Canada Federal Representation 2024

[toaster]

I don't see it being likely in any realistic scenario for Trudeau to cut a Quebec seat. Does he gain anything from doing it? Does it constitute a net good for him in any case?
Harming the Liberals' prospects in Quebec next time doesn't sound like something Trudeau would do.

From people paying attention, it puts a sour taste is our mouths.  Why is he not listening to the recommendations by the non-partisan committee and just going in and doing what he wants.  Heck, just gerrymander everything then too, while you're at it so the Liberals will win without a fight the next 50 times.  The net good for Trudeau is that it appears as though he's *not* nosing around in what shouldn't be partisan.

[toaster]

Why would Kenora stay put at just over 50k, but have Timmins-James Bay at over 100k by adding Kap and Hearst? If the thought is the vast landmass + Indigenous = smaller riding, wouldn't that apply to both?  If the aim is to keep an Indigenous riding (+ Kenora), I think a Far North riding (east + west together) would make more sense, and then a predominently francophone Timmins-Nickel Belt-Kapuskasing riding in the south, and Manitoulin could join Sault-Ste Marie.

[toaster]

Why would Kenora stay put at just over 50k, but have Timmins-James Bay at over 100k by adding Kap and Hearst? If the thought is the vast landmass + Indigenous = smaller riding, wouldn't that apply to both?  If the aim is to keep an Indigenous riding (+ Kenora), I think a Far North riding (east + west together) would make more sense, and then a predominently francophone Timmins-Nickel Belt-Kapuskasing riding in the south, and Manitoulin could join Sault-Ste Marie.

Kenora gets to be small (in population) because it's been deemed a special case. That didn't get applied to any of the other ridings.

Quite frankly, the Hwy 11 corridor belongs more in the Timmins riding than with Algoma. It's only in the Algoma riding for population reasons. If Algoma disappears, the Hwy 11 corridor goes back to its natural home in Timmins-James Bay.

Understood, but the only reason Timmins is with the James Bay coast is for population reasons (even if it's been this way for a while).  Timmins, and the Hwy 11 corridor have much more in common ('communities of interest") with the francophone areas in Nickel Belt.   Krago's proposed Timmins-James Bay (with the added Hwy 11) makes it an even larger geographic riding, with 3 distinct communities of interest (Indigenous, Francophone, English), while still having a population over 100k.  A solution to that would be to group Indigenous communities together (Far Northeast/Far Northwest + Kenora), and have the Eng/French bilingual communities (with much more in common) together (Nickel Belt - Timmins - Hwy 11 Corridor).

[toaster]

Also curious Krago why you propose moving the border between Etobicoke-Lakeshore and Etobicoke-Centre down to Bloor from Dundas in the eastern part of Etobicoke. It makes Etobicoke-Centre the most populated riding in the City of Toronto, and puts it 13k over Etobicoke-Lakeshore's #s. Keeping it the way it is would keep the 2 ridings (all 3 Etobicoke ridings) at about 120k wouldn't it? Also, Mabelle Avenue doesn't fit so well into Etobicoke-Centre (although the Kingway does).

[toaster]

Here's what I had in mind for Northern Ontario:



Both Thunder Bay ridings are just over the 25% threshold, without eating into Kenora. TBRR takes in some Thunder Bay suburbs in the McKellar area, akin to how the map looked in the 1990s. TBSN (re-named Thunder Bay-Superior), wraps all the way down Lake Superior to the northern edge of the Soo.

AMK gets nuked, of course. Kap area goes to TJB, Elliot Lake area goes to the Soo (new riding of Sault Ste. Marie-Elliot Lake, or maybe just "Algoma"). Nickel Belt gets Manitoulin (Nickel Belt-Manitoulin), while it loses West Nipissing to Nipissing-Timiskaming. Sudbury/Nickel Belt borders get re-jigged. All of the ridings in the NE have about 100,000 people.

This really is to the detriment of Northeastern Ontario, keeping the Northwest with such low numbers.  The Soo and all areas around it identify as part of Northeastern Ontario.  They get their news from CTV Northern Ontario, they do not belong with Thunder Bay.  There's no scenario where the Northwest should maintain 3 ridings, especially when it is to the detriment of the rest of the North. Thunder Bay is a large urban city, there's not justification for it being given "special consideration", especially when the people of remote areas of Attawakispat and Peawanuck are forced into a riding over 100k.  Might I add, the Northernmost parts of some provinces (Quebec), and the territories are geographically larger than any in Northwestern Ontario.

[toaster]

Question, who would win a dedicated Thunder Bay riding?

Truly a three way race. And a western CON leader actually helps the Cons in Thunder Bay.

[toaster]

The cutting off of Soulanges / Les Cèdres area from Vaudreuil seems odd.

[toaster]

Hopefully they will be posted soon.  I guess it was an automated message posted on that site?  It says it was Published on August 6th.. still nowhere to be found.

As we wait, here are a few things for Ontario I hope get adjusted/cleaned up:

All of Simcoe.. Simcoe North / Grey ..  Midland/Penetag have more in common and are geographically closer to Wasaga and the other communities along the Georgian Bay than they are with Orillia and areas east of those lakes.

Etobicoke: Cross that sacred creek so that Etobicoke Lakeshore doesn't remain so large..  remember what gets decided here applies to all three levels of govt, which means that people in these huge (population) districts get 1 councillor per 141k people even at the municipal level (Toronto). The condo communities in Humber Bay/Park Lawn have more in common with South Swansea and should be in the same district, despite a bridge connecting them.

North: Only 2 ridings in the North West, maybe a third that crosses over to some parts of Algoma (or one large Far North riding for the far north east+west combined).  These small (in terms of population) ridings in the North West cause larger ridings in the North East..  putting the Indigenous people of the James Bay coast in a 100k+ riding, while people in the urban city of Thunder Bay are in small ridings at 80k. Not equitable.

[toaster]

Very exciting!

Kiwetinoong-Mushkegowuk --> So small, but I do understand keeping the Indigenous communities together.  At least this way the entire North is below quotient. Before this, the urban (and white) city of Kenora had it "good" by being in a special consideration riding (below quotient) without having any business being given that special consideration.  So, I tend to agree with this.

Cochrane - Timmins - Temiskaming --> This is a great riding. Francophone communities of interest together, these communities have much more in common than they did with the previous ones they were grouped with (James Bay coast, Manitoulin Island). I would move Hornepayne to the Sault riding (and name it Algoma).  Oddly, Hornepayne is grouped in with Timmins at the Far north east for its Public Health (Porcupine), but for everything else, it grouped in with Algoma

Sault Ste Marie --> Add Hornepayne, rename Algoma. Not sure what to do with Chapleau though.

Thunder Bay --> Splitting it in two, it is a little unique in the sense it was traditionally 2 unique villages, right?  Is that why they don't make an urban Thunder Bay Riding, and then have the outer suburbs be one riding with the rest of the vast rural North West? In Sudbury (or Guelph), they chose to make the one urban riding, and have the outer portions grouped in with the more rural areas surrounding it.

Collingwood - Blue Mountains --> I like the name, and don't mind that it crosses the Simcoe / Grey boundary.  In fact, these areas should really be in one county as they are essentially becoming 1 community.

Penetanguishene - Couchiohing --> That's a mouthful. I don't like the grouping of Orillia (and areas east of there) with the MIdland/Penetang communities along Georgian Bay, but I don't see any good alternatives.

Brampton - Mayfield West --> I'm not sure what area Mayfield West is? The South Caledon community in this riding is named Southfields I believe. I would change the name. Brampton - Caledon South, or Brampton - Southfields Village

Brampton North --> Renamed from East? Weird, the region of Peel uses East - West on a diagonal given its location slanted parallel with Lake Ontario. Everyone in Brampton considers this to be the Eastern part of Brampton, even if technically it is the Northern most position.

Brampton Chinguacousy --> I get the change to Indigenous names, but Springdale I think fits better here.

Humber --> Interesting riding.  We know they needed to cross the Humber river because Etobicoke is too populated for only 3 ridings, but this is a weird place to do it. The demos are very different, ultra rich Kingsway area of Etobicoke, and the old York/Weston areas.

Etobicoke - North --> Might need a name change as it also crosses the Humber and includes parts other than Etobicoke.

Taiaiako'n - High Park --> Parkdale is a meaningful name to what has always been a working class (and lower SES) community, not sure replacing that name does much good. If an indigenous name needs to be included here, then maybe remove the High Park name and just name it Parkdale - Taiaiako'n. The Northern Boundary change is odd to me, although I think it only affects a few dwellings, but I think the railway is a more natural buffer between communities.


 

[toaster]

Etobicoke - North --> Might need a name change as it also crosses the Humber and includes parts other than Etobicoke.

Though said "parts other than" are already part of the community council.  (And as recently as the 90s, the boundaries of York West bled the *other* way, *into* Etobicoke)

Well, it's the Etobicoke York Community council (i.e., Etobicoke and York Community council) this part of the city being the York part of that council, not the Etobicoke part.

[toaster]

Brampton - Mayfield West --> I'm not sure what area Mayfield West is? The South Caledon community in this riding is named Southfields I believe. I would change the name. Brampton - Caledon South, or Brampton - Southfields Village

Mayfield is the road that separates Brampton and Caledon, so it does make sense for the local geography.

Yes it is, but I don't think there's any precedence in naming ridings based on one of their bordering roads. There's also a part of Brampton that is North of Mayfield. What's weird is adding "West" after Mayfield, when Mayfield runs from one end of Peel to the other (and all is included in this riding).  If it is being named after the new suburban developments in the west (along Mayfield), then the name doesn't cover the communities of Southfields and South Caledon. Just an odd choice.

Yeah, I get that they're trying to include more indigenous themes, but there are better places to do this. The pre-European village of Taiaiako'n is located west of High Park, which is already in the western part of the riding, so it doesn't make sense to substitute Parkdale for Taiaiako'n. Parkdale-Taiaiako'n would make more sense, although from a purely descriptive POV, Parkdale--High Park remains the best name for this riding.

Also noticed this riding now stretches east to include Liberty Village. I'm not sure of a name to represent the western and eastern portions of this riding, but choosing two names that refer to the far western portion of the riding don't make sense.

Arguably no more "weird" a mix than that in the now-former St Paul's riding.  (And one presumes, perfect for Michael Ford to run for provincial re-election next time)

Yes, definitely an easy win for Ford here. I wonder if Frances Nunziata wins this ward municipally (assuming we keep municipal wards the same as federal).  Maybe she'll retire by then.

[toaster]

Hornepayne should be in Sault Ste Marie.  What's the reasoning for not being with the rest of the Algoma district?

[toaster]

I prefer the Commission's idea of crossing the Simcoe / Grey border, as those communities have much more in common.  I do think Orillia has always been more connected to areas just north of Barrie (and the Highway 11 communities) than it is with Midland/Penetang, despite historically being in a riding with the latter.

[toaster]

Thanks for sharing, loved reading all of that.

The only thing I really don't think works is hanging on to the name of Simcoe.  Simcoe is not something that is used in the everyday lexicon of people, outside of talking about their current electoral districts.  People don't say "I live in Simcoe" like they do other regions. The municipalities are too different, spread out, and all have their own identities. I think using the actual communities in this area is a good thing, if you hear the Speaker of the House refer to the member from "Collingwood - Blue Mountains" you get a better idea of where that person is from/what they represent. Saying Simcoe - Grey means absolutely nothing to most people.

[toaster]

The Etobicoke North - Malton riding does make sense in terms of the communities of interest/demographics/SES here.  Is the commission not allowed to cross the 416 boundaries because of the legislation that forces Toronto (the city) to have the same boundaries municipally as these ridings?

[toaster]

There are (northern) New Democrats in the north fighting to keep that 10th seat (which I assume is Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasin), a riding that makes absolutely no sense in terms of connections, communities of interest, No highway connections, just to keep an extra "safe" NDP seat is way too hyper partisan, sounds of gerrymandering.  And I'm an NDP supporter, usually.  Kap and Hearst should be in a riding with Timmins - these are communities of interest, they have nothing in common with Manitoulin Island, other than the fact that the commission created this absurd riding some time ago.

It shocks me to hear Charlie Angus fight so hard, when the majority of his residents in Timmins, would be better served by someone in a smaller (geographic) riding that could focus on the issues in the community.

[toaster]

The Newfoundland and Labrador commission will be to blame, historically, as the reason for the death of representation by population (read equity in voting).  Shameful.  Labrador has no legal protections being so small (unlike the PEI or territories).  Still not sure how they get away with this.  Other commissions are noticing that they can get away with these minuscule ridings (Ontario with new Far North riding) and Manitoba's North now, we will see this more and more, to the detriment of people living in the rest of Canada.  Other areas across the country have no problem crossing big bodies of water within a riding or huge islands - otherwise we'd have dozens of riding for Nunavut, or massive geographical areas (Northern Quebec riding, for example).

[toaster]

I think you mean Saskatchewan. Churchill is still within the 25% parameters (and has more people than reported in the Census due to uncounted reserves). However, I could see a Manitoba commission making a smaller Churchill riding in the future. And also Quebec, as you suggested.

Oops, yes Saskatchewan, sorry.

There is a legal justification and that is section 15(2) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.) that there is no right to equality of voting power, but rather a right to effective representation.

Yes, but if we have acknowledged that an MP in Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou can effectively represent their HUGE riding, or an MP in Nunavut (which has way more bodies of water to cross to effectively represent all their residents) can effectively do so, then it becomes hard to say that a riding smaller geographically (Labrador) and with fewer bodies of water to cross cannot be effectively represented.  If effective representation was the reason, we would have a different MP to represent each of the islands of Nunavut, despite having so few residents.

[toaster]

I'm sorry, why is Kapuskasing named before Timmins?

The North West getting 3 ridings, all three needing to be exceptional circumstances is insane.  This is to the detriment of the people in the North East in particular - where they have to make up that difference.  Whoever wrote this report sounds like they are from that area.  I've never seen something so blatantly unfair (other than Labrador) in this country.  Shameful. Thunder Bay is an urban city - it is NOT DESERVING BY ANY MEANS of exceptional circumstance.  An urban city with over 110k+ residents, and the HIGHEST POPULATION DENSITY in Northern Ontario is NOT what was the intended use of EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE. Whoever on the commission allowed for this needs to be removed.  This is gerrymandering. This is unfair. This is unequal.  Shame. 

York South Weston Etobicoke is interesting..  might make more sense than what was proposed.
Mabelle Avenue (low income area) in Etobicoke gets put into ultra rich Etobicoke-Centre so that the Kingsway BIA doesn't get split in two? Make it make sense. Who are we serving?

[toaster]

I agree with toaster that it makes no sense for two predominantly urban ridings to be considered extraordinary circumstances. Might as well make Thunder Bay 1 seat and have the remainder the extraordinary seat. And agreed that Timmins should go first in the riding name.

Well and the argument becomes why couldn't whatever is left over after one normal sized (urban/dense) riding of Thunder Bay, simply join the Kenora riding, and just have 1 exceptional case riding.  There is nothing unique about the size of a northern riding being large, the northern Quebec riding is geographically larger, Nunavut is larger, Northwest Territories is larger, I can go on.  The judge made excuses for keep 3 ridings - every point made about lack of highway access to time it takes to travel from one end of the riding to the other, is seen across not only many ridings in the country - but also within other ridings in Ontario (the new Kap-Timmins-Mush riding would is a longer KM distance from South to North, and they don't seem to have a problem with that).  It's totally unfair.  Is there an opportunity to for the public to present any more objections? Or is this pretty much the final report (other than MP objections)?

[toaster]

It's a little sneaky though? Not saying anything about adding exceptional/extraordinary circumstance ridings until only after the process where the public can provide feedback on that?  Had I known this was going to be a possibility, I surely would have attended a hearing and objected.

[toaster]

Carole Hughes already lives in Nickel Belt.

I thought she was from Kapuskasing.

[toaster]

Northern Ontario MPs want to keep the ten federal ridings in their part of the province. That would require squeezing another seat out of Toronto and Markham.

Here’s my plan:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=18OrFn4Zs3JXgs9Yj-0LXuPgCN8vB94E&usp=sharing

Really what Angus, Hughes and the other North Eastern MPs should be advocating is the removal of one of the Northwestern ridings proposed and have it moved to the North East.  Again, Thunder Bay (an urban city of over 100K+) is not what was meant for exceptional circumstance.

Northeastern Ontario: 509,771 , Report Proposal = 5 Ridings = 101,954 average / riding
/ 6 ridings = 84 961/ riding (still more people per riding than the North West).

Northwestern Ontario: 232 299, Report proposes = 3 Ridings = 77 433 avg/riding


So even if Northeastern gained another riding, the ridings in the North West still have fewer people.  

If the argument is that it is not fair to the North that they happen to be in a province with such high growth elsewhere, then that needs to be applied across the North.  I've read the report, and to say Thunder Bay is more deserving of exceptional circumstance than Attawapiskat, Peawanuck, or the rest of First Nations communities in the North East is ludicrous. They talk about distance, but the distance from Peawanuck to Timmins is much further than anything in the North West.

[toaster]

Michael Coteau, the Liberal MP for Don Valley East, discovered in February that the Ontario Commission's plan to save the six Scarborough ridings was to get rid of his seat instead.  He has started a campaign to Save Don Valley East.  If you would like a lawn sign, just order one here:

https://www.savedve.ca/


You can read Michael Coteau's submission to the PROC Committee here:

https://michaelcoteau.libparl.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/169/2023/03/MP-Michael-Coteau-Objection-submission-Final.pdf


Of course I've created a map that everyone will ignore!

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=18OrFn4Zs3JXgs9Yj-0LXuPgCN8vB94E&usp=sharing


Mr. Coteau's submission is quite well argued.  The problem is, it focuses on the wrong question: Not whether Toronto should lose a riding, but where Toronto should lose a riding.

The Report shows that on average, each new Southern Ontario MP (outside Toronto) would represent 2,400 more people than each new Toronto MP, using figures from the 2021 Census.  It would be very difficult to convince the Commissioners to remove a seat from the rest of Southern Ontario and add it to Toronto, since it would widen this gap to 8,400 constituents.

A stronger argument can be made that if Toronto were to drop from 25 to 24 MPs (and MPPs and City Councillors), it would be better to remove a riding from downtown Toronto than from Scarborough and Don Valley East, for all the reasons outlined in the submission.


I have prepared an alternative map for Toronto that:

·         keeps 24 federal ridings in the City as recommended by the Commission

·         retains six seats in Scarborough, using Victoria Park Ave as the boundary - there would be slight changes to the ridings to better balance populations, and to place Malvern in the one riding

·         allows Don Valley East to keep its current communities and add Thorncliffe Park

·         maintains three seats in Etobicoke without crossing the Humber River

·         uses Highway 401 as a boundary in North York and Scarborough

·         sets the population range for the six seats in downtown Toronto from +1.5% to +8.4% deviation from the provincial quotient, well within the ideal range set by the Commission

That's an awful map for Toronto.  Not only is there a wide gap, but it's not equally distributed.  The West end of Toronto is hard hit, Etobicoke-Centre and Etobicoke-North both at almost 130k is insane, what quotient +% are those both at?  And right beside each other.  You cannot keep only 3 ridings in Etobicoke - one (or likely 2 of them) need to cross the creek.  The issue isn't just that Toronto is losing one riding, it's also that the growth in the West far outpaces the growth in the East so even if Toronto didn't lose a riding, there would be shifts and Scarborough or Don Valley would likely still lose at least half a riding.

[toaster]

Did the commission ever give a reason for putting Kapuskasing before Timmins in that proposed riding name?  Timmins is a city of 40k+ people, Kapuskasing has 8k?