Canada Federal Representation 2024

[Oryxslayer]

PROV	PR	2021 Population	Seats	Quota	Gini	Rank	L-H	Rank
NL	10	510,550	7	72,936	0.1134	10	0.0906	10
PE	11	154,331	4	38,583	0.0077	1	0.0057	1
NS	12	969,383	11	88,126	0.0688	7	0.0596	9
NB	13	775,610	10	77,561	0.0724	9	0.0545	8
QC	24	8,501,833	78	108,998	0.0325	5	0.0238	5
ON	35	14,223,942	122	116,590	0.0458	6	0.0321	6
MB	46	1,342,153	14	95,868	0.0241	3	0.0176	4
SK	47	1,132,505	14	80,893	0.0699	8	0.0544	7
AB	48	4,262,635	37	115,206	0.0223	2	0.0154	2
BC	59	5,000,879	43	116,300	0.0243	4	0.0160	3

Provinces east of Ontario (QC, NB, NS, PE, NL): 10,911,707 people; 110 seats
Provinces west of Ontario (BC, AB, SK, MB): 11,738,172 people; 108 seats

How is that meant to be remotely fair?

Canada has laws in place to ensure 'fair' representation for people living in smaller provinces or hard to reach areas. You can think of doing to same work as the US electoral college, just so convoluted nobody defends or attacks it. Atlantic Canada should not have the seats it presently has under OMOV, but that isn't a thing here. Atlantic Canada's seats are grandfather-claused into the process through constant legislation that traces it's way back to confederation.

But that's no all. Inside the provinces, if a certain community ii is deemed to have special circumstances and could have a seat covering it way below OMOV for the provinces allocation. Most of the time, this comes into play in the far north of each province. Be it because of the lack of road connections, the extreme distances that would be required for representation, or the large number of first nation reservations. This is why seats like Kenora and Toronto Centre have huge separation in the number of electors.

And it probably will never change. Maybe some future PM will seek to increase every other provinces seat count so that Atlantic Canada is left with equivalent representation, but thats it. This is of course cause a Rotten Borough is only truly rotten if the incumbent party will never lose. And that is certainly not the case here, especially now given the swings in the region. If both parties benefit, nobody has a desire for change.

[patzer]

Canada has laws in place to ensure 'fair' representation for people living in smaller provinces or hard to reach areas.

That doesn't explain Quebec's overrepresentation compared to Alberta and BC despite being larger, though.

[Hatman 🍁]

Canada has laws in place to ensure 'fair' representation for people living in smaller provinces or hard to reach areas.

That doesn't explain Quebec's overrepresentation compared to Alberta and BC despite being larger, though.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease

[MaxQue]

Canada has laws in place to ensure 'fair' representation for people living in smaller provinces or hard to reach areas.

That doesn't explain Quebec's overrepresentation compared to Alberta and BC despite being larger, though.

A desire to spare themselves lenghty lawsuits and easy attacks from Quebec nationalists, mainly.

[toaster]

Speaking of "deviation" or variance, the rest of the country should follow BC's strict low % variance. I still can't believe how an urban city of almost 200k (Thunder Bay in Ontario) got through being granted "Special consideration" to have not 1 but 2 below variant ridings.

Given Thunder Bay has 110k inhabitants, I shall be giving this post no consideration, special or not.

I guess I mixed up Sudbury's 160k+ with Thunder Bay.  But the point still stands, and urban city over 100k should not receive special consideration, and the Ontario Commission embarrassed itself.

[Krago]

The new Representation Order has been proclaimed.

Implementation of New Federal Electoral Boundaries

The new boundaries take effect on any federal election that is called on or after April 23, 2024.

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

Why couldn't a special exception be allowed to create a northern Quebec seat that is primarily indigenous? Having a seat that is just Inuit and Cree (Nunavik and Eeyou Istchee) without extending into the Francophone Abitibi - Val-d'Or region seems like a perfectly reasonable seat to me, especially if the likes of Labrador, Kenora and the northern SK seat can exist.

[MaxQue]

Why couldn't a special exception be allowed to create a northern Quebec seat that is primarily indigenous? Having a seat that is just Inuit and Cree (Nunavik and Eeyou Istchee) without extending into the Francophone Abitibi - Val-d'Or region seems like a perfectly reasonable seat to me, especially if the likes of Labrador, Kenora and the northern SK seat can exist.

For being there, there is no common community of interest between the Cree and the Inuit. They are not even run by the same law (for some reason, the Inuit are living in Northern Villages established by the provincial law, not reservations, have a regional government, not bands and get their services from the provincial government, not the federal like the Cree). They actually don't get along well either.

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

Why couldn't a special exception be allowed to create a northern Quebec seat that is primarily indigenous? Having a seat that is just Inuit and Cree (Nunavik and Eeyou Istchee) without extending into the Francophone Abitibi - Val-d'Or region seems like a perfectly reasonable seat to me, especially if the likes of Labrador, Kenora and the northern SK seat can exist.

For being there, there is no common community of interest between the Cree and the Inuit. They are not even run by the same law (for some reason, the Inuit are living in Northern Villages established by the provincial law, not reservations, have a regional government, not bands and get their services from the provincial government, not the federal like the Cree). They actually don't get along well either.

True, but an argument could still be made for creating an Indigenous district. They're going to be in the same district whether Val-d'Or is included or not, so why not at least remove that part of it? It doesn't seem right to have the Bloc represent those areas.

[Oryxslayer]

Why couldn't a special exception be allowed to create a northern Quebec seat that is primarily indigenous? Having a seat that is just Inuit and Cree (Nunavik and Eeyou Istchee) without extending into the Francophone Abitibi - Val-d'Or region seems like a perfectly reasonable seat to me, especially if the likes of Labrador, Kenora and the northern SK seat can exist.

For being there, there is no common community of interest between the Cree and the Inuit. They are not even run by the same law (for some reason, the Inuit are living in Northern Villages established by the provincial law, not reservations, have a regional government, not bands and get their services from the provincial government, not the federal like the Cree). They actually don't get along well either.

True, but an argument could still be made for creating an Indigenous district. They're going to be in the same district whether Val-d'Or is included or not, so why not at least remove that part of it? It doesn't seem right to have the Bloc represent those areas.

There is such a district in the National Assembly of Quebec. Ungava covers all of Nord-du-Quebec and nothing more. It's undersized by about 2/3s compared to the rest of the province and everyone lives in small disconnected communities.

The main issue from my perspective I guess is a lack of Racially Polarized Voting (to borrow a VRA term) or RPV. Ungava in the past decade has just followed the provincial electoral mood, and before that it seemingly was a PQ-leaning seat. More recently we have had First Nations candidates standing for the liberals or QC, and they haven't won a lot more votes than their party in past contests. This history doesn't exactly suggest Ungava voters are behaving that differently from other Quebecois. Compare this to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or even Northern Ontario where voter behavior radically shiftes when you go far enough North.

[Hatman 🍁]

The idea is not such a terrible one, but you have to remember each commission is independent from one another. While commissions in SK and ON have pushed for Indigenous seats, the ones in Quebec have not done so. I suppose it would take the Inuit and the Cree to come together and push for one, but as other have said, they have competing interests.

[Poirot]

The Cree made a suggestion to make a riding more northern.
I will try to make a link to their submission to the commission:
https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/com/qc/phrg/othaut/abitibi/Grand_Conseil_des_Cris_%202022-09-30.pdf

The Quebec commission answered in their report:

"the Commission acknowledges at the outset the significance of the request made by the Cree First Nation Government on behalf of the Indigenous peoples and Jamesians living in Northern Quebec; however, it will not pursue it.

The request requires the Commission to completely disregard the fundamental principle governing electoral map revision, namely the quest for a certain parity between the population figure and the electoral quota, as if subsection 15(1) of the Act did not exist. In that regard, exclusion of the RCM of La Vallée-de-l'Or (43,347 residents), which is essential to achieving an acceptable population figure, is contrary to the letter and spirit of the law. The Commission simply cannot endorse such a proposal under the current legislative framework.

The creation of such an electoral district in Northern Quebec would result in two electoral districts whose deviation in relation to the electoral quota would significantly exceed 25%. In the case of the proposed new electoral district, the deviation would be -58% and, in the case of the electoral district of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, it would be +35%. In such a context it would be very difficult to conclude that there are "circumstances viewed by the commission as being extraordinary" that would justify deviations of such magnitude.

It should also be noted that the request clearly exceeds the Commission's mandate in several respects. This would be the case, for example, regarding the implementation of measures aimed at mobilizing the Indigenous people of the region to exercise their right to vote and leaving to parties other than the Commission (in this case the Cree, Inuit, Naskapi and Jamesian communities of Northern Quebec) the responsibility for selecting the name of the new electoral district.

Last, the request, basically framed around the community of interest, community of identity and history that bind the Indigenous nations of Northern Quebec, and which involves excluding the territory and people of the RCM of La Vallée-de-l'Or, may lead to the creation of an electoral district based as much on the personal characteristics of its residents as on geography (even considering that, according to the request, the Jamesians would be a part of the new district). In short, it is not the role of a commission like this one to consider such a scenario, with all its ramifications, without a meaningful debate in Parliament to assess all the implications and consequences for Quebec and Canada as a whole."

[MaxQue]

Why couldn't a special exception be allowed to create a northern Quebec seat that is primarily indigenous? Having a seat that is just Inuit and Cree (Nunavik and Eeyou Istchee) without extending into the Francophone Abitibi - Val-d'Or region seems like a perfectly reasonable seat to me, especially if the likes of Labrador, Kenora and the northern SK seat can exist.

For being there, there is no common community of interest between the Cree and the Inuit. They are not even run by the same law (for some reason, the Inuit are living in Northern Villages established by the provincial law, not reservations, have a regional government, not bands and get their services from the provincial government, not the federal like the Cree). They actually don't get along well either.

True, but an argument could still be made for creating an Indigenous district. They're going to be in the same district whether Val-d'Or is included or not, so why not at least remove that part of it? It doesn't seem right to have the Bloc represent those areas.

There is such a district in the National Assembly of Quebec. Ungava covers all of Nord-du-Quebec and nothing more. It's undersized by about 2/3s compared to the rest of the province and everyone lives in small disconnected communities.

The main issue from my perspective I guess is a lack of Racially Polarized Voting (to borrow a VRA term) or RPV. Ungava in the past decade has just followed the provincial electoral mood, and before that it seemingly was a PQ-leaning seat. More recently we have had First Nations candidates standing for the liberals or QC, and they haven't won a lot more votes than their party in past contests. This history doesn't exactly suggest Ungava voters are behaving that differently from other Quebecois. Compare this to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or even Northern Ontario where voter behavior radically shiftes when you go far enough North.

The Cree definitively have racially polirized voting.

Vote in the northern villages (Inuit), 2021, polling day only:
Liberal 833 (36.4%)
NDP 674 (29.5%)
Conservative 220 (9.6%)
Bloc 141 (6.2%)
Marijuana 139 (6.1%)
Parti Libre 118 (5.2%)
PPC 115 (5.0%)
Green 47 (2.1%)

Vote in the Cree reservations, 2021, polling day only: 2281
NDP 1277 (56.0%)
Liberal 407 (17.8%)
Conservative 242 (10.6%)
Bloc 224 (9.8%)
PPC 59 (2.6%)
Grn 25 (1.1%)
Marijuana 24 (1.1%)
Parti Libre 23 (1.0%)

[Oryxslayer]

Why couldn't a special exception be allowed to create a northern Quebec seat that is primarily indigenous? Having a seat that is just Inuit and Cree (Nunavik and Eeyou Istchee) without extending into the Francophone Abitibi - Val-d'Or region seems like a perfectly reasonable seat to me, especially if the likes of Labrador, Kenora and the northern SK seat can exist.

For being there, there is no common community of interest between the Cree and the Inuit. They are not even run by the same law (for some reason, the Inuit are living in Northern Villages established by the provincial law, not reservations, have a regional government, not bands and get their services from the provincial government, not the federal like the Cree). They actually don't get along well either.

True, but an argument could still be made for creating an Indigenous district. They're going to be in the same district whether Val-d'Or is included or not, so why not at least remove that part of it? It doesn't seem right to have the Bloc represent those areas.

There is such a district in the National Assembly of Quebec. Ungava covers all of Nord-du-Quebec and nothing more. It's undersized by about 2/3s compared to the rest of the province and everyone lives in small disconnected communities.

The main issue from my perspective I guess is a lack of Racially Polarized Voting (to borrow a VRA term) or RPV. Ungava in the past decade has just followed the provincial electoral mood, and before that it seemingly was a PQ-leaning seat. More recently we have had First Nations candidates standing for the liberals or QC, and they haven't won a lot more votes than their party in past contests. This history doesn't exactly suggest Ungava voters are behaving that differently from other Quebecois. Compare this to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or even Northern Ontario where voter behavior radically shiftes when you go far enough North.

The Cree definitively have racially polirized voting.

Vote in the northern villages (Inuit), 2021, polling day only:
Liberal 833 (36.4%)
NDP 674 (29.5%)
Conservative 220 (9.6%)
Bloc 141 (6.2%)
Marijuana 139 (6.1%)
Parti Libre 118 (5.2%)
PPC 115 (5.0%)
Green 47 (2.1%)

Vote in the Cree reservations, 2021, polling day only: 2281
NDP 1277 (56.0%)
Liberal 407 (17.8%)
Conservative 242 (10.6%)
Bloc 224 (9.8%)
PPC 59 (2.6%)
Grn 25 (1.1%)
Marijuana 24 (1.1%)
Parti Libre 23 (1.0%)

Well then we have our second answer: you would have to create a seat even smaller than Nord-du-Quebec, perhaps the smallest in the nation outside of Atlantic Canada, and the territories,  to get the First nations population up to a serious percentage of the vote. Removing Abitibi wouldn't be enough. Cause both groups can't elect candidates of choice in the Ungava seat as it is, despite the fracturing of vote seemingly being more prevalent there than elsewhere in Quebec. Downsizing the seat with no change in accessibility doesn't make sense, at least on the surface.

For example, Ungava has 45.5K population and 28.5K electors. But obviously turnout is lower than that given distance and population groups, historically below 50%.  Looking at the 2018 Quebec poll results, the places the CAQ and PQ won were all the clustered settlements along the borders with Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, and the other more settled areas to their south. So you would have to rip them out as well, leaving the seat with a population even below the new Saskatchewan access seat and more comparable to those grandfathered districts in PEI or the territories.

[Hatman 🍁]

45K is on the small end for ridings for sure, but because the area is so large geographically, one could definitely make the argument that Nord-du-Quebec should be its own riding. The cases in SK, ON and Labrador could be cited in the process.

I think it might take Abitibi's population to shrink to the point where it wouldn't be so overpopulated if your removed Nord-du-Quebec though.

[toaster]

45K is on the small end for ridings for sure, but because the area is so large geographically, one could definitely make the argument that Nord-du-Quebec should be its own riding. The cases in SK, ON and Labrador could be cited in the process.

I think it might take Abitibi's population to shrink to the point where it wouldn't be so overpopulated if your removed Nord-du-Quebec though.

We should move to eliminate the Labrador and the Northwestern Ontario ridings, not use it as an example to provide even more small ridings.  I think we need to get rid of the provincial commissions and make it a federal commission for more consistency. The idea of "Communities of Interest" is overblown, and really should be removed from the criteria.  Do you know how different the communities within the Northwest Territories are? The Inuit, Dene and Metis, and the Whites in Yellowknife - all so different, but do just fine within one riding. If you don't have enough people, you can't go down to communities of interest.

[JohnAMacdonald]

45K is on the small end for ridings for sure, but because the area is so large geographically, one could definitely make the argument that Nord-du-Quebec should be its own riding. The cases in SK, ON and Labrador could be cited in the process.

I think it might take Abitibi's population to shrink to the point where it wouldn't be so overpopulated if your removed Nord-du-Quebec though.

We should move to eliminate the Labrador and the Northwestern Ontario ridings, not use it as an example to provide even more small ridings.  I think we need to get rid of the provincial commissions and make it a federal commission for more consistency. The idea of "Communities of Interest" is overblown, and really should be removed from the criteria.  Do you know how different the communities within the Northwest Territories are? The Inuit, Dene and Metis, and the Whites in Yellowknife - all so different, but do just fine within one riding. If you don't have enough people, you can't go down to communities of interest.

I disagree strongly, the point of small ridings is to protect communities which have SIMILAR interests, not people who are all identical, but people who have SIMILAR concerns, you are right that people in the territories are quite different all over the province, but their day to day problems are similar, their motivations, their environment, their cultural origins are mostly similar, so why not put them in the same riding?

Now as for Labrador, it is a particular distinct community from the rest of NL, so why force upon it people from another region, which would utterly overwhelm any power this group would have, it's a lot like saying we should merge Alaska with some other state because it doesn't have enough people on its own to warrant a congressional district, yes it is a small group, but it is and has and will be a separate and meaningfully distinct part of that province, and the same is true for certain northern Ontario ridings, this very American "equal constituencies" thing is a great way to undermine minority interests.

[Oryxslayer]

45K is on the small end for ridings for sure, but because the area is so large geographically, one could definitely make the argument that Nord-du-Quebec should be its own riding. The cases in SK, ON and Labrador could be cited in the process.

I think it might take Abitibi's population to shrink to the point where it wouldn't be so overpopulated if your removed Nord-du-Quebec though.

We should move to eliminate the Labrador and the Northwestern Ontario ridings, not use it as an example to provide even more small ridings.  I think we need to get rid of the provincial commissions and make it a federal commission for more consistency. The idea of "Communities of Interest" is overblown, and really should be removed from the criteria.  Do you know how different the communities within the Northwest Territories are? The Inuit, Dene and Metis, and the Whites in Yellowknife - all so different, but do just fine within one riding. If you don't have enough people, you can't go down to communities of interest.

I disagree strongly, the point of small ridings is to protect communities which have SIMILAR interests, not people who are all identical, but people who have SIMILAR concerns, you are right that people in the territories are quite different all over the province, but their day to day problems are similar, their motivations, their environment, their cultural origins are mostly similar, so why not put them in the same riding?

Now as for Labrador, it is a particular distinct community from the rest of NL, so why force upon it people from another region, which would utterly overwhelm any power this group would have, it's a lot like saying we should merge Alaska with some other state because it doesn't have enough people on its own to warrant a congressional district, yes it is a small group, but it is and has and will be a separate and meaningfully distinct part of that province, and the same is true for certain northern Ontario ridings, this very American "equal constituencies" thing is a great way to undermine minority interests.

I agree. If Canada isn't going to draw ugly districts in the name of accessibility like the US and the VRA, India and OBC, or Malaysia and the Chinese seats (though these were purposefully uber-packed well beyond what was necessary) then having undersized seats does makes sense. That or have a separate electoral list and districts, like in New Zealand.

The grandfather clause seats in the Atlantic provinces are fairly stupid,  but like I said above, they are not going to be changed soon or ever.

Additionally,  because Canada is a federal state, it's hard to justify or even allow for seats that cross provincial lines. The one way you could try to make the FPTP arrangement more equitable between seats is through the addition of secondary Floterial seats. But those are difficult to explain or implement.

[toaster]

45K is on the small end for ridings for sure, but because the area is so large geographically, one could definitely make the argument that Nord-du-Quebec should be its own riding. The cases in SK, ON and Labrador could be cited in the process.

I think it might take Abitibi's population to shrink to the point where it wouldn't be so overpopulated if your removed Nord-du-Quebec though.

We should move to eliminate the Labrador and the Northwestern Ontario ridings, not use it as an example to provide even more small ridings.  I think we need to get rid of the provincial commissions and make it a federal commission for more consistency. The idea of "Communities of Interest" is overblown, and really should be removed from the criteria.  Do you know how different the communities within the Northwest Territories are? The Inuit, Dene and Metis, and the Whites in Yellowknife - all so different, but do just fine within one riding. If you don't have enough people, you can't go down to communities of interest.

I disagree strongly, the point of small ridings is to protect communities which have SIMILAR interests, not people who are all identical, but people who have SIMILAR concerns, you are right that people in the territories are quite different all over the province, but their day to day problems are similar, their motivations, their environment, their cultural origins are mostly similar, so why not put them in the same riding?

Now as for Labrador, it is a particular distinct community from the rest of NL, so why force upon it people from another region, which would utterly overwhelm any power this group would have, it's a lot like saying we should merge Alaska with some other state because it doesn't have enough people on its own to warrant a congressional district, yes it is a small group, but it is and has and will be a separate and meaningfully distinct part of that province, and the same is true for certain northern Ontario ridings, this very American "equal constituencies" thing is a great way to undermine minority interests.

If Labrador was so different, then maybe it should be its own Territory, if that is the case.  It is, after all, still part of the Newfoundland and Labrador province, and elects MPPs to the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature..  I believe 4 members.  So this idea that there is no connection is not correct.

The question of "Why Force it upon another region" precisely because it gives unfair power in electing a government of Canada - why should someone in Labrador's vote be worth upwards of 6-7x that of someone in some of the Brampton/905 area? It's unfair. And if we want to talk about who is being unfairly treated..  it's no surprise the areas with the highest number of people are all immigrant communities (read of colour) who have their vote worth less than anywhere else. Also, the idea of only having to serve 25k people..  but being given the same budget for offices, staffing, the same salary, the same resources, as someone who has to serve 150k+ people, it's just not fair?   In Northern Ontario, Thunder Bay is a city of over 100k - on what planet was this the type of community that was intended to benefit from this rule?  It's an urban city.

There's also a trend in Toronto to use the "communities of interest" to avoid being grouped in with people/communities a few blocks away, despite having more in common with each other than 90% of the country, yet use this rule - a subjective rule - is used to try to gerrymander ridings (whether it's on the right or on the left). I don't think it's fair or equitable.

[JohnAMacdonald]

45K is on the small end for ridings for sure, but because the area is so large geographically, one could definitely make the argument that Nord-du-Quebec should be its own riding. The cases in SK, ON and Labrador could be cited in the process.

I think it might take Abitibi's population to shrink to the point where it wouldn't be so overpopulated if your removed Nord-du-Quebec though.

We should move to eliminate the Labrador and the Northwestern Ontario ridings, not use it as an example to provide even more small ridings.  I think we need to get rid of the provincial commissions and make it a federal commission for more consistency. The idea of "Communities of Interest" is overblown, and really should be removed from the criteria.  Do you know how different the communities within the Northwest Territories are? The Inuit, Dene and Metis, and the Whites in Yellowknife - all so different, but do just fine within one riding. If you don't have enough people, you can't go down to communities of interest.

I disagree strongly, the point of small ridings is to protect communities which have SIMILAR interests, not people who are all identical, but people who have SIMILAR concerns, you are right that people in the territories are quite different all over the province, but their day to day problems are similar, their motivations, their environment, their cultural origins are mostly similar, so why not put them in the same riding?

Now as for Labrador, it is a particular distinct community from the rest of NL, so why force upon it people from another region, which would utterly overwhelm any power this group would have, it's a lot like saying we should merge Alaska with some other state because it doesn't have enough people on its own to warrant a congressional district, yes it is a small group, but it is and has and will be a separate and meaningfully distinct part of that province, and the same is true for certain northern Ontario ridings, this very American "equal constituencies" thing is a great way to undermine minority interests.

If Labrador was so different, then maybe it should be its own Territory, if that is the case.  It is, after all, still part of the Newfoundland and Labrador province, and elects MPPs to the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature..  I believe 4 members.  So this idea that there is no connection is not correct.

The question of "Why Force it upon another region" precisely because it gives unfair power in electing a government of Canada - why should someone in Labrador's vote be worth upwards of 6-7x that of someone in some of the Brampton/905 area? It's unfair. And if we want to talk about who is being unfairly treated..  it's no surprise the areas with the highest number of people are all immigrant communities (read of colour) who have their vote worth less than anywhere else. Also, the idea of only having to serve 25k people..  but being given the same budget for offices, staffing, the same salary, the same resources, as someone who has to serve 150k+ people, it's just not fair?   In Northern Ontario, Thunder Bay is a city of over 100k - on what planet was this the type of community that was intended to benefit from this rule?  It's an urban city.

There's also a trend in Toronto to use the "communities of interest" to avoid being grouped in with people/communities a few blocks away, despite having more in common with each other than 90% of the country, yet use this rule - a subjective rule - is used to try to gerrymander ridings (whether it's on the right or on the left). I don't think it's fair or equitable.

I never claimed it has no connection, so don't claim I said something I never said. This idea is a simple one : it has some members in the Legislature, but are these members drawn in Labrador-only seats or Labrador+Newfoundland seats designed to have equal population?

The idea that their vote is worth more is silly, sure they have fewer people but turnout is never consistent from seat to seat anyways, and these smaller ridings force the parties to focus on places which they otherwise might genuinely ignored (it's expensive to campaign in small, rural towns, which is one of the reasons it would often be ignored if say, Proportional Representation were used).

Also, the idea of only having to serve 25k people... in a very geographically large area but  being given fewer staffing, less salary, fewer resources, as someone who has to serve 150k+ people in a tightly packed riding where there is little to no need to move around or do work outside of a few Kilometers, it's just not fair? Are you saying we should reduce the funding, the ressources, the staffing of territory ridings because they have fewer people than larger ridings down south? All the while completely ignoring the fact that these ridings require more staff to be present to deal with the more spread out population's varied concerns? Well, yes you are, you literally said this is unfair for the larger ridings, so please do convince said people to agree to have less funding for their MPs offices, I'd eat my hat if you managed that...

In Northern Ontario, Thunder Bay is a city of over 100k - on this planet it this exactly the type of community that was intended to benefit from this rule, it's a northern urban city, which is easily ignored if it ends up being given a 150k+ riding mixing it with all sorts of other groups just to get an equal population, it is historically and economically sufficiently distinct to allow for this.

The biggest ridings are urban, often yes with lots of immigrants (read not always of colour, since lots of them are from Europe and the US). But these are easy to campaign in, and their large population areas (like Toronto) are a must for any serious federal party worth their salt. So they will not be ignored like say, Labrador would.

Finally, there is indeed a trend in Toronto to use this rule to split people that, to you seem identical and which are so close to one another geographically, but which are clearly distinct ,for instance, there's rarely a 50km gap between the Chinese parts of town and the rest of the city, so these communities look very close on the map, but if you look into it, they aren't the same people, and while they have similarities, they also have many differences, more than you'd think (one part might be full of University students who need affordable rents while another is full of educated professionals looking for paying jobs nearby, for instance).

The result is in fact these communities electing different parties, but that's not gerrymandering, it is common sense, after all, if a lot of people have the same concerns and backgrounds, it would be strange if they voted equally for everyone, right? As an example, Those inner University ridings in Toronto are always NDP-Liberal battlefields, it would be strange to split these communities just to avoid "NDP-mandering" them, and the same rules apply to Toronto's somewhat more conservative suburbs.

[toaster]

All of the points you make don't apply to me, I split my time between my home in Timmins - James Bay and another riding, but Timmins-James Bay is about the same size as Labrador in terms of square KM, and has 3-4x+ as many people to serve, so your argument is convenient if you are comparing Labrador to a Downtown Toronto riding, but not when you compare to Timmins-James Bay, Churchill, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, or other ridings.  They all have similar size to Labrador, with regular population sizes (and vastly different communities - White, English, French, Indigenous), and they do just fine serving their communities.  They prove that it can be done, that you don't need a special consideration to make things unfair.

[MaxQue]

All of the points you make don't apply to me, I split my time between my home in Timmins - James Bay and another riding, but Timmins-James Bay is about the same size as Labrador in terms of square KM, and has 3-4x+ as many people to serve, so your argument is convenient if you are comparing Labrador to a Downtown Toronto riding, but not when you compare to Timmins-James Bay, Churchill, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, or other ridings.  They all have similar size to Labrador, with regular population sizes (and vastly different communities - White, English, French, Indigenous), and they do just fine serving their communities.  They prove that it can be done, that you don't need a special consideration to make things unfair.

ABJNE is actually the 2nd smallest riding in Quebec by population, by quite a margin (-18.3%).

[toaster]

Yes, precisely.  That's exactly the amount of deviation that we would expect, or should expect. A bit lower, but no need for special consideration..  If Labrador was only 18% below the NFLD average, this wouldn't be an issue?  I don't see your point?

[Hatman 🍁]

Hey, if we had MMP, we could have an insanely mal-apportioned house, because theoretically, the top up seats would balance things out.

[JohnAMacdonald]

All of the points you make don't apply to me, I split my time between my home in Timmins - James Bay and another riding, but Timmins-James Bay is about the same size as Labrador in terms of square KM, and has 3-4x+ as many people to serve, so your argument is convenient if you are comparing Labrador to a Downtown Toronto riding, but not when you compare to Timmins-James Bay, Churchill, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, or other ridings.  They all have similar size to Labrador, with regular population sizes (and vastly different communities - White, English, French, Indigenous), and they do just fine serving their communities.  They prove that it can be done, that you don't need a special consideration to make things unfair.

Actually, these points all apply to you, since that riding does have far fewer people than the average... Oh wait, but you live in it, so you find it justified...

Also, these ridings are all below the population average (read: Not regular population sizes, in other words, you lied to further your point on an information that is easily verifiable...), and they are all rural constituencies given far more funding and staffing per person than an urban seat would be.

Now I hear you say that Labrador is a lot smaller, fair enough, but this isn't the point, the point is that it is an important community of interest in the province, and it should have its own voice, or are you saying you'd like for your riding to gain 20 000 people just to get to population parity?

Also, I really want to touch funding, you are bothered by the fact that Labrador's staffing and funding are the same as in other constituencies, and are apparently suggesting that this should be cut to match the population of the riding, but didn't appear to support this for your own riding, which is frankly hypocritical of you, and you also haven't explained why the territories (with similarly low populations as Labrador) should see their staffing and funding cut.

Finally, you didn't say a word about gerrymandering, or do you admit that your argument there was a little silly?