Canada Federal Representation 2024

[Poirot]

- Gaspesie-Iles-de-la-Madeleine should be constituted exclusively by the region of the same name. Territorial divisions are important in Quebec.

I have family in Matane, don't tell them they are not living in Gaspésie.

Territorial subdivisions like MRC and borough limits, or administrative region are often a reason given to change a proposed map. The map looks good on making population more equal but I don't know if in changing limits it will make some MRC unhappy. Not sure the Gaspésie riding doesn't cover too much territory; the MP must be in Matane, in Gaspé and go to Iles-de-la-Madeleine.

South of Montreal many ridings are very equal. They are all in in 114,000 of population: Châteauguay, La Prairie, Saint-Jean, Brossard, Beloeil.

Is it final that Quebec has 77 ridings or is it still possible it will be 78?
And what happens with Native Reserves that don't have a population count. There are some notes in the list of population by ridings. I guess they don't take part in census. When you make a map we have to pretend they won't take part in elections anyway? Like Kahnawake could have 10,000 people but count for zero in a riding.  

[Poirot]

Government is looking at the formula again, so Quebec doesn't lose a seat.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8659357/canada-quebec-commons-seats/

The article says "Because Quebec’s population has declined, it stands to lose an MP" but that is false.

I hope the legisaltion does not take time and ends up delaying the process and a new map is not ready in time.

[Poirot]

I counted the population of all towns in La Prairie riding minus the reserve and it is the number Statistics Canada gives for the population of the riding. So Kahnawake count for zero. Looking on the Internet the estimated population is 8,000 or 10,000. Maybe it is an extreme case for the large number  but it can make a difference for the commission. Using the census number the riding population could go from being average to being large. I don't know if commissions use estimates for reserve or just take riding population provided by Statcan.

There is a list of reserves not completely enumerated.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/ref/iers-repd-eng.cfm

Listuguj I believe is in Avignon-Mitis, the riding has a small population. I don't know if the census is zero for that place but if so, adding about 1,500 people living there make the population a little bigger.
Mirabel is already big in population so if the census gives it zero population in reality the riding is undercounted by more than a thousand.

There was a discussion about northern Ontario ridings. I don't know if there are places not counted that could increase the population a little.

I've been thinking of the fairness of making ridings the more equal possible based on the census by ridings from statcan if some placed are not counted. If there is an estimate taking into account or not in the census it doesn not exists. Ridings boundaries are influenced by humans not eleigible to vote anyway like children or people residing but don't have the right to vote. Trying to make boundaries with ridings very equal in population numbers from the census like within 5% which seems fair on the surface might not be.

[Poirot]

Legislation to protect provinces from losing representation:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-look-to-amend-constitution-act-to-impose-new-minimum-seat-count-for-each-province-1.5833425

I don't know how much time it will take to adopt this. I hope the Quebec commission didn't rush to work on a 77 seats map. I guess it's not a big surprise so maybe they were looking also at 78.

[Poirot]

I'm in admiration of some people's work to draw entire provinces.

I see proposals that removes ridings in Eastern Quebec. Last redrawing it was proposed but finally abandoned. I imagine this time communities will go to hearings if they lose their riding.

In 2012 redistribution the proposal was a Charlevoix -Saguenay riding. In the final report the commission wrote:

That type of problem arose again in a different context for the Charlevoix region, which was merged with the Saguenay region under our proposal. Those two regions saw no relationship between themselves, much less a community of interest. We were therefore logically requested to abandon our proposal to unite the eastern portion of Charlevoix and the southern part of Saguenay in one electoral district. As is the case in five other electoral districts, the accommodation that such a decision entails obliges us to consider it as exceptional.

Maybe the numbers are worst after a decade but there could be opposition again this time.

Vaudreuil has become too big and proposals are to shift some south in Salaberry. There is no other choice for Montérégie. I was wondering if putting Ile Perrot with Montreal west island could be a possibility. It's not the same administrative region but it's not like the Montreal ridings are big. I think it was done in decades past.

It seems proposals get rid of Avignon-La Mitis. It looks too small in population numbers but I looked at Elections Canada website at the numbers of electors on the list and it's not that much smaller than some Montreal ridings.  Avignon had 59,626 electors while Outremont had 65,143 and Saint-Laurent 66,181 even if they have 100,000 in population. There is a big difference in population but not so much in electors. The federal criteria is population while the provincial one is electors.

[Poirot]

Shubenacadie--Whatchamacallit

Not being familiar with these names, I would just call it S-W. Easier.

The 2012 Quebec commission proposed many names of people for riding names before backtracking. For the riding of Papineauville / Petite Nation in the Outaouais, it would propose Guy Lafleur. It is possible highway 50 in the Outaouias will be named Guy Lafleur.

[Poirot]

Gaspésie-Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine-Amqui 101861 - Gaspésie is a little undersized on its own and I'm not sure it's isolated enough to be left undersized,

A reason to keep it undersized is representating and serving the islands. (at the provincial level the islands are a legislated exception for size of riding, the islands are one riding on the own.)

Mirabel 118727 - all of Mirabel and the rest of the Thérèse-De Blainville MRC

Mirabel is one of the fastest growing area so being on the gigger side already, it will become too big quick. I think it would be best to have it on the smaller side today because of growth.

[Poirot]

The new seat is Plateau-Mont-Royal, with everything else having a reasonably obvious successor. I'm moderately happy with this, but here are a few niggles in no particular order:

• I'm not wild about that division of LaSalle. You can avoid it by putting Côte Saint-Luc in with Dorval instead and shuffling things round, but that feels a little disruptive
• I get the impression Parc-Extension isn't a good fit with Mont-Royal
• Similarly, Papineau's western extension somehow looks off
• The tail of Plateau-Mont-Royal is probably a bit awkward.

I don't think there is a direct road link between Côte Saint-Luc and Dorval/Lachine. You would need to pass through NDG. I think Côte Saint-Luc would not be moved to keep Jewish community together.

I don't know if the fence between Parc-Extension and Mont-Royal is still in place but it's different socio-economic profile. I don't know if there could be Parc-Extension with part of Outremont and Côte-des-Neiges.

[Poirot]

They don't seem to mind crossing river. It's often a natural barrier but I don't know Vancouver; maybe there is some community of interest. New Westminster-Bridgeview crosses the river but the south side looks more industrial. Same with the proposed Richmond East that has a bit south of the Fraser river.

Pitt Meadows-Fort Langley is drawn to cross two rivers in two different directions.

Burnaby North-Seymour separated by Burrard Inlet still exists.

[Poirot]

The Nova Scotia Federation of Acadians sent comments to the NS commission. It wants the limits of West Nova and Cape Breton Canso to be kept unchanged. The changes proposed would dilute the weight of Acadians.

[Poirot]

The proposed Quebec map has been released.

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/com/qc/prop/index_e.aspx

Who had “Manicouagan—Kawawachikamach—Uapishka” in the pool?

It's a pile of trash. Just look at those villages around Gatineau that are split because they use roads as boundaries instead of municipal limits.

I don't understand why the new Laurentides-Labelle goes that much south in Outaouais. It has part of La Pêche and Val-des-Monts, up to Mont-Laurier but avoiding Maniwaki and back down to Sainte-Agathe. Maybe it has to do with natives near Maniwaki having links to Pontiac more than Laurentides because to join Hautes-Laurentides with Outaouais I would take the most nothern part of Vallée de la Gatineau and avoid going too much south. The name is probably not appropriate anymore.

[Poirot]

Interesting that they added Indigenous names to several ridings, but the Huron-Wendats in Wendake did not want their name added to their riding.

I've seen speculation that they don't want to be associated with the Conservative MP.

Which is weird, because they still vote for him.

Do they vote in elections? I thought the reason could be they don't recognize the political system or something of that nature.

The electoral map would henceforth include at least one reference, generally geographical, to each of the 11 Indigenous nations that make up 55 communities in Quebec, including 14 northern villages.

Last time the theme was let's add names of famous people. This time it's indigenous words. I don't know if the other commissions did that, like some suggestion in the mandate.

To represent the mohawk, the word atateken is added to La Prairie. It's not a geographic name. I imagine it was added here because Kahnawake has the biggest mohawk population today. They don't take part in the census and there are very few votes cast there.

I've added again the population without the reserve and it,s the population of the riding. They count for zero. La Prairie has near 115,000. I've found a population number of 7,900 for Kahnawake on a Quebec government webpage. It would give near 123,000 people in the riding, probably the biggest in Quebec and the commission would say we need to decrease the population a little. If the reserve count for zerop person, why not add it to Châteauguay like in provincial riding. It would not change numbers.

[Poirot]

I was reading on some reactions to the proposal for Gaspésie. Mps, mayors and head of MRC are not happy. The regional minister finds it a short time to organized because it's been released in summer holidays and the hearing is the beginning of September so 1 month to prepare. They will advocate for not losing a seat or at least respect administrative region and MRC. It looks a bit like the old riding was cut in the middle to give part to each adjacent ridings.

I looked in this thread to find proposals. I found this post:
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=467200.msg8539944#msg8539944

The fifth map in the post. It shows a Gaspésie riding of 89,000. It's a bit small but seems to make sense. Rimouski-Matane is 108,000.  The riding next to the west is 92,000, the rest of Bas St-Laurent, Témiscouata.

MP for Lévis-Lotbinière is against splitting part of Lotbinière MRC (where he lives) to put into Mégantic L'érable. He says people making decision don't know the territory. He says the conservatice caucus of the region will discuss and he will make a proposal.

[Poirot]

The Quebec commission seems to try to make riding population more equal within a region. Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean keep three ridings but boundaries are changed within the three. Some towns from Lac-Saint-Jean are shifted to Jonquière and I've read mayors of those communities are against the transfer.

I think I am too muc of a limitologist. I thought we should try and respect city limits or borough limits. When I look ar the proposed map I hyperventilate.

I don't know if it required to change Longueuil-Saint-Hubert. A small portion of Longueuil is put in Pierre-Boucher-Verchères.

The northwest portion of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, a district with a 5.6% surplus, would be transferred to Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, an electoral district with a 5.5% deficit.

The variance was not big to begin with and Longueuil is already in three ridings so maybe move around parts between the three instead of putting a small part in a fourth one.

There are close up maps of Prévost and L'Assomption, two big metropolis!, to show the division of these places in two ridings.

There are a few streets of Terrebonne near Blainville that are transferred to Thésèse-de-Blainville. Maybe they feel closer to Blainville but if it's the case maybe add the streets not transfered just to the north of the streets that are.

I think the borough of Ville-Marie is going to be split in five ridings now. Hochelaga gains a few streets from laurier-Sainte-Marie. Westmount-NDG goes a few streets more east towards downtown. Outremont covers all Mount Royal (could be a good name if not already used) including the south side (towards downtown).

I don't know what is the reaction of Valcourt being moved to Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. It's more Estrie than Montérégie. The town to the east is put in Richmond-Arthabaska. The commission could have proposed the name Saint-Hyacinthe-Acton. It seems to be the name people chose but legislation was not approved in time.

[Poirot]

So here's my question: should I submit a new riding map using their 22/30/26 split, or should I encourage them to consider my original 22/29/27 map?

I don't know if they are willing to go back on the Gaspésie-Laurentides change. There will be criticism in Gaspésie. I don't know how the changes are received in Laurentides. I prefer your Gaspésie and Outaouais. For Outaouais I imagine the commission would say to many people in ridings on average.

Seeing there are complaints of some transfers from Lac-Saint-Jean to Jonquière, your map puttin Chicoutimi and Charlevoix together would cause uproar. Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean will get fully three ridings so your split might not work. I would go with the commission's split because it's difficult to know how much are they willing to change it back.

[Poirot]

Some opposition to the changes proposed in the Quebec City region.

https://www.journaldequebec.com/2022/08/08/revision-de-la-carte-electorale-federale-des-milliers-delecteurs-deracines-de-leur-comte

Lac-Beauport and Saint-Brigitte-de-Laval were in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier riding but now would be put in the Ile-d'Orléans-Charlevoix riding. The mayor of Saint-Brigitte-de-Laval will oppose the change, would want things to stay the same and they are part of the MRC de la Jacques-Cartier.

Wendake doesn't mind joining Charlesbourg riding.

The sectors of Charlesbourg borough, Château-Bigot and Montagne-des-Roches, are moved to the Charlevoix riding, Côte-de-Beaupré–Île d’Orléans–Charlevoix. The MP will oppose that.

(The difficult thing seems to be putting parts of Quebec City in the big riding to the east that cover Charlevoix)

The article notes that the commission says "It also proposes reuniting the entire borough of Beauport, which currently straddles two electoral districts bearing that name, by moving the eastern boundary of Beauport—Limoilou to the Montmorency River. " But it is not the case, some people in Beauport will vote in the Charlevoix riding so two districts.

[Poirot]

The hearings in Québec have started, beginning with Gaspé and Matane. The Bloc seems universally opposed to the whole map everywhere. They're opposed to it in Drummond, Lac-Saint-Jean and even in Prévost. They sent the MP for La Prairie to Gaspé to oppose the map!

Many MRC are opposing proposal in their region. MRC Matane and MRC Matapedia don't like being split, if the region lose a seat at least they want MRC limit to be respected. I don't know why the commission is reckless every redistribution. It's not the same people so they never learn. For some regions MRC is important so take that into account.

MRC Drummond don't want some municipalities to be transfered to Becancour-Saurel.
MRC Vallée-de-la-Gatineau took position against the proposed map.

Maybe the commission needs more time to draw their original proposal.

Was there a reaction to the changes on the island of Montreal? 

[Poirot]

The hearings at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee for the reports of the four Atlantic provinces’ boundaries commissions are taking place on Tuesday January 31 from 11am to 1pm EST.

And they will be televised!

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/PROC


Here's the televised hearing:
https://www.cpac.ca/episode?id=5328e8d3-ffdd-447e-b661-0fa36f11aa74

The first 50 minutes is about the name change of New Brunswick southwest.
After that it's three Nova Scotia MPs not satisfied with the map proposed. Conservative MPs speaking seem happy with the map.

Does the parliament committee need to be unanimous to suggest a change to the provincial commission. I imagine it takes a lot for suddenly a commission change its mind.

[Poirot]

I've listened to the Saskatchewan parliamentary commission. Daniel Blaikie spoke on behalf of people supporting the creation of a Saskatoon Centre riding. It was in the first proposal but not maintained in the final report.

The other issue from the MPs of Regina Lewvan et Qu'Appelle is the border between the two. Some sectors were switched between the ridings in the final report that was not in the first proposal and it seems to not be logical for communities so they would like a switch back. Also in the final report there were rural communities that were added to Qu'Appelle.

For Manitoba. Blaikie advocated for a purely Elmwood-Transcona in Winnipeg. Some rural part was addded to his riding, the other side of the Winnipeg beltway. Since Kildonan St. Paul is already urban and rural, he is proposing putting the new rural part of Transcona to Kildonan, and the border between the two ridings could be moved a few streets to compensate and add people in this part instead.

MPs Ashton and Bezan agree in asking for a change. In the final report, a first nation community and half of another were added to Selkirk. This was not in the initial proposal and they would like the communities to stay in Churchill.   

[Poirot]

The National Assembly has adopted a motion wishing the federal boundary commission reexamine the recommandation to abolish the riding of Avignon-La Mitis-Matapedia-Matane. It was tabled by the PLQ and adopted unanimously without debate. Maybe it would have had more influence if it was done earlier in the process but that is difficult when the proposal comes out in the middle of summer and the election was starting.

«Que l'Assemblée nationale prenne acte de la proposition de la Commission de délimitation des circonscriptions électorales fédérales de supprimer la circonscription fédérale d'Avignon-La Mitis-Matane-Matapédia;

«Qu'elle souligne l'immensité du territoire, son éloignement, la longueur des distances à parcourir et la dispersion de l'ensemble de la population de cette région;

«Qu'elle rappelle qu'un territoire aussi vaste éloignerait encore davantage les citoyens de leur député, affecterait la qualité des services offerts dans les bureaux de circonscription et ne pourrait refléter adéquatement les multiples particularités régionales de cette circonscription;

«Qu'elle souligne que toute perte de poids politique que subissent nos régions québécoises met en péril la santé démocratique de notre nation;

«Qu'enfin elle souhaite que la Commission de délimitation des circonscriptions électorales fédérales révise sa recommandation de supprimer cette circonscription.»

[Poirot]

Realistically does anything change once the final reports are in? I was under the impression that the maps are now more or less final and that any House of Commons hearings now are just MPs putting objections in the record but nothing will change

At the House hearings they ask MPs a list of questions like Have you takled to your colleagues about your objection, did the communities had a chance to speak up, does your proposal has a domino effect on other ridings. I view this has objections that have a chance to succeed with the commissions are last minute change that were not in the first proposal and that don't change a lot of things. I'm thinking like in Manitoba, the two communities that were removed from Churchill in the final report, both MPs agree, communities could not give opinion because it was not proposed before. Or in Saskatchewan, the swap in the city between two ridings, it was not in the proposal and seems to be fairly even in numbers.

[Poirot]

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.

It's a problem with how the system works. Changes appear in the report that were not in the original proposal. It's better to see some big problem in the proposal since it gives time to fight it. I don't how the process could be improved. Going with a second round of public hearings for never before disclosed  changes would be too cumbersome and never end. I don't know if the commission could decide to have a hearing for a specific subregion if there is a big outcry.

Maybe in a second of consultation accept comments by local and regional authorities only. It's strange, when I listened to House MPs objection, I heard question asked if a community spoke up, send comments and the MP said no because the proposal was status quo so there was no objection but apparently some expect people to write they are fine with the proposal even if there is no change.

I heard the House committee chair tell MPs documents they produce at the committee like maps are included in the report sent to the provincial commission. Maybe there is an indirect possibility to give feedback to the commission even if the public hearing period is done. You find an MP that will present objection to the House committee and send this MP a letter with your objection/ comment. The MP puts the letter to show backup from people in support of the objection raised in the presentation to the committee. If it is filed at the committee it could be included in the report sent to the commission. Maybe this could work. I don't know if sending a comment to the emai or address of the commission wil result in a reply Sorry but the period for public comment has passed.

[Poirot]

The first hearing on the Quebec map was after the Alberta hearing. It was on eastern Quebec with a panel of the four MPs of the region from Montmagny to Iles-de-la-Madeleine.

Objection to the area going from 4 to 3 ridings. It would make access to the MP and services to citizens more difficult, less representation. For example MP for Gaspésie - Iles-de-la-Madeleine tries to get to the islands 4 times a year.  Need to go by plane but bad weather makes liaison uncertain. To go by ferry you need to go to Souris PEI.

Gaspésie - Les Iles MP made a suggestion of removing MRC La Matanie from the Gaspésie riding and put it in the Rimouski riding.  Reason would be because it is in the administrative region of Bas-St-Laurent. The MP for the current Avignon-La-Mitis etc. whicj is being erased seemed surprised and said when asked if they had to choose to which of the new ridings proposed they would like to join local people prefered Gaspésie. I think removing La Matanie from Gaspésie would put the riding at -20% from quotient. Maybe the Liberals are figuring keeping La Matanie in Gaspésie make it more difficult to hold it.

There was a name modification proposed by MP from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. The new riding name decided by the commission is Montmagny—Témiscouata—Kataskomiq. Témiscouata because its a region added to the riding and the easternmost part of the riding and Kataskomiq because of adding native words.

Rivière-du-Loup was removed and it's the biggest city and MRC. He proposes the name Côte-du-Sud - Rivière-du-Loup - Kataskomiq - Témiscouata. The parts of the riding going west to east in order. Côte-du-Sud covers Montmagny, L'Islet and Kamouraska.

[Poirot]

I don't know if it's an economic issue, it's cheaper to move on land as much as possible versus taking more time to travel by sea.

I found an article on possible alternatives for a ferry from Quebec to Iles-de-la-Madeleine if interprovincial travel to the PEI ferry was not allowed during the pandemic. The closest Quebec option was Matane and it would be at least 20 hours trip compared to 5 from PEI. Other ports don't have an access ramp for vehicles. Chandler would be closest with 8 hours but Transports Canada closed it in 2016. I think the wharf was damaged and cost to repair it is 60 million. Gaspé didn't have the equipment but maybe there could be an emergency access ramp build. 

[Poirot]

The committee to study Quebec map met on March 28th. The first part is about Saguenay Lac St-Jean and Côte-Nord regions. Three MPs presenting were from Manicouagan, Lac-St-Jean and Jonquière.

Manicouagan is about the name proposal. The commission settled on Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Uapashke. After consultation with people in the riding and the Innus, the name the MP proposes is Côte-Nord - Nitassinan or Nitassinan - Côte-Nord. I hope the name changes because it is much easier to write and shorter!

In the final report the commission created a Jonquière-Alma riding. The commission seems to be set on having three equal ridings in the region over community of interest or regional belonging. It always put some part of Lac-St-Jean with Saguenay. Seems like Jonquière-Alma from the final report is even more disliked than the first proposal. People fought to dismantle it in the last redistribution process. Between the two maps the two Bloc MPs prefer the first proposal over the final report. Alma is the biggest town in Lac-St-Jean. When time was almost up a Conservative MP said something like the Chicoutimi MP did not object to the final report map. He was not there. Maybe it was to remove impression that three regional MPs object to the final report. (or the Conservatives are planning to approve the final report map).

The second part of the session was on Montreal.