Canada Federal Representation 2024

[MB11]

FWIW, the new Sask map could make Regina-Lewvan a bit more winnable for the NDP as it shifts a chunk of NDP friendly inner city Regina from Regina-Qu-Appele (where it did no good) to Lewvan

Gap between NDP and Cons with the old riding went from 23% in 2019 to 12% in 2021 per Ridingbuilder. Gap between NDP and Cons with the redrawn riding went from 20% in 2019 to 8% in 2021 per Ridingbuilder. So yeah it is for sure more winnable, and if the NDP can have another 2021-esque improvement, the redrawn boundaries might make all the difference since what they moved out are more Con-leaning suburbs to replace it with as you said, more NDP urban areas.

[Hatman 🍁]

I guess no one here saw my Tweets with the 2021 result breakdowns of the new ridings, due to all the speculation:





Not much changes, except for Churchill River. It went NDP in 2019, so I suspect it will be a Liberal vs NDP battle next election.

[MB11]

Newfoundland and Labrador out.

A reversion to 2012 boundaries in Central Newfoundland along with some changes in the St. John’s area to avoid splitting Paradise and the Harbour.

Kinda funny they managed to get exactly identical populations in the 2 St. John’s tidings.

[Hatman 🍁]

2021 results:

[DL]

How is it possible for Churchill River to now be notionally Liberal? In the 2021 election the Tory MP won by 22 points 49% to 27%. How can a relatively marginal change in the map turn that into a double digit Liberal lead??!

[MB11]

How is it possible for Churchill River to now be notionally Liberal? In the 2021 election the Tory MP won by 22 points 49% to 27%. How can a relatively marginal change in the map turn that into a double digit Liberal lead??!

They removed the most densely populated part of the riding, halving the population of it. So not really a marginal change.

[lilTommy]

How is it possible for Churchill River to now be notionally Liberal? In the 2021 election the Tory MP won by 22 points 49% to 27%. How can a relatively marginal change in the map turn that into a double digit Liberal lead??!

They removed the most densely populated part of the riding, halving the population of it. So not really a marginal change.

The ridings population is now only 37K! I just ran ridingbuilder again; with half the population being moved into other ridings, as mentioned, this would have been Liberal in 2021, 40+% and NDP in 2019 with 39%.

They've basically removed every portion of municipalities that are south of the Northern Sask Administrative Region line, except a portion of Hudson Bay.
This looks to be an attempt to create an Indigenous riding similar to the Ontario proposal for Kiiwetinoong - Mushkegowuk

[Hatman 🍁]

How is it possible for Churchill River to now be notionally Liberal? In the 2021 election the Tory MP won by 22 points 49% to 27%. How can a relatively marginal change in the map turn that into a double digit Liberal lead??!

Marginal change!? They removed basically the entire White population of the riding.

[toaster]

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

[Hatman 🍁]

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

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

[MaxQue]

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

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

[DL]

So I guess now we are just waiting for final maps for BC, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec?

[MB11]

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

Everywhere you just mentioned (with the exception of PEI) is probably more similar to the territories than not in terms of geography, population density, transport links, Indigenous population, etc.

[toaster]

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

Oops, yes Saskatchewan, sorry.

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

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

[Krago]

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

[Krago]

The Redistribution Timeline for Quebec has changed.  Their electoral boundaries report will be released in 'Early February 2023'.

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


Also, the Procedure and House Affairs Committee will be discussing the Manitoba and Saskatchewan reports on Thursday from 11am to 1pm.  Daniel Blaikie will be presenting on both provinces.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/PROC/meeting-49/notice

[Philly D.]

The Quebec report is in.

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/com/qc/rprt/qc_e.pdf

I'm just about to read it. It starts well.

The general platitudes which introduce all these reports inevitably mention the notion of effective representation, but the Commission correctly mentions the part of the Carter judgment which affirms: “[...] deviations from absolute voter parity may be justified on the grounds of
practical impossibility or the provision of more effective representation. Beyond this, the dilution
of one citizen’s vote as compared with another should not be countenanced”.

The Commission explicitly and correctly mentions that the Act requires the target variance to be 0% (no Maritime reasoning that since traditionally rural ridings are overrepresented, we go back and shrink South Shore-St. Margaret's beyond what we have now nonsense. This is incidentally one of the Nova Scotia objections and I hope it passes.)

Moving to the regions...

Jonquière-Alma is back as a riding, on the basis apparently of a single presenter who argued on the basis of economic activities. This will not go over well.

Eastern Québec does lose a riding. A choice quote:

"Demographic imperatives were of little importance to the participants. The Commissioners rarely
heard as many negative comments about “mathematics” as they did during these four days of
hearings."

However, the Gaspésie riding is now the administrative region plus Matanie MRC, instead of just the administrative region in my and Krago's proposal (Diane Lebouthillier is beyond toast). It has a slightly positive variance rather than a low variance. Témiscouata MRC joins the riding to the west, and the Rimouski-based riding is the only one of the three with a negative variance, rather than being the largest of the three (with me).

In general, names are shorter, although "Québec" becomes "Québec Centre".

The two long and small ridings (Plamondon's and Berthold's) become longer, and in the first case, remains small. Lotbinière MRC is now split in three, and the border between the two is prime objection bait. With the town of Lotbinière no longer in Lévis-Lotbinière, a name change to Chutes-de-la-Chaudière would seem likely. The changes to the latter were in fact those suggested by the MP.

The messiness in the Outaouais and Laurentides has been (mostly) cleared up. This was done by giving a -7,7% variance to Mirabel (sensible given growth) and -14,8% to Laurentides-Labelle (much more questionable, especially since the fastest growing part was excised). However, Saint-Donat and Saint-Calixte remain as in the proposal and L'Assomption remains split.

In Montréal, Shaughnessy Village remains in Ville-Marie; it loses Saint-Henri north of Notre-Dame (lame) and the Old Port to Laurier--Sainte-Marie. With the latter also losing a piece of the Plateau to Outremont, it becomes much safer for Steven Guilbault (although Outremont less so).

The effect of the map politically is CON+1 (Beauport-Limoilou), BQ+1 (Les-Pays-d'En-Haut and Châteauguay, although the latter does remain within automatic recount territory), LIB-2, although some of the more vulnerable seats get shored up (Québec Centre, Argenteuil, Compton-Stanstead).

The average variance is 4,67% compared to just below 4% in the initial proposal and 3,7% for mine (although the structural changes in mine were not feasible after the proposal stage for fairness reasons. And of course I still prefer mine:), although I didn't even present it).

[MaxQue]

Seems Wendake got what they wanted (Gérard Deltell instead of Pierre Paul-Hus and have therefore dropped their oppositition to being named).

[MaxQue]

In Outaouais, it seems they just copied the submission by the local mayors.

[Krago]

Here's a Nova Scotia Alternative Map that no one will approve of.

I've added a second alternative map that keeps Cumberland--Colchester riding unchanged.  The Membertou reserve would be moved from the proposed Sydney--Glace Bay to place all five Mi'kmaq communities in Cape Breton in the same riding (Cape Breton/Unama'ki--Canso--Antigonish).

[Krago]

Jasper--Banff--Canmore?  Who the f**k proposed that?

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

[Hatman 🍁]

Jasper--Banff--Canmore?  Who the f**k proposed that?

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

A return to the very brief "Rocky Mountain" riding that existed in in the 70s.

The Alberta map is all over the place. Some of the issues have been fixed, but there are new issues. Disappointed they got rid of that southern Calgary riding (below Fish Creek). That area has the perfect population for a riding, and with nice natural borders. Sad!

The Quebec map is generally very good. One oddity is the long Megantic-L'Erable. It now goes from the US border to the St. Lawrence. Strange decision.

[Njall]

Jasper--Banff--Canmore?  Who the f**k proposed that?

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

It's odd, but at least it's marginally better than the old proposal's idea to randomly tack Banff onto Yellowhead.

On the whole, it's not my favourite map ever, but I like it better than the proposal. It definitely seems a little better in terms of seat prospects for progressives, primarily because the new Griesbach boundaries are definitely better for Desjarlais than the proposal. They also more-or-less retained the proposed Calgary McKnight riding, and while I would have preferred a Calgary Skyview entirely on the east side of Deerfoot, Calgary McKnight should be at least a lean Liberal seat as long as the Liberals run candidates who are actually from the area.

[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.