Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts 2012

[Hatman 🍁]

They kept the name Edmonton-Greisbach

[DC Al Fine]

Can someone explain to me why ridings in Quebec are named after people?

[Hatman 🍁]

Can someone explain to me why ridings in Quebec are named after people?

Well, they've ditched that plan... although the one's that currently are named for people will remain. And provincially, I think at least 1/3 are named after people. It's a Quebec thing, I guess. Perhaps one reason is to avoid having long hyphenated names. It's really annoying in my view.

[DC Al Fine]

Can someone explain to me why ridings in Quebec are named after people?

Well, they've ditched that plan... although the one's that currently are named for people will remain. And provincially, I think at least 1/3 are named after people. It's a Quebec thing, I guess. Perhaps one reason is to avoid having long hyphenated names. It's really annoying in my view.

Glad they dropped it. I was looking at maps and the whole of Quebec City was random Quebecois dudes who I've never heard of. Stick with neighborhoods or _____ East please

[Krago]

Directional names are strongly discouraged in Quebec, so as to avoid having to translate federal riding names into English.  Calgary East/Calgary-Est is considered OK, but Laval-Est/Laval East is not.

Here is a quick read: Naming Canada's Constituencies

[DC Al Fine]

Directional names are strongly discouraged in Quebec, so as to avoid having to translate federal riding names into English.  Calgary East/Calgary-Est is considered OK, but Laval-Est/Laval East is not.

Here is a quick read: Naming Canada's Constituencies

Interesting read. I still prefer that they use community names. If I can't get Quebec East/West/Centre, then I should at least be able to get Saint Foy/Charlesbourg/Quebec etc.

[Hatman 🍁]

Directional names are strongly discouraged in Quebec, so as to avoid having to translate federal riding names into English.  Calgary East/Calgary-Est is considered OK, but Laval-Est/Laval East is not.

Here is a quick read: Naming Canada's Constituencies

Interesting read. I still prefer that they use community names. If I can't get Quebec East/West/Centre, then I should at least be able to get Saint Foy/Charlesbourg/Quebec etc.

Good write up, but I vehemently disagree with the conclusions.

[Krago]

After the last redistribution in 2003, Bill C-20 was passed to change the names of 38 ridings from what was proposed by the Commissions (and included in the Representation Order).  Since this happened just days before Parliament was dissolved, the changes didn't take effect until after the 2004 Federal Election.  Of the 38 changes, 30 lengthened the district name (the winner: North Nova became Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley), 5 shortened the name (take that Prof. Courtney!) and 3 just moved the names around.

After the election, two ridings were returned to their original names:

- Bill 302 changed Kitchener-Wilmot-Wellesley-Woolwich back to Kitchener-Conestoga after the MP had a fit of sanity.

- Bill 304 changed Battle River back to Westlock-St. Paul.  This is one of my favourite political stories.  THEY CHANGED THE NAME OF THE WRONG RIDING and nobody noticed!  The Battle River flows through the middle of Vegreville-Wainwright, not Westlock-St. Paul.  Could you imagine the embarrassment, if they had actually held an election under the wrong name?

[Hatman 🍁]

Jeepers. Bad enough they commission missed Nepean not being in Nepean-Carleton and Grey in Simcoe-Grey in their initial proposals.

[Krago]

The other possibility is that they got the right riding, but the wrong river.  In a previous incarnation Westlock-St. Paul was called Beaver River.

[YL]

Directional names are strongly discouraged in Quebec, so as to avoid having to translate federal riding names into English.  Calgary East/Calgary-Est is considered OK, but Laval-Est/Laval East is not.

Here is a quick read: Naming Canada's Constituencies

Interesting read. I still prefer that they use community names. If I can't get Quebec East/West/Centre, then I should at least be able to get Saint Foy/Charlesbourg/Quebec etc.

Good write up, but I vehemently disagree with the conclusions.

Community names for me too.

I wonder whether people find it easier to draw utter monstrosities if they only have to call them "Maryland's third district" or the like without having to actually find names for them...  (That said, it didn't stop our Commission coming up with "Mersey Banks".)

[Wilfred Day]

Yesterday the House Committee adopted their reports on Saskatchewan, BC, and Quebec. Still working on Ontario.

Anyone know what they reported on those three?

[Hatman 🍁]

Yesterday the House Committee adopted their reports on Saskatchewan, BC, and Quebec. Still working on Ontario.

Anyone know what they reported on those three?

Don't they publish committee meetings in hansard?  What committee is looking at it?

[RogueBeaver]

Haven't been following this for a while, but is Ontario the last holdout?

[Hatman 🍁]

Haven't been following this for a while, but is Ontario the last holdout?

Saskatchewan and Quebec, too. BC too, I think?

[Wilfred Day]

Yesterday the House Committee adopted their reports on Saskatchewan, BC, and Quebec. Still working on Ontario.

Anyone know what they reported on those three?

Don't they publish committee meetings in hansard?  What committee is looking at it?

Procedure and House Affairs:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6190763&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1

[Hatman 🍁]

Oh, they met in camera.  That's Canadian democracy for you....

[MaxQue]

Oh, they met in camera.  That's Canadian democracy for you....

Not their choice. Committees always meet in camera when discussing a report, usually.

[Hatman 🍁]

Oh, they met in camera.  That's Canadian democracy for you....

Not their choice. Committees always meet in camera when discussing a report, usually.

Still, not good for democracy. Do their staff get to witness it at least?

[Krago]

The BC, Quebec and Saskatchewan Reports are out.

[Krago]

The Ontario Report is now out.

[Wilfred Day]

The Ontario Report is now out.

One good note in the Committee's report: "During its hearings, the Committee discerned a consistent endorsement on the part of MPs for the Commission’s use, in certain regions, of a second round of public consultations in order to arrive at the electoral boundaries proposed in its Report. While this extra consultation is not mandated by the Act, the Committee highlights this practice for the consideration of future Electoral Boundaries Commissions as a way to mitigate potential public discontent over lack of input concerning changes to electoral boundaries made following a first and only round of public consultations. The Committee considers any such mechanism, which has as its objective to deepen public consultations, to be a worthwhile undertaking and in line with the spirit of the Act."

My favourite sections are on Peterborough.

It says Mr. Del Mastro proposed that the name of the electoral district of Peterborough be changed to Peterborough–Kawartha to recognize that both the City of Peterborough and the City of Kawartha Lakes are located in the riding. No part of the City of Kawartha Lakes is located in the riding, nor does Mr. Del Mastro propose this. Staff prepared this text during the end-of-session rush.

And it supports his proposal for changes to Peterborough. Mr. Del Mastro spent some time telling the Committee on May 7 that Peterborough County Council now suggests the townships of Otonabee-South Monaghan and Asphodel-Norwood move back in to Peterborough riding, and move Cavan-Monaghan to Northumberland, as Northumberland County had proposed at the Cobourg hearing. This is another example of what I noted at the Cobourg hearing: “It is noteworthy what has been the result of Parliament cutting the preparation time for these hearings in half. The four counties of Northumberland, Hastings, Lennox and Addington, and Frontenac, plus Durham Region, did not have time to consider and adjust to each other’s proposals.” And Peterborough County Council also came late to the party. Mr. Del Mastro also noted that the councils of Otonabee-South Monaghan and Asphodel-Norwood objected to being added to Northumberland.

Despite all this, agreement with his four neighbouring MPs outweighed the County Council’s view in Mr. Del Mastro’s mind, so he advocated that Otonabee-South Monaghan and Asphodel-Norwood be added to Northumberland, and that Havelock-Belmont-Methuen join them. Mr. Del Mastro submitted no evidence to the Committee that anyone in Peterborough supported his new proposal. But it enabled Durham to retrieve Clarington's Ward 4, so that Durham could afford to help max out Oshawa; that's all Del Mastro needed to know.

Oddly, Del Mastro told the Committee “The challenge I have is that Peterborough and Peterborough County are about 160,000; it's a riding and a half.” In fact Peterborough city and county total 134,933. He also told the Committee “The riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South would have 112,000.” In fact it would be 97,712. An inconvenient fact, when the new plan of the five MPs is to max out Oshawa, adding another 6,559 North Oshawa residents to the Oshawa riding, giving it 132,330 residents (24.59% above quota),

All this would obviously have been challenged at a public hearing. It is dangerous to by-pass public submissions when such a divergence of opinion is found.

The Committee also swallowed Mr. O'Toole's line that "his proposal has garnered large public support."

Combining Clarke (Clarington's Ward 4) with Cobourg and Port Hope was a feature of the Commission’s original proposal. I expect everything that could have been said against it was said at the public hearings. But at the Committee on May 7 the MP for Durham referred to a new survey he took, where 90% of Ward 4 respondents said that their community of interest and identity is with Clarington, while only 3% said that their community of interest was with Port Hope (leaving 7% unreported). Given those choices, that’s very logical. The Newtonville area, about 900 people (6% of the 15,354 in Clarington’s ward 4), is considered by many as more oriented to Port Hope than to the municipality it is in. The fact that 90% of the population of Ward 4 think they are in the right municipality is comforting, but is really irrelevant to the riding boundaries.

That would have been made clear at the public hearings. Such a “survey” should not be allowed in through the back door with no opportunity for contradiction. That’s why this process is dangerous.

Durham Region, excluding Brock which has been and will continue to be aligned with Kawartha Lakes, has 596,783 residents, or 5.619 electoral quotas. At the public hearings no one proposed a plan to squeeze them all into five ridings. Quite the opposite, Durham Region proposed 6 ridings.

The new plan of the five MPs, maxing out Oshawa by adding another 6,559 North Oshawa residents to the Oshawa riding, giving it 132,330 residents (24.59% above quota), was never proposed at the public hearing, as far as I know. South Oshawa, south of King Street, has 53,434 residents. North Oshawa has 87,153, plus another 9,030 rural residents. South Oshawa and North Oshawa are very different socially and economically. The balance between them matters in Oshawa. The Report combined 53,434 South Oshawa residents with 72,337 North Oshawa residents. A proposal to add another 6,559 North Oshawa residents might well have been denounced at the hearing as gerrymandering, shoving as many North Oshawa residents as legally possible into the riding, bringing it to 24.59% above quota. That would mean five Oshawa residents would have the same weight as four typical Ontario residents, even fewer in Niagara West or the north.

For Brant, after public submissions the Commission concluded that the Cities of Brantford and Brant, and the First Nations of Six Nations and New Credit, constitute a unique community of interest that works best in a single electoral district, notwithstanding the high population. That was not the case in Oshawa.

Making controversial last-minute proposals in private is dangerous.

I want to know what Stephane Dion and Craig Scott said about maxing out Oshawa. They both picked up, during questioning of the five Tory MPs, that this was part of the point of the whole scheme. But the Committee's deliberations on their objections on May 30, June 6 and June 11 were in Camera. I totally object to committee deliberations on issues like this being in camera.   

[Hatman 🍁]

As discussed earlier in this thread, it is rather obvious that the Tories are trying to prevent Oshawa from ever going NDP. Not that it ever would under the proposed boundaries anyways.

[DL]

As discussed earlier in this thread, it is rather obvious that the Tories are trying to prevent Oshawa from ever going NDP. Not that it ever would under the proposed boundaries anyways.

Under the proposed boundaries in 2011 Oshawa would have gone Tory 50% and NDP 38%...and that was in a year where the Tories swept Ontario with 45% of the vote province-wide. Most polls have them down in the low to mid-30s in Ontario. I have to think that if CPC support in Ontario drops 10 points - an NDP win in Oshawa is possible - esp. if they stop running old-fashioned CAW firebrands in that riding and instead run someone who can appeal to the mainstream suburban population.

[Hatman 🍁]

As discussed earlier in this thread, it is rather obvious that the Tories are trying to prevent Oshawa from ever going NDP. Not that it ever would under the proposed boundaries anyways.

Under the proposed boundaries in 2011 Oshawa would have gone Tory 50% and NDP 38%...and that was in a year where the Tories swept Ontario with 45% of the vote province-wide. Most polls have them down in the low to mid-30s in Ontario. I have to think that if CPC support in Ontario drops 10 points - an NDP win in Oshawa is possible - esp. if they stop running old-fashioned CAW firebrands in that riding and instead run someone who can appeal to the mainstream suburban population.

Maybe, but also remember that 2011 was the best year ever for the NDP, and they still lost it. They would need the Tories to come down significantly. Plus, Oshawa's demographics are changing as it becomes more of a cookie-cutter 905 suburb and less of a union town.