspondence between their mandated

responsibilities and actual legislated powers, and to ensure

ongoing accountability of public expenditures to taxpayers.

Recommendation 7

That following the next municipal elections, the provincial

government evaluate the need to create an independent

commission to examine local and regional governance in

New Brunswick.

Civic Engagement and Civil Society

Recommendation 8

That a central Public Dialogue Office with consultation

expertise be created within government to assist

departments and agencies in undertaking and supporting

meaningful consultation and deliberative dialogue with

citizens and civil society organizations.

Recommendation 9

That a new Civic Engagement Fund, to be administered by

the Public Dialogue Office, be created to support civil

society groups engaged in various consultation activities

with citizens and communities, including conducting

research, preparing resource materials, and cost-sharing

events.

Recommendation 10

That specific guidelines for Open Consultation be

developed, shared, published, and utilized across

government as an ongoing framework for meaningful

consultation with citizens and civil society organizations,

and as an important accountability tool.

Recommendation 11

That the working group model established by the Minister’s

Working Group on Violence Against Women be utilized as

a model for “best practices” engagement on public policy

development for other issues.

Recommendation 12

That government explore the value of utilizing “citizens

assemblies” and “citizen panels” to engage citizens in

deliberative dialogue and/or decision-making on a diverse

range of issues.

Recommendation 13

That an annual pre-budget consultation process be

undertaken by the Minister of Finance that includes a public

information document for citizens, province-wide public

hearings, and a public appearance before a Standing

Committee of the legislature.

114

E-Democracy

Recommendation 14

That a central “e-Town Hall” site be created on the main

government website, with a link to the new Public Dialogue

Office, listing all consultations being undertaken by

government at any one time; their status; how citizens can

access information on the consultation issue; and a built-in

questionnaire and feedback component for citizens to

participate in each process.

Recommendation 15

That the results of all e-consultation processes be published

on the main government website to share information,

demonstrate transparency, and encourage more

participation in and use of these engagement tools.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

115

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

116

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation Appendix: A

Policy Framework - A Representation and Electoral Boundaries Act

for New Brunswick

Summary of Contents

This appendix contains a suggested legal framework for a statute governing the drawing of electoral

district boundaries in New Brunswick. It is organized into the following sections:

1. Definition Section

2. Process for Establishment of a Commission

3. Terms of Reference of a Commission

4. Preliminary Report

5. Final Report

6. Final Authority/Adoption of New Boundaries

The text in the shaded boxes is suggested language for provisions of a Representation and Electoral

Boundaries Act applicable under the New Brunswick Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system

recommended by the Commission on Legislative Democracy in this report.

1. Definition section

“Census” means a census conducted by Statistics Canada under the Statistics Act (Canada).

“Commission” means a Representation and Electoral Boundaries Commission established under this Act.

“Commissioners” means the co-chairpersons and other members appointed to a Commission under this Act.

Under MMP

“Multi-member district” means a grouping of single member ridings, as determined under this Act, from

which members are returned to the Legislative Assembly under the Mixed Member Proportional electoral

system provided for in the Elections Act.

“Multi-member district lists” means the lists determined by the registered political parties for the return of

members to the Legislative Assembly from multi-member districts under the Mixed Member Proportional

electoral system provided for in the Elections Act.

“Single member riding” means an electoral district in the Province from which one member is returned to the

Legislative Assembly.

“Total population” means the total population of New Brunswick as determined pursuant to the census that a

Commission is established to consider.

2. Process for Establishment of a Commission

The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall appoint a Representation and Electoral Boundaries Commission for the

census taken in 2001 and for each decennial census taken after 2001.

a) Role of Commission

A Commission shall examine representation of the population of New Brunswick in the Legislative Assembly based

on the census and propose readjustments to the boundaries of single member ridings in the province.

117

Chapter 6 - Recommendation Appendices

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Under MMP

A Commission shall examine representation of the population of New Brunswick in the Legislative Assembly

based on the census, and propose readjustments to the boundaries of single member ridings and multi

member electoral districts in the province.

b) Trigger to Start Process to Establish Commission

As soon as practicable after this Act comes into force, and thereafter for each decennial census taken after 2001,

the Clerk of the Executive Council for New Brunswick shall obtain from the Chief Statistician of Canada a copy of

the part of the census showing the total population and distribution of the population of New Brunswick.

The Clerk of the Executive Council shall then transmit a notice to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council that the part of

the census showing the total population and distribution of the population of New Brunswick has been received.

Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the notice from the Clerk of the Executive Council, the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council shall appoint a Commission pursuant to this Act.

c) How Commission is Appointed

A Commission shall be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, through an Order-in-Council:

a) Following consultation by the Premier or the Premier’s designate with the Leader of the Opposition and the

leaders of the other political parties represented in the Legislative Assembly, and

b) Upon a resolution of the Legislative Assembly carried by a vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the

Legislative Assembly voting thereon.

d) Composition of Commission

Each Commission shall consist of:

a) Two co-chairpersons, one from each of New Brunswick’s official linguistic communities, and

b) Three other members, who are residents of New Brunswick.

e) Persons Ineligible for Appointment

The following persons are ineligible to be appointed as a Commissioner:

a) A member of the Legislative Assembly

b) A member of the House of Commons

c) A member of the Senate

A co-chairperson must not:

a) Have been a candidate in any of the last two general provincial or federal elections or in a by-election held

following any of the last two general provincial or federal elections;

b) Have served in the Legislative Assembly, Parliament or Senate in any of the last two legislatures or

Parliaments prior to the current session of the Legislative Assembly or Parliament; or

c) Have been an official agent, chief agent or campaign manager of a candidate or of a political party in

any of the last two general provincial or federal elections or in a by-election held following any of the last

two general provincial or federal elections.

f) Publication of Appointments

The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall publish a notice of the appointment of Commissioners in the Royal Gazette

as soon as practicable following the appointment.

g) Remuneration of Commissioners

Commissioners are entitled to be paid:

a) An amount to be fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and

b) An allowance for travel and other expenses incurred in the performance of the duties of the Commissioner

at a rate approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

118

h) Assistance to Commission

A Commission may retain employees and advisors to enable it to discharge its duties, subject to the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

3. Terms of Reference of Commission

a) Transmission of Part of Census Showing Population of New Brunswick

Within 14 calendar days of the appointment of the Commission, the Clerk of the Executive Council shall transmit to

the Co-chairpersons the part of the census showing the total population and distribution of the population of New

Brunswick.

On receipt of the part of the census showing the total population and distribution of the population of New

Brunswick, the Commission shall prepare, in accordance with this Act, a preliminary report and a final report

containing the Commission’s proposals for the boundaries of single member ridings in the province.

Under MMP

On receipt of the part of the census showing that total population and distribution of the population of New

Brunswick, the Commission shall prepare, in accordance with this Act, a preliminary report and a final

report containing the Commission’s proposals for the boundaries of single member ridings and multi-

member districts in the province.

b) Division of Province into Electoral Districts

In determining the proposed boundaries of electoral districts, the Commission shall divide the province into

approximately 55 single member ridings.

Under MMP

In determining the proposed boundaries of electoral districts, the Commission shall divide the province into

36 single member ridings.

After determining the proposed boundaries of the single member ridings, the Commission shall determine

the proposed boundaries of four multi-member districts, of approximately the same size, in which the 36

single member ridings will reside.

Each single member riding shall be wholly included in one multi-member district.

Each multi-member district shall be allocated five Legislative Assembly seats, which shall be filled at an

election by members returned from multi-member district lists.

The Commission shall follow the guiding principles set out in this Act for the purpose of determining the

boundaries of the multi-member districts.

c) Establishment of a Quotient

The Commission shall determine a quotient for each proposed single member riding by dividing the total population

of the province as determined by the census by the total number of single member ridings.

d) Guiding Principles

In determining the boundaries of the proposed single member ridings, the Commission shall be guided by the

principle of representation by population, and shall proceed on the basis that the vote of every elector in the

province shall have a weight equal to that of every other elector.

The Commission shall further be guided by the principle of effective representation of electors as guaranteed by the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms leading to better government of the populace as a whole, in considering

deviations from parity of voting power.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

119

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

e) Acceptable Variance

The Commission shall be permitted to deviate from the quotient for each single member riding by no more than 15

per cent, plus or minus.

f) Considerations

The Commission shall consider the following in determining the proposed boundaries of the single member ridings:

a) Communities of interest within the province;

b) Representation of New Brunswick’s two official linguistic communities;

c) Geographic considerations, including the accessibility, size and shape of a region of the province;

d) Existing municipal and other administrative boundaries;

e) The rate of population growth of any part of the province;

f) The challenges of representing rural areas of the Province; and

g) Other considerations the Commission determines appropriate.

g) Exceptional Variance

In exceptional circumstances, the Commission may depart from the quotient for each single member riding by up to

25 per cent, plus or minus, where the Commission concludes that such a departure is necessary in order to ensure

effective representation of electors and better government of the populace as a whole.

Special considerations which may justify such a deviation include:

a) A special diversity or community of interest of the residents of an area of the province.

b) Special geographic considerations including the accessibility, size and shape of any region of the province.

4. Preliminary Report

a) Time to Prepare Preliminary Report

Within 90 calendar days of its establishment, the Commission shall prepare a preliminary report.

b) Public Hearings

Prior to preparing the preliminary report, the Commission shall hold public hearings throughout the province at such

times and places as the Commission considers appropriate. The Commission shall hear representations from persons

on the existing boundaries of electoral districts of the province and the establishment of new single member ridings.

The Commission shall provide reasonable public notice of the time, date and purpose of such hearings.

c) Contents of Preliminary Report

The Commission’s preliminary report shall include the proposed boundary descriptions and names for each of the

single member ridings.

Under MMP

The Commission’s preliminary report shall include:

a) Proposed boundary descriptions and names for each of the 36 single member ridings, and

b) Proposed boundary descriptions for each of the four multi- member districts.

d) Preliminary Report to be Made Public

Upon completion of the preliminary report, it shall be made public.

120

e) Requirement for Public Hearings on Preliminary Report

As soon as practicable following the completion of the preliminary report, the Commission shall hold public

hearings throughout the province at such times and places it considers appropriate to hear representations on the

proposals set out in the Commission’s preliminary report.

The Commission shall provide reasonable public notice of such hearings, and the public notice shall contain:

a) Details of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearings,

b) A map showing the proposed boundaries of single member ridings as recommended in the Commission’s

preliminary report, and

c) Such other information as the Commission considers appropriate.

Under MMP

The Commission shall provide reasonable public notice of such hearings, and the public notice shall

contain:

a) Details of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearings,

b) A map showing the proposed boundaries of the single member ridings and of the multi-member districts

as recommended in the Commission’s preliminary report, and

c) Such other information as the Commission considers appropriate.

5. Final Report

a) Time to Prepare Final Report

The Commission shall hold the public hearings on the preliminary report, consider any representations made during

the public hearings and prepare its final report within 90 calendar days of completing the preliminary report.

b) Contents of Final Report

The Commission’s final report shall include the Commission’s final proposals for the boundary descriptions and

names of each of the single member ridings.

Under MMP

The Commission’s final report shall include the Commission’s final proposals for:

a) The boundary descriptions and names for each of the 36 single member ridings.

b) The boundary descriptions for each of the four multi-member districts.

6. Final Authority/Adoption of New Boundaries

a) Transmission of Final Report to Legislative Assembly

Immediately upon completion of its final report, the Commission shall transmit the report to the Legislative Assembly

and make it public.

If the Legislative Assembly is in session when the final report is transmitted, the Speaker shall cause the report to be

laid before the Legislative Assembly forthwith.

If the Legislative Assembly is not in session when the final report is transmitted, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

shall ensure each member of the Legislative Assembly receives a copy forthwith, and the Speaker shall cause a copy

of the final report to be laid before the Legislative Assembly upon the commencement of the next ensuing session of

the Legislative Assembly.

b) Notice of Objection to Final Report

Within 14 calendar days of the final report being transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, an MLA may file a notice

of objection, in writing, with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, specifying the provision(s) of the final report the

member objects to and proposes to amend, the reasons for the objection and the substance of the proposed

amendment.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

121

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

c) Final Report Transmitted to the Clerk of the Executive Council if No Notices of Objection Filed

If no notices of objection to the final report are filed with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly within the allotted 14-

day period, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly shall transmit a copy of the final report of the Commission

forthwith to the Clerk of the Executive Council.

d) Referral of any Notices of Objection to Final Report to Committee of the Legislative Assembly

Any notices of objection filed with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly shall be referred at the close of the allotted

14-day period to a Committee established by the Legislative Assembly, composed of equal representation from

government and opposition members, for the purpose of considering objections and proposed amendments to the

final report of a Representation and Electoral Boundaries Commission.

Such a Committee shall consider any such notices of objection referred to it and make its report to the Legislative

Assembly within 30 calendar days of the date of the referral of the notices of objection to the Committee.

If the House is not sitting when the Committee makes its report, the Committee report shall be filed with the Clerk of

the Legislative Assembly, who shall ensure that each member of the Legislative Assembly receives a copy forthwith.

A report of a Committee shall include the Committee’s recommendations with respect to the disposition of the notices

of objection, the minutes of the Committee and evidence of the Committee with respect thereto.

e) Disposition of Committee Report

At the earliest opportunity after the Committee makes its report, a motion of concurrence in the Report of the

Committee shall be brought.

If the Committee report is adopted by two-thirds of the members of the Legislative Assembly voting on a recorded

vote, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly shall forthwith transmit to the Clerk of the Executive Council the final

report of the Commission, with the report of the Committee attached.

If the Committee report is not adopted by two-thirds of the members of the Legislative Assembly, the Clerk of the

Legislative Assembly shall transmit to the Clerk of the Executive Council the final report of the Commission forthwith

upon disposition of the motion of concurrence.

Within 14 calendar days of receipt of the final report of a Commission, with or without the report of a Committee

attached, the Clerk of the Executive Council shall prepare and present to the Lieutenant-Governor for signature an

Order-in-Council setting out the electoral districts in accordance with the recommendations in the final report of the

Commission, and in a Committee’s report, if attached.

f) Contents of Order-in-Council

The Order- in-Council shall set out the boundary descriptions and names for each of the single member ridings.

Under MMP

The Order- in-Council shall set out:

a) The boundary descriptions and names for each of the 36 single member ridings.

b) The boundary descriptions for each of the four multi-member districts.

g) Coming into Force of the Order-in-Council

Within five calendar days of the Order-in-Council being signed by the Lieutenant-Governor, the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council shall by Proclamation declare the Order-in-Council to be in force, effective on the first dissolution of the

Legislative Assembly that occurs after the day the Proclamation declaring it to be in force was issued, and on the

issue of the Proclamation, the Order- in-Council has the force of law.

The Order-in-Council and Proclamation declaring it to be in force shall be published in the Royal Gazette.

122

Recommendation Appendix: A-1

Flowchart for a Representation and Electoral Boundaries Act Process

Summary of Contents

This appendix is a flowchart showing the steps and related time frames in the process set out in the

proposed Representation and Electoral Boundaries Act for New Brunswick. The example used is a

Representation and Electoral Boundaries Commission appointed to make recommendations on the

electoral boundaries of the province based on the 2001 census.

The flowchart is organized into the following sections:

1. Getting Ready/Preparatory Stage

2. Public Hearings /Preparation of Preliminary and Final Reports

3. Final Approval by Legislative Assembly /Adoption of New Boundaries

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

123

The Clerk of the Executive Council obtains from the Chief Statistician of

Canada a copy of part of the 2001 Census relating to NB and transmits

it to the L-G in C.

180

calendar

days

(six

months)

calendar

days

calendar

days

1. Getting Ready/Preparatory Stage

Following consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and leaders of

other parties in the House and on approval by the Legislative Assembly on

a 2/3rds vote, the L-G in C appoints a Representation and Electoral

Boundaries Commission.

The Clerk of the Executive Council obtains from the Chief Statistician of

Canada a copy of part of the 2001 Census relating to NB and transmits

it to the L-G in C.

2. Public Hearings/Preparation of Preliminary and Final Reports

The Commission holds public hearings on the existing electoral boundaries

and establishment of new electoral districts in the province.

The Commission prepares and makes public its preliminary report

containing proposals for boundaries of electoral districts in the province.

The Commission holds public hearings on the preliminary report.

Commission prepares its Final Report, containing recommendations for

boundary descriptions and names of ridings and transmits copy to

Legislative Assembly immediately.

30 calendar days

14 calendar days

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

124

3. Final Approval by Legislative Assembly/Adoption of New Boundaries

If House is sitting when Final

Report is transmitted to the

Legislative Assembly:

Speaker tables Final Report in

House.

If House is not sitting when

Final Report is transmitted to the

Legislative Assembly:

Final Report is filed with Clerk of

Legislative Assembly who sends

copy to all MLAs.

MLAs may file Notices of Objection with Clerk of Legislative Assembly

14 calendar days

If no Notices of

Objection filed:

Clerk transmits copies of any

objections filed to the members of

a Committee of the Legislature

established to review MLA’s

objections and proposed

amendments to Commission’s

Report.

Committee reviews objections and

reports back to House (if sitting) or

files report with Clerk of

Legislative Assembly who ensure

all members receive copy (if not

sitting).

Motion to adopt Committee report

is made in House at earliest

opportunity.

Clerk of Legislative Assembly immediately transmits Final Report of

Commission with or without report of a Committee of Legislature attached, to

Clerk of Executive Council.

Clerk prepares Order-in-Council setting out boundary descriptions and names

of each riding.

Proclamation is issued declaring the OIC to be in force effective on first

dissolution of Legislative Assembly following the issue of the Proclamation.

5 calendar days

14 calendar days

Minimum

calendar

days

30 calendar days

Approx. 3 calendar days

calendar

days

Recommendation Appendix: B

Proposed Mandate - Elections New Brunswick

Summary of Contents

This appendix contains a proposed mandate for a new independent electoral commission, called

Elections New Brunswick. Elections New Brunswick would combine the current duties and responsibilities

of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Supervisor of Political Financing and have an

expanded mandate as described in this document and set out in the following sections:

1. Elections Administration (Elections Act)

2. Political Party Financing (Political Process Financing Act)

3. Information, Education & Promotion (a new Elections Commission Act)

4. Reporting (new Elections Commission Act)

1. Elections Administration (Elections Act)

• Conducting, administering and managing provincial general elections, municipal elections, referendums

• Enumeration and electoral rolls/lists

• Appointment and training of elections officers

• Supporting the Representation & Electoral Boundaries Commission

• Producing electoral district maps

• Enforcing relevant legislation

2. Political Party Financing (Political Process Financing Act)

• Registering political parties, electoral district associations, and third-party groups engaged in political activities

and advertising

• Monitoring and supervising election and political party contributions, expenses, and disclosures by registered

political parties and third-party groups

• Administering allowances paid to political parties

• Receiving reports and information by political parties on progress towards gender equity and other priorities

• Enforcing relevant legislation

3. Information, Education & Promotion (new Elections Commission Act)

• Producing and distributing information and promotional materials to the public on the mandate and activities of

the Commission, the conduct and results of elections and referendums

• Promoting the value and importance of voting and participating in elections and the democratic process

• Providing educational programs to young New Brunswickers in schools and elsewhere on the value and

importance of voting and participating in elections and the democratic process

• Conducting research and other activities to assist the Commission in the exercise of its responsibilities and

mandate.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

125

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

4. Reporting (new Elections Commission Act)

• Reporting to the Legislative Assembly annually on the activities and expenditures of Elections NB, the

administration of elections and referendums, and providing recommendations for amendments and

improvements to the legislation and procedures governing the conduct and administration of elections, political

party financing, and other activities for which the Commission is responsible

• Producing timely and accurate reporting of election, by-election, and referendum results

• Publishing and making accessible to the public financial information provided by registered political parties,

electoral district associations, and third-party groups related to elections, by-elections, referendums, nomination

contests, and leadership selections

• Enforcing relevant legislation

126

Recommendation Appendix: C

Policy Framework: The Roles and Duties of an MLA and a Code of

Conduct for Members of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick

Summary of Contents

This appendix contains a policy framework outlining a code of conduct for MLAs in New Brunswick as

proposed by the Legislative Administration Committee. It is organized in the following sections:

1. The Key Roles and Duties of an MLA

2. Code of Conduct

1. The Key Roles and Duties of an MLA

As Members directly elected by the People of New Brunswick to represent them in the Legislative Assembly, we

acknowledge and accept the responsibility thereby entrusted to us to serve the people of the province honestly and

conscientiously to the best of our abilities. In furtherance of this commitment, the Members of the Legislative

Assembly of New Brunswick further acknowledge that in carrying out their legislative duties, Members have the

following responsibilities:

1. to first and foremost represent conscientiously the interests of the constituents of his or her electoral district;

2. to be accessible to the constituents of his or her electoral district and to assist his or her constituents regardless

of their political affiliation;

3. to perform the duties of a legislator in the Assembly, by attending and participating in the proceedings of the

Legislative Assembly;

4. to work for the advancement of the people and the Province of New Brunswick;

5. to uphold the principles of democratic governance;

6. to represent faithfully and loyally the Province of New Brunswick in all venues, be they local, provincial,

national or international.

2. Code of Conduct

1. The key principle of this Code is to maintain and promote public confidence and trust in the integrity of

Members of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick as well as the respect and confidence that citizens

place in the New Brunswick Legislature as an institution.

2. A further purpose of this Code is to provide guidance to the Members of the Legislative Assembly as to the

standard of conduct expected of them in the discharge of their obligations to their constituents, the Legislative

Assembly and the public at large.

3. This Code applies to Members in all aspects of their public life.

Public Duty

4. By virtue of their oath or affirmation of allegiance, Members have a duty to be loyal to the people of New

Brunswick and to perform the duties of Members honestly and justly in conformity with the laws of the Province

of New Brunswick and the rules of the Legislative Assembly.

Duty as a Representative

5. Members have a duty to be accessible to the people of the areas for which they have been elected to serve

and to represent their interests conscientiously.

6. In representing people’s interest, Members have a duty to respect individual privacy, unless there are

overwhelming reasons in the wider public interest for disclosure to be made to a relevant authority, for example

where a Member is made aware of criminal activity.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

127

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

General Principles of Personal Conduct

7. Selflessness

Members should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial

or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

8. Integrity and Honesty

a) Members should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or

organizations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.

b) Members have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to

resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

9. Accountability and Openness

a) Members are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public. They have a duty to consider issues

on their merits, taking account of the views of others.

b) Members should be as open as possible about their decisions and actions that they take and give reasons

for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

10. Respect and Courtesy

In respect of the responsibilities outlined in this Code, the conduct of Members shall demonstrate respect and

courtesy

a) in all communications with constituents, regardless of political affiliation;

b) in all interventions in the Legislative Assembly and towards its Members and Officers;

c) by showing compassion and fairness toward all who seek their assistance;

d) for the cultural diversity of the Province of New Brunswick.

11. Leadership

Members have a duty to promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

Generally

12. Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal

interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public

interest.

13. Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the

public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the Legislature, and never undertake any action which would

bring the Legislative Assembly or its Members generally into disrepute.

14. The provisions of this code shall be taken into account by the Legislative Assembly in any proceeding relating

to the conduct of an MLA.

15. This Code of conduct is not designed to be exhaustive and there will be occasions when Members will find it

necessary to adopt more stringent norms of conduct in order to protect the public interest and to enhance

public confidence and trust.

128

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

129

Recommendation Appendix: D

Policy Framework - MLA Constituency Resources

Summary of Contents

This appendix contains a suggested policy framework for the financing of MLA Constituency Offices.

Total Budget for Constituency Offices

A total maximum budget of $50,000 annually shall be allocated to every member of the Legislative Assembly for

the purposes of operating a constituency office. This money shall be allocated to pay for such office related

expenditures as: supplies, rent, furniture, telephone, computers, and one full-time employee in the member’s

constituency.

No other funds shall be allocated for the purpose of running a constituency office unless approved by the Legislative

Administration Committee in its review every three years. Any new allocation or increase in allocation shall be

presented on a comparative basis from one fiscal year to the next and the total budget shall be presented as such in

the Legislative Administration Committee report to the Legislative Assembly or any other reporting required by

legislation.

Every member of the Legislative Assembly shall receive the same amount of money for the purpose of running a

constituency office.

Constituency Offices for Ministers

Ministers shall not be permitted to use departmental budgets for the purpose of running a constituency office. The

constituency office shall be used by the member in his or her role of representing his or her constituents.

Employees

Employees of constituency offices shall be paid through the Legislative Assembly Office but hired by the members.

The Office shall ensure that all employees of constituencies receive uniform benefits and protection. The new method

of remuneration shall follow the payment of employee salaries as set out by Revenue Canada.

Employee benefits

The Legislative Administration Committee shall decide the benefits constituency employees may receive.

Office

The constituency offices shall be rented according to provincial government guidelines with the rent paid directly by

the Legislative Assembly Office. Members of the Legislative Assembly shall be responsible for finding their

constituency office space pursuant to these guidelines.

Furniture, Telephones, Computers, and other Supplies

Furniture, telephone, computers and other supplies used for the purpose of running a constituency office shall be

bought centrally by the Legislative Assembly Office.

Process of Review

The Legislative Administration Committee shall review the total budget allocated for constituency resources every

three years and shall make the appropriate changes to the constituency office budget.

The Legislative Administration Committee shall report back to the Legislative Assembly and there shall be a 60-

minute debate in the Legislature before changes to the total constituency budget shall come into effect.

Annual Report

A complete accounting of spending shall be published in the annual report of the Legislative Assembly.

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

130

Recommendation Appendix: E

Policy Framework - Review Committee of MLA Remuneration

Summary of Contents

This appendix contains a framework suggesting the implementation of an independent Review Committee

for the remuneration of MLAs. It is organized into the following sections:

1. Possible draft amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act

2. Possible changes to the mandate of the Legislative Administration Committee

1. Possible draft amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act

a) Appointment of a Review Committee of MLA Remuneration

The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall, following consultation by the Premier or the Premier’s designate with the

Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other political parties represented in the Legislative Assembly,

appoint a committee to:

1) Review the annual indemnities and allowances of Members of the Legislative Assembly and recommend a

single global remuneration that will encompass all indemnities and allowances for the Members of the

Legislative Assembly;

2) Review and make recommendations on the amount of additional Members’ indemnities, salaries and

allowances of the following presiding officers as defined under this Act:

a) Speaker;

b) Deputy speakers;

c) Leader of the Official Opposition;

d) Leaders of other recognized parties;

e) Government whip;

f) Opposition whip;

g) Whip of any other recognized parties

h) House leader;

i) Opposition house leader; and

j) Any other presiding officer who might receive an indemnity, allowance or salary determined by the

Legislative Assembly Act.

b) Composition of Committee

The Review Committee of MLA remuneration shall be composed of three residents of New Brunswick.

c) Committee members

The committee members shall not be:

a) a Member of the Legislative Assembly;

b) a Member of Parliament of Canada; or

c) a Member of the Senate.

d) Remuneration of Committee members

Committee members are entitled to be paid:

(a) a salary to be fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and

(b) an allowance for travel and other expenses incurred in the performance of the duties of the Commissioner

at a rate approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

e) Assistance to the Committee

The Committee may retain employees and advisors to enable it to discharge its duties, subject to the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

f) Mandate of Committee

The Review Committee of MLA Remuneration shall be implemented to review the annual indemnity and allowances

of the Members of the Legislative Assembly, while ensuring that the new remuneration reflects the true full-time nature

of the role of Members of the Legislative Assembly. The committee shall also recommend a single global

remuneration that will encompass all indemnities, committee allowances and salaries and shall recommend an

annual adjustment formula.

g) Committee to report

After the nomination of the Review Committee of MLA Remuneration, the committee shall have six months to review

the indemnities, allowances and salaries and make recommendations.

h) Report to be introduced in the Legislative Assembly

Immediately upon completion of its final report, the Committee shall transmit one copy of the final report to the Clerk

of the Legislative Assembly and one copy to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

If the Legislative Assembly is in session when the copies of the report are transmitted, the Speaker shall cause the

copy of the report to be laid before the Legislative Assembly forthwith.

If the Legislative Assembly is not in session when the copies of the reports are transmitted, the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly shall provide a copy to each member of the Legislative Assembly, and the Speaker shall cause a copy of

the final report to be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 7 calendar days following the commencement of

the next ensuing session of the Legislative Assembly.

i) Legislative Administration Committee to consider the report

The report of the Review Committee of MLA remuneration shall be referred to the Legislative Administration

Committee, which shall review the report and make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly.

The Legislative Administration Committee shall report back to the Legislative Assembly within 90 calendar days if the

Legislative Assembly is sitting.

If the Legislative Assembly is not in session when the report is transmitted, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly shall

provide a copy to each member of the Legislative Assembly, and the Speaker shall cause a copy of the final report

to be laid before the Legislative Assembly within seven calendar days following the commencement of the next

ensuing session of the Legislative Assembly.

j) Final authority

The Legislative Assembly shall take into consideration the recommendations of both the Review Committee of MLA

Remuneration and the Legislative Administration Committee and shall adopt a new global remuneration to take

effect after the next election.

2. Possible changes to the mandate of the Legislative Administration Committee

Make changes to the Legislative Administration Committee’s mandate to reflect these changes by adding a new

paragraph (d):

The Legislative Administration Committee is responsible for:

(a) for the administration, operation, management, maintenance and control of the Legislative Buildings, the

Legislative Library and such other lands, buildings and facilities connected with the Legislative Assembly;

(b) for such duties and responsibilities that had been undertaken by the Standing Committee on Contingencies and

Library;

and

(d) for setting and reviewing salaries, allocations and indemnities as set out in the Legislative

Assembly Act.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

131

Recommendation Appendix: F

Policy Framework - Fixed Legislative Calendar Session

Summary of Contents

This appendix contains a suggested policy framework proposing changes to the Standing Rules of the

Legislative Assembly for a fixed calendar session setting out when the House and Legislative Assembly

Committees shall sit:

Proposed changes to the Standing Rules:

1. House shall not sit

The House shall not meet on New Year’s Day, the week of March break as identified in the New Brunswick

regulation 97-150 under the Education Act, Good Friday, the week of Easter, the last full week of April, the day

fixed for the celebration of the birthday of the Sovereign, July 1st, New Brunswick Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving

Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas Day or Boxing Day.

2. House calendar

Unless otherwise stated, the House shall meet:

i) From the first Tuesday after March break as identified in the New Brunswick regulation 97-150 under the

Education Act to the second last Friday before Canada Day, inclusive. (Spring session)

ii) From the second Tuesday after Remembrance Day to the last Friday before Christmas Day unless Christmas

Day is on a Saturday at which time the House shall meet until the Thursday before Christmas Day, inclusive.

(Fall session)

3. Recall of the House

If the House is prorogued, the Lieutenant- Governor can issue a proclamation to call the House to meet at any time.

If the House is adjourned, and if the Speaker believes, after consultation with government, that the public interest

requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, the Speaker may give notice that he

is so satisfied and in such notice shall state a time at which the House shall meet.

4. House Calendar tabled by the Legislative Administration Committee

The Legislative Administration Committee shall, by November 30, table in the House a calendar for the following

year setting out the sitting and non-sitting weeks between the first Tuesday after March break, as identified in the

New Brunswick regulation 97-150 under the Education Act, and the day before Canada Day and between the

second Tuesday after Remembrance Day, and the last Friday before Christmas Day.

5. House to keep the right to make changes to the calendar

When the Speaker is in the Chair, a Member may propose a motion to change the sitting calendar of the House.

When the Speaker puts the question on such a motion, those Members who object shall be asked to rise in their

places. If five or more Members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise the

motion shall have been adopted.

6. Time for a review of the Legislative Administration Committee report

Sixty (60) minutes of the period reserved for the Orders of the Day on the third Friday of the fixed fall Legislative

Session shall be reserved to debate the Legislative Administration Committee report.

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

132

7. Committees of the Legislative Assembly shall not meet

Committees of the Legislative Assembly shall not meet on New Year’s Day, the week of March break, as identified

in the New Brunswick regulation 97-150 under the Education Act, Good Friday, the week of Easter, the day fixed

for the celebration of the birthday of the Sovereign, July 1st, New Brunswick Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day,

Remembrance Day, Christmas Day or Boxing Day.

8. Calendar for Committees of the Legislative Assembly

Unless otherwise stated, committees of the Legislative Assembly may meet:

i) From the second Tuesday in January to the last Friday before March break as identified in the New Brunswick

regulation 97-150 under the Education Act

ii) For the last full week of April inclusive

iii) From the third Tuesday In October to the Friday of the week following Remembrance Day unless the House is

sitting, at which time the committee shall sit until the Friday before the House sits.

Committees of the Legislative Assembly may also sit on Tuesday and Thursday mornings, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m.

on days when the House is sitting.

9. Committees Calendar tabled by the Legislative Administration Committee

The Legislative Administration Committee shall, by November 30, table in the House a calendar for the following

year setting out the sitting and non sitting weeks for committees of the Legislative Assembly between the second

Tuesday in January and the last Friday before March break, as identified in the New Brunswick regulation 97-150

under the Education Act, and the last week in April inclusive, and between the second Tuesday in September and

the Friday of the week following Remembrance Day, unless the House is sitting, at which time the committees shall

sit until the Friday before the House sits.

10. Legislative Administration Committee to keep the right to make changes

to the calendar

The Legislative Administration Committee shall have the right to make changes to the Legislative Assembly

Committee calendar if the public interest requires it.

11. Other sittings of Committees of the Legislative Assembly

A committee of the Legislative Assembly shall meet if the public interest requires it and may meet at a time that has

not been fixed by the Legislative Administration Committee.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

133

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Recommendation Appendix: F-1

Possible Legislative Assembly Calendar for 2006

with Committee Days and Prescribed Events

Colour key for calendar:

Purple – Constituency days Lilac – Legislative Assembly days

Dark Grey – Days set for certain prescribed events Light Grey – Committee days

January 2006

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1234 5 67

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31

New

Year’s

February 2006

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1234

5 6 78 9 1011

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28

134

Quarterly

Financial

Report

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

135

April 2006

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

2 3 45 6 78

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Good

Friday

Easter

Monday

Easter

March 2006

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1234

5678 9 1011

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 39 31

March

Break

BUDGET

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

136

May 2006

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 23 4 56

7 8 910 11 1213

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

Quarterly

Financial

Report

Victoria

Day

June 2006

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

123

4 5 67 8 910

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

137

July 2006

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

2 3 45 6 78

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

Canada

Day

August 2006

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

12 3 45

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31

NB Day

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

138

September 2006

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

3456 7 89

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Labour

Day

Quarterly

Financial

Report

October 2006

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 34 5 67

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31

Thanks-

giving

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

139

November 2006

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1234

85 6 78 9 1011

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30

Remem.

Day

THRONE

SPEECH

Quarterly

Financial

Report

December 2006

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

3 4 56 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Debate

of LAC

Report

Boxing

Day

Christmas

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Recommendation Appendix: G

Policy Framework - Transparency and Accountability Act

Summary of Contents

This appendix contains a framework for a proposed Transparency and Accountability Act. It contains the

following elements:

1. Date of the Speech from the Throne

2. Date for tabling the Budget and Main and Capital Estimates

3. Date for the publishing of Public Accounts

4. Dates for the publishing of the Quarterly Financial Reports

1. Date of the Speech from the Throne

A Speech from the Throne shall be held on the second Tuesday after Remembrance Day.

2. Date for tabling the Budget and Main and Capital Estimates

The Budget and Main Estimates of the Province shall be tabled on the Tuesday after March Break, as identified in

the New Brunswick regulation 97-150 under the Education Act.

The Capital Estimates shall be tabled on or before this date.

3. Public Accounts

Public Accounts for the Province of New Brunswick shall be made public by September 30th for the preceding fiscal

year.

4. Quarterly Financial Reports

Quarterly Financial Reports of the Province of New Brunswick shall be prepared and made public by the

Department of Finance by:

a) September 30th for the first three months of the fiscal year;

b) November 30th for the first six months of the fiscal year;

c) February 28th for the first 9 months of the fiscal year;

d) May 31st for the preceding fiscal year.

Quarterly Financial Reports must include:

a) The anticipated amounts of revenues and expenses for the quarter in question;

b) The revenues and expenses of the quarter in question and of the period starting April 1st through the quarter

in question;

c) A comparison of the matching quarter from the previous fiscal year;

d) The forecast of revenues and expenses and the resulting surplus or deficit for the fiscal year in which the

quarterly report applies;

e) The forecast of the debt as at the end of that fiscal year;

f) The debt at the end of the quarter; and

g) Other information.

140

Recommendation Appendix: H

Policy Framework - Improving Party Democracy

Summary of Contents

This appendix contains a suggested policy framework to improve party democracy in New Brunswick. Its

objectives and principles are to make the process and financing of nomination and leadership contests

more open and transparent to New Brunswickers; to encourage greater openness, transparency, and

accountability by political parties in their conduct; to encourage more women to seek nominations by

setting spending limits for party nominations; and to enhance the role of political parties and their

members in policy development. It is organized into the following sections:

1. Regulating Financing of Political Party Nomination and Leadership Selection

Contests - Policy Framework for Possible Amendments to the Political Process

Financing Act (PPFA)

2. Regulating Political Party Nomination and Leadership Selection Contests - Policy

Framework for Possible Amendments to the Elections Act

1. Regulating Financing of Political Party Nomination and Leadership Selection Contests -

Policy Framework for Possible Amendments to the Political Process Financing Act (PPFA)

A) Definitions

In this part:

“Leadership contest” means a competition in which a political party selects a leader.

“Leadership contestant” means an individual who accepts contributions for or incurs expenses in relation to his or

her campaign to seek the leadership of a political party.

“Nomination contest” means a competition to select a person to be presented to the political party for endorsement

as that party’s candidate in an electoral district.

“Nomination contestant” means a person who accepts a contribution or incurs a nomination contest expense.

“Personal expenses” of a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant means his or her expenses that are

reasonably incurred in relation to his or her leadership or nomination campaign and include:

(a) travel and living expenses;

(b) childcare expenses;

contestant normally provides such care; and

(d) in the case of a contestant who has a disability, additional personal expenses that are related to the disability.

“Political party” means a registered political party or a political party that intends to seek registration.

B) Provisions for Leadership Contests

1. General

a) Political party to give notice of leadership contest

When a political party calls a leadership contest, the political party shall give notice forthwith to the Chief

Electoral Officer by filing a statement setting out the date when the leadership contest was officially called, and

the date upon which the leadership vote shall be held.

The Chief Electoral Officer shall give immediate notice to the Supervisor of Political Financing of any notice of

a leadership contest filed by a political party.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

141

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

b) Leadership contestants must register

Every person who accepts contributions for or incurs expenses in relation to his or her campaign to seek the

leadership of a political party shall register with the Chief Electoral Officer as a leadership contestant

immediately upon accepting a contribution or incurring an expense.

An application for registration as a leadership contestant must include:

a) the name of the leadership contestant;

b) the address of the place at which the records of the leadership contestant are maintained and to which

communications may be addressed;

c) a declaration signed by the chief agent of the political party holding the leadership contest, certifying that

the party accepts the applicant as a leadership contestant; and

d) a statement of any contributions received or leadership contest expenses incurred before the application for

registration is made.

Where a leadership contestant meets the requirements for registration, the Chief Electoral Officer shall register

the contestant.

In the case of a refusal to register, the Chief Electoral Officer shall indicate which of the requirements have not

been met.

The Chief Electoral Officer shall give immediate notice to the Supervisor of the registration or withdrawal of

any leadership contestant.

c) Appointment of Financial Agent

Immediately upon being registered as a leadership contestant, the leadership contestant shall appoint a

financial agent. The leadership contestant shall provide to the Chief Electoral Officer/ Supervisor the financial

agent’s name, address and telephone number and the financial agent’s signed consent to act in that capacity.

d) Replacement of Financial Agent

In the event of the death, incapacity, resignation or revocation of the appointment of the financial agent, a

leadership contestant shall without delay appoint a replacement.

e) Role and Duties of the Financial Agent

The financial agent is responsible for administering the leadership contestant’s financial transactions for the

leadership contest and for reporting those transactions in accordance with this Act, including:

a) Keeping records of eligible contributions to the leadership contestant including the contributor’s name and

address and the amount of the contribution;

b) Keeping records of all eligible expenses incurred and paid in relation to the leadership contest;

c) Preparing and submitting reports to the Chief Electoral Officer/ Supervisor as required under this Act; and

d) Such other duties as are set out in this Act.

f) Bank Account

The financial agent of a leadership contestant shall:

a) Open an account in a financial institution in the name of the leadership contestant, which is to be used

solely for the purpose of the leadership contest;

b) Deposit all contributions to and make all payments of money for expenses in relation to the contestant’s

leadership campaign from the account;

c) Close the account after the end of the leadership contest or the withdrawal or death of the contestant and

after the disposal of any surplus leadership campaign funds in accordance with this Act.

d) Provide the Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor with the final statement of the account, on closing the

account.

g) Appointment of an Auditor

Within 10 days of being registered as a leadership contestant, the leadership contestant shall appoint as an

auditor:

142

a) A person who is a member in good standing of an association, institute or society of professional

accountants in the province, or

b) A partnership of which every partner is a member in good standing of an association, institute or society of

professional accountants.

The leadership contestant shall provide to the Chief Electoral Officer/ Supervisor the auditor’s name, address

and telephone number and the auditor’s signed consent to act in that capacity.

h) Replacement of Auditor

In the event of the death, incapacity, resignation or revocation of the appointment of the auditor, a leadership

contestant shall without delay appoint a replacement and obtain their signed consent to act in that capacity.

i) Registry to be maintained by Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor

The Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor shall maintain a registry of leadership contestants that contains for each

contestant:

a) The information required in the application for registration as a leadership contestant;

b) The name and contact information for the financial agent; and

c) The name and contact information for the auditor.

Any changes in the information reported to the Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor shall be reported by a

leadership contestant in writing to the Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor as soon as practicable after the

change occurs.

The reporting of a replacement of a financial agent or auditor of the leadership contestant must include a copy

of the signed consent.

The Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor shall enter any change in the information referred to in this section in the

registry of leadership contestants.

The information contained in the registry is public information.

j) Withdrawal of a leadership contestant

A leadership contestant who withdraws from the leadership contest shall file with the Chief Electoral

Officer/Supervisor a statement in writing to that effect, signed by the contestant and indicating the date of the

withdrawal. The Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor shall indicate the withdrawal in the registry of leadership

contestants.

k) Withdrawal of acceptance by political party

A political party that withdraws its acceptance of a leadership contestant shall file with the Chief Electoral

Officer/Supervisor a statement in writing to that effect signed by the chief agent of the party and indicating the

date of the withdrawal. The Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor shall enter the withdrawal of acceptance in the

registry of leadership contestants.

A leadership contestant who withdraws or whose acceptance is withdrawn by a political party shall file a

return in accordance with this Act for the period during which he or she was a contestant.

l) Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor to notify party of failure by contestant to comply with Act

If the Chief Electoral Officer/ Supervisor becomes aware that a leadership contestant of a political party has

failed to comply with any requirement under this Act, the Chief Electoral Officer/ Supervisor shall provide

written notification of the failure to the leadership candidate and to the political party as soon as practicable.

2. Contributions to a Leadership Contestant

a) Who may solicit or accept contributions

No person, other than a leadership contestant or the financial agent of the leadership contestant or a person

authorized in writing by the financial agent, may solicit or accept contributions to the contestant’s leadership

campaign.

Only individuals, corporations and trade unions as defined in this Act may make a contribution to a leadership

contestant.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

143

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

b) Issuance of receipts

Any person who is authorized to accept contributions on behalf of a leadership contestant shall issue a receipt

to the contributor, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the financial agent shall keep a copy of

each receipt issued.

c) Contribution limits

No individual, corporation or trade union shall make contributions totaling more than $3,000 to one or more

leadership contestants.

A leadership contestant is subject to the contribution limit, and any money that is used for a leadership

campaign out of a contestant’s own funds is considered to be a contribution for the purposes of this Act.

d) Exception

Money out of contestant’s own funds used for the contestant’s personal expenses is not considered to be a

contribution for the purposes of this Act.

e) Provision of goods or services or transfers of funds from political party or district association

No political party and no district association shall provide goods or services or transfer funds to a leadership

contestant, unless the goods or services or funds are offered equally to all contestants.

f) Deemed contributions

For the purposes of this Act, contributions made to a leadership contestant within 18 months after a leadership

contest are deemed to be contributions for that contest.

3. Expenses of a Leadership Contestant

a) Who may incur leadership campaign expenses

No person, other than a leadership contestant or his or her financial agent, shall incur leadership campaign

expenses of the contestant.

b) Who may pay leadership expenses

No person, other than the financial agent of a leadership contestant, shall pay leadership campaign expenses,

other than personal expenses, of the contestant.

No person, other than a leadership contestant or his or her financial agent, shall pay the contestant’s personal

expenses.

c) Limits on expenses

No leadership contestant or financial agent of a leadership contestant shall incur leadership campaign

expenses - other than personal expenses - in an amount that is more than $300,000.

4. Disclosure Requirements

a) Summary Return on Contributions

For the period beginning on the day the candidate becomes a leadership contestant and ending on the day

that is four weeks before the end of the leadership contest, the financial agent shall provide the Chief Electoral

Officer/ Supervisor with a summary return that includes:

a) The total contributions received to date by the leadership contestant and the number of contributors;

b) Disclosure of all financial loans for the purposes of the campaign, including interest rates, repayment

schedules and the name of the lender;

c) The name and address of each contributor who made contributions of a total amount of more than $100 to

the leadership contestant, that total amount, as well as the amount of each such contribution and the date

on which it was received by the contestant;

d) A statement of the commercial value of goods or services provided and of funds transferred to the

leadership contestant from a political party or a district association.

The summary return on contributions shall be provided no later than one week after the end of the period to

which it relates.

The information contained in the summary return on contributions is public information.

144

b) Leadership campaign return

Within 90 days of the leadership contest date, the financial agent of a leadership contestant shall provide the

Chief Electoral Officer / Supervisor:

a) A leadership campaign return on the financing and leadership campaign expenses for the leadership

contestant;

b) An auditor’s report on the return, if one is required under this Act;

c) A declaration made by the financial agent that the return is complete and accurate; and

d) A declaration made by the leadership contestant that the return is complete and accurate.

c) Contents of leadership campaign return

The leadership campaign return shall include the following information in respect of the leadership contestant,

for the period beginning on the day he or she becomes a leadership contestant and ending 90 days after the

leadership contest date:

a) A statement of leadership campaign expenses;

b) The total contributions received by the leadership contestant and the number of contributors;

c) Disclosure of all financial loans for the purposes of the campaign, including interest rates, repayment

schedules and the name of the lender;

d) The name and address of each individual who made contributions of a total amount of more than $100 to

the leadership contestant, the amount of each such contribution and the date on which it was received by

the contestant, and the name of each corporation and trade union that made a contribution to the

leadership contestant and the amount of each such contribution.

e) A statement of the commercial value of goods or services provided and of funds transferred to the

leadership contestant from a political party or a district association; and

f) A statement of contributions received but returned to the contributor or otherwise dealt with in accordance

with this Act.

d) Supporting documents

Together with the leadership campaign return, the financial agent shall provide to the Chief Electoral Officer/

Supervisor documents evidencing expenses set out in the return, including bank statements, deposit slips, and

cancelled cheques.

e) Auditor’s Report

The auditor of a leadership contestant who has accepted contributions of $30,000 or more in total or incurred

leadership campaign expenses of $30,000 or more in total shall report to the contestant’s financial agent on

the leadership campaign return and shall, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, make

any examination that will enable the auditor to give an opinion in the report as to whether the return presents

fairly the information contained in the financial records on which it is based.

f) Statement

The auditor’s report shall include any statement that the auditor considers necessary if:

(a) The return does not present fairly the information contained in the financial records on which it is based;

(b) The auditor has not received from the leadership contestant or his or her financial agent all the information

and explanation that the auditor required; or

agent.

g) Right of access

The auditor shall have access at any reasonable time to all documents of the leadership contestant and may

require the contestant and his or her financial agent to provide any information or explanation that, in the

auditor’s opinion, is necessary to enable the auditor to prepare the report.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

145

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

h) Surplus of leadership campaign funds

The surplus amount of leadership campaign funds is the amount by which the sum of any contributions

accepted by the financial agent of the leadership contestant, and any other amounts that were received by the

contestant for his or her leadership campaign and that are not repayable, is more than the sum of the

contestant’s leadership campaign expenses.

i) Disposition of surplus by financial agent

Within 30 days of filing the leadership campaign return, the financial agent of a leadership contestant who

has a surplus of leadership campaign funds shall transfer the surplus to the political party that held the

leadership contest, or a district association of that party, and report to the Chief Electoral Officer/ Supervisor

the amount and date of the disposal and to whom the surplus was transferred.

j) Reporting of deemed contributions

Where a contribution is made to a leadership contestant after the date the leadership campaign return is filed,

and within 18 months of the leadership contest date, the leadership contestant shall file a report with the Chief

Electoral Officer/ Supervisor at the end of the 18 month period, setting out the date and amount of any

contributions received in this period and, for contributions more than $100 from individuals, the name and

address of the contributor; and the name of each corporation and trade union that made a contribution in this

period.

k) Publication

The Chief Electoral Officer/ Supervisor shall, in the manner that he or she considers appropriate, publish for a

leadership contest held by a political party:

a) Information on the contest as filed by the political party;

b) The information contained in the leadership campaign return of each leadership contestant,

c) Information on the transfer of any surplus of leadership campaign funds by a leadership contestant’s

financial agent, and

d) Information on any further contributions reported by the leadership contestant.

C) Provisions for Nomination Contests

1. General

a) Interpretation

In this part, “selection date” means the date on which a nomination contest is decided.

For the purposes of this part, a nomination contestant is deemed to have been a nomination contestant from the

time he or she accepts a contribution or incurs a nomination campaign expense.

b) Appointment of Financial Agent

No nomination contestant shall, in relation to his or her nomination campaign, accept contributions or incur

nomination campaign expenses unless he or she has appointed a financial agent.

c) Consent

A nomination contestant shall obtain from the financial agent, on appointment, his or her signed consent to so

act.

d) Replacement of Financial Agent

In the event of the death, incapacity, resignation or revocation of the appointment of the financial agent, a

nomination contestant shall without delay appoint a replacement.

e) Role and Duties of the Financial Agent

The financial agent is responsible for administering the nomination contestant’s financial transactions for the

nomination contest and for reporting those transactions in accordance with this Act, including:

a) Keeping records of contributions to the nomination contestant, including the contributor’s name and

address, and the amount of the contribution;

146

b) Keeping records of all expenses incurred and paid in relation to the nomination contest;

c) Preparing and submitting reports to the Chief Electoral Officer / Supervisor as required under this Act; and

d) Such other duties as are set out in this Act.

f) Bank Account

The financial agent of a nomination contestant shall:

a) Open an account in a financial institution in the name of the nomination contestant, which is to be used

solely for the purpose of the nomination contest;

b) Deposit all contributions to and make all payments of money for expenses in relation to the contestant’s

nomination campaign from the account;

c) Close the account after the end of the nomination contest or the withdrawal or death of the contestant, and

after the disposal of any surplus nomination campaign funds in accordance with this Act.

d) Provide the Chief Electoral Officer/ Supervisor with the final statement of the account, on closing the

account.

2. Contributions to Nomination Contestant

a) Who may solicit or accept contributions

No person, other than a nomination contestant or the financial agent of the nomination contestant, or a person

authorized in writing by the financial agent, may solicit or accept contributions to the contestant’s nomination

campaign.

Only individuals, corporations and trade unions as defined in this Act may make a contribution to a

nomination contestant.

b) Issuance of receipts

Any person who is authorized to accept contributions on behalf of a nomination contestant shall issue a receipt

to the contributor, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the financial agent shall keep a copy of

each receipt issued.

c) Contribution limits

An individual, corporation or trade union may make a contribution, which in the aggregate does not exceed

$1,000, to the nomination contestants of each political party in the nomination contests for an upcoming

provincial election.

A contribution not in excess of $1,000 may be made so that:

a) A portion is given to one or more nomination contestants in one nomination contest of a political party, or

b) Portions are given to one or more nomination contestants in more than one nomination contest of a political

party.

A nomination contestant is subject to the contribution limit, and any money that is used for a nomination

campaign out of a contestant’s own funds is considered to be a contribution for the purposes of this Act.

d) Exception

Money out of contestant’s own funds used for the contestant’s personal expenses is not considered to be a

contribution for the purposes of this Act.

e) Provision of goods or services or transfers of funds from political party or district association

No political party and no district association shall provide goods or services or transfer funds to a nomination

contestant, unless the goods or services or funds are offered equally to all contestants.

3. Expenses of a Nomination Contestant

a) Who may incur nomination campaign expenses

No person, other than a nomination contestant or his or her financial agent, shall incur nomination campaign

expenses of the contestant.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

147

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

b) Who may pay nomination campaign expenses

No person, other than the financial agent of a nomination contestant, shall pay nomination campaign

expenses, other than personal expenses, of the contestant.

No person, other than a nomination contestant or his or her financial agent, shall pay the contestant’s personal

expenses.

c) Limits on expenses

No nomination contestant or financial agent of a nomination contestant shall incur nomination campaign

expenses - other than personal expenses - in an amount that is more than twenty (20) per cent of the average

of the limits that were allowed for a candidate’s election expenses in the province’s electoral districts during the

immediately preceding general election.

d) No circumvention of limit

No person shall

a) circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, the limit referred to or,

b) act in collusion with another person for that purpose.

4. Disclosure Requirements

a) Report of nomination contest

When a nomination contest is held, the political party or the district association that held the nomination

contest shall, within 30 days after the selection date, file with the Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor a report

setting out:

a) The name of the electoral district, the district association and the political party that the nomination contest

concerned;

b) The date on which the nomination contest began and the selection date;

c) The name and address of each nomination contestant as of the selection date and of his or her financial

agent; and

d) The name of the person selected in the nomination contest.

b) Nomination campaign return

Within 90 days of the nomination selection date, the financial agent of a nomination contestant who has

accepted contributions of $1,000 or more in total, or incurred nomination campaign expenses of $1,000 or

more in total, shall file with the Chief Electoral Officer/ Supervisor the following in respect of a nomination

contestant:

a) A nomination campaign return on the financing and nomination campaign expenses for the nomination

contestant;

b) A declaration made by the financial agent that the return is complete and accurate; and

c) A declaration made by the nomination contestant that the return is complete and accurate.

c) Contents of return

The nomination campaign return shall include the following information in respect of the nomination contestant,

for the period beginning on the day the candidate becomes a nomination contestant, and ending 90 days after

the nomination selection date:

a) A statement of nomination campaign expenses;

b) A statement of the total contributions received by the nomination contestant and the number of contributors;

c) The name and address of each individual who made contributions of a total amount of more than $100 to

the nomination contestant, the amount of each such contribution and the date on which it was received by

the contestant, and the name of each corporation and trade union that made a contribution to the

nomination contestant and the amount of each such contribution.

d) A statement of the commercial value of goods or services provided and of funds transferred to the

nomination contestant by a political party or a district association;

148

e) A statement of the contributions received but returned to the contributor or otherwise dealt with in

accordance with this Act.

d) Supporting documents

Together with the nomination campaign return, the financial agent of a nomination contestant shall provide to

the Chief Electoral Officer / Supervisor, documents evidencing expenses set out in the return, including bank

statements, deposit slips, and cancelled cheques.

e) Nomination campaign return not required where contributions accepted and expenses

incurred are less than $1,000

A nomination campaign return need not be filed in respect of a nomination contestant if the financial agent of

that nomination contestant files with the Chief Electoral Officer/ Supervisor an affidavit stating that:

a) The contributions accepted on behalf of the contestant did not exceed $1,000 in total, and

b) The expenses incurred on behalf of the contestant did not exceed $1,000 in total.

The affidavit must be filed with the Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor in the time period required to file a

nomination campaign return.

f) Surplus of nomination campaign funds

The surplus amount of nomination campaign funds is the amount by which the sum of any contributions to the

nomination contestant’s campaign is more than the sum of the contestant’s nomination campaign expenses.

g) Disposition of surplus by financial agent

The financial agent of a nomination contestant who has a surplus of nomination campaign funds shall, within

the time period for filing a nomination campaign return, transfer the surplus to

a) the official agent of the candidate endorsed by the political party in the electoral district in which the

nomination contest was held, or

b) the district association that held the nomination contest or the political party for whose endorsement the

contest was held.

The financial agent shall notify the Chief Electoral Officer/ Supervisor of the amount and date of the disposal,

and to whom the surplus was transferred.

h) Publication

The Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor shall, in the manner that he or she considers appropriate, publish for

each nomination contest held by a political party or district association:

a) The information on the contest as filed by the political party or district association;

b) The information contained in the nomination campaign return of each nomination contestant, and

c) Information on the transfer of any surplus of nomination campaign funds by a nomination contestant’s

financial agent.

D) Summary of Likely Consequential Amendments to the PPFA

1. Application of Act

Repeal of Section 3 of the PPFA, which provides that the Act does not apply to campaigns and conventions

carried on or held in relation to the leadership of any political party or to the nomination of a candidate.

2. Duties and Powers of Supervisor

Expansion of Section 14 - duties and powers of the Supervisor - to include:

• Determining if leadership and nomination contestants are complying with the Act;

• Issuing guidelines on the records to be maintained by the leadership contestants and nomination contestants;

• Determining whether leadership contest expenses and nomination contest expenses have been made in

accordance with this Act;

• Carrying out studies on the financing of leadership and nomination contests.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

149

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Expansion of Section 15 - which allows a person to apply to the Supervisor for an inquiry to determine whether

any expenses have been made in accordance with this Act - to leadership or nomination contest expenses.

3. Contributions (Section 37 to 47)

Expansion of these provisions, where not inconsistent with provisions set out above, to cover contributions made to

leadership contestants and nomination contestants.

4. Offences and Penalties (Section 85 - 90)

Extension of these provisions, where applicable and with necessary modifications, to cover offences committed with

respect to the contribution limits, spending limits and disclosure requirements for leadership and nomination

contestants.

5. Other Housekeeping/Procedural

Extension of Sections 81(3), 81(4), 82 (3) and 82(4) - which include provisions on how long Supervisor

must keep statements, invoices, receipts and vouchers filed with him - to cover such material filed with Supervisor by

financial agent of leadership or nomination contestant.

Extension of Section 83 - which sets out process for rectification of error in any statement submitted to

Supervisor made through inadvertence - to cover any such error in a report filed with the Supervisor by the financial

agent of leadership or nomination contestant.

Extension of Section 91 - which allows for actions to be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in respect

of contested claims for election expenses against a party or candidate to cover contested claims for leadership or

nomination campaign expenses.

2. Regulating Political Party Nomination and Leadership Selection Contests - Policy

Framework for Possible Amendments to the Elections Act

1. Adoption of Rules by Party

a) A political party must adopt clear and consistent rules outlining a fair and democratic process for the selection

of their general election candidates and the party leader.

b) These rules must be adopted by a vote of the party membership and be consistent with the provisions outlined

herein.

c) These rules must include a clear appeal mechanism for the bringing of any complaints that the rules were not

followed.

d) Specific remedies for rules violations shall also be included.

2. Candidates Selected by Party Meeting - no appointments

In order to appear on a general election ballot as a candidate of a political party, a candidate must be endorsed

by eligible party members in the electoral constituency where the candidate is seeking office, in a vote that is open

to all eligible party members in that constituency.

3. Membership Eligibility Rules to Vote

a) Eligible voters in candidate nomination and party leadership contests shall be all current members of the party

who meet the eligibility requirements to vote in a provincial general election (e.g., 18 years of age, resident in

New Brunswick and a Canadian citizen).

b) Members must belong to their political party at least seven days prior to a candidate nomination or leadership

vote in order to be eligible to participate and the list of eligible voters must be filed with the Party President

and made available to any candidate at least four days prior to the nomination or leadership vote.

4. Timing of Nomination Meeting

If fixed election dates are adopted, constituency associations of political parties shall hold a vote of their members

for the purpose of choosing their general election candidate no more than 120 days prior to the date of the general

election.

150

5. Membership Fees

a) Parties may not charge a membership fee in excess of $5 per annum.

b) No additional fee may be charged as a requisite to voting in a candidate nomination or party leadership

election.

6. Notice of Meetings

Political parties must advertise the date, time and location of candidate nomination contests and party leadership

votes at least seven days prior to the closing date for eligible membership.

7. Declaration for a Nomination Contest

a) For each nomination contest held, the political party or district association must file with the Chief Electoral

Officer a declaration, signed by the party leader, providing full details of the nomination contest including:

• Date and location of nomination contest;

• Number of members voting;

• Result of the vote; and

• Details of any appeals of the process.

b) The declaration must certify that:

• The candidate was endorsed by eligible party members in the electoral district where the candidate is

seeking office, in a vote that was open to all eligible party members in that electoral district.

• The date, time and location of the nomination contest were advertised at least seven days prior to the

closing date for eligible membership.

• All voters in the nomination contest met the eligibility requirements to vote in a provincial general election,

belonged to the political party at least seven days prior to the nomination contest, and were members of the

party at the time of the vote.

• The nomination contest was conducted in a fair, open and democratic manner.

c) The declaration for each nomination contest shall be filed no later than 14 days after the conclusion of the

nomination contest and prior to the deadline for completion of candidate nominations under the Elections Act.

8. Declaration for a Leadership Contest

a) For each leadership contest held, the political party that held the leadership contest must file with the Chief

Electoral Officer a declaration, signed by the Party President, providing full details of the leadership contest,

including:

• Date and location of leadership contest;

• Number of members voting;

• Result of the vote; and

• Details of any appeals of the process.

b) The declaration must certify that:

• The successful leadership candidate was endorsed by eligible party members in a vote that was open to all

eligible party members in the province.

• The date, time and location of the leadership contest were advertised at least seven days prior to the

closing date for eligible membership.

• All voters in the leadership contest met the eligibility requirements to vote in a provincial general election

and belonged to the political party at least seven days prior to the date of the leadership vote and were

members of the party at the time of the vote.

• The leadership contest was conducted in a fair, open and democratic manner.

c) The declaration for a leadership contest shall be filed no later than 14 days after the conclusion of the

leadership contest.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

151

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

d) A political party that had already selected a leader and nominated candidates for an election would have to

demonstrate that it had met the above requirements before it could be registered by the Chief Electoral Officer

in the Registry of Political Parties under the Elections Act.

9. Enforcement

a) Penalties for non-compliance with reporting requirements under the Political Process Financing Act would be

extended to cover a failure on the part of a nomination contestant or leadership contestant to file a declaration.

b) Additionally, if a declaration is not filed with respect to a nomination contest, or if the declaration does not

demonstrate compliance with the requirements for nomination contests as set out above, there should be no

party affiliation of the candidate on the ballot until a satisfactory declaration is filed.

152

Recommendation Appendix: I

Policy Framework - Appointments to Agencies, Boards and

Commissions

Summary of Contents

This appendix contains a suggested framework for the future appointments process to government

Agencies, Boards and Commissions, setting out the principles and objectives of establishing a formal

process for appointments and giving more New Brunswickers the opportunity to apply to serve on ABCs

and to be considered for appointment. It is organized into the following sections:

1. Suggested Practices and Procedures for Making Appointments to ABCs

2. Suggested Appointment Process For the Most Significant ABCs

3. Suggested Appointment Process for other ABCs

4. Suggested Classification of ABCs

1. Suggested Practices and Procedures for Making Appointments to ABCs:

Interested members of the public should be able to easily find out what vacancies on ABCs exist, how to make an

application to be considered for appointment, what qualities and skills are required for the position, the steps in the

appointment process itself, and the outcome of their application. To this end, the following practices and procedures

are recommended:

a) Assign co-ordinating responsibility for ABC Appointments to a central agency of Government

In order to bring transparency, consistency and oversight to the appointment process, overall co-ordinating

responsibility for appointments to ABCs should be assigned to a central agency of government, namely, the Office

of Human Resources.

An ABC Appointments Unit would be created within the Office of Human Resources to administer the appointments

process.

The mandate of the ABC Appointments Unit would include:

• Establishing specific guidelines for appointments to ABCs, which are appropriate to the nature of the ABC.

• Preparing and publishing a checklist of steps to be followed in the appointment process for a candidate.

• Monitoring the appointment process to ensure that the guidelines are followed and appointments are made

on an open, transparent and consistent basis.

• Advertising vacancies on ABCs in a timely fashion, and providing information on the requirements of the

position, remuneration and time commitment involved, and how interested persons may apply.

• Developing and maintaining a central databank of ABC appointments, vacancies and applications.

• Identifying or seeking out potential candidates for appointment to an ABC.

• Accepting and acknowledging applications for positions on ABCs, following up with individuals who are

recommended for appointment by others, and maintaining a databank of individuals who have submitted

an application for a specific position or have submitted a general expression of interest in serving on an

ABC.

• Providing human resource expertise and assistance to ABCs and the minister/department responsible for the

ABC in the process of reviewing applications for appointment.

• Publicizing appointments, including the name and a brief biographical sketch of an appointee, the term of

their appointment, and the remuneration to which they are entitled.

• Co-ordinating the development and administration of training and orientation programs for board members

on board roles and responsibilities.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

153

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

b) Provide people with information on upcoming appointments

The ABC Appointments Unit would publish on its website and update regularly:

• A list of upcoming vacancies and links to obtain more information on a specific vacancy.

• Information on how to apply for a position on an ABC.

• Details of the appointment process.

In addition to being listed on the ABC Appointments Unit website, vacancies would be advertised on the website of

the responsible department and the ABC itself, if it has one.

Individual vacancies for significant ABCs would be advertised in provincial newspapers.

For other ABCs, the ABC Appointments Unit would advertise in provincial daily newspapers, every three to six

months, a list of upcoming vacancies, with contact information on how to find out more information and apply for a

specific position.

c) Provide a mechanism by which anyone interested in serving on an ABC may make an

application

The ABC Appointments Unit would develop and publish a general application form to be filled out by persons

interested in an appointment to an ABC.

The form could be completed online or by other means, and would require the following information:

• Name of candidate;

• Candidate’s contact information;

• Candidate’s education, professional designations, employment experience, and community service

experience;

• Names and contact information of references;

• Name of ABC to which they are applying, or

• In the case of a general expression of interest to serve on an ABC, the type of ABC they wish to be

considered for appointment to;

• Any other identifying information the applicant wishes to provide.

Applicants could attach a copy of their curriculum vitae to their application form.

All applications would be entered into a databank maintained by the ABC Appointments Unit.

d) Identify a pool of qualified candidates from a variety of sources

Candidates should be identified from as many sources as possible, including:

• Responses to advertising of vacancies.

• The databank maintained by the ABC Appointments Unit, containing names of individuals who have

submitted an expression of interest in an appointment (specific or general).

• Referrals of names from the ABC chair, members and CEO, the responsible Minister and Cabinet, MLAs,

stakeholder and community organizations, and members of the public.

• Executive search consultants (usually only for appointments to boards of Crown agencies and significant

adjudicative tribunals).

e) Keep people informed of the progress of their application

All applicants for a position on an ABC should be advised:

• That their application has been received, and

• Of the outcome of their application when the vacancy is filled.

154

The ABC Appointments Unit, the department responsible for the ABC or the ABC itself would publish on their

websites:

• The name and a biographical sketch of all appointees to ABCs,

• The term of the appointments, and

• The remuneration to which the person appointed is entitled.

2. Suggested Appointment Process For the Most Significant ABCs

Appointments Process Summary - Most Significant ABCs

1. Assign co-ordinating responsibility for the appointment process to the ABC Appointments

Unit, while leaving the authority to appoint with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or

Minister responsible for the ABC.

2. Undertake a needs assessment and prepare a Board Profile for the ABC.

3. Identify skills criteria and develop a Position Description for vacancies.

4. Identify potential candidates.

5. Undertake a formal vetting and due diligence process.

6. Preparation of a short list of qualified candidates, with possible rank-ordering for

decision by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or Minister responsible for the ABC, as

specified in the enabling legislation of the ABC.

7. Advise unsuccessful candidates of outcome and their right to request a statement of

reasons they were not appointed.

8. Publicize appointments.

9. Provide training and orientation for new board members.

1. Assign co-ordinating responsibility for the appointment process to the ABC Appointments Unit

The ABC Appointments Unit of the Office of Human Resources would be assigned overall responsibility for the

appointment process. The authority to make the appointment would remain with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

or Minister responsible for the ABC, as set out in the enabling legislation of the ABC.

2. Undertake a needs assessment and prepare a Board Profile for the ABC

The ABC Appointments Unit would work with the department responsible for the ABC and the chair and CEO of the

ABC to:

1) Undertake a general review of the role and mandate of the ABC.

2) Identify the ABC’s strategic objectives, key initiatives and challenges facing the board (economic, social,

political etc.).

3) Identify any statutory requirements for the composition of the ABC in the enabling legislation.

4) Prepare a “ Board Profile” for the ABC, which defines the mix of skills, experience, qualifications, and diversity

of representation of members required for the effective operation of the ABC in light of the ABC’s mandate,

objectives, initiatives, challenges and legal requirements.

3. Identify skills criteria and develop a Position Description for vacancies

Upon identification of an upcoming vacancy, the ABC Appointments Unit would work with the responsible

department and the chair/ CEO of the ABC to:

1) Establish the specific qualifications required for the position, consistent with the Board Profile, for example,

financial or legal expertise; regional, gender, or minority representation; a requirement set out in the enabling

legislation.

2) Prepare a Position Description setting out:

• The position to be filled.

• The purpose and mandate of the ABC.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

155

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

• The terms of reference of the position on the ABC to be filled (an outline of specific responsibilities and

expectations of appointees).

• A detailed list of the qualifications, skills and attributes an individual must possess to carry out the position

effectively.

• A brief summary of pertinent information on the ABC - i.e. the responsible department and minister, annual

budget, number of employees, approximate number of meetings per year.

• Type of position - full time or part time, expected time commitment.

• Compensation.

• Location of meetings.

• Closing date for applications.

• Information on how to apply.

4. Identify potential candidates

Potential candidates would be identified from a variety of sources including:

• Advertising of the vacancy and Position Description on the website of the ABC Appointments Unit, the

responsible department, and the ABC itself, if it has a website, as well as in newspapers.

• The databank maintained by the ABC Appointments Unit, which would contain names of individuals who

have submitted an expression of interest in an appointment (specific or general) and names of individuals

nominated by others.

• Referrals of names from the ABC chair, members and CEO, the responsible Minster and Cabinet, MLAs,

stakeholders and relevant community organizations, and members of the public.

• Through the use of executive search consultants, where appropriate.

Potential candidates identified in any manner would submit to the ABC Appointments Unit an application form and

curriculum vitae providing the following information:

• Name of candidate

• Contact information

• Who they were recommended by (if applicable)

• Education and professional designations

• Employment experience

• Community service experience

• Names and contact information of references

As the ABC Appointments Unit receives applications, they would be reviewed to ensure that all required information

is completed, and if information were missing the applicant would be contacted and asked to provide the

information in order for their application to go forward to the vetting process.

In the case of candidates who are referred to the ABC Appointments Unit, the unit would follow up directly with the

individual referred to ascertain if they do wish to be considered for appointment and to provide them an application

form to be completed.

All applicants would receive a written acknowledgement of receipt of their application.

5. Undertake a formal vetting and due diligence process

In order to select qualified and suitable candidates, it would be imperative to carry out a thorough and objective

review of applicants.

Checklist

A checklist developed by the ABC Appointments Unit, setting out the required steps in the appointment process,

would be completed as each step in the screening process is finished, for each potential candidate.

156

Selection Committee

A selection committee would be struck to consider names of potential candidates.

The selection committee would include representatives from the ABC Appointments Unit, the responsible department,

and the ABC itself.

Screening and assessment

The selection committee would assess the candidates against the Position Description through:

• A preliminary screening of application packages of candidates to identify those candidates who do not

demonstrate sufficient knowledge or skills in the competency areas identified in the Position Description.

• Interviews, over the telephone or in person.

• Other forms of assessment the selection committee deemed appropriate, as long as they were applied

consistently to all applicants. These could include such things as written tests and submissions, or completion of

a detailed questionnaire to obtain more information on the competencies, skills and experience of the

candidates.

• Reference checks.

Due diligence process

Where appropriate, the ABC Appointments Unit would contact candidates and invite them to undertake a due

diligence process for further consideration for appointment to an ABC.

The due diligence process would include:

• A security check/ criminal records check.

• Having candidates fill out a declaration to identify any conflicts of interest.

6. Preparation of a short list of qualified candidates, with possible rank-ordering for decision

by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or Minister responsible for the ABC

Upon completion of the screening process the selection committee would prepare a short list of qualified

candidates, with a possible rank-ordering. It would be passed on to the ABC Appointments Unit for verification that

all steps on the checklist had been completed.

If any steps had not been completed for a particular applicant, the ABC Appointments Unit would send the short list

back to the Selection Committee with directions to complete the outstanding steps.

Upon completion of the vetting and due diligence process, the short list and possible rank-ordering of candidates

would be forwarded to the appointing body specified in the ABC’s enabling legislation (the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council or the Minister), along with the following information:

• A copy of the Board Profile.

• A copy of the Position Description.

• Information on potential candidates and a short summary providing the number of other applicants and the

reasons they were screened out.

• A copy of the application package of each short listed candidate and a checklist indicating the proper steps

were followed.

The appointing body would offer the position to the candidate it ranked highest on the short list prepared by the

Selection Committee.

If the candidate declined the offer, the appointment would be offered to the next highest ranked candidate.

Upon acceptance of the offer, the appointment would be ratified by Order-in-Council or by Ministerial Order.

7. Advise unsuccessful candidates of outcome and their right to request a statement of reasons

they were not appointed

The ABC Appointments Unit would advise all unsuccessful applicants, in writing, that they were not selected for

appointment, and that they may contact the ABC Appointments Unit in writing for a statement of the reasons why

they were not appointed.

Such statement of reasons would be provided within 30 days of the request.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

157

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

8. Publicize appointments

The ABC Appointment Unit or the responsible department/ABC would publish on its website:

• The name and a biographical sketch of appointees to ABCs,

• The term of the appointments, and

• The remuneration to which the appointed person is entitled.

9. Provide training and orientation for new board members

In order to ensure that board members of ABCs have the necessary understanding of corporate governance

principles - the role of the ABC, their responsibilities as board members, the accountabilities of the ABC to

government and the taxpayers - the ABC Appointments Unit would:

• Work with the ABC itself and with the responsible departments to develop and administer training and

orientation programs for board members on board roles and responsibilities.

• Provide ongoing educational opportunities for board members through workshops on corporate governance.

3. Suggested Appointment Process for other ABCs

Appointments Process Summary - Other ABCs

1. Identify upcoming vacancies.

2. Prepare a brief Position Descrption for vacancies.

3. Identify potential candidates.

4. Undertake basic screening.

5. Preparation of a list of qualified candidates for decision by the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council or Minister responsible for the ABC, as specified in the enabling legislation of the

ABC.

6. Advise unsuccessful candidates of outcome.

7. Publicize appointments

8. Provide training and orientation for new board members.

1. Identify upcoming vacancies

The department/minister responsible for the ABC (the responsible body) would advise the ABC Appointments Unit of

upcoming vacancies, so that the Unit could advertise groups of upcoming vacancies and forward to the responsible

department names of potential candidates from its databank and any referrals it received. The ABC Appointments

Unit would monitor the appointment process and provide assistance where needed to the responsible department.

2. Prepare a brief Position Description for vacancies

Upon identification of an upcoming vacancy, a brief Position Description would be prepared by the responsible

body. The Position Description would include:

• The position to be filled.

• The role of the ABC.

• Summary of general skills and experience required (ie: experience in the sector in which the ABC operates)

• Type of position - full time or part time, expected time commitment.

• Compensation.

• Location of meetings.

• Closing date for applications.

• Information on how to apply.

158

3. Identify potential candidates

Potential candidates would be identified from a variety of sources including:

• Advertising of the vacancy and Position Description on the website of the ABC Appointments Unit or the

responsible department and the ABC itself, if it has one.

•A databank maintained by the ABC Appointments Unit, which would contain names of individuals who

have submitted an expression of interest in an appointment (specific or general) and names of individuals

nominated by others.

• Referrals of names from the ABC chair and members, the responsible Minister and members of Cabinet,

MLAs, stakeholders and community organizations, and members of the public.

Potential candidates identified in any manner would submit an application form and /or curriculum vitae to the

responsible body providing the following information:

• Name of candidate.

• Contact information.

• Who they were recommended by (if applicable).

• Education and professional designations.

• Employment experience.

• Community service experience.

• Names and contact information of references.

As applications are received, they would be reviewed to ensure that all required information is completed. If

information were missing, the applicant would be contacted and asked to provide it in order for their application to

go forward.

In the case of referred candidates, the responsible body would follow up directly with the individual to ascertain if

they wish to be considered for appointment and if the information has not already been provided, to request a

completed application form or CV.

All applicants would receive a written acknowledgement of receipt of their application.

4. Undertake basic screening

The responsible body would review all applications received and ensure that the applicant meets the general

criteria set out in the position description.

5. Preparation of a list of qualified candidates for decision by the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council or Minister responsible for the ABC

Upon completion of the basic screening process, the responsible body would forward to the appointing body

specified in the ABC’s enabling legislation (the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or Minister responsible for the ABC)

a list of qualified candidates (those candidates that meet the general criteria set out in the position description)

along with:

• The application packages of those qualified candidates.

• A copy of the Position Description.

• A short summary providing the number of other applicants and the reasons they were screened out.

The Lieutenant-Governor in Council or Minister would make the appointment from among the list of qualified

candidates.

The appointment would be ratified by Order-in-Council or by Ministerial Order.

6. Advise unsuccessful candidates of outcome

The responsible body would advise all unsuccessful applicants, in writing, that they were not selected for

appointment.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

159

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

7. Publicize appointments

The ABC Appointments Unit or the responsible department would publish on its website the name and a brief

biographical sketch of all persons appointed to ABCs, the term of the appointments, and remuneration to which they

are entitled.

8. Provide training and orientation for new Board members

In order to ensure that board members of ABCs have the necessary understanding of governance principles - the

role of the ABC, their responsibilities as board members, the accountabilities of the ABC to government and the

taxpayers - the ABC Appointments Unit would:

• Work with the ABC itself and with the responsible departments to develop and administer training and

orientation programs for board members on board roles and responsibilities.

• Provide ongoing educational opportunities for board members through workshops on corporate governance.

4. Suggested Classification of ABCs

Most Significant ABCs:

Crown Agencies

1. New Brunswick Investment Management Corporation

2. New Brunswick Liquor Corporation - Board of Directors

3. New Brunswick Power Corporation

4. Service New Brunswick – Board of Directors

5. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission – Board of Directors

Adjudicative Tribunals

(Those making decisions with a province-wide, precedent-setting impact)

1. Assessment and Planning Appeal Board

2. Criminal Code Board of Review

3. Human Rights Commission

4. Labour and Employment Board

5. New Brunswick Insurance Board

6. New Brunswick Securities Commission

7. Public Utilities - Board of Commissioners

8. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission - Appeals Tribunal

At present the following Crown agencies are made up of government employees only, by statute or matter of

practice. In the event of a change in mandate and membership for boards of these Crown agencies, it is

recommended that the appointment process for significant ABCs be applied to them:

1. Lotteries Commission of New Brunswick

2. New Brunswick Highway Corporation

3. New Brunswick Housing Corporation - Board of Directors

4. New Brunswick Industrial Development Board

5. New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation

6. Municipal Capital Borrowing Board

7. Regional Development Corporation - Board of Directors

160

Other ABCs

Crown Agencies

1. Algonquin Golf Limited

2. Algonquin Properties Limited - Board of Directors

3. Kings Landing Corporation

4. Maritime Municipal Training & Development Board

5. NB Coal Ltd. Board of Directors

6. New Brunswick Research & Productivity Council

Adjudicative Tribunals

(Those not making decisions with a province-wide, precedent-setting impact)

1. Appeal Board on Teacher Certification

2. Dental Advisory Board

3. Family Income Security Appeal Board

4. Farm Land Identification Program Appeal Board

5. Farm Practices Review Board

6. Insured Services Appeal Committee

7. Judicial Council

8. Livestock Operations Appeal Board

9. Management Committee (Hospital Liability Protection Plan)

10. Medical Advisory Board

11. Mental Health Review Board - Region 1 and 7 - Moncton & Catchment Area

12. Mental Health Review Board - Regions 2&3 - Saint John & Catchment Area

13. Mental Health Review Boards - Regions 4, 5, 6 - Campbellton & Catchment Area

14. Mental Health Services Tribunal - Regions 1 to 7

15. Mining Commissioner

16. New Brunswick Farm Products Commission

17. New Brunswick Police Commission

18. Panel of Persons who may serve on a Small Claims Complaint Committee

19. Private Investigators and Security Services Licensing Commission

20. Review Board Centre Hospitalier Restigouche Hospital Center Inc

21. Salvage Dealers Licensing Commission

Operational

1. NB Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation

2. New Brunswick Crop Insurance Commission

3. New Brunswick Forest Products Commission

4. New Brunswick Grain Commission

5. New Brunswick Transportation Authority

6. Turkey Farmers of New Brunswick

7. New Brunswick Chicken Marketing Board

8. New Brunswick Egg Marketing Board

9. Maritime Provinces Harness Racing Commission

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

161

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

10. New Brunswick Greenhouse Products Marketing Board

11. Advisory Committee of the Political Process Financing Act

12. New Brunswick Museum

13. Product Selection Committee

14. Beaverbrook Art Gallery - Board of Governors

15. Board of Examiners for Compressed Gas

16. Board of Examiners under the Scaler’s Act

17. Power Engineers, Board of Examiners

18. NB Private Occupational Training Corporation

19. St. Croix International Waterway Commission

20. Beaverbrook Auditorium - Board of Governors

21. Brunswick Credit Union Federation Stabilization Board Limited

22. Office de Stabilization des caisses populaires acadiennes

23. Seven (7) RHA

24. Fourteen (14) DEC

25. Twelve (12) District Planning Commissions

26. Commission de gestion des déchets solides de la Péninsule acadienne (COGEDES)

27. Commission de gestion enviro resources du nord - ouest (COGERNO)

28. Fredericton Region Solid Waste Commission

29. Fundy Region Solid Waste Corporation

30. Kent County Solid Waste Corporation

31. Kings County Region Solid Waste Corporation

32. La Commission des Égoûts d’Allardville

33. Musquash Sewerage Commission

34. Nepisiquit - Chaleur Sewerage Commission

35. Northumberland Solid Waste Corporation

36. Restigouche Solid Waste Corporation

37. South West Solid Waste Commission

38. The Apohaqui Sewerage Commission

39. The Fredericton Area Pollution Control Commission

40. The Greater Moncton Sewerage Commission

41. The Greater Shediac Sewerage Commission

42. The Michaud Sewerage Commission

43. The St. Margarets Water and Wastewater Commission

44. The Val D’Amour Sewerage Commission

45. Valley Solid Waste Corporation

46. Westmorland-Albert Solid Waste Corporation

162

Advisory

1. Advisory Council on the Status of Women

2. Agricultural Development Board

3. Ambulance Services Advisory Committee

4. Apprenticeship and Occupational Certification Board

5. Atlantic Provinces Special Education Authority Board of Directors (APSEA)

6. Boiler & Pressure Vessel Safety Advisory Committee

7. Cancer Services Advisory Committee

8. Comité consultatif provincial de la mesure et de l’évaluation (francophone)

9. Comité consultatif provincial des programmes d’études (francophone)

10. Electrical Safety Advisory Committee

11. Elevator Safety Advisory Committee

12. Environmental Trust Fund Advisory Board

13. Fisheries Development Board

14. Judicial Remuneration Commission

15. Le Centre Communautaire Sainte-Anne - Community Board

16. Major Project Advisory Committee

17. Maritime Forestry Complex Corporation - Board of Directors

18. Medical Education Committee

19. Medical Review Board

20. Mental Health Services Advisory Committee

21. Military Compound Board

22. Minimum Wage Board

23. Ministerial Advisory Committee on Expedited Arbitration

24. inister’s Advisory Committee on Teacher Licensing and Certification

25. Mount Allison University Foundation

26. New Brunswick Advisory Council on Seniors

27. New Brunswick Advisory Council on Youth

28. New Brunswick Arts Board

29. New Brunswick Public Libraries Board

30. New Brunswick Public Libraries Foundation-Board of Trustees

31. New Brunswick Tire Stewardship Board

32. New Brunswick Wildlife Council

33. Nursing Resources Advisory Committee

34. Physician Resource Advisory Committee

35. Plumbing Safety Advisory Committee

36. Premier’s Council on the Status of Disabled Persons

37. Prescription Drug Program Advisory and Utilization Committee

38. Professional Review Committee

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

163

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

39. Provincial Curriculum Advisory Committee (anglophone)

40. Provincial Testing and Evaluation Advisory Committee (anglophone)

41. Registered Nursing Assistants Advisory Board

42. Rehabilitation Services Advisory Committee

43. Resource Services Advisory Committee

44. St. Thomas University Foundation - Board of Trustees

45. Student Aid Review Board

46. Uniform Contributory Pension Plan - Pension Board

47. Université de Moncton Foundation - Board of Trustees

48. University of New Brunswick Foundation - Board of Trustees

164

Recommendation Appendix: J

Policy Framework - New Civics Education Program from

Kindergarten to Grade 12

Summary of Contents

This appendix contains a suggested policy framework for a new civics education program for

Kindergarten to grade 12 students to be fully implemented for the 2007-2008 school year. It is

organized into the following sections:

1. Beliefs and Values

2. Objective

3. Purpose

4. Approach

5. Supporting Teachers and Schools

6. Program Outcomes

The curriculum for social studies would be amended to include the following:

1. Beliefs and Values

• Democracy is the cornerstone of New Brunswick’s and Canada’s society.

• Participating in elections and the democratic process is an important responsibility of citizenship.

• Every citizen should have the knowledge and skills to actively participate in the democratic process.

2. Objective

To ensure that all young New Brunswickers graduate with the knowledge and skills required to participate fully in

our province’s democratic life as active citizens.

3. Purpose

The new civics education curriculum is intended to give young people the knowledge, understanding and the skills

needed to participate as active citizens in New Brunswick democracy. Students need to know why democracy is

important, how it was developed, how it works, what is our system of government, how elections function, and

which basic democratic values are essential to a truly democratic society. Students need to know why it is important

to participate in democratic life and how they, as active citizens, can make a difference.

Knowledge

The civics education program would increase students’ basic knowledge and understanding of our democratic

process, political life, and the electoral system. Students would learn the key concepts and terms surrounding

democracy. They would gain a greater understanding of how our different democratic institutions function.

Skills

Students graduating from the civics education program would have obtained the critical analysis skills necessary so

they may have a strengthened capacity to become “active citizens”, able to understand and process information

they receive on government, politics and democracy and to participate more fully in democratic activities in their

community, province, and country.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

165

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

4. Approach

The new civics education program would have the following standards:

• Mandatory - The civics education program would be mandatory for all students at all/most grades to ensure

that every graduating student has the knowledge and critical skills to participate fully in our democracy.

• Comprehensive - The civics education program would cover a full range of subjects regarding our

democracy. It would have precise practical objectives outlined in the curriculum for each grade level, to ensure

that every student receives a similar education throughout the province.

• Integrated - The civics education program would be built on the existing social sciences program, integrated

into current course offerings, and therefore would not be an additional course.

• Practical - The civics education program would involve real-life examples and activities, giving students active

exposure to elected officials, political parties, and the legislature. It would utilize existing democratic practices

in the school such as the election of student councils to inform students how democracy functions. The new

program would be easy to understand and apply for both teachers and students.

• Supported -The civics education program would be actively supported with learning materials and resources

by teachers, schools, parents, the Department of Education, and the Legislative Assembly.

• Non-partisan - The civics education program would have made-in-New Brunswick learning and course

materials that are non-partisan.

5. Supporting Teachers and Schools

To be effective, the new civics program must support teachers and students in the classroom. This requires creating

made-in-New Brunswick course materials, including teaching modules that teachers can easily apply in the

classroom. Learning kits containing ideas for classroom activities would also be created. Information and materials

from other provinces could be adapted as necessary. Professional development days would be utilized to inform

teachers about the objectives of the program and assist them with the new curriculum and course materials. The aim

is to make civics “alive” and real to students.

A “Teachers in the Legislature” program would also be created. This new program, modeled on the Teachers’

Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy, would gather teachers from across the province on a regular basis

to give them first-hand knowledge and a better understanding of how our provincial institutions actually function.

The Department of Education should look at how the Internet could be used to encourage teachers to share their

teaching experiences and suggestions with others. It should also begin discussions with the various education

programs at universities to ensure that graduating teachers will have exposure to this subject area and are qualified

to teach it.

166

6. Program Outcomes

The civics education program would have specific program outcomes to be attained at each grade. The exact

curriculum would be developed through the regular curriculum development process of the Department of Education

and be approved by the Provincial Curriculum Advisory Committee. The table below sets out a possible menu of

knowledge outcomes.

General Outcomes Specific Outcomes

Knowing basic vocabulary of democracy Knowledge of terms such as:

• Democracy

• Member of the Legislative Assembly

• Legislative Assembly

• Government

• Bills/statutes

• Parliament

• Responsible government

• Political parties

• Parliamentary system (Westminster)

• Referendums

• Premier/ministers

Understanding of electoral system • Understand the basic concepts of our first-past-the

post system or mixed member proportional system

(when implemented)

• Origins of our electoral system

• When do we vote?

• Where do we vote?

• What is a polling station?

• What does a ballot look like?

• How are results tabulated to give us a winner?

• How do we elect MLAs/MPs from ridings?

• Understanding the riding system (55 geographic

ridings in NB at the provincial level and 10 for NB

at the federal level)

• Knowing which riding is your provincial riding and

which is your federal riding

Understanding the difference between various • We have three levels of government: levels of

governments municipal,provincial and federal

• Understanding what each level does

• Understanding how they are linked together

Understanding the role of MLAs • What is an MLA?

• How many MLAs in NB?

• What does an MLA do?

• Who is my MLA?

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

167

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Understanding political parties • The names of the various political parties

• What each party stands for

• Who are their leaders?

• General knowledge of their platforms

Knowing the functions of the Legislative Assembly • Understanding the different roles of groups in the

legislature (government, opposition)

• General knowledge of how the legislature works

- Question period

- Adoption of bills

- Committees

• Knowledge of how a bill becomes law

• Who are the key people in the legislature:

- Premier

- Leader of the Opposition

- Speaker

- Clerk

- Whips

- House leaders

Understanding how government works • Who forms the government?

• What does a government do?

• Who and what is the Premier?

• General knowledge of what is a Cabinet

• General knowledge of different departments

• How does government relate to the legislature?

Knowledge of citizen engagement • How can one participate in the democratic process?

• What other participation mechanisms of government

(DECs, RHAs)?

Understanding policy development • What is a public policy?

• How are government policies developed?

Knowledge of social movements • What are interest groups?

• What do they do?

• What is their relationship with government?

Current events • What subjects are being debated in the Legislative

Assembly?

• Review of government announcements.

• What’s in the news?

168

Recommendation Appendix: K

Policy Framework - A Referendum Act for New Brunswick

Summary of Contents

This appendix contains a suggested policy framework for a Referendum Act for New Brunswick. It is

based on the principles and objectives of ensuring that referendums are independent, fair, open,

transparent and efficient; and encouraging the participation and involvement of New Brunswickers.

The framework is organized into the following sections:

1. Definition Section

2. Initiation of Referendum

3. Administration of Referendum

4. Timing of Referendum

5. Referendum Question

6. Order for the Holding of the Referendum

7. Result of Referendum

8. Conduct of Referendum

9. Financing and Advertising Rules

10. Provision of Information to Electors

11. Reporting Obligations

12. Offences and Penalties for Non-Compliance with Act

1. Definition section

“Corporation” means any corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province and any corporation having its

head or other office or doing business or any part of its business in the Province.

“Elector” means a person qualified to vote under the Elections Act.

“Political party” means a political party registered under the Political Process Financing Act.

“Referendum” means a vote by electors on a question as ordered pursuant to this Act.

“Referendum period” means the period beginning on the day on which the order for the holding of the referendum

question is made under this Act and ending on polling day at the referendum.

“Trade union” means a trade union as defined by the Industrial Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code,

chapter L-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, that holds bargaining rights for employees in the Province to

whom those Acts apply.

2. Initiation of Referendum

Where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council considers that a matter is of exceptional importance to the province of

New Brunswick, and it is in the public interest to obtain by means of a referendum the view of electors on a

question related to the matter, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may order the holding of a referendum in

accordance with the provisions of this Act.

An order for the holding of a referendum may not be issued before the referendum question has been approved by

the Legislative Assembly in accordance with this Act.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

169

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

3. Administration of Referendum

The Chief Electoral Officer shall exercise general direction and supervision over the administrative conduct of

referendums, and shall enforce fairness, impartiality and compliance with this Act in the conduct of referendums.

4. Timing of Referendum

A referendum shall be held in conjunction with a provincial general election under the Elections Act or in

conjunction with the quadrennial elections under the Municipalities Act, unless the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

deems it advisable and necessary to hold a referendum separately on a date provided for in the Order for the

holding of the referendum.

5. Referendum Question

a) Wording of Question

A referendum question shall be worded so that each elector may express an opinion on the question by marking a

cross, an “X”, a check mark, or other mark after the word “yes” or “no” on the ballot paper.

b) Tabling of Proposed Referendum Question

No referendum question shall be submitted for consideration by the Legislative Assembly if its purpose is to detract

from, remove or deny a right or rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, New Brunswick’s

Human Rights Act, New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act, or An Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official

Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick.

Upon certification by the Attorney General that the purpose of the proposed referendum question is not to detract

from, remove or deny a right or rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, New Brunswick’s

Human Rights Act, New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act, or An Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official

Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick, a member of the Executive Council shall cause to be laid before the

Legislative Assembly a copy of the proposed referendum question.

The Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other political parties represented in the Legislative Assembly

shall be provided with, and be consulted about, the proposed text of a referendum question at least three calendar

days before a copy of the proposed referendum question is laid before the Legislative Assembly.

c) Motion to establish Committee of Legislative Assembly to consider wording of Referendum

Question

Upon tabling of the proposed referendum question, a member of the Executive Council shall introduce a motion for

the establishment of a Committee of the Legislative Assembly to consider the wording of the referendum question

and any issues related thereto.

The proposed text of the referendum question shall be set out in the notice of motion to establish the Committee.

d) Committee of Legislative Assembly

A Committee established by the Legislative Assembly to consider the wording of the referendum question and any

issues related thereto, may hold public hearings and hear from expert witnesses.

The Committee shall report back to the Legislative Assembly within 21 calendar days of the establishment of the

Committee.

e) Motion for the Adoption of the Referendum Question

A member of the Executive Council shall introduce a motion for the adoption of the referendum question, the text of

which shall be set out in the body of the motion.

Upon a resolution of the Legislative Assembly adopting the referendum question, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

shall issue an order for the holding of a referendum on the question as approved by the Legislative Assembly.

170

6. Order for the Holding of the Referendum

The order for the holding of the referendum shall specify whether the referendum is to be held:

a) In conjunction with a general election under the Elections Act;

b) In conjunction with the quadrennial elections under the Municipalities Act; or

c) Separately on a date provided in the order.

Where a referendum is held separately on a date provided in the order, the referendum polling date must not be

more than six months after the adoption of the referendum question by the Legislative Assembly.

7. Result of Referendum

a) Threshold for passage

A referendum question shall be considered to have passed if more than 50 per cent of valid votes are in favour of

the referendum question and at least 50 percent of eligible electors voted in the referendum.

b) Binding

Where more than 50 per cent of valid votes are in favour of the referendum question, and at least 50 per cent of

eligible electors voted in the referendum, the government that initiated the referendum shall take any steps within the

competence of the government that it considers necessary or advisable to implement the result on the question

submitted to referendum, including any or all of the following:

a) Changing programs or policies, or introducing new programs or policies that are administered by or through

the executive government.

b) Introducing legislation in the Legislative Assembly during its first session after the results of such a referendum

are known.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a government that is subsequent to the government that initiated the

referendum may take any steps within the competence of the government that it considers necessary or advisable to

implement the result on the question submitted to referendum.

8. Conduct of Referendum

a) Adoption of Provisions of the Elections Act

Where the referendum is ordered to be held in conjunction with a general election under the Elections Act, the

provisions of the Elections Act and the regulations under it, other than provisions inconsistent with this Act, are

adopted for the purposes of this Act, and apply with the necessary modifications to all aspects of the conduct of,

voting on and determination and declaration of the result of a referendum and to any other matter in relation to a

referendum under this Act.

b) Adoption of provisions of the Municipal Elections Act

Where the referendum is ordered to be held in conjunction with the quadrennial elections under the Municipalities

Act or separately on a date provided in the order, the provisions of the Municipal Elections Act and the regulations

under it, other than provisions inconsistent with this Act, are adopted for the purposes of this Act, and apply with the

necessary modifications to all aspects of the conduct of, voting on and determination and declaration of the result of

a referendum and to any other matter in relation to a referendum under this Act.

9. Financing and Advertising Rules

a) Definitions for this part

“Contribution” means a sum of money donated to a Referendum Committee for the purpose of supporting or

opposing, directly or indirectly, a referendum question.

The following are not considered contributions under this Act:

a) The donation by an individual of his personal services, talents or expertise, or the use of his vehicle and the

product of that donation, where it is given freely and not as part of his work in the service of an employer;

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

171

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

b) A loan granted to a Referendum Committee at the current rate of interest in the market at the time it is granted;

c) The right to the use of time on the facilities of any broadcasting undertaking or of the right to space in a

newspaper or other periodical made available free of charge to Referendum Committees by a broadcaster or

any owner of a newspaper or other periodical provided that such services are offered equally to each

Referendum Committee.

“Referendum Committees” mean the Committees in support of or in opposition to the referendum question to

be established by the Chief Electoral Officer under this part.

“Referendum expenses” means all expenditures incurred or authorized by an individual, group or Chief Agent

of a Referendum Committee during a referendum period, for the purpose of supporting or opposing, directly or

indirectly, a referendum question, and include:

a) The cost of acquiring the right to the use of time on the facilities of any broadcasting undertaking or of

acquiring the right to the publication of an advertisement in any newspaper or other periodical;

b) The cost of acquiring the services of any person, including remuneration paid to the person;

c) The cost of acquiring meeting space, of providing refreshments and of acquiring and distributing promotional

materials.

The following are not considered referendum expenses:

a) The cost of publishing in a newspaper or other periodical, editorials, news, reports, or letters to the editor, if

(i) they are published in the same manner and under the same standards as prevail outside the referendum

period without payment, reward or promise of payment or reward, and

(ii) t he newspaper or other periodical is not established for the purpose of the referendum or with a view to

the referendum.

b) The cost of transmission by a broadcasting undertaking of a broadcast of news or comment, if such broadcast

is made in the same manner and under the same standards as prevail outside the referendum period, without

payment, reward or promise of payment or reward.

c) The reasonable expenses incurred by a person, out of his or her own money, for his or her own lodging and

food for referendum purposes, if such expenses are not reimbursed to the person.

d) The reasonable expenses incurred by a person for his or her own transportation for referendum purposes, if

such expenses are not reimbursed to the person.

e) The reasonable expenses incurred for the publication of explanatory commentaries on this Act and any

regulations under it, if such commentaries are strictly objective and contain no statements of such a nature to

support or oppose a question submitted to referendum.

b) Individuals and Groups Intending to Incur Expenses for Purpose of Participating in

Referendum Must Register

An individual or group which intends to incur referendum expenses not exceeding $1,000 during the referendum

period for the purpose of participating in the referendum campaign, and which is not part of a Referendum

Committee, must register with the Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor of Political Financing prior to incurring such

expenditures.

Where an individual or group, which is not part of a Referendum Committee, intends to incur referendum expenses

not exceeding $1,000 during the referendum period for the purpose of using time on the facilities of any

broadcasting undertaking or for the publication of an advertisement in any newspaper or other periodical, the

individual or group must register with the Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor of Political Financing at least five

working days before the broadcast is undertaken or the advertisement appears.

In order to be registered, an individual or group must provide the Chief Electoral Officer /Supervisor with:

a) The full name, address and telephone number of the individual; or

b) The name of the group, and the name, address and telephone number of a contact person within the group,

and a list of the names of individuals comprising the group.

On receipt of the above noted information, the Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor shall register the individual or

group and so inform the person who signed the application.

172

c) Establishment of Referendum Committees

When an order is made for the holding of a referendum, the Chief Electoral Officer shall establish Referendum

Committees, one of which is in support of the referendum question and the other of which is in opposition to the

referendum question.

No person or entity, other than a Referendum Committee, shall accept contributions during a referendum period.

No person or entity, other than a Referendum Committee, shall incur referendum expenses exceeding $1,000

during a referendum period.

d) Registration with a Referendum Committee

In the 14 days following the order for the holding of the referendum, an individual or group may apply for

registration with the Referendum Committee in support of the referendum question or the Referendum Committee in

opposition to the referendum question by filing with the Chief Electoral Officer an application setting out:

a) The full name, address and telephone number of the individual; or

b) The name of the group, and the name, address and telephone number of a contact person within the group,

and a list of the names of individuals comprising the group.

On receipt of an application for registration with a Referendum Committee, the Chief Electoral Officer shall examine

the application and determine whether the individual or group can be registered as such and shall

a) if the individual or group can be registered as a member of the Referendum Committee, register the individual

or group as such and so inform the person who signed the application; or

b) if the individual or group cannot be registered as a member of the Referendum Committee, inform the person

who signed the application that the individual or group cannot be so registered and indicate the reason why

the individual or group cannot be so registered.

e) Chief Electoral Officer to call Preliminary Meeting of each Referendum Committee

At the end of the 14 day registration period, the Chief Electoral Officer shall, without delay, call a preliminary

meeting of the registered members each Referendum Committee at the place, date and time for each as indicated

by the Chief Electoral Officer.

f) Appointment of Chairperson of Referendum Committee

Each Referendum Committee shall appoint a Chairperson by a resolution of the members of the Committee at the

preliminary meeting.

g) Adoption of By-laws of Referendum Committee

Each Referendum Committee shall adopt the by-laws to govern the operation of the Committee, including the name

by which it shall be known and its officers, by a resolution of the members of the Committee at the preliminary

meeting.

h) Affiliated Groups

The by-laws of each Referendum Committee must allow for the affiliation to the Referendum Committee of groups

favourable to the position of the Committee on the referendum question, and shall set out the conditions governing

the affiliation and financing of these groups.

A group must make an application to the Referendum Committee with which it wishes to affiliate 14 days after the

by-laws of the Referendum Committee are adopted.

The Referendum Committee must decide whether or not to accept the application within seven days after the

application is made.

i) Local Committees

The by-laws of each Referendum Committee may also provide for the establishment of Local Committees of the

Referendum Committee, provided that the establishment of such Local Committees are authorized by the

Chairperson of the Referendum Committee.

j) Certification of Resolutions of members

The resolutions adopting the by-laws and appointing the Chairperson of the Referendum Committee shall be certified

by the signature of a majority of the members at the preliminary meeting of the Referendum Committee, and shall

take effect when received by the Chief Electoral Officer.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

173

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

k) Amendments

Any amendments to the by-laws of a Referendum Committee or the replacement of its Chairperson shall be done

through a resolution of the officers of the Referendum Committee and shall be certified by the signature of a majority

of the officers, and shall take effect when forwarded to the Chief Electoral Officer.

l) Auditor

The Chairperson of a Referendum Committee shall appoint as an Auditor:

a) a person who is a member in good standing of an association, institute or society of professional accountants

in the Province, or

b) a partnership of which every partner is a member in good standing of an association, institute or society of

professional accountants.

m) Chief Agent

The Chairperson of a Referendum Committee shall appoint a Chief Agent who shall be responsible for the financial

transactions of the Referendum Committee and for reporting those transactions in accordance with this Act.

The Chief Agent may, with the approval of the Chairperson of the referendum committee, authorize persons in

writing to act as the Chief Agent’s deputy.

n) Local Agent

The Chief Agent may, with the approval of the Chairperson of the Referendum Committee, appoint a Local Agent for

any Local Committees of the Referendum Committee.

o) Chairperson to file Information with Chief Electoral Officer

The Chairperson of each Referendum Committee shall file with the Chief Electoral Officer:

a) A copy of the Committee’s by-laws and the resolution adopting the by-laws and the resolution appointing the

Chairperson, certified by the signature of a majority of the members at the preliminary meeting of the

Committee;

b) The name, address, and telephone number of the officers of the Committee;

c) The name, address and telephone number of the Chief Agent of the committee;

d) The name, address and telephone number of any persons authorized in writing to act as the Chief Agent’s

deputy;

e) The name, address and telephone number of any Local Agent appointed for Local Committees;

f) The name, address and telephone number of the Auditor of the committee;

g) The name of any affiliated groups and the name, address and telephone number of the leader of each

affiliated group; and

h) The address and telephone number of the office of the Referendum Committee where its books and records are

kept, and of the office to which communications may be addressed.

p) Registry to be kept by Chief Electoral Officer

The Chief Electoral Officer shall maintain a registry in which he or she shall record the above information for each

Referendum Committee.

The Chairperson shall inform the Chief Electoral Officer without delay of any changes to the information filed with

the Chief Electoral Officer.

q) Limit on Contributions

A Referendum Committee may only accept contributions from individuals, corporations, trade unions or political

parties.

Only the Chief Agent, persons authorized in writing to act as the Chief Agent’s deputy, or a Local Agent may solicit

or accept contributions to the Referendum Committee.

Individuals, corporations, trade unions or political parties may make a contribution to a Referendum Committee out

of their own property only.

174

An individual, corporation, trade union or political party may contribute no more than $3,000 to one Referendum

Committee or to each Referendum Committee.

For the purposes of this Act, corporations that are associated with one another under section 256 of the Income Tax

Act, chapter 148 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, shall be considered as a single corporation.

r) Limit on Referendum Expenses

The referendum expenses of a Referendum Committee shall be limited so as not to exceed an amount equal to the

product obtained by multiplying $0.75 by the total number of electors on the electoral list in the most recent

provincial general election, as reported by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Only the Chief Agent or persons authorized in writing to act as the Chief Agent’s deputy, or a Local Agent may

incur referendum expenses on behalf of the Referendum Committee or a Local Committee.

The referendum expenses of a Local Committee shall count toward the referendum expense limit of the Referendum

Committee.

s) Recording of Contributions and Expenses

The Chief Agent of each Referendum Committee must keep records of all contributions received and referendum

expenses incurred.

The Local Agent of a Local Committee must keep records of all contributions received and referendum expenses

incurred and report these forthwith to the Chief Agent.

t) Prohibition on Collaborating to Circumvent Limits

An individual, group, corporation, trade union, political party or Referendum Committee shall not circumvent, or

attempt to circumvent any limit set out in this Act in any manner, including by splitting into two or more parties for

the purpose of circumventing the limit or acting in collusion with another party.

u) Advertising Must Identify Name of Individual or Group or Referendum Committee Sponsoring

Any advertising by an individual or group on broadcasting undertakings or in newspapers, periodicals or other

printed matter for the purpose of the referendum campaign must identify the name of the individual or group, as

previously registered with the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Any advertising by a Referendum Committee on broadcasting undertakings or in newspapers, periodicals or other

printed matter for the purpose of the referendum campaign must identify the Referendum Committee that is the

sponsor of the advertisement and indicate that the advertisement is authorized by that sponsor.

v) Financial Return to be Filed

Within 120 calendar days after polling day at a referendum, the Chief Agent of each Referendum Committee shall

file with the Chief Electoral Officer/Supervisor of Political Financing a true return, signed by the Chief Agent,

containing detailed statements of:

(a) All referendum expenses incurred by the Referendum Committee, including a breakdown of those expenses

incurred by Local Committees of the Referendum Committee;

(b) The amount of the contributions received during and after the referendum period by the Referendum

Committee, from each of the following classes of contributors:

(i) individuals;

(ii) corporations;

(iii) trade unions;

(iv) political parties;

(d) the name of each contributor, listed according to the classes described in paragraph (b), that made one or

more contributions to the committee during or after the referendum period that exceeded, or the aggregate of

which exceeded $100 and, in each case, the amount of the contribution or aggregate.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

175

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

w) Report of Auditor

The Auditor of each Referendum Committee shall make a report to the Chief Agent of the committee on the financial

return of the committee, and shall make such examinations as will enable the Auditor to state in the report whether

in the Auditor’s opinion the return presents fairly the financial transactions contained in the accounting records on

which it is based.

The Auditor of a Referendum Committee is entitled to have access at all reasonable times to all records, documents,

books, accounts, bills, vouchers and receipts of the committee, and is entitled to require from agents and officers of

the committee such information and explanations as in the Auditor’s opinion may be necessary to enable the

Auditor to report as required.

10. Provision of Information to Electors

a) Preparation of Arguments in Support of and in Opposition to Referendum Question

Where a referendum is ordered to be held, arguments in support of and arguments in opposition to the referendum

question shall be submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer by each Referendum Committee, at least 35 calendar days

prior to the holding of the referendum.

Each argument must be no more than 250 words.

b) Information Mail-Out to Electors

No later than 25 calendar days prior to the voting day for the referendum, the Chief Electoral Officer shall cause to

be printed and to be posted to each elector a sample referendum ballot, and a pamphlet containing the arguments

in support of and in opposition to the referendum question as submitted by the Referendum Committees.

11. Reporting Obligations

a) Results of Referendum to be Announced

The Chief Electoral Officer shall announce the results of a referendum in accordance with the provisions of the

Elections Act or the Municipal Elections Act as adopted for the purposes of this Act, whichever is applicable to the

referendum.

A member of the Executive Council shall announce the results of a referendum to the Legislative Assembly as soon

as practicable after they are known.

b) Chief Electoral Officer to Prepare Report

Within 180 calendar days after polling day at a referendum, the Chief Electoral Officer shall prepare a report that

sets out:

a) The information set out in the financial returns filed by the Chief Agents of the Referendum Committees;

b) A financial report detailing the cost of administering the referendum;

c) Any matter or event that has arisen or occurred in connection with the administration of the referendum that the

Chief Electoral Officer considers should be brought to the attention of the Legislative Assembly;

d) Any amendments that are, in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, desirable for the better administration of

this Act.

Every individual, group, corporation, trade union, political party or Referendum Committee may send to the Chief

Electoral Officer a statement in writing that contains any complaint with respect to the conduct of the referendum, or

any suggestion as to changes or improvements in this Act.

If the Chief Electoral Officer considers it appropriate, the Chief Electoral Officer may include in the report of the

Chief Electoral Officer any document or a part or a summary of one that relates to a complaint or suggestion

received.

176

c) Report to be Laid Before the Legislative Assembly

Upon completion of the report, the Chief Electoral Officer shall transmit a copy to the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly.

The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly shall cause such report to be laid before the House at the earliest

opportunity.

d) Committee to Consider Report

The Report of the Chief Electoral Officer shall be referred to such committee of the Legislative Assembly, which may

be established by the Legislative Assembly to review the report, seek public input on the report and make

recommendations.

A Committee shall report back to the Legislative Assembly within 90 calendar days.

12. Offences & Penalties for Non-Compliance with Act

(Adopt provisions of Elections Act and Municipal Elections Act, as appropriate, for offences regarding the conduct

of the referendum; adopt provisions of PPFA for offences related to infractions of financing and spending rules)

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

177

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Recommendations Appendix: K-1

Flowchart for a Referendum Act Process

Summary of Contents

This appendix is a flowchart showing the steps and related time frames in the process set out in the

proposed Referendum Act for New Brunswick. The example used is a referendum to be held with a

provincial general election on a fixed election date of October 15, 2007, as recommended by the

Commission. The flowchart is organized into the following sections:

1. Initiation of Referendum/Approval of Question by Legislative Assembly

2. Establishment of Referendum Committees

3. Information to Voters

4. Post-Referendum Reporting Requirements

178

L-G in C makes decision to hold a referendum; Government consults with Leader of

Opposition/Leaders of other parties on wording of question

days

1. Initiation of Referendum/Approval of Question by Legislative Assembly

A Member of Executive Council tables the proposed question in Legislative Assembly;

Committee of legislature is established to consider wording of Referendum Question.

Committee holds public hearings; hears from experts.

Committee reports back to House; Motion to approve or amend the question is debated

by Legislative Assembly.

2. Establishment of Referendum Committees

Upon approval of question (with or without amendments) by Legislative Assembly,

LG in C issues Order for Referendum.

Upon the Order for the holding of a referendum being made, the Chief Electoral Officer

establishes Referendum Committees, one in support of the referendum question and

one in opposition to the referndum question.

Individuals and groups can apply to be part of a Referendum Committee.

CEO calls preliminary meeting of each Referendum Committee; they adopt their by-laws.

Three calendar days

21 calendar days

(approx. three calendar days)

14 calendar days

Deadline for applications for affiliation with a Referendum Committee.

14 calendar days

days

(immediately)

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

179

Arguments prepared by the registered Referendum Committees in support of and in

opposition to the question must be filed with Chief Electoral Officer. (September 10)

days

CEO mails out to electors a sample ballot, arguments in support of and in opposition

to referendum question (September 20)

Referendum is held (October 15)

4. Post-Referendum Reporting Requirements

CEO announces results of Referendum on voting day (October 15)

Each Referendum Committee must file an audited referendum return with the CEO, setting out

referendum expenses and contributions received by committees and their affiliates.

CEO prepares and files with Legislative Assembly a report on the referendum that includes

financial information filed by the Referendum Committees, information on matters arising

during the referendum, and suggested amendments to Referendum Act.

10 calendar days

25 calendar days

120 calendar days

60 calendar days

Committee of Legislative Assembly considers CEO’s report and reports back to house.

90 calendar days

270 days

(nine

months)

3. Information to Voters

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

180

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Background Appendix: I

Mission, Mandate, and Terms of Reference

Mission

To identify options for an enhanced citizen-centred democracy in New Brunswick, building on the values, heritage,

culture, and communities of our province.

Mandate

To examine and make recommendations on strengthening and modernizing our electoral system and democratic

institutions and practices in New Brunswick, to make them more fair, open, accountable and accessible to New

Brunswickers.

The Commission on Legislative Democracy will seek the views of New Brunswickers on:

• Fairer, more equitable and effective representation in the Legislative Assembly;

• Greater public involvement in decisions affecting people and their communities;

• More open, responsive, and accountable democratic institutions and practices;

• Higher civic engagement and participation in the democratic processes in New Brunswick.

Terms of Reference

Specifically, the Commission on Legislative Democracy will focus on the following areas:

Electoral Reform

1. To examine and make recommendations on implementing a proportional representation electoral system for the

New Brunswick Legislative Assembly, and propose a specific model best suited for our province that ensures

fairer representation, greater equality of votes, an effective legislature and government, and a continued role

for directly-elected MLAs representing specific geographic boundaries.

2. To examine and make recommendations on future steps, including amendments to the Elections Act, required to

give effect to a new proportional representation electoral system.

3. To examine and make recommendations on the principles and procedures to guide future changes to New

Brunswick’s electoral boundaries, including the number of constituencies to be represented in the Legislative

Assembly, that will be referred to a Representation and Electoral Boundaries Commission.

4. To examine and make recommendations on instituting fixed election dates for provincial general elections while

proposing a fixed election date and procedures best suited for our province.

5. To examine and make recommendations on increasing voter turnout in provincial general elections, particularly

amongst young New Brunswickers, and improving accessibility to the electoral process in New Brunswick by

modernizing our electoral laws while reinforcing the democratic rights and responsibilities of New Brunswickers

to vote.

Legislative Reform

1. To examine and make recommendations on enhancing the role of the Legislative Assembly and MLAs in

decision-making while ensuring greater accountability of MLAs to their constituents and to New Brunswickers.

2. To examine and make recommendations on enhancing transparency and accountability in appointments to

government agencies, boards, and commissions.

181

Chapter 7 - Background Appendices

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Democratic Reform

1. To examine and make recommendations on enhancing direct democracy by proposing a New Brunswick

Referendum Act that sets out the rules and procedures for allowing province-wide, binding referendums on

significant public policy issues.

2. To examine and make recommendations on enhancing public involvement in government and legislative

decision-making.

To fulfill its mandate, the Commission on Legislative Democracy will:

1. Seek the views of New Brunswickers through public hearings and submissions;

2. Hold other meetings and forums as required;

3. Conduct research and analysis as required that is appropriate to all aspects of the Commission’s mandate;

4. Report no later than December 31, 2004.

182

Multi-Member District Number 1 (North)

Number Current Number of Regional Health District Education Council

of Ridings Ridings Electors Authority Francophone Anglophone

1 1 - Restigouche West 8,158 4, 5 & 7 3 & 5 14 & 15

2 2 - Campbellton 9,349 5 5 15

3 3 - Dalhousie - Restigouche East 9,219 5 5 15

4 4 - Nigadoo - Chaleur 10,539 5 & 6 5 15

5 5 - Bathurst 10,234 6 5 15

6 6 - Nepisiguit 9,864 6 5 & 9 15

7 7 - Caraquet 9,517 6 9 15

8 8 - Lamèque - Shippagan - Miscou 9,889 6 9 15

9 9 - Centre - Péninsule 7,979 6 9 15

10 10 - Tracadie - Sheila 9,990 6 9 15

11 52 - Grand Falls Region 9,127 4 3 14

12 53 - Madawaska-la-Vallée 8,298 4 3 14

13 54 - Edmundston 8,796 4 3 14

14 55 - Madawaska-les-Lacs 9,070 4 3 14

Total number of electors for district: 130,029

Deviation from average number of electors in the multi-member districts: -7.6%

Background Appendix: II

Example of a Regional Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) Electoral

System in New Brunswick

The proposed NB MMP electoral system for New Brunswick would be composed of four regional multi-member

districts of approximately the same size. Each regional district would be represented by five list MLAs and would

contain nine single member ridings being represented by one MLA each. The total number of seats in the Legislature

would be 56.

The multi-member districts would be composed of an average of 140,770 voters while the 36 single member

ridings would have an average of 15,641 voters (based on the 2003 provincial election numbers).

Below is an example of how the province could be divided into four regional multi-member districts. Actual

boundaries for each of the four regions and each of the 36 single member ridings would be drawn by an

independent Representation and Electoral Boundaries Commission.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

183

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

184

Multi-Member District Number 2 (Central)

Number Current Number of Regional Health District Education Council

of Ridings Ridings Electors Authority Francophone Anglophone

1 11 - Miramichi Bay 9,050 7 11 16

2 12 - Miramichi-Bay du Vin 10,219 7 9 & 11 16

3 13 - Miramichi Centre 10,190 7 11 16

4 14 - Southwest Miramichi 8,505 7 & 3 11 16

5 41 - Oromocto-Gagetown 11,791 2 & 3 1 17

6 42 - Grand Lake 9,340 3 1 & 11 2/17

7 43 - Fredericton North 14,096 3 1 18

8 44 - Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak 10,917 3 1 18

9 45 - Fredericton South 13,744 3 1 18

10 46 - New Maryland 11,923 3 1 17 & 18

11 48 - Mactaquac 10,971 3 1 14 & 18

12 49 - Woodstock 10,906 3 1 14

13 50 - Carleton 10,258 3 3 14

14 51 - Victoria-Tobique 8,315 3 3 14

Total number of electors for district: 150,225

Deviation from average number of electors in the multi-member districts: +6.7%

Multi-Member District Number 3 (South East)

Number Current Number of Regional Health District Education Council

of Ridings Ridings Electors Authority Francophone Anglophone

1 15 - Rogersville-Kouchibouguac 8,003 7 & 1 11 16

2 16 - Kent 8,146 1 11 16

3 17 - Kent South 12,378 1 11 2

4 18 - Shediac-Cap-Pelé 12,839 1 11 2

5 19 - Tantramar 7,602 1 11 2

6 20 - Dieppe-Memramcook 16,718 1 11 & 1 2

7 21 - Moncton East 13,777 1 1 2

8 22 - Moncton South 11,847 1 1 2

9 23 - Moncton North 12,545 1 1 2

10 24 - Moncton Cresent 14,260 1 1 2

11 25 - Petitcodiac 9,080 1 & 3 1 2 & 6

12 26 - Riverview 11,897 1 1 2

13 27 - Albert 8,871 1 1 2

Total number of electors for district: 147,963

Deviation from average number of electors in the multi-member districts: +5%

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

185

Multi-Member District Number 4 (South West)

Number Current Number of Regional Health District Education Council

of Ridings Ridings Electors Authority Francophone Anglophone

1 28 - Kings East 9,882 2 1 6

2 29 - Hampton-Belleisle 11,188 2 1 6

3 30 - Kennebecasis 12,597 2 1 6

4 31 - Saint John-Fundy 9,240 2 1 6 & 8

5 32 - Saint John-Kings 10,965 2 1 8

6 33 - Saint John Champlain 10,003 2 1 8

7 34 - Saint John Harbour 9,768 2 1 8

8 35 - Saint John Portland 10,489 2 1 8

9 36 - Saint John Lancaster 10,524 2 1 8

10 37 - Grand Bay-Westfield 8,453 2 1 8

11 38 - Charlotte 7,929 2 1 8 & 10

12 39 - Fundy Isles 4,057 2 1 10

13 40 - Western Charlotte 9,167 2 1 10

14 47 - York 10,601 2 & 3 1 10, 14 & 18

Total number of electors for district: 134,863

Deviation from average number of electors in the multi-member districts: -4%

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Background Appendix: III

Comparison of the New Brunswick MMP Electoral System with SMP

Electoral System

186

Values Criteria NB MMP SMP

Fairness - the system levels the playing field among candidates and parties; it is strong weak

free of built-in biases that distort election results.

Equality - the system is meaningful to voters - all votes count equally; votes are strong weak

not “wasted”.

Representative - the system creates legislatures that are:

1) geographically representative - there are members who are chosen at the mixed strong

local level and are ultimately accountable to the area which they represent. results

2) representative of parties - they reflect the support of voters for various strong weak

political parties.

3) demographically representative - they are reflective of the way our society strong weak

looks

Open - the system ensures a transparent, accountable, and participatory strong strong

democracy for people.

Accessible - there is ease of voting. It is not difficult to register to vote or to strong strong

cast a vote and the ballot is not confusing to voters.

Effective government - the system produces stable governments that are mixed strong

effective and able to govern. results

Accountable - the system allows voters to clearly identify who is responsible for mixed strong

decisions and hold them accountable. results

Effective Opposition - the system ensures the presence of an effective strong weak

opposition that can assess the work of the government, hold it to account, and

present an alternative to the present government.

Inclusive - the system accommodates smaller parties and minority viewpoints strong weak

and encourages parties and candidates to reach out to broad segments

of the population.

Choice - voters have a range of democratic choices in parties and candidates strong weak

at election time.

(Source - Commission on Legislative Democracy)

Background Appendix: IV

Comparison of Boundaries Legislation Across Canada

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

187

Jurisdiction Legislation When reviewed? Composition of Commission

(total number of members)

N & L Electoral Boundaries Every 10 years

Act

PEI Electoral Boundaries After every third

Act general election

NS House of Every 10 years

Assembly Act

PQ Election Act After every second

general election

ON Representation Act Uses same boundaries as those established by federal redistribution process

MN Electoral Divisions Every 10 years

Act

SK Constituency Every 10 years

Boundaries Act

AB Electoral Boundaries After every second

Commission Act general election

BC Electoral Boundaries After every second

Commission Act general election

CAN Electoral Boundaries After every decennial

Readjustment Act (10 year) census

Chief Justice of N&L appoints Chair; Speaker

of House of Assembly appoints four other members (5)

LG in C (Cabinet) appoints Chair; Speaker appoints two

other members (3)

Select Committee of House appoints Chair and

members (number varies)

Chief Electoral Officer appoints Chair; Premier appoints

two commissioners, with approval of 2/3rds of National

Assembly (3)

Members must be Chief Justice of Manitoba, President

of University of Manitoba, and Chief Electoral Officer of

Manitoba (3)

LG in C appoints Chair; two other members appointed

by LG in C on advice of leaders of opposition & other

MLAs (3)

LG in C appoints Chair*; Speaker appoints four

members - two nominated by Leader of Opposition and

two by President of Executive Council (5) *Chair must

be ethics commissioner, auditor-general, president of a

post-secondary educational institution, judge or retired

judge or someone of similar stature.

LG in C appoints a judge or retired judge, the Chief

Electoral Officer and a person who is not an MLA or

government employee and who is nominated by the

Speaker (3)

Speaker appoints a Judge as chair and two other

members (3)

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

188

Juris- Terms of Requirement for Who has Role for

diction Reference Public Hearings? final authority? politicians/parties?

+/- 10%, but can use

+/- 25% where warranted

by special geographic

considerations

Yes: at least one public

hearing in Island part of

province and one in

Labrador

Legislature

Speaker appoints members he/she

considers suitable; MNAs, MPS,

Senators ineligible

N & L

PEI

+/- 25% Yes: throughout province Legislature Leaders of parties consulted on

appointments; MLAs, MPS

ineligible

Variance not set out in

legislation

Yes: two sets, one prior to

and one following

preparation of preliminary

report

Legislature

Select Committee of House appoints

members; they must be broadly

representative of Province

PQ +/- 25% (can exceed in

certain circumstances,

must justify in writing)

Exception - Iles de la

Madeleine

Yes: within six months of

tabling preliminary

report. May hold further

hearings on proposed

amendments

Commission Appointments need approval of 2/3

rds

of MNAs; MNAs may make

representations to Commission,

which must consider them before

submitting final report

ON Uses same boundaries as those established by federal redistribution process

+/- 10% for districts

south of 53

parallel;

+/- 25% for districts

north of it

Yes: at time/places feels

necessary and suitable

Legislature No role for politicians in

appointment of members

SK +/- 5%

Two exceptions in

north

Yes: after interim report is

filed

Legislature

Leader of opposition and

recognized parties consulted on

appointments.

+/- 25% (up to 4

districts may be -50%

if meet certain criteria)

Yes: two sets: one before

report is submitted to

Speaker and one after

report is made public

Legislature

Parties represented in Legislature

consulted on appointments; MLAs

not eligible

BC +/- 25% (may be

exceeded in very

special circumstances)

Yes: may hold before

report submitted to

Speaker/Clerk, must

hold after report made

public

Legislature

Premier and Leader of Opposition

consulted on one appointment;

MLA not eligible; Commission must

give all current MLAs opportunity

to make a submission to it

CAN

+/- 25% (or more in

extraordinary

circumstances)

Yes: must hold at least

one sitting before

completing report

Commission Speaker appoints two members

he/she deems suitable; MLAs,

MPS, Senators ineligible; MPs

may make objections in H of C,

Commission must consider them

before finalizing maps

(Source - Commission on Legislative Democracy)

Background Appendix: V

Voter Participation - Ranked by Social Background

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

189

Social background Social The digital General Membership

background divide knowledge in voluntary

and general % ever used about politics associations

interests in Internet to

politics be informed

about politics

Education Less than high school 3 4 4 4

Completed high school 4 3 3 2

Some postsecondary 2 2 2 3

University graduate 1 1 1 1

Income Low income 3 3 3 3

Middle income 2 2 2 2

High income 1 1 1 1

Generational Post generation X 4 1 4 4

Generation X 3 2 3 3

Baby Boomer 2 3 2 1

Pre-baby boomer 1 4 1 2

Gender Women 2 2 2 1

Men 1 1 1 1

(Source - Commission on Legislative Democracy, adapted from Citizens, Gidengil, Blais, Nevitte, Nadeau, Canadian

Democratic Audit, 2004)

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Background Appendix: VI

Comparison of MLA Salaries Across Canada

190

*1: commuting within Whitehorse

*2: commuting from outside Whitehorse and Members of Executive Council

*3: Commuting within Yellowknife

*4: Commuting from outside Yellowknife and Members of Executive Council

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy (Data adapted from Report to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, by Earl

Backman, Commissioner for MLA Pay, Allowance and Retirement Benefits)

Jurisdiction Basic Salary MLA total Premier Premier Total Minister Minister

2003-2004 Salary Additional Salary Additional Total

Salary Salary Salary

Canada $139,200 $139,200 $139,200 $278,400 $66,816 $206,016

BC $73,800 $73,800 $45,000 $118,800 $39,000 $112,800

AB $43,152 $75,759 $67,380 $142,919 $52,956 $128,495

SK $63,540 $72,009 $57,393 $129,402 $40,176 $112,185

MB $65,535 $65,535 $46,397 $111,932 $29,001 $94,536

ON $85,240 $85,240 $67,595 $152,835 $36,057 $121,297

QC $78,886 $103,530 $82,830 $186,360 $59,165 $162,695

NB $40,565.95 $73,493.95 $54,331.23 $127,825.18 $36,221.57 $109,715.52

Rank 12/16 9/16 11/14 8/14 10/14 10/14

NS $33,256.30 $60,040.30 $55,736.69 $115,776.99 $39,708 $99,748.30

PE $33,967 $53,728 $58,871 $112,599 $41,585 $95,313

NL $46,086 $86,276 $66,587 $152,863 $48,276 $134,552

YU*1 $35,664 $58,703 $28,971 $87,674 $21,147 $79,850

YU*2 $35,664 $62,001 - - - -

NT*3 $80,140.86 $89,990.86 $60,952 $150,942.86 $42,892 $132,882.86

NT*4 $80,140.86 $95,540.86 - - - -

NU $60,800 $62,208 $63,200 $125,408 $53,200 $115,408

Background Appendix: VII

Comparison of MLA Resources Across Canada

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

191

Annual Staffing Office Furniture Tel Internet, Printing

Office Facilities & Equip. and Network, and

Allowance Cellular E-mail Mailing

$84,000

PEI

Additional Max $4000

from list of

office

supplies

Additional

✔ ✔

$51,809 +

($0.96 x E1.5) +

[2271 + $0.0757

(C - 14,000)]

✔✔ ✔ ✔✔

$1,250

postage

✔✔

$16,607 +

number of

voters on

voters list x by

the amount of 3

first class

stamps

May be

included

Also have

separate

fund that

they can use

Not included

(members

unlimited

telephone

expenses)

✔

(network

and e-

mail)

$42,554 3 house-

holders/year

✔✔

✔

$236,000

✔✔

✔

Not included

separate

budget

Not included

separate

budget

$32,800 -

$36,200

$114,199 -

$132,387

✔

✔✔

✔

$25,000

✔

✔✔

$48,600 or $4,050 per month for expenses accounted for by proper receipts and incurred on account of

services

N/A

N/A Provided to caucus offices

✔ = included

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy adapted from document received from N.B. Legislative Assembly.

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Background Appendix: VIII

Survey of New Brunswick MLAs

As part of its academic research program, the Commission on Legislative Democracy asked Dr. David C. Docherty,

Chair and associate professor for the Department of Political Science at Wilfrid Laurier University, to conduct an

independent survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs to help the Commission better understand the needs and concerns of

New Brunswick’s elected officials. In particular, Dr. Docherty’s survey examined how members of the New

Brunswick Legislature balance their constituency and legislative workloads, and the types of resources that are

provided to them.

The questionnaire was sent by Dr. Docherty in the late spring of 2004, to all members of the New Brunswick

legislature. At the time, there were 54 sitting MLAs. A follow-up reminder was mailed in July. The response rate was

fifty four percent of MLAs responding. This response rate is considered high by Dr. Docherty, compared with other

surveys he has completed.

The Commission received data from Dr. Docherty, to create the following charts. Not all answers are reflected in

these charts, as some of the questions asked where open-ended or ranked. The Commission did not receive any of

the responses in raw data form, to ensure confidentiality and anonymity of the MLAs who responded.

The final results of this analysis will be published by the Commission in the form of an article by Dr. Docherty, in our

forthcoming volume of research papers.

192

Progressive

Conservative

Liberal

Current

Cabinet Minister

Former Cabinet

Minister

Not a

Minister

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

59%

Demographic Profile

41%

Party Affiliation

30.8%

Have you spent part of your political

career as a cabinet minister?

15.4%

53.8%

41%

59%

Rural Urban Mix

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

59.3%

Riding Composition

37%

3.7%

Not at all important

Not very important

Somewhat important

Important

Improve the social

and economic

conditions in my riding

Serve in

cabinet

Serve in

shadow cabinet

Engage in

policy making

Help individuals in

my constituency

100

Why Enter Politics and Career Goals?

in per cent

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

Political Parties Legislature Both

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

0.0%

Who should provide orientation for new MLAs?

71%

29%

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

193

Not important

Important

Strong Legislative Committees

Agreement in caucus Direction from Cabinet

100

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

Thinking just of public policy formation, how important

are each of the following in terms of creating policies that

serve the best interests of New Brunswick?

in per cent

68%

32%

100%

92%

Disagree

Agree

100

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

MLAs, the Legislature & Electoral Success

in per cent

69%

31%

100%

30%

70%

A local reputation as a

hard working constituency

representative will carry

me a lot further in the next election

than being the chair of a standing

committee of the Legislature

Cross party consensus building

would be the single biggest

reform to improve the work

of the Legislature

My electoral success is more

closely tied to the popularity

of my leader and

our party

Strongly support Somewhat

support

Do not really

support

Do not support

at all

Do you support more free votes in the provincial

legislature on issues that are not matters of confidence?

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

22.2%

74.1%

3.7%

0.0%

Large increase Somewhat of an

increase

No change

Do you believe that relaxing the idea of what constitutes

confidence would lead to an increase in free votes in

the Legislature?

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

7.7%

65.4%

26.9%

Gov’t would have to

call election after 2 or 3

votes lost

Gov’t could continue to

govern but would be

much weaker

Gov’t could lose on many

bills without been seen

as weak

If there were more free votes, what would be the impact

on a government that had some of these bills defeated?

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

64%

28%

Better Worse No impact

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

56%

30%

14%

Do you believe that minority government might provide

opportunities to produce better public policy?

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

194

Increase the need Decrease the need No impact

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

60.7%

28.6%

10.7%

Would minority government increase, decrease or

have no effect on party discipline?

Ideal time

Actual time spent

Constituency work Legislative work Policy and issue

development

Party work

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

How MLAs spend their time on duties

in per cent

45%

51%

28%

20%

16%

17%

11%

12%

Percentage of riding that is an

unincorporated area

Time spent on constituency work

that should be handled

by municipal level

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

Unincorporated areas in riding

39%

61%

Daily/Weekly Quite often Not very often Occasionally Never

How often are you approached by constituents on a

matter that is outside your responsibility?

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

53.6%

32.1%

3.6%

10.7%

Try to solve problem at own office

Forward it to appropriate MP

Always Often Sometimes Never

When approached by a constituent about a matter

where responsibility rests with the federal government,

how often do you:

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

29%

19%

32%

33%

29%

48%

11%

A great deal of

effort

Some effort Not very much

effort

No effort at all

How much effort do you make to inform your

constituents about the types of activities you engage

in while you are at the capital ?

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

in per cent

25%

64%

11%

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

195

Constituency work Legislative work

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

If members of the NB Legislature were provided with a budget

to hire an additional full-time staff person, what percentage of

that person’s time would you dedicate to constituency versus

legislative work?

in per cent

84%

16%

DisagreeAgree

Source: Survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs, Dr. David Docherty , October 2004

Making the Legislature Work Better

in per cent

59%

41%

A legislature that more accurately reflects

the population in terms of gender, Aboriginals

and language can produce legislation and

policy that more closely matches the needs

of the public

30 40

50 60

70 80

When Select Committees table unanimous

reports they should, where appropriate,

take the form of legislation and be

automatically given First Reading and

scheduled for a subsequent debate

If Standing Committees could examine

legislation in detail after First Reading,

including hearing from the public,

they would have more freedom to make

meaningful changes to legislation

via amendments

Secret ballot elections for Standing and

Select Committee Chairs would make

committees more independent of both

Government and Opposition

Party Leaders

86%

14%

57%

43%

54%

46%

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

196

Background Appendix: IX

Comparison of Limits on Election Spending across Canada

* All limits adjusted for inflation

Limits on Election Spending*

$0.70 x # of names on preliminary or

revised list of electors (whichever is

greater) in electoral districts where

party has candidates.

• 2004 limit for parties running

candidates in all ridings:

$17,593,925.32

Election:

• $150,000 nationally

• not more than $3000 in a

given electoral district

Referendum:

• $5000 (for individual or

group)

• Referendum Committee

= $.30 x escalator x # of

names of preliminary list

CAN

$1.75 x # of electors - floor of

$11,000, ceiling of $22,000

N & L • $3.125 x # of names on revised list of

electors in electoral districts where

party endorses a candidate; min.

$12,000 for each electoral district

$3.125 x # of names on revised list

of electors; minimum $12,000

$0.40 x # of electors in electoral

districts where party endorses official

candidate

Aggregate of:

• $1.00 x first 5,000 electors

• $0.85 x next 5,000 electors

• $0.75 x number of remaining electors

PEI

Limits for parties

Limits for each candidate

Limits for third parties

Aggregate of

• $2.07 x first 15,000 electors on

preliminary or revised list of

electors (whichever is greater)

• $1.04 x next 10,000 electors

• $0.52 x number of remaining electors

• $1.00 x # of electors in electoral

districts where party has a

candidate

• 2003 limit: $843,258

$6.00 x # of electors entitled to vote in

electoral districts where party

endorses official candidate

$1.75 x # of electors entitled to vote

$0.60 x # of electors in electoral

divisions where party endorses an

official candidate

Must not exceed $1.00 per elector

$0.60 x indexation factor x number of

electors in electoral districts where

party endorses official candidate

$0.96 x indexation factor x number of

electors

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

197

Limits on Election Spending*

$1.40 x # of names on final voters list

in electoral divisions where party

endorses a candidate

Northern constituencies: the greater

of $52,108 or $5.21 x # of names on

voters list.

Southern constituencies: the greater

of $39,082 or $2.60 x # names on

voters list.

$1.25 x # of registered voters in

electoral districts where party

endorses a candidate

• Where 25,000 or fewer registered

voters: $50,000

• Where more than 25,000 registered

voters: $50,000 and $0.50 for every

registered voter in excess of

25,000

• Where fewer than 2 registered

voters/sq. km, add $0.30 x # of sq. km

in electoral district; maximum

increase of 25% of electoral district

limit as determined by # of

registered voters

Limits for parties

Limits for each candidate

Limits for third parties

Electoral divisions with

• > than 30,000 sq miles:

$2.20 x # names

on final voters list

• < than 30,000 sq miles :

$3.50 x # names on final voters list

• $651,355 (adjusted)

No limits

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy, based on 2003 Elections Canada Compendium on Election

Administration in Canada

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

198

Background Appendix: X

Comparison of Disclosure of Contribution Requirements Across Canada

Disclosure Requirements for Contributions

CAN

N & L

Name, address of donor and amount for contributions over $100

Name, address of donor and amount for contributions over $50

PEI

• Name, address of donor and amount for contributions over $200 for election campaigns and

leadership contests

• Nomination contests - $1,000 or more

Name, address of donor and amount for:

• All contributions from individuals over $100

• All contributions from corporations and trade unions

Name, address of donor and amount for contributions over $250

Name, address of donor and amount for contributions over $200

Contributions over $100 for election campaigns and leadership contests

Name, address of donor and amount for contributions of $250 or more for election campaigns and

leadership contests

Name of donor and amount for contributions over $250

Name, address of donor and amount required for contributions over $375

Name of donor and amount for contributions over $250 (applies to leaderships)

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy, based on 2003 Elections Canada Compendium on Election

Administration in Canada

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

199

Background Appendix: XI

Comparison of Limits on Contributions Across Canada

Limits on Contributions

CAN

N & L

PEI

Source To who/what? Apply to

Leaderships?

Max. Apply to

Nominations?

Individuals $5,000/yr

• Parties

• candidates

• nomination contestants

yes yes

$5,000/election • independent candidates

$5,000/contest

• leadership contestants

Corps./Unions

$1,000/yr

• Candidates

• Nomination contestants

• riding associations

$1,000/election

• Individuals

• Corps

• Unions

$6,000/yr • Parties

• riding associations

• independent candidates

no no

No Limits on Contributions

• Electors

(no corps,

unions,

interest

groups

$3,000/yr

• Each party, independent candidate

• independent candidates

no no

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

200

Limits on Contributions

Source To who/what? Apply to

Leaderships?

Max. Apply to

Nominations?

$7,500/yr

• Each party

no no

$1,000/yr • Each riding association

$1,000/

campaign

• Each candidate

$5,000 total/

campaign

• Candidates endorsed by one party

• Individuals $3,000/yr • Candidates

• Riding associations

• Political parties

yes

(separate

$3,000 limit)

No Limits on Contributions

$15,000/yr

$750/yr

$3,750/yr

$30,000/

campaign

$1,500/

campaign

$7,500/

campaign

• A party

• Riding association

• Riding association of each party

• A party

• A candidate

• Candidates of each party

• Individuals

• Corps

• Unions

• Individuals

• Corps

• Unions

No Limits on Contributions

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy, based on 2003 Elections Canada Compendium on Election

Administration in Canada

no no

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Background Appendix: XII

Comparison of Referendum Legislation Across Jurisdictions

201

CAN

PEI

Referendum Act

Governor in

Council

Constitutional

matters only

N/A

Plebiscites Act

Referendum Act

On a question

approved or

Bill adopted

by National

Assembly

N/A

Referendum &

Plebiscites Act

Yes, if

referendum

occurs

during an

election

Jurisdiction

Name of Act Who may

initiate

referendum?

Issue

Binding? Majority

Required for

Passage

Spending

Limits?

Yes

Lieutenant

Governor in

Council

Matter of

public

concern

N/A

Government

of Québec

Yes

• L-G in C

(referendum)

• L-G in C,

Legislative

Assembly or

as a result of

citizens

petition.

(plebiscite)

• Matter of

public

concern.

• Any matter if

petition is

signed by 15%

of electors.

Referendum

Yes - if receive

more than 60%

of valid ballots

& at least 50%

of voters vote.

More than 60%

of valid ballots

cast by at least

50% of eligible

voters.

Constitutional

Referendum Act

L-G in C

Relating to

Constitution

Yes with more

than 50% of

the votes

50% + 1

Referendum Act

L-G in C

A matter of

public interest

Yes with more

than 50% of

votes

50% + 1

Recall and

Initiative Act

Citizens may

initiate an

“initiative”

Introduction of

a new law or

amendments to

an existing law

Yes with more

than 50% of the

votes in 2/3rd

of all electoral

districts

50% + 1 in 2/3

rds

of all electoral

districts of BC

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

202

Australia

Referendum

Machinery

Provisions Act

(1984)

New

Zealand

Government

Constitutional

matter

Any other

issue

Yes

Any alteration to

Constitution must

be approved by a

‘double majority’ : a

national majority of

electors; and a

majority of electors

in a majority of the

States (ie. at least

four of the six).

Citizens

Initiated

Referenda Act

(1993)

Yes

Jurisdiction

Name of Act Who may

initiate

referendum?

Issue

Binding? Majority

Required for

Passage

Spending

Limits?

Citizens

Any issue

except the

election of a

Member of

Parliament, the

way a

referendum

was held or an

issue on which

a similar

question has

already been

asked within a

five year

period.

N/A

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

203

Background Appendix: XIII

Other NB Electoral and Democratic Statistics

All charts and tables in this report were created or adapted by the Commission on Legislative Democracy

from data as sourced.

Plurality

Proportional

Representation

Electoral System Families

SMP

(approx. 70

countries)

Ex’s: Canada, US,

UK, India

MMP

Ex’s: New Zealand,

Germany, Scotland,

Wales

List PR

(over 60

countries)

Ex’s: Belgium,

Sweden

STV

Ireland,

Australia

(Upper House),

Malta

Number of electors per riding, 2003 Election

8158

9349

9219

10539

10234

9864

9517

9889

7979

9990

9050

10219

10190

8505

8003

8146

12378

12839

7602

16718

13777

11847

12545

14260

9080

11897

8871

9882

11188

12597

9240

10965

10003

9768

10489

10524

8453

7929

4057

9167

11791

9340

14096

10917

13744

11923

10601

10971

10906

10258

8315

9127

8298

8796

9070

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

10238

Restigouche West

Campbellton

Dalhousie-Restigouche-East

Nigadoo Chaleur

Bathurst

Nepisiguit

Caraquet

Lamèque-Shippagan-Miscou

Centre-péninsule

Tracadie-Sheila

Miramichi Bay

Miramichi-Bay du Vin

Miramichi Centre

Southwest Miramichi

Rogersville-Kouchibouguac

Kent

Kent South

Shediac-Cap-Pelé

Tantramar

Dieppe-Memramcook

Moncton East

Moncton South

Moncton North

Moncton Crescent

Petitcodiac

Riverview

Albert

Kings East

Hampton-Belleisle

Kennebecasis

Saint John Fundy

Saint John Kings

Saint John Champlain

Saint John Harbour

Saint John Portland

Saint John Lancaster

Grand Bay-Westfield

Charlotte

Fundy Isles

Western Charlotte

Oromocto-Gagetown

Grand Lake

Fredericton North

Fredericton Fort Nashwaak

Fredericton South

New Maryland

York

Mactaquac

Woodstock

Carleton

Victoria-Tobique

Grand Falls

Madawaska-la-Vallée

Edmundston

Madawaska-les-Lacs

Average

Number of electors per rural riding,

2003 Election

8158

9219

10539

9864

9517

9889

7979

9990

9050

10219

8505

8003

8146

12378

12839

7602

9080

11897

8871

9882

11188

12597

8453

7929

4057

9167

11791

9340

11923

10601

10971

10906

10258

8315

9127

8298

9070

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

10238

Restigouche West

Dalhousie-Restigouche-East

Nigadoo Chaleur

Nepisiguit

Caraquet

Lamèque-Shippagan-Miscou

Centre-péninsule

Tracadie-Sheila

Miramichi Bay

Miramichi-Bay du Vin

Southwest Miramichi

Rogersville-Kouchibouguac

Kent

Kent South

Shediac-Cap-Pelé

Tantramar

Petitcodiac

Riverview

Albert

Kings East

Hampton-Belleisle

Kennebecasis

Grand Bay-Westfield

Charlotte

Fundy Isles

Western Charlotte

Oromocto-Gagetown

Grand Lake

New Maryland

York

Mactaquac

Woodstock

Carleton

Victoria-Tobique

Grand Falls

Madawaska-la-Vallée

Madawaska-les-Lacs

Average

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

204

Number of electors per urban riding,

2003 Election

9349

10234

10190

16718

13777

11847

12545

14260

9240

10965

10003

9768

10489

10524

14096

10917

13744

8796

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

10238

Campbellton

Bathurst

Miramichi Centre

Dieppe-Memramcook

Moncton East

Moncton South

Moncton North

Moncton Crescent

Saint John Fundy

Saint John Kings

Saint John Champlain

Saint John Harbour

Saint John Portland

Saint John Lancaster

Fredericton North

Fredericton Fort Nashwaak

Fredericton South

Edmundston

Average

in per cent

Participation rate by riding, 2003 Election

84.91%

78.79%

74.79%

67.5%

82.05%

82.73%

83.46%

83.24%

78.41%

77.77%

77.79%

84.43%

80.54%

78.99%

77.19%

66.34%

63.1%

67.76%

69.98%

68.87%

59.8%

60.95%

71.23%

63.49%

66.61%

59.37%

76.05%

68.64%

72.73%

67.83%

67.05%

67.66%

71.1%

78.94%

73.57%

73.94%

62.3%

58.19%

62.73%

62.7%

67.8%

57.25%

54.15%

59.81%

61.5%

58.04%

57.36%

55.96%

58.47%

71.01%

74.81%

68.02%

76.01%

45.94%

68.27%

63.82%

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

Restigouche West

Campbellton

Dalhousie-Restigouche-East

Nigadoo Chaleur

Bathurst

Nepisiguit

Caraquet

Lamèque-Shippagan-Miscou

Centre-péninsule

Tracadie-Sheila

Miramichi Bay

Miramichi-Bay du Vin

Miramichi Centre

Southwest Miramichi

Rogersville-Kouchibouguac

Kent

Kent South

Shediac-Cap-Pelé

Tantramar

Dieppe-Memramcook

Moncton East

Moncton South

Moncton North

Moncton Crescent

Petitcodiac

Riverview

Albert

Kings East

Hampton-Belleisle

Kennebecasis

Saint John Fundy

Saint John Kings

Saint John Champlain

Saint John Harbour

Saint John Portland

Saint John Lancaster

Grand Bay-Westfield

Charlotte

Fundy Isles

Western Charlotte

Oromocto-Gagetown

Grand Lake

Fredericton North

Fredericton Fort Nashwaak

Fredericton South

New Maryland

York

Mactaquac

Woodstock

Carleton

Victoria-Tobique

Grand Falls

Madawaska-la-Vallée

Edmundston

Madawaska-les-Lacs

Average

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

in per cent

Participation rate by rural riding

2003 Election

84.91%

78.79%

74.79%

67.5%

82.05%

82.73%

83.46%

83.24%

78.41%

77.77%

77.79%

84.43%

80.54%

78.99%

77.19%

66.34%

63.49%

63.1%

67.76%

69.98%

68.87%

59.8%

60.95%

71.23%

63.82%

66.61%

59.37%

76.05%

68.64%

72.73%

67.83%

67.05%

67.66%

71.1%

78.94%

73.57%

73.94%

72.74%

Restigouche West

Dalhousie-Restigouche-East

Nigadoo Chaleur

Nepisiguit

Caraquet

Lamèque-Shippagan-Miscou

Centre-péninsule

Tracadie-Sheila

Miramichi Bay

Miramichi-Bay du Vin

Southwest Miramichi

Rogersville-Kouchibouguac

Kent

Kent South

Shediac-Cap-Pelé

Tantramar

Petitcodiac

Riverview

Albert

Kings East

Hampton-Belleisle

Kennebecasis

Grand Bay-Westfield

Charlotte

Fundy Isles

Western Charlotte

Oromocto-Gagetown

Grand Lake

New Maryland

York

Mactaquac

Woodstock

Carleton

Victoria-Tobique

Grand Falls

Madawaska-la-Vallée

Madawaska-les-Lacs

Average

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

205

in per cent

Participation rate by urban riding

2003 Election

62.12%

68.27%

58.19%

62.73%

62.7%

67.8%

57.25%

45.94%

54.15%

59.81%

61.5%

58.04%

57.36%

55.96%

58.47%

71.01%

74.81%

68.02%

76.10%

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

Campbellton

Bathurst

Miramichi Centre

Dieppe-Memramcook

Moncton East

Moncton South

Moncton North

Moncton Crescent

Saint John Fundy

Saint John Kings

Saint John Champlain

Saint John Harbour

Saint John Portland

Saint John Lancaster

Fredericton North

Fredericton Fort Nashwaak

Fredericton South

Edmundston

Average

67.8%

57.25%

45.94%

54.15%

59.81%

61.5%

in per cent

Participation rate by rural riding with predomi-

nantly Anglophone population, 2003 Election

77.77%

77.79%

66.34%

63.49%

67.76%

69.98%

68.87%

59.8%

71.23%

63.82%

66.61%

59.37%

76.05%

68.64%

67.83%

67.05%

67.66%

71.1%

64.65%

72.73%

58.19%

62.73%

62.7%

74.81%

58.04%

57.36%

55.96%

58.47%

63.1%

60.95%

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

Miramichi-Bay du Vin

Miramichi Centre

Southwest Miramichi

Tantramar

Moncton East

Moncton South

Moncton North

Moncton Crescent

Petitcodiac

Riverview

Albert

Kings East

Hampton-Belleisle

Kennebecasis

Saint John Fundy

Saint John Kings

Saint John Champlain

Saint John Harbour

Saint John Portland

Saint John Lancaster

Grand Bay-Westfield

Charlotte

Fundy Isles

Western Charlotte

Oromocto-Gagetown

Grand Lake

Fredericton North

Fredericton Fort Nashwaak

Fredericton South

New Maryland

York

Mactaquac

Woodstock

Carleton

Victoria-Tobique

Average

in per cent

Participation rate with predominantly

Francophone population by riding, 2003 Election

77.34%

73.94%

68.27%

73.57%

78.94%

71.01%

77.19%

78.99%

80.54%

84.43%

78.41%

83.24%

83.46%

82.73%

82.05%

67.5%

68.02%

76.1%

84.91%

78.79%

74.79%

Source: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

Restigouche West

Campbellton

Dalhousie-Restigouche-East

Nigadoo Chaleur

Bathurst

Nepisiguit

Caraquet

Lamèque-Shippagan-Miscou

Centre-péninsule

Tracadie-Sheila

Miramichi Bay

Rogersville-Kouchibouguac

Kent

Kent South

Shediac-Cap-Pelé

Dieppe-Memramcook

Grand Falls

Madawaska-la-Vallée

Edmundston

Madawaska-les-Lacs

Average

Women

Men

Progressive Conservative Liberal New Democratic Party

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

Gender of candidates by party - 2003 Election

N=55

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

206

1970* 1974 1978 1982 1987* 1991 1995 1999* 2003

59%

64%

88%

45%

76%

62%

47%

56%

80%

Source: Commission on Legislative Democracy

*Election in which new party formed government

in per cent

MLAs with 50% of the vote or more in their riding

Net Increase

Natural Increase

1983 1993 2003

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Source: Statistics Canada

Declining population growth and inmigration

5,264

9,212

3,531

2,877

715 738

English French Aboriginal Other Multiple

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

Source: Statistics Canada

Population by mother tongue for New Brunswick, 2003

Profile for New Brunswick by number of people

465,170

236,665

3,010

8,920

5,945

English French Aboriginal Other Multiple

Source: Statistics Canada

Population by mother tongue for New Brunswick, 2003

Profile for New Brunswick by percentages

64.63%

32.88%

0.42%

1.24%

0.83%

Somewhat or very weak

Somewhat Strong

Very Strong

Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C.

Source: Statistics Canada, General Social Survey, 2003

Sense of belonging across Canada, by province

How Canadians describe their sense of

belonging to their province, by province, 2003

Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C.

Source: Statistics Canada, General Social Survey, 2003

Strong Local Feeling in New Brunswick

How Canadians describe their sense of

belonging to their local community, by province, 2003

Somewhat or very weak

Somewhat Strong

Very Strong

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

207

Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C.

Source: Statistics Canada, General Social Survey, 2003

in per cent, 2003

Individuals aged 25-54 who are involved in at

least one organization, by province

62.2%

61.2%

60.1%

59.2%

53%

61.9%

64.6%

69.1%

64.5%

66.9%

Live in

urban areas

Live in rural areas

and work in urban areas

Live in rural areas

and work in rural areas

Source: Department of the Environment and Local Government

Urban Influence in New Brunswick

52%

21%

27%

French School Districts

01 Dieppe

11 Richibouctou

09 Tracadie-Sheila

05 Cambellton

03 Grand-Sault

English School Districts

15 Dalhousie

16 Miramichi

14 Woodstock

18 Fredericton

10 St. Stephen

Oromocto

08 Saint John

06 Rothesay

02 Moncton

Regional Health Authorities

1se

Edmundston

Restigouche

Acadie-Bathurst

Miramichi

River Valley

Atlantic

Health

Beauséjour

South-East

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

208

Background Appendix: XIV

Meetings Held

Over the course of its mandate, staff and Commissioners held over 85 meetings with groups, associations, experts,

and governments - in New Brunswick and across Canada - to provide information on the Commission, seek

participation, obtain research, and listen to views and opinion.

A summary list of meetings held or attended by the Commission is set out below:

Governments

Canada

• Hon. Mauril Bélanger, PC, MP, Minister Responsible for Democratic Reform

• Andrew Davies, Departmental Assistant to Minister Responsible for Democratic Reform

• Hon. Jacques Saada, PC, MP, Minister Responsible for Democratic Reform

• Stephen Zaluski and Stéphane Perrault, Privy Council Office

• Hugh Finsten, Library of Parliament

• Carmin Bédard, Director of Executive Resourcing, Public Service Commission of Canada

Quebec

• André Fortier, Associate Secretary, Secretariat for the Reform of Democratic Institutions, and staff

PEI

• Hon. Norman Carruthers, Commissioner, Commission on Electoral Reform

Ontario

• Matthew Mendelsohn, Deputy Minister, Secretariat for Democratic Renewal

• Julia Hanigsberg, Executive Assistant to Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal

BC Citizens Assembly

• Dr. Ken Carty, Director of Research

• Jack Blaney, Chair

• Gordon Gibson

• Marilyn Jacobson and Don MacLachlan, responsible for communications

City of Vancouver

• Hon. Thomas Berger, Commissioner on Electoral Reform

• Syd Baxter, Clerk

National Groups, Associations, and Policy Institutes

• Hugh Segal, President, Institute for Research on Public Policy

• Nathalie Des Rosiers, past President, Law Commission of Canada

• Don Lenihan, KTA Centre for Collaborative Government and Chair of Crossing Boundaries

• Rebecca Low, Gina Bishop, Denis Gaudet, Andrew Parkin, Centre for Research and Information on Canada,

Canadian Unity Council

• David Moynaugh, Michael Eastman, Canadian Council of Auditors Foundation

• Peter Dobell, Canadian Parliamentary Centre

• Judith Maxwell, Canadian Policy Research Networks

• Forum Jeunesse pan-canadien

• Student Vote Canada

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

209

Provincial Groups and Associations

• Dr. Mary-Lou Stirling, Rosella Melanson, Wendy Johnston, and members of Advisory Council on the Status of

Women

• Ryan Sullivan, Ivan Corbett, Nathalie Cormier, Eric Matchett, Miguel LeBlanc, and members of the NB

Advisory Council on Youth

• Sister Anne Robichaud and members of NB Advisory Council on Seniors

• Rick Hutchins, Policylink NB

• Brian Baum and Executive, NB Teachers Association

• Gilberte Michaud, Nicole Dupéré and Executive, Association des Enseignants et enseignantes francophones du N.-B.

• Lorne Mitton, Cities Association of New Brunswick

• Tom Mann, NB Public Employees Association

• Bruce Noble, President, and members of Executive, Law Society of New Brunswick

• Board of Directors, Dialogue NB

• Willie Lirrette, Roger Doiron and Board of Directors, Association francophone et acadienne des aînés et

aînées du N.-B.

• Association des juristes d’expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick

• Association des jeunes francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick

• Université de troisième âge du Nord-Ouest, chapitre de Grand-Sault, de Saint Quentin et d’Edmundston

• Dames D’Acadie, Moncton Chapter

• Rothesay Town Council

• Saint John Board of Trade

• Daniel Thériault, Jean-Guy Rioux, Société des acadiens et acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick

• Ghislaine Foulem, Forum de concertation des organismes acadiens

• President’s Council, PC Party of New Brunswick

Officers of the Legislative Assembly

• Hon. Bev Harrison, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

• Loredena Catalli Sonier, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

• Annise Hollies, Chief Electoral Officer

• Darryl Wilson, Auditor General

• Paul Bourque, Supervisor of Political Financing

• Michel Carrier, Commissioner for Official Languages

• Bernard Richard, Ombudsman

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

210

Elected Officials

• Premier Bernard Lord

• PC Caucus:

• Jody Carr, MLA

• Trevor Holder, MLA

• Hon. Bruce Fitch

• Hon. Keith Ashfield

• Hon. Brad Green

• Michael (Tanker) Malley

• John Betts

• Wally Stiles

• Cy LeBlanc

• Hon. Joan MacAlpine

• Milt Sherwood

• Liberal Caucus:

• Kelly Lamrock

• Eric Allaby

• Mike Murphy

• Shawn Graham, Leader of the Official Opposition

• Elizabeth Weir, Leader of the New Democratic Party

• Hon. Andy Scott, PC, MP

• Ian McClelland, MLA, Alberta

• Geoffrey Kelley, MNA, Quebec

• Caroline Di Cocco, MPP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Ontario

Universities and Academics

• Dr. John McLaughlin, President, UNB

• Dr. Dan O’Brien, President, St. Thomas University

• M. Yvon Fontaine, Recteur, Université de Moncton

• Lisa Hrabluk, Next NB/Avenir NB, UNB

• Dr. Keith Culver, UNB

• Fédération des étudiants et étudiantes du centre universitaire de Moncton

• Anne LaForest, Dean of UNB Faculty of Law

• Professors Richard Sigurdson, Gary Allen and Dr. Paul Howe, UNB Department of Political Science

International Representatives

• Karsten Voigt, former Deputy, German Bundestag

• Sabine Sparwasser, Counselor, German Embassy, Ottawa

• Andrew Staunton, UK High Commission

• Hon. Graham Kelly, High Commissioner for New Zealand

• Barbara Davis & Darryl Wight, Australia Electoral Commission

Province of New Brunswick

• Hon. Herménégilde Chiasson, Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick

• Tim Richardson, Chief of Staff to the Lieutenant-Governor

• Kevin Malone, Clerk of the Executive Council and Secretary to Cabinet

• Jean-Guy Finn, former Clerk of the Executive Council and Secretary to Cabinet

• Department of Justice

• Clerk’s Office, Legislative Assembly

• Department of Education

• Service New Brunswick

• Environment & Local Government

• (Retired) Justice William Creaghan, Co-Chair of NB Representation and Electoral Boundaries Commission

1991-1993.

• Department of Intergovernmental and International Relations

• Community Access Centres

Media Outlets

• Radio-Canada

•CBC

• Rogers Cable

• Acadie-Nouvelle

• Daily Gleaner

• Telegraph Journal

• Times & Transcript

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

211

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Background Appendix: XV

Partnerships

As part of its mandate to “seek the views of New Brunswickers”, the Commission created partnerships with several

important provincial and national organizations. This allowed the Commission to tap into established expertise and

networks of these organizations to assist us with our policy development and consultation processes. Most

importantly, it helped ensure that the perspective of youth, women, students, and others were brought forward

during our consultation process. It also allowed the Commission to operate more cost-effectively by co-hosting

special forums and conferences with our partners.

Key partnerships included:

New Brunswick Advisory Council on Youth

The New Brunswick Advisory Council on Youth and the Commission announced a formal partnership on January 9,

2004 to share resources and information on the subject of youth and democracy. A provincial youth forum was co-

organized by the Commission and the Council on May 1st and 2nd in Fredericton, to hear from approximately 50

youth from across New Brunswick on possible ways to increase youth participation in our democratic society. Dr.

Patrick Malcomson and Dr. Rick Myers of St. Thomas University spoke to the participants on the issues under

discussion, and Paul Kemp of the Underground Royal Commission made a presentation. The New Brunswick

Advisory Council on Youth prepared a submission for the Commission to express the views heard from a series of

regional forums held in the month of March. A link to the Commission’s website was placed on their site.

New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women

The Commission on Legislative Democracy and the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women

entered into a formal partnership to share research and information on the subject of women and democracy. The

Council developed a handout on key issues of women and legislative democracy and organized a series of

regional meetings to discuss this handout. The Commission and the Council co-organized a provincial forum on

September 25th, in Moncton, to hear from over 65 people on ways to increase women participation in politics. The

Council prepared two briefs for the Commission on ways to increase the participation of women and other parts of

the mandate of the Commission. A link to the Commission’s website was placed on their site.

Centre for Research and Information on Canada/Canadian Unity Council

The Centre for Research and Information on Canada (CRIC), the research arm of the Canadian Unity Council, was

a funding partner for the Roundtable on MLAs and the Legislature held in Fredericton at the legislature on March

25, 2004. Staff from CRIC participated as expert speakers at several of our events. CRIC provided useful research

information from its own surveys for consideration by the Commission and conducted original focus group research

with young New Brunswick leaders in April, 2004, for use by the Commission. They also placed a link to the

Commission’s website on their site.

Forum de concertation des organismes acadiens

The Commission on Legislative Democracy and the Forum de concertation des organismes acadiens organized a

forum on June 12th in Miramichi to hear the views of Acadian and francophone groups on the implications of the

Commission’s mandate on the francophone population of New Brunswick. Specific issues discussed included

electoral reform and proportional representation, democratic reform and referendums, and legislative reform and

the role of MLAs. Over 25 people representing 19 different groups and associations participated. The columnist

Rino Morin Rossignol and former MLA and Minister, Aldéa Landry, were guest speakers.

212

Next NB/Avenir N-B/UNB

Next NB co-sponsored the student forum on youth and democracy entitled Your Generation. Your Voice, held at

UNB on September 17, 2004. Lisa Hrabluk, co-ordinator of Next NB, moderated the event. Over 30 students

participated in this event. A link to the Commission’s website was placed on their site.

Centre for Canadian Studies, Mount Allison University

The Centre was a financial and logistics partner in hosting our first Academic Research Conference at Mount Allison

University in Sackville on February 5-6, 2004. All elements of the Commission’s mandate were discussed in

presentations and roundtable discussion with over 20 academics and experts.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

213

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Background Appendix: XVI

Academic Research Program

The Commission’s work was supported by an ambitious and high quality academic research program. To ensure

that we had access to the information necessary to do our work, we engaged a team of leading researchers from

across our province and country to conduct both new and synthetic research on the principal areas of our mandate.

The research project was coordinated under the leadership of Dr. William Cross of Mount Allison University. It

included contributions from many leading students of Canadian democracy, including: Dr. Chedly Belkhodja,

Université de Moncton; Dr. André Blais, Université de Montréal; Dr. Gail Campbell, University of New Brunswick at

Fredericton; Dr. R. Kenneth Carty, University of British Columbia; Dr. John Courtney, University of Saskatchewan; Dr.

Donald Desserud, University of New Brunswick at Saint John; Dr. David Docherty, Wilfrid Laurier University; Dr.

Munroe Eagles, State University of New York at Buffalo; Dr. Joanna Everitt, University of New Brunswick at Saint

John; Dr. Paul Howe, University of New Brunswick at Fredericton; Dr. Stewart Hyson, University of New Brunswick

at Saint John; Mr. Peter Loewen, Université de Montreal; Dr. Roger Ouellette, Université de Moncton; Dr. Andrew

Parkin, Centre for Research and Information on Canada; Dr. Sonia Pitre, University of Ottawa; Mr. Maxime Ricard,

Université de Montréal; Dr. Leslie Seidle, Institute for Research and Public Policy; Dr. Alan Siaroff, University of

Lethbridge; and Dr. Lisa Young, University of Calgary.

The research program involved several distinct components. In February, the Commission met for two days with a

group of more than a dozen leading academics on the Mount Allison University campus in Sackville. The purpose

of this conference was to enrich the Commission’s learning phase by providing an opportunity for these academics

to brief the Commissioners on the state of knowledge on all areas of the mandate, and to allow for wide ranging

discussion on these subjects. This conference was followed by a series of one-day roundtables on individual areas

of the mandate that brought together academics, practitioners, and interested New Brunswickers to discuss these

issues with the Commissioners. These included sessions on electoral boundary drawing, reform of the Legislature,

proportional representation, francophone and Acadian issues, and civic engagement. In September, a further one-

day conference was held on the campus of the Université de Moncton at which a series of 13 commissioned

research papers were presented to the Commission.

The commissioned research papers will be published in a forthcoming, peer-reviewed book. This publication will

make a lasting contribution to the work of electoral, democratic and legislative reform in New Brunswick and across

the country. A very brief summary of the contributions to this forthcoming volume are found below:

• William Cross, an overview of the history and issues affecting democratic reform in Canada.

• Gail Campbell, an historical overview of previous efforts at democratic and electoral reform in New Brunswick.

• Chedly Belkhodja, an examination of both the principal issues concerning the use of referendums and New

Brunswick’s prior experience with referendums.

• André Blais and Peter Loewen, an examination of the relationship between voters’ democratic satisfaction and

their electoral system.

• William Cross and Lisa Young, an analysis of party candidate nomination processes in New Brunswick and

international experiences with candidate nomination under different electoral systems.

• Don Desserud, consideration of the pros and cons of fixed election dates and how such a regime might be

implemented in New Brunswick.

• André Blais, Peter Loewen and Maxime Ricard, a comparison of government life-cycles and durations in

countries using different electoral systems.

• David Docherty, an analysis of the role of the MLA in New Brunswick and consideration of how electoral reform

might impact on this. This research is based on a comprehensive mail-back survey of New Brunswick’s MLAs.

• Munroe Eagles, an exploration of both the procedural and the substantive aspects of electoral boundary

drawing, with consideration of best practices across Canada and New Brunswick’s prior experiences.

• Joanna Everitt and Sonia Pitre, consideration of the status of women in New Brunswick politics and the

comparative impact of different electoral systems on women’s political participation.

214

• Paul Howe, an assessment of voter participation patterns in New Brunswick and Canada with an emphasis on

the issue of declining youth participation.

• Roger Ouellette, a focused consideration on the specific implications of electoral and democratic reform for

New Brunswick’s Acadian community.

• Alan Siaroff, a wide-ranging analysis of the effects of different electoral systems on party systems and pattern of

government formation in the advanced industrial democracies.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

215

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Background Appendix: XVII

Website and E-Consultation Program

Websites today are an essential consultation and information tool. They provide information to people and receive

input directly from interested citizens. Increasingly, people utilize websites to learn about issues, find out what’s

going on, and engage in direct contact with their government.

The Commission was determined to establish an open, transparent consultative process from the beginning. A

comprehensive and interactive website was key to this objective. As this had never been fully developed by any

provincial government organization, no template existed for what we were attempting to do. This meant breaking

new ground in creating and maintaining an interesting, informative, and accessible website for users. We had to be

innovative and timely given our resources, translation requirements, and deadlines.

We established certain guidelines for ourselves.

First, be open. All meeting agendas and over 30 different staff and research presentations for Commissioners

were put on the website as soon as possible before and after each meeting. Citizens and groups could follow our

deliberations along with us.

Second, provide information. A comprehensive range of learning materials and information for New

Brunswickers were put on the website so citizens could study and learn the issues just as we did. One click on

“Learning Corner” opened a wide range of information portals for visitors. Eleven different fact sheets were

produced. An “A-Z” glossary of electoral definitions was produced. Over 25 articles and readings links on the most

up-to-date research and literature were made available. Links to other governments and research institutes were set

up.

Third, engage New Brunswickers. A dynamic interactive website component was added to give people the

chance to give us direct, anonymous input on the issues. This included two major questionnaires - one in the spring

and the second in the fall. Our Citizen’s Participation Guide contained a comprehensive 50-question survey entitled

Your Turn. It ran from April to September. Our Options progress report contained a 19-question survey. It ran from

September to November. Our interactive website also contained easy-access “Quick Quiz” and “Speak Up”

features where visitors could answer a new question every few weeks directly online, or send us an e-mail with

specific comments on different issues. An e-democracy “town hall” - based on New Brunswick-developed technology

through xwave, CGI, and Service New Brunswick - was even tried, although with only limited success.

Fourth, provide feedback. We provided summaries of what we heard from New Brunswickers back to New

Brunswickers themselves. A synopsis of each public meeting and community leaders roundtable, as well as major

forums, conferences, and roundtables was written, translated, and posted on the website for all to see and read.

The Response

Visitors to our website responded. As our work progressed through the past year, we got more and more visitors to

our website. We were in the top half of the most popular provincial government websites with close to 200,000 hits

from January 2004 through to November, 2004. We had more hits than departments like Agriculture, Fisheries

and Aquaculture, Training and Employment Development and the New Brunswick Youth Council, but fewer than the

larger well established departments such as Education, Health & Wellness and Justice.

We had close to 15,000 downloads of our consultation documents - Your Voice. Your Vote. Your Turn! and Options.

Citizens liked the interactive opportunities on our website. Close to 750 New Brunswickers responded to our two

major questionnaires. We had over 1,600 responses to eleven different “Quick Quiz” questions. We received

numerous direct e-mail comments from New Brunswickers.

All of this became part of the input considered by the Commission.

216

Background Appendix: XVIII

Submissions

The Commission received submissions from a wide variety of organizations, groups, and individuals. As expected,

the Commission was offered a wide range of views and suggestions on democratic renewal in New Brunswick.

Each was helpful as we considered the views of New Brunswickers on steps we should take to strengthen and

modernize our democratic institutions and practices.

The following kindly offered submissions to the Commission:

• NB Advisory Council on the Status of Women

• New Brunswick Youth Council

• Eric Allaby, MLA

• Association acadienne et francophone des aînés et aînées du N.-B.

• Association des enseignants et enseignantes francophones du N.-B.

• Association des juristes d’expression française du N.-B.

• Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick

• Lorraine Bourque, Jean Cadieux, Corinne Galant, Simone LeBlanc Rainville, Arsène Richard et Muriel Roy

• Albert Caune

• Comité pour l’actualisation de la démocratie au N.-B.

• Dr. Thomas J. Condon

• Convention 2004 de la Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du N.-B.

• Dr. Keith Culver

• District Education Council 18

• Ralph Eldridge

• Keith Estay

• Sylvia Fabiani

• Fédération des étudiants et étudiantes du centre universitaire de Moncton

• Fredericton High School, Political Science 120 Class

• Wendell Fulton

• Richard Gagnon

• Donatien Gaudet

• Jean Gaudet

• R.M. Giza

• Harold Goldsworthy

• Hendrik Groll

• Dr. Barry Jones

• Ian Keddy

• Nick Loenen

• Armando Luis

• Edouard Maltais

• Philip Mavor

• Jack MacDougall

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

217

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

218

• Rev. Dr. Mark G. McKim

• Oromocto High School, Political Science 120 Class

• Chris Paul

• R. N. Peters

• Nathan D. Phillips

• Raymond Richard

• Réseau des femmes francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick

• Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du N.-B.

• Sue Rickards

• Lucien Saumur

• C. A. Short

• Anne Soucy

• Robert W. Stewart

• Georgina Wallace

Background Appendix: XIX

Glossary

The following Glossary has been developed to assist you in following the Commission’s mission, mandate and terms

of reference. It is based on definitions found in dictionaries and other glossaries.

“A”

“B”

“C”

Closed List: A type of ballot found in a List Proportional Representation (PR) electoral system, in which voters can

only vote for a political party and its list of candidates. Voters cannot express a preference for any candidate within

a party list. (Opposite of an open list)

Coalition: An alliance of two (or more) political parties, usually with the goal of forming a government.

Compensatory Seats: The list proportional representation seats in a Mixed Member Proportional electoral

system that are awarded to political parties on the basis of their vote share to help correct disproportionality in

electoral district seat results.

“D”

Democracy: From the Greek “demos” meaning the people and “kratia”, meaning power. It refers to government

in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or indirectly through a system of

representation, usually involving elections. See also Legislative Democracy, Direct Democracy and Representative

Democracy.

Direct Democracy: The concept of people governing themselves by deciding issues directly through a vote, rather

than indirectly through electing representatives. The referendum, recall and the initiative are examples of instruments

of direct democracy.

District Magnitude: The number of members to be elected in each electoral district.

“E”

E-Democracy: The way in which the Internet can be used to reinforce democratic principles by enabling people to

interact with government and allowing government to seek and receive input from the community, through measures

such as online voting and consultation.

Electoral Boundaries: The geographic limits of electoral districts.

Electoral Districts: The geographic areas from which one or more representatives is chosen during an election.

Also known as ridings and constituencies. Currently, New Brunswick has 55 single member electoral districts.

Electoral System: The set of procedures that determine how votes are translated into seats. New Brunswick and

Canada have what is known as a plurality electoral system commonly referred to as First Past the Post. Key elements

in an electoral system are the electoral formula, ballot structure and district magnitude.

“F”

First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system: A plurality electoral system, which almost always uses single

member electoral districts. The candidates and political party receiving the largest vote share are elected. The

winning candidate/party does not have to receive a majority of votes to win. Also known as the Winner Takes All

electoral system and the Single member Plurality electoral system. New Brunswick’s electoral system is First Past the

Post, as is Canada’s.

Fixed Election Date: A recurring, set date or time frame (i.e. the second Tuesday of a particular month) for a

general election, usually within a four-year cycle.

“G”

Government: Refers to the premier and ministers who are responsible for implementing the policies of the political

party with the support of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. Also refers to the ministers and

public officials who oversee and undertake the day-to-day operations of departments and agencies.

“H”

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

219

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

“I”

“J”

“K”

“L”

Legislative Assembly: The Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick is the elected component of our system of

legislative democracy. It is currently a representative body of 55 members elected from single member electoral

districts for a term of up to five years. The government must maintain the support of a majority of the members of

the Legislative Assembly to stay in office. The functions of the Legislative Assembly include passing legislation,

authorizing the raising and spending of public money, scrutinizing the activities of government, raising issues of

public concern, investigating matters of public interest and acting as a forum to publicize the concerns of individuals

and groups throughout the province.

Legislative Democracy: The institutions and practices of our democratic system, including our electoral system,

our legislature and MLAs, and the processes of legislative and governmental decision-making.

Legislature: The law-making component of government. In New Brunswick, the legislature is the Legislative

Assembly.

List Proportional Representation (PR) Electoral System: An electoral system in which each political party

presents to the electorate a list of candidates. Voters vote for a party and the parties win seats in proportion to their

overall vote share. Winning candidates are taken from the party lists. (Either open lists or closed lists).

“M”

Majority Electoral System: An electoral system family, which uses single member constituencies or electoral

districts with the objective of ensuring that the winning candidate receives a majority of votes.

Majority of votes: More than half, or at least 50 per cent plus 1, of the votes.

Majority Government: A government that has the support of a majority of members of the Legislative Assembly

or parliament, all of whom are members of the same political party.

Minority Government: A government in which the governing political party does not have a majority of the

members of the Legislative Assembly or parliament, and therefore relies on the support of members of parties

outside the governing political party to stay in office.

Mixed Member Proportional Electoral System: An electoral system in which a proportion (often half) of the

members of the Legislative Assembly or parliament are elected using the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system, in

which candidates are elected to represent electoral districts, and the rest are elected using a list proportional

representation (PR) electoral system. The list PR seats compensate for disproportionality produced by the FPTP results.

Multi-member district: An electoral district, which returns more than one member to the Legislative Assembly or

parliament. Until 1974, New Brunswick had multi-member electoral districts.

“N”

“O”

Open List: A type of ballot found in a List Proportional Representation (PR) electoral system in which voters can

influence which candidates are elected by expressing a preference for a candidate within a party list in addition to

voting for the political party of their choice. (Opposite of a closed list.)

“P”

Participatory Democracy: A term used to describe more direct voter participation in government and legislative

decision-making, such as referendums. It also refers to more involvement by people in the process of government

through consultative forums and mechanisms.

Party List: A list of candidates put forward by a political party to the electorate in a List Proportional

Representation (PR) electoral system. A party list can be an open list or a closed list.

Plebiscite: A direct vote of all electors on an important public question. Originally, the term was used to refer to a

consultative or non-binding process as contrasted with a referendum, which referred to a binding process. Now, the

two terms are used interchangeably.

220

Plurality of Votes: When a candidate or political party receives more votes than his or her opponents, but less

than 50 per cent or a majority of all votes cast.

Plurality Electoral System: An electoral system that permits a candidate to win a seat without a majority of

votes.

Political Party: A group of people, recognized by law, who share a common ideology or set of policy principles

and who seek to elect representatives to a legislature with the goal of forming the government

Premier: The name given to the head of the government of a province. The premier is almost always the leader of

the political party that has won the majority or most of the seats in the Legislative Assembly.

Proportional Representation (PR) electoral system: An electoral system in which political parties or

candidates win seats in the Legislative Assembly based on their vote share. The goal of a PR electoral system is to

ensure that legislatures and governments more accurately reflect the preferences of the electorate.

Proportionality: The relative state or measure of the proportion of votes cast to seats gained in a legislature.

“Q”

“R”

Rank Ordering: A method of voting in which a voter indicates his or her first, second, third, etc. preferences

among candidates listed on a ballot.

Referendum: A method of referring a question or a set of questions to the people for a direct decision through a

vote.

Representation: The idea that one thing or person can stand for another. Within our democratic system, it refers

to the concept that the elected Legislative Assembly can stand for or represent the varied interests of the community

(geographic, linguistic, cultural, etc.) as a whole.

Representation and Electoral Boundaries Commission: In 1991, the Government of New Brunswick put in

place a Representation and Electoral Boundaries Commission which conducted its work in two phases. The first

phase was to make recommendations on the number of electoral districts, average number of voters per

constituency, the appropriate allowable variation in voter population between districts, and the best way to ensure

New Brunswick’s aboriginal people representation in the legislature. The second phase was to fix the boundaries of

the proposed electoral districts and hold public hearings on its proposal. Copies of the Commission’s reports are

available through the Legislative Library of New Brunswick. (Link to the Legislative Library at

http://www.gnb.ca/legis/leglibbib/index-e.asp )

Representation and Electoral District Boundaries Commission: In 1973, the government of New

Brunswick put in place a Representation and Electoral District Boundaries Commission to recommend divisions of the

province appropriate as electoral districts for the return of members of the Legislative Assembly, and to consider and

make recommendations on matters pertaining to representation and distribution of representation in the Legislative

Assembly. Copies of the Commission’s reports are available through the Legislative Library of New Brunswick. (Link

to the Legislative Library at http://www.gnb.ca/legis/leglibbib/index-e.asp )

Representative Democracy: A form of indirect rule, necessary for large populations, in which the people

transfer decision-making authority to representatives. The term can be explained as the consent of the governed, to

be governed.

Riding: A geographic division of the province, from which citizens elect a representative to represent them in the

Legislative Assembly. Also called a constituency and an electoral district.

“S”

Seat: A position within the legislature occupied by a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

Single member Constituency/Electoral District: A constituency or electoral district from which only one

member of the Legislative Assembly or parliament is elected.

Single member Plurality Electoral System: Another term for the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system.

Single Transferable Vote (STV) Electoral System: An electoral system that uses multi-member districts and

preferential proportional representation. Voters vote for candidates by rank ordering the candidates on the ballot

according to their preference. To be elected, a candidate must surpass a quota of first preference votes. Voters can

alternate preferences among political parties, and they may rank order all candidates, or mark only one if they

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

221

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

wish. A candidate who does not meet the threshold is excluded. When a candidate is excluded, or if an elected

candidate has a surplus of first preference votes, voter preferences are then re-allocated among other candidates.

“T”

Threshold: The minimum level of support a candidate or political party requires to gain representation. Usually

expressed as a percentage of the total vote.

“U”

“V”

Voter Turnout: Is calculated in Canada as the percentage of electors on the voters list who marked a ballot

during an election or a referendum. Voter turnout is also calculated (for example, in the United States) as the

percentage of possible voters (who may or may not be on the voters list) who have marked a ballot during an

election or a referendum.

Voters List: List of names of possible electors used as a control document during the taking of the vote in the

polling stations.

Vote Share: The proportion of the total votes won by a political party during a general election.

“W”

Westminster System: A type of parliamentary system used in countries of British origin.

Winner Takes All Electoral System: Another term for a First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system.

“X”

“Y”

“Z”

222

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Making Your Vote Count

A Mixed Member Proportional Representation Voting System for New Brunswick

Banducci, Susan A., Todd Donovan and Jeffrey A. Karp. "Proportional representation and attitudes about politics: results

from New Zealand" in Electoral Studies, 18, 1999.

Blais, André. Criteria for Assessing Electoral Systems. Presentation to the Advisory Committee of Registered Political Parties,

Elections Canada, April 1999.

Blais, André and Peter Loewen. Electoral Systems and Evaluations of Democracy. Draft research paper for the Commission

on Legislative Democracy, 2004.

Blais, André, Peter Loewen, and Maxime Ricard. The Government Life-Cycle. Draft research paper for the Commission on

Legislative Democracy, 2004.

Courtney, John C. Elections. The Canadian Democratic Audit Series. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2004.

Courtney, John C. Plurality-Majority Electoral Systems: A Review. Presentation to the Advisory Committee of Registered

Political Parties, Elections Canada, April 1999.

Farrell, David M. Electoral Systems. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

Farrell, David M. and Michael Gallagher. "British voters and their criteria for evaluating electoral systems" in British Journal

of Politics and International Relations, vol. 1, no. 3, October 1999.

Final Report of the Independent Commission to Review Britain’s Experience of Proportional Representation Voting System,

Changed Voting, Changed Politics: Lessons of Britain’s Experience of PR Since 1997. London: The Constitution Unit, 2003.

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Atlas of Electoral Systems of the World, Handbook of

Electoral System Design. Stockholm: IDEA, 1997.

Karp, Jeffrey A. "Incentive to Mobilize? The Effects of Proportional Representation on Party Activity in New Zealand". Paper

prepared for the Annual Conference of the Pacific Northwest Political Science Association, 2003.

Karp, Jeffrey A., Jack Vowles, Susan A. Banducci and Todd Donovan. "Strategic voting, party activity, and candidate

effects: testing explanations for split voting in New Zealand’s new mixed system" in Electoral Studies, 21, 2002.

Law Commission of Canada. Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada. Ottawa: LCC, 2004.

Making Every Vote Count: The Case for Electoral Reform in British Columbia, Report of the BC Citizens’ Assembly, 2004.

Massicotte, Louis. "Changing the Canadian Electoral System" in Choices - Strengthening Canadian Democracy, IRPP, vol. 7.

no. 1, February 2003.

Milner, Henry, ed. Making Every Vote Count: Reappraising Canada’s Electoral System. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview

Press, 1999.

Milner, Henry, ed. Steps Towards Making Every Vote Count: Electoral System Reform in Canada and its Provinces.

Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2004.

Norris, Pippa. Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Report of the Prince Edward Island Electoral Reform Commission. Hon. Norman H. Carruthers, Commissioner. PEI, 2003.

The Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System, (the Jenkins Commission). UK, 1998.

Siaroff, Allan. The Effects of Differing Electoral Systems on Party Politics, Government Formation, and Government Stability.

Draft research paper for the Commission on Legislative Democracy, 2004.

223

Chapter 8 - Selected Bibliography

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Implementing A New System of Proportional Representation in New Brunswick

Curtice, John, Alison Park, Ben Seyd and Katarina Thomson. Wise After the Event? Attitudes to Voting Reform Following the

1999 Scottish and Welsh Elections. Paper for the Political Studies Association - UK 50

Annual Conference, London, 2000.

Electoral Reform Society. New Zealand and Electoral Reform: An ERS Briefing. June 2000.

Harris, Paul, Chief Executive, Electoral Commission of New Zealand. New Zealand’s Change to MMP, Administration and

Cost of Elections Project, 2000.

His Excellency Rt. Hon. James B. Bolger. " New Zealand Adopts PR: A Prime Minister’s View" in Policy Options, July-August

2001.

Karp, Jeffrey A. and Shaun Bowler. "Coalition government and satisfaction with democracy: An analysis of New Zealand’s

reaction to proportional representation" in European Journal of Political Research, 40, 2001.

Parliament of New Zealand. Inquiry into the Review of MMP: Report of the MMP Review Select Committee, Forty-Sixth

Parliament, 2001.

Drawing Electoral Boundaries in New Brunswick

Courtney, John C. Commissioned Ridings: Designing Canada’s Electoral Districts. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press,

2001.

Courtney, John C., Peter MacKinnon and David E. Smith, eds. Drawing Boundaries: Legislatures, Courts and Electoral

Values. Saskatoon: Fifth House Publishers, 1992.

Eagles, Munroe. Electoral Reform and Electoral Boundaries in New Brunswick. Draft research paper for the Commission on

Legislative Democracy, 2004.

Elections Canada. "Readjustment of Federal Electoral Boundaries", Electoral Insight, vol. 4, no. 2, October 2002:

http://www.elections.ca/eca/eim/insight1002_e.pdf

Hyson, Stewart. "Electoral Boundary Redistribution by Independent Commission in New Brunswick, 1990 – 1994" in

Canadian Public Administration/Administration Publique du Canada, vol. 42, no. 3, Fall/Automne.

Ouellette, Roger. Les enjeux pour la communauté acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick. Draft research paper for the

Commission on Legislative Democracy, 2004.

Small, David, ed. Drawing the Map: Equality and Efficacy of the Vote in Canadian Electoral Boundary Reform, Volume 11

of the Research Studies, Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. Canada Communication Group,

Toronto: Dundurn Press Limited, 1991.

A Fixed Election Date for New Brunswick

British Columbia’s Constitution Act, [RSBC 1996] Chapter 66, section 23.

Desserud, Don. Fixed-Date Elections under the Canadian Parliamentary System. Draft research paper for the Commission on

Legislative Democracy, 2004.

Ontario Bill 86, "An Act to amend the Election Act, the Election Finances Act, the Legislative Assembly Act and the

Representation Act, 1996 to provide for provincial general elections at intervals of approximately four years, to govern the

timing of writs, close of nominations and polling day, to make modifications relating to the electoral readjustment process

and to make technical amendments", 1

Session, 38

Legislature, Ontario, 53 Elizabeth II, 2004.

Boosting Voter Turnout and Modernizing our Electoral Infrastructure

The Centre for Research and Information on Canada (CRIC). Voter Participation in Canada: Is Canadian Democracy in

Crisis? October 2001.

The Centre for Research and Information on Canada (CRIC). Citizen Participation and Canadian Democracy: An Overview.

August 2003.

LeDuc, Lawrence and Jon H. Pammett. Elections and Participation: The Meanings of the Turnout Decline. Paper prepared for

presentation at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Dalhousie University, June 1, 2003.

O’Neill, Brenda. "Generational Patterns in the Political Opinions and Behaviour of Canadians: Separating the Wheat from

the Chaff" in Policy Matters, IRPP, vol. 2, no. 5, October 2001.

224

Making the System Work

Enhancing the Role of MLAs and the Legislature

Bennett, Carolyn, MP, Deborah Grey, MP, and Hon. Yves Morin, Senator. The Parliament We Want: Parliamentarians’

Views on Parliamentary Reform. Library of Parliament, December 2003.

Dobell, Peter. "The Obstacles to Empowering MPs and MLAs and What it Would Take to Empower Them" and Lauk, Gary,

Jack Weisgerber & Ted White, "What It Would Take to Empower Them, & “Thoughts on Empowerment" in Gordon Gibson,

ed., Fixing Canadian Democracy. Toronto: The Fraser Institute, 2003.

Docherty, David C. "Citizens and Legislators: Different Views on Representation" in Neil Nevitte, ed., Value Change and

Governance in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002.

Docherty, David C. Representation in New Brunswick: Capital and Constituency Concerns. Draft research paper for the

Commission on Legislative Democracy, 2004.

Government of Québec. Parliamentary Reform Proposals. Hon. Jacques Dupuis, Government House Leader and Minister for

the Reform of Democratic Institutions, 2004.

Legislative Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick. First Report of the Legislative Administration Committee, 5

Session,

Legislative Assembly, April 3, 2003.

Simpson, Jeffrey. The Friendly Dictatorship. McClelland & Stewart, 2002.

Stillborn, Jack. The Roles of the Member of Parliament in Canada: Are They Changing? Library of Parliament, 2002.

Improving Party Democracy

Carty, R. Kenneth. Canadian Political Parties in the Constituencies. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1991.

Carty, R. Kenneth and Lynda Erickson. "Candidate Nomination in Canada’s National Parties" in Herman Bakvis, ed.,

Canadian Political Parties: Leaders, Candidates and Organization. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1991.

Cross, William. Political Parties. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2004.

Cross, William. "Grassroots Participation in Candidate Nominations" in Joanna Everitt and Brenda O’Neill, eds., Citizen

Politics: Research and Theory in Canadian Political Behaviour. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Cross, William and Lisa Young. "The Contours of Political Party Membership in Canada" in Party Politics, vol. 19, issue 4,

July 2004.

Dalton, Russell and Martin Wattenberg. Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Elections Canada. "Reform of Election Financing: Canada, Great Britain and the United States" Electoral Insight, vol. 4, no.

1, May 2002.

http://www.elections.ca/eca/eim/pdf/insight_2002_05_e.pdf

Howe, Paul and David Northrup. "Strengthening Canadian Democracy: The Views of Canadians" in Policy Matters, IRPP,

vol. 1, no. 5, 2000.

Report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Democracy, Ottawa, 1991.

Smith, Jennifer and Herman Bakvis. "Changing Dynamics in Election Campaign Finance" in Policy Matters, IRPP, vol. 1,

no. 4, July 2000.

Data on public funding to parties in New Brunswick taken from the Annual Reports of the Supervisor of Political Financing,

information filed with the Office of the Supervisor and information published in the Royal Gazette.

Information on the value of Political Contributions Tax Credit is from "The Commissioner’s Annual Report to the Government

of New Brunswick", Canada Revenue Agency and Tax Sharing Statements.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

225

COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY

Opening Up the Appointment Process for Agencies, Boards and Commissions

Aucoin, Peter and Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant. "Designing a merit-based process for appointing boards of ABCs: Lessons

from the Nova Scotia reform experience" in Canadian Public Administration, vol. 45, no. 3, Fall 2002.

Government of British Columbia, Information on British Columbia’s Board Resourcing and Development Office (BRDO).

http://www.gov.bc.ca/bvprd/bc/channel.do?action=ministry&channelID=-8627&navId=NAV_ID_-8627

Public Policy Forum. Governor- in-Council Appointments - Best Practices and Recommendations for Reform. February 2004.

Making Your Voice Heard

Stronger Voices for Youth

CRIC Papers, #3. Voter Participation in Canada: Is Canadian Democracy in Crisis? October 2001.

CRIC Papers, #15. Canadian Democracy: Bringing Youth Back Into the Political Process. December 2004.

CRIC Papers. Citizen Participation and Canadian Democracy: An Overview. August 2003.

Elections Canada. "Youth Participation in Elections." Electoral Insight, vol. 5, no. 2, July 2003.

Gidengil, Elisabeth, André Blais, Neil Nevitte and Richard Nadeau. Citizens. The Canadian Democratic Audit Series. UBC

Press, 2004.

Goodwin, David, Shannon Garrett and Justin Keddy. Statistical Record : New Brunswick and Selected Provinces and States.

Policy Studies Centre, UNB, 2003.

Howe, Paul. Voter Participation in New Brunswick and the Political Disengagement of the Young. Draft research paper for

the Commission on Legislative Democracy, 2004.

Pammet, John. "Youth in the Electoral Process" in Electoral Insight, January 2001.

Pammet, John and Lawrence LeDuc. Explaining the Turnout Decline in Canadian Federal Elections: A New Survey of Non-

Voters. Elections Canada, March 2003.

Stronger Voices for Women

Everitt, Joanna and Sonia Pitre. Electoral Systems and Representational Issues. Draft research paper for the Commission on

Legislative Democracy, 2004.

Matland, Richard. Enhancing Women’s Political Participation: Legislative Recruitment and Electoral Systems. International

Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2002.

McLeay, Elizabeth. Climbing On: Rules, Values and Women’s Representation in the New Zealand Parliament. Paper

presented at the conference on Women and Westminster Compared, University of Ottawa, June 2004.

Pitre, Sonia. "Political Parties and Female Candidates: Is There Resistance in New Brunswick?" in Women and Electoral

Politics in Canada. Oxford University Press, 2003.

Pitre, Sonia. "Women’s Struggle for Legislative Power: The Role of Political Parties" in Atlantis, vol. 27, 2, Spring/Summer

2003.

Young, Lisa. Women’s Representation in the Canadian House of Commons. Draft paper, University of Calgary, May 2004.

Stronger Voices for Aboriginal People

Bedford, David. "Aboriginal Voter Participation in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick" in Electoral Insight, vol. 5, no. 3,

November 2003, pp 16-20.

CRIC. "Youth and Leadership: A CRIC Study of the Values and Priorities of the Next Generation of Community Leaders in

New Brunswick." Original Focus Group Research, findings detailed in CRIC Papers, #15, "Canadian Democracy: Bringing

Youth Back Into the Political Process", December 2004.

226

A Referendum Act for New Brunswick

Belkhodja, Chedly. The Referendum Experience in New Brunswick. Draft research paper for the Commission on Legislative

Democracy, 2004.

Boyer, Patrick. The People’s Mandate: Referendums and a More Democratic Canada. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1992.

Eisenberg, Avigail. "When (if Ever) Are Referendums on Minority Rights Fair?" in David Laycock, ed., Representation and

Democratic Theory. UBC Press, 2004.

Eisenberg, Avigail. The Medium is the Message: How Referenda Lead Us to Understand Equality for Minorities. Paper.

University of Victoria, 1999.

Marquis, Pierre. Referendums in Canada: The Effect of Populist Decision-Making on Representative Democracy.

Parliamentary Research Branch, Library of Parliament, August 1993.

Mendelsohn, Matthew and Andrew Parkin. "Introducing Direct Democracy in Canada" in Choices - Strengthening

Canadian Democracy, IRPP, vol. 7, no. 5, June 2001.

Scott, Peggy. A Referendum Process Overview from Twelve Jurisdictions Around the World. Draft MPA research paper,

November 2004.

Participatory Democracy & Citizen Engagement in New Brunswick

CRIC. Citizen Participation and Canadian Democracy: An overview. August 2003.

Gidengil, Elisabeth, André Blais, Neil Nevitte and Richard Nadeau. Citizens. The Canadian Democratic Audit Series. UBC

Press, 2004.

Milner, Henry. "Civic Literacy in Comparative Context" in Policy Matters, IRPP, vol. 2, no. 2, July 2001.

Statistics. Research Centre on Women and Politics, University of Ottawa.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

227