Canada Federal Representation 2024

[Hatman 🍁]

Zorra Township is split in two parts, not three. A marked improvement.

Where does the purple riding go to off the north end of the map?  Nowhere good, I’m betting.

It's the same as the commission's, I just didn't bother to flesh it out.

Has anyone filled out the Public Hearing Participation Form on the Ontario Commission website?

If so, did you ever receive a confirmation email from the Commission?

My answers are Yes and No.

I’m supposed to be presenting to the Commission on Monday evening and I still haven’t received a link.

Yes and yes. Speaking of which, what is the best way of doing the presentation? PowerPoint? Is there a time limit?

[Hatman 🍁]

Has anyone filled out the Public Hearing Participation Form on the Ontario Commission website?

If so, did you ever receive a confirmation email from the Commission?

My answers are Yes and No.

I’m supposed to be presenting to the Commission on Monday evening and I still haven’t received a link.

Yes and yes. Speaking of which, what is the best way of doing the presentation? PowerPoint? Is there a time limit?

Due to the limited number of in-person hearings in Southern Ontario -only three outside the GTA - the virtual hearings are packed.  That's why they are pushing hard for written submissions.  Since I want to do a full Ontario-wide proposal, they've asked me to present on October 29.  (Just before they turn off the lights.)

My suggestion is to put together a five-minute PowerPoint presentation.  You might not get much more time than that.

Thanks!

Fearing that I would be time constrained, I submitted a 7 page list of riding name suggestions for the entire province. I doubt I could get through that in 5 minutes

[Hatman 🍁]

My suggestion is to put together a five-minute PowerPoint presentation.  You might not get much more time than that.

You will need your own projector and be prepared to project on the ceiling.

Umm, I do not own a projector. I might be able to borrow one from work, but that might be a tricky ask.

I wonder if I can just do an old fashion elementary school like presentation on bristol board?

[Hatman 🍁]

Fearing that I would be time constrained, I submitted a 7 page list of riding name suggestions for the entire province. I doubt I could get through that in 5 minutes

How many Lakeshores?  Scarborough-Werenich?  Simcoe-Howard?  Niagara-Bodogh?  Ottawa-Hatman?

We want to see names!

That would be Ottawa-Homan

[Hatman 🍁]

Nope. You cannot split Guelph up like that

[Hatman 🍁]

Nope. You cannot split Guelph up like that

An anti-Green gerrymander is certainly an interesting proposition, isn't it?

I think no matter what, Mike Schreiner will win whatever split Guelph riding he decides to run in.

[Hatman 🍁]

If anyone is interested, these are my comments and suggested names I submitted to the Ontario commission:

 
* Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke: My suggested name for this riding would be Renfrew—Pembroke—Carleton. While it is commendable that the commission has dropped “Nipissing” from the current name of this riding, I don't feel the inclusion of “Algonquin” is appropriate as long as the riding contains part of the City of Ottawa. The “Algonquin” portion of this riding (Algonquin Park and the Municipality of South Algonquin) has a combined population of just 1,055 compared to the portion of this riding within the City of Ottawa (12,598). Therefore, it makes more sense to include “Carleton” in the name, in reference to the part of the City of Ottawa the riding would include, that is part of the former municipality of West Carleton (today part of West Carleton-March Ward).

* Bayview—Finch: My suggested named for this riding would be Newtonbrook—Bayview. The commission has regrettably split the Willowdale neighbourhood in half, with the eastern half now in the proposed “Bayview—Finch” riding. Willowdale has been united under the riding of the same name since 1979, so it is unfortunate to see it split. Having said that, I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to keep the name “Willowdale” as part of the riding name. I am instead suggesting this riding be named “Newtonbrook—Bayview”, as the two main neighbourhoods in this riding are Newtonbrook and Bayview Village. I believe using the name “Finch” in this riding is inappropriate, as Finch is a long road that extends into several other ridings, and is perhaps more synonymous with the Jane and Finch area, located further west.

*Bowmanville—Oshawa North: The proposed name for this riding leaves out the name of a very large community in the riding, and that is Courtice. Courtice has a population of nearly 30,000, and so should not be excluded from the riding name. I suggest two alternative names for this this riding, Clarington—Oshawa North (as both Bowmanville and Courtice are in the Municipality of Clarington), or Bowmanville—Courtice—Oshawa (North).

*Brampton—Chingouacousy: My suggested name for this riding is Bramalea—Springdale. I feel “Chingouacousy” is not an appropriate name, as there are better historical alternatives, plus it is ambiguous, as Brampton also includes a major road called Chingouacousy Road, which is not located in the riding. The names “Bramalea” and “Springdale” were included in riding names in Brampton prior to the last redistribution, and I feel should be brought back. This riding includes most of the Springdale area, and the northern half of Bramalea, so I feel the name Bramalea—Springdale is quite appropriate. 

*Brampton North: I believe the commission made a grave error in adopting the literal compass directions for their proposed Brampton riding names. Historically, riding names in Brampton don't follow the literal compass directions, but rather presume the city is on an east-west axis. The proposed “Brampton North” riding, while is in the literal northern corner of the city, is colloquially in the east of the city. In fact, its proposed borders are very similar to the existing Brampton East riding, and share no common territory with the current Brampton North riding. For this reason, the riding should be named Brampton East instead. 

* Brampton Southeast: My suggested name for this riding would be Brampton South—Bramalea. Again, the commission's proposed name for this riding is reliant on the literal compass directions. This riding contains two distinct communities, separated by a large industrial area, and its name should incorporate both parts of the riding. The western half of the riding contains an area that is directly south of Brampton's core, and is part of the current riding of Brampton South, while the eastern half of the riding contains the south part of the Bramalea community. Therefore, I believe “Brampton South—Bramalea” is a more appropriate name of the riding.

* Brampton Southwest: My suggested name for this riding would be Brampton West. This again is an issue of the commission's desire to use the literal compass directions.  This riding extends along the entire western border of the city, and while it is literally in the southwest corner of the city, it is colloquially in the west end of the city, therefore I believe “Brampton West” is a more appropriate name.

*Burlington Lakeshore: I believe the commission has overused appending the name “Lakeshore” to ridings, appending it to next door Oakville and to Hamilton—Stoney Creek—Grimsby as well. I feel this is unnecessary, as it has no basis in the riding's history. This riding is very similar to the existing Burlington riding, therefore I believe the riding should maintain the name Burlington. 

*Burlington—Milton West: The portion of this riding that is in Milton is much larger (pop. 79,943) than that which is in Burlington (pop. 33,915). Therefore, I think it would be more appropriate to list Milton first in the riding name, and therefore the riding should be named Milton—Burlington North instead. 

*Chatham-Kent—Leamington—Kingsville: With four place names in the riding name, this proposed name is unnecessarily long. My suggested name for this riding would instead be Chatham-Kent—Essex. Both Leamington and Kingsville are found within the County of Essex, as is Pelee Island and the eastern third of Lakeshore, which are not represented in the commission's proposed name for the riding. It should also be noted that the proposed borders of this riding do not even contain the entirety of the Municipality of Kingsville, plus the name “Kingsville” has never been used in a riding name before. However, “Chatham-Kent—Essex” was the name of this riding prior to the last redistribution.

*Cochrane—Timmins—Timiskaming: For this riding, I am offering only a re-ordering of the names to be Timmins—Cochrane—Timiskaming instead. Timmins has a population of 41,145 which is larger than the rest of Cochrane District, which has a population 32,600 and Timiskaming District which has a population of 31,424. “Timmins” is also the first name listed in its current riding of “Timmins—James Bay”. Alternatively, “Cochrane—Timiskaming” could work for the riding, as Timmins is in Cochrane District, however the City of Timmins has been excluded from previous ridings with the Cochrane name.

*Collingwood—Blue Mountains: Suggested name: Simcoe—Grey. The commission has on numerous occasions replaced historical county names with local geographical places names or municipalities. I feel in this case it is unnecessary. The proposed riding name includes only two municipalities in the riding, that together only make up a minority of the riding's population (34,201 out of 116,511), though admittedly “Blue Mountains” can refer to a wider geographic area, not just the municipality. The proposed riding is very similar to the current riding of Simcoe—Grey, and with the exception of the Township of Mulmur, contains portions of both Simcoe and Grey counties. Therefore I feel the name “Simcoe—Grey” should be retained. Mulmur may protest the name, but it has a small population (3,571), and it was once part of Simcoe County, albeit prior to 1881. 
 
*Elgin—Middlesex—Thames: This is a very awkwardly drawn riding that splits several municipalities, and extends into five different counties. I suspect this riding will not last past the proposal stage, and given its awkwardness, is very difficult to name. Almost half the riding (57,695 people) live in Middlesex County, and 43,179 people live in Elgin County, so “Middlesex” and “Elgin” are musts for this riding name, but they should be listed in that order. A portion of this riding (10,745) is in Kent County (technically the Municipality of Chatham-Kent), so “Kent” could be included as well. There are parts of this riding in Lambton (6,873 people) and Oxford County (781 people), but we have to draw the line somewhere. The commission decided on using the name “Thames” as part of the riding name, which does not have any historical basis. Why was this name added to the riding, considering the Thames River already separates Elgin and Middlesex Counties, which are already included in the proposed riding's name? A portion of the river flows through Chatham-Kent, but that part of the riding could be represented by adding “Kent” to the riding name instead. For these reasons, I believe Middlesex—Elgin—Kent should be the name of the riding, though “Elgin—Middlesex—Kent” could work as well, nodding to the order of names in the current name of the riding, “Elgin—Middlesex—London”. However, with St. Thomas out of the picture, the Elgin portion of the riding is not as populous. 

*Etobicoke North: This riding now contains territory outside of Etobicoke, as it has crossed the Humber River into North York. In fact, 26,247 people in this proposed riding do not live in Etobicoke, a substantial number. For this reason, I believe the riding's name should be changed to Etobicoke North—Humber River, adopting the “Humber River” name from the current riding of Humber River—Black Creek. The proposal has all of the territory of that riding along the Humber River being transferred to the proposed Etobicoke North riding, so it only makes sense to append “Humber River” to Etobicoke North, since it has been dropped from the commission's proposed Black Creek riding.  The only caveat with my proposed name is that the Humber River travels further south through the proposed riding of Humber, which could create confusion, though that riding should be re-named as well. However, the “Humber” name fits well within the proposed riding, as it contains the neighbourhoods of Humbermede, Humber Summit and Humberlea.
 
*Gananoque—Brockville—Prescott: The populations of the three municipalities of Gananoque, Brockville and Prescott together make up just 31,577 people, which makes this proposed riding name unrepresentative of the riding as a whole. The bulk of the riding is located within the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville,  plus the riding contains 26,423 people in the Frontenac County census division. For this reason, I believe Leeds—Grenville—Frontenac is a better name, as all of the proposed riding can be found in either Leeds and Grenville or Frontenac.   

*Georgetown—Milton East: My proposed name for this riding is Milton—Georgetown—Oakville. The riding contains a significant portion of the Town of Oakville, 21,277 people to be exact, which I believe is enough to merit inclusion in the riding name. I also believe Milton should go first in the name order, as the portion of this riding within Milton (49,927) is greater than that in Halton Hills (47,300), which covers the community of Georgetown. 

*Hamilton—Stoney Creek—Grimsby Lakeshore: For this riding, I propose dropping the word “Lakeshore”, and adding back the word “East” to Hamilton, making the name Hamilton East—Stoney Creek—Grimsby. As discussed earlier, I believe the commission has overused the term “Lakeshore” in its proposal, and I don't feel it's necessary in this case. It is correct that the riding does not contain all of the municipality of Grimsby, but it does include the main community of Grimsby, which I think is good enough. I also feel that “East” should be added to the riding to maintain name continuity with the current riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. 

*Humber: My proposed name for this riding is York South—Humber. A plurality of this riding (54,502 people) live in the former City of York, which has been traditionally known as “York South” in riding names, to differentiate it from York Region and other parts of the former County of York. While this part of the riding abuts the Humber River, few place names in York are named Humber, which I believe necessitates the inclusion of “York” in the riding name. Plus, it offers continuity with the current riding of York South—Weston. “Humber” is a worthwhile name for the Etobicoke portion of the riding (population 46,506), as the “Humber” name has been given to provincial electoral districts in this area before, plus it is included in the name of several neighbourhoods in the riding, namely Humber Heights and Humber Valley. I am a bit worried about the confusion with my proposed riding name of Etobicoke North—Humber River, though, so if the commission feels that may be a problem, then “York South—Etobicoke” may also work as a name. 

*Kanata: I propose reverting the name of this riding to its current name of Kanata—Carleton. A total of 19,095 people in this riding do not live in the former city of Kanata; they either live in Nepean (mostly Bells Corners) or west of Kanata; either in Stittsville or the former West Carleton Township. I believe appending “Carleton” (Ottawa's former county, and a name still widely used in the capital) should cover those bases, and offers continuity with the current riding name. 

*Kenora—Thunder Bay—Rainy River: I propose re-ordering the names within this riding to Thunder Bay—Kenora—Rainy River in order to match the populations of each section. A total of 46,781 people in this riding live within Thunder Bay District, while 34,732 live in Kenora District and 19,437 live in Rainy River. 

* Lake Simcoe—Uxbridge: This is another example of the commission ditching historical county names for newer, less representative names. I would suggest the commission name this riding York—Durham instead. It may not be the most romantic sounding name, but the riding does contain significant portions of both regional municipalities, and is in line with past naming conventions. I feel the proposed riding name is inappropriate, as it puts extra emphasis on Uxbridge (which only has 21,556 people), which is not even the largest municipality in the riding (which is Georgina). It also unnecessarily highlights the fact that it borders Lake Simcoe, which is shared by multiple proposed ridings. Plus, only one of the municipalities (Georgina) in the riding even borders Lake Simcoe, meaning the riding could just as easily be named Georgina—Uxbridge. However, that would still leave out the 22,487 people who live elsewhere in York Region and the 26,884 people who live elsewhere in Durham Region from being represented in the riding's name.

* Lanark—Frontenac: Suggested name: Lanark—Rideau Lakes—Frontenac. The Frontenac portion of this riding, while geographically large, only makes up for 9,266 people. The portion of the riding within the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville (pop. 17,220) is much larger, and therefore deserves representation in the riding name. My suggestion would be to adopt the name “Rideau Lakes” to represent this area, as the Municipality of Rideau Lakes is the largest municipality in this portion of the riding, plus it borrows a name from the current Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes riding name, and the entirety of this portion of the riding also borders the Rideau River/Canal system.

* London Northeast: Suggested name: London—Thames Centre. There are 13,722 people in this district that don't live within the City of London, and I feel should still be represented in the riding name. Most of this population lives within the Municipality of Thames Centre, though a few thousand live in Zorra Township. However, this portion of Zorra Township borders the Thames River, and its largest community is called “Thamesford”. Therefore it could be said the name “Thames Centre” also represents this portion of the riding too.

* Manitoulin—Nickel Belt: Suggested name: Nickel Belt—Algoma—Manitoulin. Never in the history of the ridings named “Nickel Belt” have the communities of Elliot Lake or Blind River fallen within its borders. I think it would be inappropriate for this historically uranium rich region to be left out of the riding name, which I would not consider to be part of Sudbury's “Nickel Belt”. I believe including “Algoma” in the riding name should be enough to cover this area, though just “Elliot Lake” might be fine. Appending “Algoma” to the riding would be an homage to the former riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing which the commission has decided to eliminate. In terms of the name order, “Nickel Belt” should definitely go first, as two-thirds of the riding lives in either Sudbury District or the City of Greater Sudbury, areas considered to be part of the nickel belt area. Even the Algoma portion of the riding (pop. 18,032) is larger than all of Manitoulin District (pop. 13,935), which is why “Manitoulin” should go last in the riding's name, not first.

* New Tecumseth—Bradford: There are a number of possible names this riding could adopt. Perhaps the most boring would be to keep the name “York—Simcoe” from the existing riding, as it encompasses portions of both Simcoe County and York Region. This proposed riding has shifted more westward than the current riding, to encompass New Tecumseth, so I don't mind ditching the historical name to something along the lines of Gwillmbury—New Tecumseth. The proposed riding contains all of the municipality of Bradford West Gwillimbury, and portions of East Gwillimbury as well. If Bradford feels left out, the riding name could also be “New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury—Bradford”, though I would consider Bradford to be part of the geographic West Gwillimbury Township, and therefore might not necessarily merit inclusion in the riding name.

*Niagara South: My suggested name for this riding would be Welland—Erie. I wouldn't exactly consider Welland to be in the “south” part of Niagara Region, and I feel the city of 55,750 people merits inclusion in the riding name, considering half the district lives in it. Plus, other parts of the riding border the Welland Canal, which is may be why much of this riding used to be called “Welland” (or perhaps because the area is historically part of Welland County). I feel “Erie” should also be part of the riding name, to encompass the communities along Lake Erie, including Fort Erie. “Erie” was also used as part of a riding name for this area in the past, when the area was part of the riding of Erie—Lincoln. 

*Northumberland: Suggested name: Northumberland—Newcastle. This riding contains 17,214 people that live in the Municipality of Clarington, which is not in Northumberland County. Most of these people live in the community of Newcastle, which is why I believe “Newcastle” should be appended to the riding name. “Northumberland—Clarke” is also an option, as the territory in Clarington covers the former Township of Clarke, however I don't know how common that name is used in the area anymore. “Newcastle” is probably a more well known name.

*Oakville Lakeshore; Suggested name: Oakville—Burlington East. Again, I feel the commission has overused the “Lakeshore” appendage for riding names, which I don't think is necessary. However, keeping the riding name as just “Oakville” is no longer appropriate, as the proposed riding contains 18,023 people in the City of Burlington, namely in the neighbourhoods of Pinedale and Elizabeth Gardens.  I think appending “Burlington East” to the riding makes the most sense so that these residents are represented in the riding name. 
 
*Oakville North: This proposed riding also contains a similarly sized chunk of Burlington, namely the Orchard and Tansley neighbourhoods (total pop. 18,026). For this reason, I believe the riding can revert to the name of the current riding of Oakville North—Burlington.

*Penetanguishene—Couchiching: Suggested name: Simcoe North. This proposed riding is very close to the current riding of Simcoe North, a name which has existed in every election since Confederation, and therefore I do not think there is any need to adopt a different name. Not only that but, the proposed name I believe is wildly inappropriate, as Penetanguishene is the least populated municipality in the entire riding. The commission may have adopted the “Penetanguishene” name to refer to peninsula, but I'm not sure how wildly known its name is. But I digress, there is too much history in the riding to have its name change. 

*Richmond Hill South: Very little of this riding has changed from its current incarnation known as just “Richmond Hill”. Sure, it's located in the south part of the city, but it covers the historic main part of the community. I don't feel there is a need for to append “South” to the riding name, therefore I suggest this riding revert to its current name of just Richmond Hill. 

*Sault Ste. Marie: I feel this proposed name does not represent the riding as a whole, because one quarter (25,248 people) of the riding does not live in the City of Sault Ste. Marie. With the commission's decision to eliminate the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, I feel it is necessary to append “Algoma” to this riding's name to recognize the population that live in that riding, and also everyone in the current Sault Ste. Marie riding that do not live in the Soo, but rather in the rest of Algoma District. Therefore, I believe this riding should be named Sault Ste. Marie—Algoma (or even just “Algoma”, as technically Sault Ste. Marie is in Algoma as well). 

contd...

[Hatman 🍁]

*Scarborough Northwest: Suggested name: Scarborough—Agincourt. There is absolutely no need to change the name of this proposed riding from the name of the current Scarborough—Agincourt riding, which has used that name since 1988. Sure, the proposed riding's boundaries have shifted quite a bit, but it still contains the community of Agincourt. In fact, the proposed riding contains even more of Agincourt than the current Scarborough—Agincourt riding does, as Agincourt's eastern section (including Agincourt Park) is currently in Scarbrorough North. Not only that, but the actual Northwest corner of Scarborough falls in the proposed riding of Don Valley North, making “Northwest” an inappropriate name in my view. 

*Scarborough—Rouge Park. Less than half of this proposed riding (51,372 people) lives in the current riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park, which means it is a significantly different riding with these boundaries.  The rest of this proposed riding (more than half) is currently in the riding of Scarborough North, which I think makes for a more appropriate name for the proposed riding, as its oriented in the northern part of Scarborough (while the current Rouge Park riding is more based in the east of Scarborough). It should be noted that from 1988 to 2015, much of this riding was covered in the riding of Scarborough—Rouge River which could also work as a riding name. Another possibility would be “Scarborough—Malvern”,  as the community of Malvern makes up a substantial part of this riding. 

*South Huron Shores: Considering this proposed riding makes up significant portions of four counties, a name change from the existing riding of “Huron—Bruce” may be necessary. However, I feel “South Huron Shores” is not a good name for the riding. For one, directional words usually come after the geographic name in ridings, meaning “Huron Shores South” would work better. Secondly, I'm not sure “South” is even necessary. Sure, it's probably there to differentiate with the Huron north shore region, but I think when one thinks of “Huron Shores”, they're more likely to think of the east coast of Lake Huron, which this riding lines all the way from the Bruce Peninsula to the Sarnia area. For this reason, I think Huron Shores is the best name for the riding. However, if there is some ambiguity with this name, then “Bluewater” could work instead. There are many references to “Bluewater” in the district from the Bluewater School District in the riding's north, to the Municipality of Bluewater in Huron County, to the Bluewater tourist region in Lambton County in the south.

*St. Clair—Mount Pleasant: Here is another example of the commission unnecessarily ditching an historical name. This proposed riding is very similar to the current Toronto—St. Paul's riding, save for the addition of the Leaside area. The name “St. Paul's”, while admittedly meaningless in this day and age, has been the name of the riding that has covered this part of Midtown Toronto since 1968, and has existed as a riding name since 1935. It was re-named “Toronto—St. Paul's” in 2015, which I feel was a mistake, as very few ridings in Toronto have “Toronto” appended to them (either all ridings in Toronto should have “Toronto” appended, or none of them). Therefore, I believe the riding should return to its older name of St. Paul's. Additionally, I feel the use of “St. Clair” is inappropriate the proposed riding's name, as St. Clair Avenue extends into other ridings as well, creating ambiguity. 
 
*Taiaiako'n—High Park: While I have no issue with the commission adding Indigenous names to other ridings, I don't know if it's entirely necessary for this riding. “Taiaiako'n” references an historical community that no longer exists, and I feel riding names should only reference contemporary communities. The current riding that covers most of this proposed riding is Parkdale—High Park, and the commission decided to replace the name “Parkdale” with “Taiaiako'n”, despite the fact that the Taiaiako'n community was located in what is now the High Park area. This has resulted in the proposed riding name now referencing two locations in the same half of the riding, leaving the Parkdale half without any name representation. For these reasons, I believe the commission should revert to the riding's current name of Parkdale—High Park. If necessary, the name “Parkdale—High Park—Taiaiako'n” could also work.

[Hatman 🍁]

Hatman, this is a remarkable piece of writing.  The research that you have done on this is incredible.

Do my proposals next!

Thanks! You usually ignore my proposed names

[Hatman 🍁]

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.

Fair, but the riding already has that name. So why change it? St. Paul's is in the same boat. It's meaningless, but it has a lot of history. At the very least, Simcoe North should not be changed!

[Hatman 🍁]

Ha, ha. It would remain Toronto Centre, or they would start calling it Toronto Centre-Rosedale again.

[Hatman 🍁]

Agreed. Rosedale belongs in a Mt Forest based riding. Sucks for the provincial NDP, but what're ya going to do?

[Hatman 🍁]

Not bad.

[Hatman 🍁]

There are 53 people presenting here for the commission on Thursday, including me.

Presenters will also include Joel Harden, Chandra Pasma, Mark Gerretsen, MF Lalonde, Scott Reid, Chandra Arya, Jenna Sudds, Yasir Naqvi and Laura Dudas.

I'm assuming Sudds and Arya will be upset with Bells Corners being transferred to Kanata, and Dudas will be upset that her ward will be split between two ridings. Naqvi and Harden will probably protest Ottawa Centre's boundaries. I think Naqvi lives in Carleton Heights, which has been chopped out of the riding.

[Hatman 🍁]

I presented yesterday!

Here is a copy of what I said:

One of the key tenets I believe is important when it comes to re-drawing our electoral map is retaining the geographical integrity of ridings; that is make as few changes to the boundaries as possible, within the population limits outlined by the commission. I do commend the commission constraining the population of each riding to be within 10% of the provincial quotient, as population equality is another important tenet to consider when drawing riding boundaries.

Having said that, I have come up with my own proposal for Eastern Ontario and Ottawa, which I believe best retains the geographical integrity of the regions’ current ridings as well as fitting within the commission’s 10% parameters.

Starting in rural Eastern Ontario, I believe the commission made too many drastic changes, when only a few changes are necessary to keep each riding within 10% of the quotient. Currently only 2 ridings are outside this, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, and Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

For Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, I propose adding Smiths Falls to the riding and re-naming it back to “Leeds—Grenville”, as I feel the current name of the riding is probably the worst in the country. Removing Smiths Falls from Lanark—Frontetnac—Kingston brings that riding below 10% of the quotient, so to compensate, I propose adding all of the City of Kingston east of the Cataraqui River plus Amherst Howe Island [note: one lady in the audience let me know afterward that Amherst Island not in Kingston and the Islands, and then I realized I had actually meant Howe Island. oops!] from Kingston and the Islands into Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.  

When it comes to Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, I support the commission’s plans to move North Glengarry into the riding.

Moving on to Ottawa now, the current ridings of Nepean, Carleton and especially Orleans are all too large, so I acknowledge that more than a few changes to the current map are necessary. However, I do not believe the major changes as proposed by the commission are needed.

The commission’s proposal to add parts of West Carleton to the proposed riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke is unnecessary, as the current riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is already within 10% of the provincial quotient.

Keeping West Carleton and Kanata together in the riding of Kanata—Carleton is ideal, as the current riding has a population close to the quotient. The commission’s proposed Kanata riding splits Stittsville along Hazeldean Road, breaking up a community of interest, while adding Bells Corners, a neighbourhood that has historically been more associated with Nepean.  There aren’t many good solutions to reducing the current riding of Carleton’s population, but I think the best solution does involve some sort of a “split” of Stittsville. However, rather than splitting it via Hazeldean Road as the commission has done, the riding border should be drawn on north-south axis instead, moving Stittsville’s eastern neighbourhoods of Blackstone and Fernbank Crossing to Kanata—Carleton. These neighbourhoods are separated from the rest of Stittsville by as of yet undeveloped land, and are not too far away from the rest of Kanata, whereas the area north of Hazeldean is further removed from Kanata.  

The commission also proposes shifting the eastern boundary of Carleton with Prescott—Russell   to 9th line Road, which I feel is rather arbitrary; the current boundary is better as it is coterminous with the border of the city of Ottawa, and doubles as a linguistic border, between English and French communities. Along the same lines, I also oppose the commission’s decision to include the Piperville area which is in Orleans currently into Carleton, as it has a significant Francophone population, so it belongs in Prescott—Russell. Finally, I would also suggest moving the southern boundary of Ottawa South to Leitrim Road to give Carleton a more compact shape.

For Nepean, I propose keeping Bells Corners within the riding, rather than lumping it in Kanata, so I acknowledge some territory of Nepean will have to be shifted to Ottawa West—Nepean to compensate. I believe the best way of doing this is to move the boundary between the two ridings to follow Baseline, Greenbank and Hunt Club roads, moving Bruce Farm and Leslie Park into the riding of Nepean, and Craig Henry, Manordale and Tanglewood into Ottawa West—Nepean to balance the populations of those two ridings.    

Finally, for Orleans, I support the commission’s proposed boundaries, as it is too large, and moving the Cardinal Creek area and Blackburn Hamlet from the riding makes the most logical sense.

All of my proposed changes would result in ridings that have a population within 10% of the quotient.

I hope the commission will consider my proposal when deciding upon the final map of the region. Thank you.

----

I also live tweeted the event:

https://twitter.com/EarlWashburn/status/1583224135513419776

Some main takeaways:
- 3 different politicians were upset with Blackburn Hamlet being removed from Orleans
- General support for the uniting of Carlington in Ottawa West-Nepean
- Some division about where to put Bells Corners
- Quite a bit of debate about West Carleton. A lot of people upset that the proposed boundary splits the community of Carp.

[Hatman 🍁]

Based on what I heard at the presentations, I think the commission might adopt a map that looks like this:



-Blackburn Hamlet is added back to Orleans. None of the presenters offered any solutions to adding it back, so if the commission does decide on this, they will have to remove some other part of Orleans. I've removed the Notting Hill area, adding it to Prescott-Russell.
-Carleton Heights added back to Ottawa Centre, and the riding's western boundary goes back to its current border.  Yasir Naqvi will be happy to be living in his riding again.
-West Carleton is mostly united with Kanata, including keeping Carp together. Unfortunately with Bells Corners now in the riding, not all of West Carleton can stay in Kanata-Carleton, so I've kept the 417 as the western boundary.

[Hatman 🍁]

Oh man, the initial map last time is actually better than the final map.

[Hatman 🍁]

The proposed map last time as a whole was not as good as the final map. There is still hope.

[Hatman 🍁]

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.

No seat in the North is safe anymore, but I am betting Hughes will just run in the new Nickel Belt riding, and may even be favoured. Nickel Belt is usually the NDP's best riding provincially anyway.

[Hatman 🍁]

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.

No seat in the North is safe anymore, but I am betting Hughes will just run in the new Nickel Belt riding, and may even be favoured. Nickel Belt is usually the NDP's best riding provincially anyway.

Checking in ridingbuilder, the NDP actually might pick up a seat until something makes people stop voting like in 2019 and 2021: the Nickel Belt and Cochrane-Timiskaming (yay for Angus) ridings are NDP and they would be the favourites to make a pickup in the Kiiwetinoong riding but that depends a lot on the candidate.

Come to think of it, Kiiwetinoong would probably remain a fairly safe NDP seat, as long as FNs keep voting NDP. That is not a guarantee though, as there have been cases were they have backed popular Liberal candidates in similar ridings (Keewatinook, MB in 2006 for example), or just stayed home (recent Athabasca, SK by-election).

[Hatman 🍁]

I would call that Muskoka riding "Muskoka-Almaguin" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaguin_Highlands)

[Hatman 🍁]

Here are the partisan breakdowns of the new ridings:



Not much change except the new Sydney riding is no longer a marginal seat.

[Hatman 🍁]

The Prince Edward Island Commission has released its report.

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/com/pei/rprt/index_e.aspx

Here's the map.  I don't know why it can't show multiple layers (Current and Report) at the same time.

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/ebv/en/?locale=en-ca&prov=pe

It can, actually, though it's designed awkwardly.

The only difference from the proposal is a small territory of less than 100 people in the Marshfield area was transferred from Malpeque to Charlottetown. The commission didn't mention this at all in their report, however this was done because the area had been annexed by the City of Charlottetown.

[Hatman 🍁]

New Brunswick is now out https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/com/nb/rprt/nb-fin_e.pdf

St. John remains cracked in 2.

Most of it is in Saint John-Kennebacasis.  Small portion in Saint John-St. Croix, but latter riding largely rural while former mostly urban.

Sure, "most" of Saint John is in the Kennebacasis riding, but I would not call the remainder a "small portion". Over a quarter of the city lives in the Saint John-St. Croix riding now.

[Hatman 🍁]

Krago, were you the one that submitted the national map to them?

I'm assuming the "Fredericton resident" that submitted a NB-wide proposal was JP (the 506).