Canada Federal Representation 2024

[Philly D.]

Although putting Powell River with Skeena is tempting, in 2002 it was proposed and everyone thought it was a bad idea and recommended extending Skeena eastwards! Ken Carty might remember that.

Making three ridings for North Van/West Van/Powell River requires sending the northernmost riding of the three well over the Coastal Mountains. Experimentation with ridingbuilder required me not only including the Fraser Canyon but also going near to Kelowna and Kamloops! I can't see the Commission doing that.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I made a better map of BC last night. It seemed to get a lot of good comments on Twitter. What do you think?

It's big drawback is the Skeena-Bulkley Valley-Powell River riding. But by creating it, I was able to nuke the Burnaby North-Seymour riding and make the Van Island ridings smaller.

This is immeasurably better than whatever the commission initially proposed! I also like Krago's map, or literally, anything that doesn't resemble terrible choices like Port Coquitlam - Pitt Meadows - Fort Langley!

I made a better map of BC last night. It seemed to get a lot of good comments on Twitter. What do you think?






It's big drawback is the Skeena-Bulkley Valley-Powell River riding. But by creating it, I was able to nuke the Burnaby North-Seymour riding and make the Van Island ridings smaller.

That little northernmost district in Vancouver is quite small.

[lilTommy]

That would be Vancouver Centre, Condo land. This is the city centre of Vancouver, one of the most densely populated areas, I'd say, in the entire country. I just looked it up, population density of 18,837 residents per sq km it is the most dense. It's also relatively fast growing, over 7% population growth. Vancouver Centre's boundaries have no choice but to shrink.

[Hatman 🍁]

Although putting Powell River with Skeena is tempting, in 2002 it was proposed and everyone thought it was a bad idea and recommended extending Skeena eastwards! Ken Carty might remember that.

Making three ridings for North Van/West Van/Powell River requires sending the northernmost riding of the three well over the Coastal Mountains. Experimentation with ridingbuilder required me not only including the Fraser Canyon but also going near to Kelowna and Kamloops! I can't see the Commission doing that.

CultySmother on Twitter made a pretty good map that adds the extra seat to Vancouver Island which allows a smaller Skeena-Bulkley Valley riding, and puts the Sunshine Coast into the North Island riding (North Island-Powell River-Sunshine Coast, basically).  This allows for the nuking of the Burnaby North-Seymour riding.

[Krago]

I made a better map of BC last night. It seemed to get a lot of good comments on Twitter. What do you think?

The road to Hell is paved with good comments on Twitter.

[lilTommy]

Although putting Powell River with Skeena is tempting, in 2002 it was proposed and everyone thought it was a bad idea and recommended extending Skeena eastwards! Ken Carty might remember that.

Making three ridings for North Van/West Van/Powell River requires sending the northernmost riding of the three well over the Coastal Mountains. Experimentation with ridingbuilder required me not only including the Fraser Canyon but also going near to Kelowna and Kamloops! I can't see the Commission doing that.

CultySmother on Twitter made a pretty good map that adds the extra seat to Vancouver Island which allows a smaller Skeena-Bulkley Valley riding, and puts the Sunshine Coast into the North Island riding (North Island-Powell River-Sunshine Coast, basically).  This allows for the nuking of the Burnaby North-Seymour riding.

I think it would be best to sacrifice Powell River-Sunshine coast separating from an Island riding if it means we get to kill the Burnaby North-Seymour.

[Krago]

I have completely revised my BC map.  MPs who enjoy crossing rivers (or inlets or false creeks) will be very disappointed.

https://bit.ly/Canada343


My 43rd riding is qathat--Sea-to-Sky Country--Fraser Canyon--Nicola--Similkameen.  I've dropped a few names for the map.

[lilTommy]

I have completely revised my BC map.  MPs who enjoy crossing rivers (or inlets or false creeks) will be very disappointed.

bit.ly/Canada343


My 43rd riding is qathat--Sea-to-Sky Country--Fraser Canyon--Nicola--Similkameen.  I've dropped a few names for the map.

What do you think this is, Quebec naming?
... the award for the longest electoral district name? LOL

[Hatman 🍁]

ooh, first riding to begin with a lower case letter? Alas, that riding is preposterous, and wouldn't go over well.

[emmettmark]

I have completely revised my BC map.  MPs who enjoy crossing rivers (or inlets or false creeks) will be very disappointed.

bit.ly/Canada343


My 43rd riding is qathat--Sea-to-Sky Country--Fraser Canyon--Nicola--Similkameen.  I've dropped a few names for the map.

This is immeasurably better with uniting communities of interest, compared to what the commission initially proposed - Although I feel bad for the Member of Parliament who has to represent the 43rd riding, their sacrifice for far more coherent ridings in the rest of the province is well appreciated.

If you're not a BC resident, I'll be happy to support elements of this proposal in submissions to the commission?

[emmettmark]

Further to my prior posts about the City of Vancouver, (now I can post images/links, yay!), the distribution of Vancouver into federal ridings has always bothered me. Vancouver is very much a 'city of neighborhoods' and likewise, creates strong 'communities of interest' that should not be split unless otherwise necessary.

There are 22 neighborhoods in Vancouver which are bylaw/urban planning-determined, as well as special attention paid to the Downtown-Eastside community of interest.

Maps: https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/neighbourhood-planning-projects.aspx

https://vanmapp1.vancouver.ca/gmaps/covmap.htm?map=csg_neighborhood_areas

Source - Pg. 50 - Vancouver City Plan, (1995),
https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/policy-plan-cityplan.pdf

The current Vancouver riding map prioritizes the use of major arterial roads to determine federal riding boundaries, which does a poor job of keeping communities of interest united.

Furthermore, ridings like Vancouver Quadra and Vancouver Granville, fail to account for the immense development/urban differences between northern and southern neighborhoods in their respective territory. Kitsilano-Fairview-University, is far more congruent than Kerrisdale-Fairview-Mount Pleasant.

I've created this map which splits only 3 neighborhoods, (2 based on East-West divides, 1 owing to population equity), which has all 6 ridings within 9% of the provincial population quotient, (116 318). and within 7% of the 'Vancouver riding' population quotient (113 698). I used naming conventions of either cardinal directions, or major arterial roads.

Logical Map of Vancouver Federal Ridings



Vancouver Centre: 107 225 (area of very high anticipated development/growth)
Vancouver Broadway: 120 145
Vancouver East: 114 774
Vancouver Southwest: 105 911
Vancouver South: 114 278
Vancouver Kingsway: 119 857

If the commission is an immense stickler for population equity as they seem to be this cycle, and insist that Vancouver does not have adequate population for 6 ridings, the logical amendment would be to move all of 'Marpole' into 'Vancouver Southwest' (new population: 119 269), pushing the 'Vancouver South' population down to 100 920.

I would assume 'Vancouver South' would take a part of Burnaby to meet population requirements - the last time a Vancouver riding bled into another municipality, was the 1995 Redistribution, which saw the creation of Vancouver South - Burnaby between 1997 - 2004.

[Philly D.]

Ontario is finally ready! Average variance of 3.86%, only 12 ridings above +5% (all within 10) and 10 ridings below -5%. Two negative exceptions, one riding crosses Steeles Avenue (in addition to Toronto losing a seat). Only 5 ridings are left unchanged.

Name	Population	Variance
Kenora—Rainy River	83,889	-28,05%
Thunder Bay	110,694*	-5,06%*
Kiiwetinoong—Superior	67,055*	-42,49%*
Algoma	108,333	-7,34%
Sudbury—Manitoulin	101,856	-12,64%
Sudbury—Nickel Belt	96,722	-17,04%
Muskoka—Parry Sound	104,494	-10,37%
Cochrane—Timiskaming	89,344	-23,37%
Nipissing	92,740	-20,46%

Indeed, Northern Ontario loses a riding. But rather than keep Kenora as is, it may be worth pointing out that if Northern Ontario has 9 ridings, all of them would normally have negative variances. Let's be frank: do Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie really deserve to be considered differently from ridings such as Hastings—Lennox & Addington or Haliburton? The answer is no, and the remedy is to put all but the northern part of Algoma in one riding, now named Algoma rather than Sault Ste. Marie, which becomes notionally Conservative. We can do this with Thunder Bay as well, which also includes a small part of Thunder Bay District along Route 591 (to Dog Lake) only accessible from the city. The new Thunder Bay is no bigger than an average Southern Ontario riding. The population is actually a little larger than what is given, due to the constraints of the program. This was not possible to the same extent for Sudbury.

On the other hand, the two negative exceptions cover most of Northern Ontario. Kenora was increased in size to about to same population as Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, but a negative exception is still justified as it is about half the size of Manitoba. Kiiwetinoong has a particularly low variance and is even larger. It is also a Francophone- and First Nations-opportunity seat. The old Algoma disappears, much of it being taken by Sudbury—Manitoulin. It partitions the Sudbury area with Sudbury—Nickel Belt; the border puts the central city in Manitoulin while Nickel Belt takes the rest (except the Norther part in Kiiwetinoong); the latter would have been close for the Conservatives in 2021. Parry Sound—Muskoka, one of the 5 unchanged ridings, simply becomes Muskoka—Parry Sound as Muskoka is larger (a rule I will follow constantly). Timmins—James Bay gains all of Timiskaming District to correct its negative exceptionality and gets a better name. Nipissing gains West Nipissing to compensate.

Name	Population	Variance
Renfrew—Algonquin	119,036	+2,10%
Lanark—Frontenac	116,537	-0,05%
Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes	113,324	-2,80%
Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry	114,637	-1,68%
Prescott—Russell	119,532	+2,52%
Orléans	126,096	+8,15%
Ottawa—Vanier	118,806	+1,90%
Ottawa Centre	120,254	+3,14%
Ottawa West—Nepean	122,514	+5,08%
Kanata—Sittsville	115,864	-0,62%
Barrhaven—Nepean	121,986	+4,63%
Ottawa South	121,374	+4,10%
Carleton	112,379	-3,61%

The initial plan was to involve Stormont—Dundas and Leeds—Grenville as well along with this forum's preferred plan of involving Lanark. But the plans on this site required it to dump Frontenac, which led to problems with splitting Quinte West. I still bought Lanark—Frontenac into the city, and it now only takes Richmond and part of West Carleton, while Renfrew—Algonquin ("Pembroke" is superfluous) takes the rest. This was abandoned in the cases of Stormont—Dundas and Leeds—Grenville as the Ottawa part would be too small, and there the Krago options of adding North Glengarry and Smiths Falls were heeded (although only quite recently.) The latter also changes its name, just because what we have now is too long!
 
Some changes were made to compensate. Prescott—Russell adds Blackburn Hamlet and the rural parts of Orléans. The latter remains whole as a community of interest, in spite of its high variance. Ottawa—Vanier remains as is. Ottawa Centre, quite large, dumps its part of Carlington, now reunited in Ottawa West—Nepean. Unfortunately, if Ottawa Centre does not take Sandy Hill (which I suspect would fit well despite its history) it cannot also dump Carleton Heights. The latter sees no further changes.

Nepean gains all of Barrhaven (losing its rural areas and Bells Corners), which takes precedence in the name. Kanata gains Stittsville; as all of Kanata and Stittsville do not fit in one riding, it joins Carleton, along with Bells Corners and the area in Ottawa South near the airport and South of Hunt Club, which is presently in Ottawa South chiefly become of the pre-amalgamation City of Ottawa borders. This is probably a better addition than Blossom Park... I used to live nearby.

Name	Population	Variance
Kingston and the Islands	119,252	+2,28%
Hastings—Lennox and Addington	115,779	-0,70%
Quinte	116,016	-0,49%

Lanark—Frontenac no longer goes into Smiths Falls or (here) Kingston. I went for minimal change; the area taken from Lanark in the city of Kingston goes to Hastings west of the Catarqui and into Kingston east of it. Hastings also gains Cataraqui Woods from Kingston. Giving Hastings a ward from Kingston was too ugly.

Quinte, meanwhile loses "Bay of" and otherwise stays as is. A variant, one long considered, exchanges Prince Edward County for the balance of Belleville and Stirling-Rawdon, if you do not want to split Belleville (it also yielded a nice name for the middle riding, "Loyalist Parkway—Highlands"). The Liberals would win all three if they were headed for a majority.

That's enough for now. Other than Ajax, Pickering, York South—Weston, Barrie—Innisfil, Mississauga and the Niagara region the remaining 83 ridings all interlock in some way, so I'll have to think about the presentation. On another note, Northern Ontario, the Kingston-Oshawa corridor and York Region, three traditional trouble spots for Commissions, were the easiest areas in the province to draw by a good margin. Toronto, especially Scarborough, was far, far harder, as was Kitchener to Chatham.

[Hatman 🍁]

Good effort, but I have to be a stickler and list my complaints:

Not a fan of that Kiiwetinoong—Superior seat, it screams "left over" riding, and splits the Indigenous communities up in the NW part of the province. They should be kept together, which the current iteration of Kenora does nicely.

You've split the urban part of Sudbury in half, which seems unnecessary.

Putting South Algonquin in with the rest of Nipissing might  "make sense" in that it is geographically within Nipissing District, but in reality it is completely separated by it by Algonquin Park. It belongs in a Renfrew-Pembroke based district.

What have you done with Ottawa!!?? I think b/w me and Krago hashing it out, we have perfected the Ottawa map. So anything that goes against that I will oppose. But my biggest complaints here are that Stittsville panhandle looks ugly, crossing the greenbelt should be avoided at all costs (like your Kanata-Nepean riding does) and Sandy Hill should be in Ottawa-Vanier for COI and historical reasons. Though, politically I like the idea of putting it in Centre.

As for Kingston, I really hate that Quinte finger reaching into the city like that.

[Hatman 🍁]

Further to my prior posts about the City of Vancouver, (now I can post images/links, yay!), the distribution of Vancouver into federal ridings has always bothered me. Vancouver is very much a 'city of neighborhoods' and likewise, creates strong 'communities of interest' that should not be split unless otherwise necessary.

There are 22 neighborhoods in Vancouver which are bylaw/urban planning-determined, as well as special attention paid to the Downtown-Eastside community of interest.

Maps: https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/neighbourhood-planning-projects.aspx

https://vanmapp1.vancouver.ca/gmaps/covmap.htm?map=csg_neighborhood_areas

Source - Pg. 50 - Vancouver City Plan, (1995),
https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/policy-plan-cityplan.pdf

The current Vancouver riding map prioritizes the use of major arterial roads to determine federal riding boundaries, which does a poor job of keeping communities of interest united.

Furthermore, ridings like Vancouver Quadra and Vancouver Granville, fail to account for the immense development/urban differences between northern and southern neighborhoods in their respective territory. Kitsilano-Fairview-University, is far more congruent than Kerrisdale-Fairview-Mount Pleasant.

I've created this map which splits only 3 neighborhoods, (2 based on East-West divides, 1 owing to population equity), which has all 6 ridings within 9% of the provincial population quotient, (116 318). and within 7% of the 'Vancouver riding' population quotient (113 698). I used naming conventions of either cardinal directions, or major arterial roads.

Logical Map of Vancouver Federal Ridings



Vancouver Centre: 107 225 (area of very high anticipated development/growth)
Vancouver Broadway: 120 145
Vancouver East: 114 774
Vancouver Southwest: 105 911
Vancouver South: 114 278
Vancouver Kingsway: 119 857

If the commission is an immense stickler for population equity as they seem to be this cycle, and insist that Vancouver does not have adequate population for 6 ridings, the logical amendment would be to move all of 'Marpole' into 'Vancouver Southwest' (new population: 119 269), pushing the 'Vancouver South' population down to 100 920.

I would assume 'Vancouver South' would take a part of Burnaby to meet population requirements - the last time a Vancouver riding bled into another municipality, was the 1995 Redistribution, which saw the creation of Vancouver South - Burnaby between 1997 - 2004.

Very interesting way of dividing the city. Probably preferable to the current map, though goes against the history of the ridings in the city. We may have missed the boat on this set up, as 2013 was the time to do it.  Anyway, is Vancouver Southwest the best name for that riding? Would it make sense to keep the name Quadra?

[emmettmark]

Further to my prior posts about the City of Vancouver, (now I can post images/links, yay!), the distribution of Vancouver into federal ridings has always bothered me. Vancouver is very much a 'city of neighborhoods' and likewise, creates strong 'communities of interest' that should not be split unless otherwise necessary.

There are 22 neighborhoods in Vancouver which are bylaw/urban planning-determined, as well as special attention paid to the Downtown-Eastside community of interest.

Maps: https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/neighbourhood-planning-projects.aspx

https://vanmapp1.vancouver.ca/gmaps/covmap.htm?map=csg_neighborhood_areas

Source - Pg. 50 - Vancouver City Plan, (1995),
https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/policy-plan-cityplan.pdf

The current Vancouver riding map prioritizes the use of major arterial roads to determine federal riding boundaries, which does a poor job of keeping communities of interest united.

Furthermore, ridings like Vancouver Quadra and Vancouver Granville, fail to account for the immense development/urban differences between northern and southern neighborhoods in their respective territory. Kitsilano-Fairview-University, is far more congruent than Kerrisdale-Fairview-Mount Pleasant.

I've created this map which splits only 3 neighborhoods, (2 based on East-West divides, 1 owing to population equity), which has all 6 ridings within 9% of the provincial population quotient, (116 318). and within 7% of the 'Vancouver riding' population quotient (113 698). I used naming conventions of either cardinal directions, or major arterial roads.

Logical Map of Vancouver Federal Ridings



Vancouver Centre: 107 225 (area of very high anticipated development/growth)
Vancouver Broadway: 120 145
Vancouver East: 114 774
Vancouver Southwest: 105 911
Vancouver South: 114 278
Vancouver Kingsway: 119 857

If the commission is an immense stickler for population equity as they seem to be this cycle, and insist that Vancouver does not have adequate population for 6 ridings, the logical amendment would be to move all of 'Marpole' into 'Vancouver Southwest' (new population: 119 269), pushing the 'Vancouver South' population down to 100 920.

I would assume 'Vancouver South' would take a part of Burnaby to meet population requirements - the last time a Vancouver riding bled into another municipality, was the 1995 Redistribution, which saw the creation of Vancouver South - Burnaby between 1997 - 2004.

Very interesting way of dividing the city. Probably preferable to the current map, though goes against the history of the ridings in the city. We may have missed the boat on this set up, as 2013 was the time to do it.  Anyway, is Vancouver Southwest the best name for that riding? Would it make sense to keep the name Quadra?

Thank for the comments! I figured Vancouver Southwest would be a better name for the riding, (precedent set by Scarborough, Calgary, Edmonton), as 'Quadra' was a name arbitrarily chosen in 1947 by the commission, because an explorer of that name surveyed the area in the 1700s. Precedent has allowed this (illogical) name to carry forward in various redistributions, despite there being 'no' geographical feature in the riding named Quadra. 'Quadra Island' is several hundred kilometers away near Campbell River. Additionally, calling this riding 'Vancouver West' would cause confusion with the municipality of 'West Vancouver' on the north shore.

Interestingly enough, most of proposed 'Vancouver Broadway' (ie, Point Grey/Kitsilano/Fairview), were part of the 'Vancouver Centre' riding as recently as 2004, before successive redistributions saw Vancouver Centre territory recede to solely the downtown peninsula. In the early-mid 1900s, the riding of 'Vancouver Burrard' also comprised the territory around West Broadway, before being folded into 'Vancouver Centre.' The 'traditional Vancouver Quadra' riding, certainly resembles 'Vancouver Southwest' more than today's version.

Referring to the justification for 'Vancouver Granville' in 2012, the commission initial commentary reads:

Population growth in Vancouver necessitates an additional electoral district in the city. Accordingly, we are proposing that a new electoral district be created along the spine of Granville Street. In general terms, the addition of this electoral district does not appear to have wrought any dramatic changes in the boundaries or composition of the pre-existing Vancouver districts.

And: The general rationale underlying these changes was to create boundaries along major arterial streets
^ this is an illogical action since there are already existing and pre-determined neighborhood boundaries.

Certainly, Vancouver Granville was facilitated by the commission not wishing to disrupt 'historic ridings' in the rest of the city, and likewise, created a 'Frankenstein riding' comprised of territories designed to bring the other Vancouver ridings close to population quotient. This was aided by downtown Vancouver not yet having enough population for an entirely-peninsular Vancouver Centre riding, (it does now in 2022), and the lack of established urbanization along the West Broadway Corridor in Kitsilano/Fairview.

Continued population changes and developments in Vancouver, bring into question about the effectiveness of 'Vancouver Granville' and 'Vancouver Quadra' as unified 'communities of interest,' and this above map, brings together Vancouver neighborhoods far more coherently.

I hope the commission takes note!

[Krago]

Those Vancouver boundaries look great!  Can I steal them for my proposal?

[emmettmark]

Those Vancouver boundaries look great!  Can I steal them for my proposal?

Omigosh - of course! I'm fangirling right now ☺️

[Philly D.]

Good effort, but I have to be a stickler and list my complaints:

Not a fan of that Kiiwetinoong—Superior seat, it screams "left over" riding, and splits the Indigenous communities up in the NW part of the province. They should be kept together, which the current iteration of Kenora does nicely.

You've split the urban part of Sudbury in half, which seems unnecessary.

Putting South Algonquin in with the rest of Nipissing might  "make sense" in that it is geographically within Nipissing District, but in reality it is completely separated by it by Algonquin Park. It belongs in a Renfrew-Pembroke based district.

What have you done with Ottawa!!?? I think b/w me and Krago hashing it out, we have perfected the Ottawa map. So anything that goes against that I will oppose. But my biggest complaints here are that Stittsville panhandle looks ugly, crossing the greenbelt should be avoided at all costs (like your Kanata-Nepean riding does) and Sandy Hill should be in Ottawa-Vanier for COI and historical reasons. Though, politically I like the idea of putting it in Centre.

As for Kingston, I really hate that Quinte finger reaching into the city like that.

I see that Hatman considers Ottawa to be his personal fiefdom:)

I did make changes; I changed the Hastings extension into Kingston and reversed the transfer of South Algonquin. I also interpreted the urban splitting of Sudbury as splitting the Southern part; except for the area around Laurentian it is now all with Manitoulin, and "Sudbury" becomes Sudbury--Nickel Belt and picks up the areas to the east to compensate.

I still believe Lanark needs to be with Frontenac. Nonetheless I made changes to Ottawa. I still suspect Sandy Hill is fine in Ottawa Centre though. All of these changes have negligable impacts to electoral variances.

As for Kiiwetinoong... do you have anything better? The Krago map has either Thunder Bay--Rainy River as an exception, or Kenora below -50%(!) and Pickle Lake split off from Ignace. At least Kiiwetinoong has a Francophone community of interest (Highway 11 Corridor+Chapleau+Gogama) and keeps the Treaty 9 and Treaty 5 peoples mostly together (the North West Angle Treaty people stay in Kenora). It seems less throwaway than putting the Highway 11 Corridor in A-M-K, and unless I get some further ideas, I'm sticking with it.

[Krago]

I see that Hatman considers Ottawa to be his personal fiefdom:)

Just wait until you get down to Windsor.

[Philly D.]

Just wait until you get down to Windsor.

Well, Southwestern Ontario it is... the last part to be done first and the one that required completely redrawing twice.



Northern Ontario, even losing a riding is under the quota by 1.67 ridings. This needs to be made up over the rest of the province. So far, Eastern Ontario is over the quota by 0.24 ridings. In Krago's map splitting Quinte West essentially wipes this out, and having Toronto/Mississauga at 30 ridings flat means that it must be compensated for over the remaining 68 ridings, which includes Southwestern Ontario, the region that got screwed over in 2011 vis-à-vis Toronto. Here the weight of Southwestern Ontario was increased by putting Wellington North with Dufferin.

Name	Population	Variance
Windsor—Amherstburg	117,998	+1,21%
Windsor Centre	116,429	-0,14%
Windsor—St. Clair	115,188	-1,20%
Essex—Kent	114,677	-1,64%
Chatham-Kent—Elgin	121,823	+4,49%
Norfolk—Elgin—London	120,999	+3,78%
Lambton	128,154	+9,92%
Oxford	121,781	+4,45%

Initially Windsor was similar to now with Tecumseh excised from a Windsor based riding, and the rest of Southwestern Ontario similar to now. But that created an unappealing riding east of London, which led me to review the map by bringing back Haldimand and Norfolk and working from there. Then an error was discovered in Windsor, where part of LaSalle was in Windsor West, which led to something closer to the first plan. But not in Windsor, where the population is just short for two whole ridings. Since the rural-urban divide does not seem as strong in this region, I propose one whole Windsor riding and two rurban ridings. It mostly follows wards within Windsor and leaves all municipalities, including Kingsville, whole.

Windsor—St. Clair gets Tecumseh and Lakeshore; Windsor—Amherstburg gets Amherstburg (duh!) and LaSalle. Essex—Kent gets the rest of the county; since Chatham is too large to fit with it, it takes the area to the north, while Chatham and eastern Kent shares a riding with the only thing contiguous to it... Elgin, which admittedly must be split just after St. Thomas. This requires splitting Elgin, but in order for there to be a riding which can cross the boundaries of London, it can only be paired with Norfolk, even though it is the riding closest to the provincial average right now.

Lambton and Oxford, meanwhile, are reduced to their counties and county names, although there was an attempt to only add Lambton Shores to Lambton when Lambton—Kent—Middlesex was reconstituted, as it becomes the largest riding anywhere. On the other hand some people say that Commissions favour rural ridings, so maybe what goes around will come around...


 

Name	Population	Variance
London Centre	117,025	+0,37%
London East	118,311	+1,48%
London West	121,777	+4,45%
Middlesex—London	125,754	+7,86%

London was a PITA to draw. Local information about neighbourhoods was not helpful and neither was naming things after an English theme park. A "minimum change" approach was followed simply for lack of better ideas until posting; after, once I tried adding part of north London to Middlesex everything clicked. As London—Fanshawe has more people south of the Thames it was renamed London East. Middlesex County becomes whole, although Middlesex—London has a high population. This avoids tampering with the boundaries south of the Thames which is where difficulties arise.

If there were a 123rd riding for Ontario; it would go to Southwestern Ontario (which would regain Wellington North). Norfolk, Huron, Perth and Oxford counties seem as to act as a forcefield preventing SW Ontario from getting it's fair share of seats; it had to be broken, and it was broken by adjoining Norfolk.

Without any descriptions for now, here are some more pictures. I'll post the rest tomorrow.

[Philly D.]

Saskatchewan's proposal is out... and all I can say is whoa, whoa, whoa! The NDP will be pleased; if they can't win Saskatoon Centre, they can't win anything. Also, Churchill River is at -43.72%(!!!). I didn't think any Commission would go down to that point, least of all a Prairie one!

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/com/sk/prop/othaut/int_e.aspx

[Hatman 🍁]

Good effort, but I have to be a stickler and list my complaints:

Not a fan of that Kiiwetinoong—Superior seat, it screams "left over" riding, and splits the Indigenous communities up in the NW part of the province. They should be kept together, which the current iteration of Kenora does nicely.

You've split the urban part of Sudbury in half, which seems unnecessary.

Putting South Algonquin in with the rest of Nipissing might  "make sense" in that it is geographically within Nipissing District, but in reality it is completely separated by it by Algonquin Park. It belongs in a Renfrew-Pembroke based district.

What have you done with Ottawa!!?? I think b/w me and Krago hashing it out, we have perfected the Ottawa map. So anything that goes against that I will oppose. But my biggest complaints here are that Stittsville panhandle looks ugly, crossing the greenbelt should be avoided at all costs (like your Kanata-Nepean riding does) and Sandy Hill should be in Ottawa-Vanier for COI and historical reasons. Though, politically I like the idea of putting it in Centre.

As for Kingston, I really hate that Quinte finger reaching into the city like that.

I see that Hatman considers Ottawa to be his personal fiefdom:)

Yes.

As for Kiiwetinoong... do you have anything better?

I think I made my plan earlier. Keep Kenora as is, add some suburban areas to TBRR from TBSN, and wrap TSSN all the way down Lake Superior until Sault Ste. Marie.

[Hatman 🍁]

Saskatchewan's proposal is out... and all I can say is whoa, whoa, whoa! The NDP will be pleased; if they can't win Saskatoon Centre, they can't win anything. Also, Churchill River is at -43.72%(!!!). I didn't think any Commission would go down to that point, least of all a Prairie one!

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/com/sk/prop/othaut/int_e.aspx

That Saskatoon Centre riding will easily go NDP. Weird how Saskatoon gets an urban central district, but Regina doesn't.

Will be curious to see the transposed numbers in the Churchill River riding. As long as it still contains Meadow Lake, it will be tough for the NDP to win it, though.

[Philly D.]

Yeah, the NDP win Sakatoon Centre, and the Tories still win Churchill River. In fact Regina-Lewvan is probably a better bet for the NDP; it gains the very centre of the city and sheds the incumbent's home base (Walsh Acres)

[DL]

Saskatchewan's proposal is out... and all I can say is whoa, whoa, whoa! The NDP will be pleased; if they can't win Saskatoon Centre, they can't win anything. Also, Churchill River is at -43.72%(!!!). I didn't think any Commission would go down to that point, least of all a Prairie one!

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/com/sk/prop/othaut/int_e.aspx

That Saskatoon Centre riding will easily go NDP. Weird how Saskatoon gets an urban central district, but Regina doesn't.

Will be curious to see the transposed numbers in the Churchill River riding. As long as it still contains Meadow Lake, it will be tough for the NDP to win it, though.

Now the NDP just has to fight tooth and nail to get people who support the creation of Saskatoon Centre to speak out at the hearings that will take place. You have to think the Tories will throw everything but the kitchen sink at preventing that seat from being created.

I guess Saskatoon has a population large enough to be entitled to about 3.5 seats - so it gets a city centre seats, two suburban seats and a seat that is half suburban and half rural. Regina is entitled to 2.5 seats so it gets two purely urban seats and one that is half urban and half rural (like before). I guess Saskatoon has been growing much faster than Regina over the last ten years.