Canada Federal Representation 2024

[Hatman 🍁]

My Saskatchewan 14-seat proposal has been completely revised.

I've left the northern riding as proposed by the Commission, as well as the Battlefords--Lloydminster, Prince Albert, and Yorkton--Melville ridings.  I've created three seats entirely within the City of Saskatoon, and three seats in the combined Moose Jaw/Regina area.  The remaining four ridings were adjusted to balance populations.

See it here: https://bit.ly/Canada343

The NDP is not going to be happy with how you split Regina.

The Regina NDP hasn’t been happy for the past thirty years.


Would this alternative make them happier?

88,224 -- Moose Jaw--Regina East
86,971 -- Regina North
89,029 -- Regina Wascana





Does anyone know a simple way to move labels in QGIS?

This map is much better for the NDP, but lumping the east end of Regina with Moose Jaw is ridiculous

[Hatman 🍁]

You didn't find anything wrong to what they did to the south end of Edmonton? Mill Woods should remain whole for COI reasons in my opinion, even if it's a tad over-sized.

[Njall]

You didn't find anything wrong to what they did to the south end of Edmonton? Mill Woods should remain whole for COI reasons in my opinion, even if it's a tad over-sized.

It's a tough call, but the thing is that on a number of demographic grounds, including ethnicity and (somewhat) income, the part of Mill Woods east of 66 St has quite a lot in common with the Meadows and Ellerslie areas to the east and south, respectively. It's enough to make an arguable CoI. It's also helped by the way that municipal boundaries there are currently shaped. Mill Woods was a distinct community when it was developed in the 1970s when it was separated from the rest of Edmonton by industrial, but I think it's important to recognize the districts that have sprung up since then, as opposed to seeing Mill Woods as an indivisible thing.

[Krago]

When I revised my Saskatchewan proposal, I first had to decide which boundaries the Commissioners were unlikely to change (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) and which ones would be open to suggestions (basically everything else).

So when the Alberta Commission placed 11 seats entirely within the City of Calgary, and nine seats entirely within the City of Edmonton, I started to wave goodbye to my proposed Airdrie--Calgary North and St. Albert--Edmonton.  Then I began reading complaints about Sherwood Park, Beaumont, Banff, and the new Battle River--Crowfoot.

So I have a question: Should I revise my Alberta map to follow the Commission's 11/9/17 recommendation?  Or should I stick to my principles and try to convince the Commission that I'm right and they're wrong?

[EastAnglianLefty]

The problem with arguing for a different arrangement of seats is that you need to convince them twice - first that their arrangements are wrong, and secondarily that your individual seats are better than theirs. Whereas if you accept the arrangement, you only need to convince them once.

[EastAnglianLefty]

How about this for a tidy-up of Edmonton?




Manning 111044 - as proposed
Palisades 115142 - coherent northern seat
Central 112696 - probably throws Desjarlais and Boissonault together
Jasper Place 112586 - surely an improvement on Winterburn?
West 111634 - not mad on the river crossing, but the Commission seems to want to minimise population deviations and it was the only way to keep all the northern seats with 5000 of the average. If you're less bothered with that, there are easy adjustments you can make
Strathcona 113676 - very minor changes
Riverbend 112347 - very minor changes
Ellerslie 110903 - takes a small bite out of Mill Woods
Mill Woods 110871 - a little less disruptive

[Hatman 🍁]

The problem with arguing for a different arrangement of seats is that you need to convince them twice - first that their arrangements are wrong, and secondarily that your individual seats are better than theirs. Whereas if you accept the arrangement, you only need to convince them once.

Agreed. I'm a big supporter of not using hybrid ridings if it can be avoided anyway, though I don't mind having St. Albert or Sherwood Park be lumped into Edmonton if necessary.

Speaking of Edmonton, I much prefer ridings that follow borders that separate communities of interest (i.e., rivers, creeks, expressways, industrial corridors, railways, powerlines, etc). Here's a good map made by Alex McPhee that shows where the industrial corridors are pretty well:



Here's Calgary:



You can really see how bad the new Skyview riding is on that map.

[EastAnglianLefty]

And this for a tidy-up of Calgary:




Country Hills 120432 - if you want to avoid crossing Deerfoot then that requires more changes than can reasonably be considered a tidy-up. So I limited this to trying to improve the southern boundary on both east and west sides and changing the name. Stays north of Airport Trail
McKnight 121352 - shifts north a bit. If you wish, can swap Rundle for Monterey Park
Forest Lawn 121840
Shepard 123717 - largest ridings in the city. With this arrangement, all the eastern ridings need to be overpopulated a little
Midnapore 115238 - aligns with Fish Creek
Heritage 116845 - north-western boundary becomes the reservoir
Centre 120219 - can you call a riding Centre when it borders the edge of the city?
Signal Hill 118852 - probably improved by not containing Valley Ridge
Confederation 119096 - but this is worsened. It goes with Bowness, but not the rest of the riding. Rather elongated
Crowchild 117478 - as proposed
Nose Hill 112215 - as proposed

I don't think this is better than a map that doesn't cross Deerfoot Trail, but it might be easier to convince a commission of this than to get them to do a total re-draw.

[Njall]

When I revised my Saskatchewan proposal, I first had to decide which boundaries the Commissioners were unlikely to change (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) and which ones would be open to suggestions (basically everything else).

So when the Alberta Commission placed 11 seats entirely within the City of Calgary, and nine seats entirely within the City of Edmonton, I started to wave goodbye to my proposed Airdrie--Calgary North and St. Albert--Edmonton.  Then I began reading complaints about Sherwood Park, Beaumont, Banff, and the new Battle River--Crowfoot.

So I have a question: Should I revise my Alberta map to follow the Commission's 11/9/17 recommendation?  Or should I stick to my principles and try to convince the Commission that I'm right and they're wrong?

I would personally be very happy if you could convince the commission that you're right and they're wrong. However, experience suggests that it would probably be more effective to follow their 11/9/17 recommendation and try to fix as many things as possible within that. That said, I would anticipate that you could have a chance of getting them to re-instate St. Albert--Edmonton (or, at least, a better chance than Airdrie--Calgary North), since that riding's existed for nearly the last two decades. Edmonton also has more of a history of blended city proper-suburb ridings than Calgary. I'm pretty sure that Calgary's ridings have exclusively been within the city boundary since at least the 1960s.

[Njall]

How about this for a tidy-up of Edmonton?




Manning 111044 - as proposed
Palisades 115142 - coherent northern seat
Central 112696 - probably throws Desjarlais and Boissonault together
Jasper Place 112586 - surely an improvement on Winterburn?
West 111634 - not mad on the river crossing, but the Commission seems to want to minimise population deviations and it was the only way to keep all the northern seats with 5000 of the average. If you're less bothered with that, there are easy adjustments you can make
Strathcona 113676 - very minor changes
Riverbend 112347 - very minor changes
Ellerslie 110903 - takes a small bite out of Mill Woods
Mill Woods 110871 - a little less disruptive

Nice job. My only real complaint, which isn't a valid mapmaking complaint, would be that it would be likely to turf either Boissonnault or Desjarlais, and I'd prefer to see them both re-elected.

[Njall]

And this for a tidy-up of Calgary:




Country Hills 120432 - if you want to avoid crossing Deerfoot then that requires more changes than can reasonably be considered a tidy-up. So I limited this to trying to improve the southern boundary on both east and west sides and changing the name. Stays north of Airport Trail
McKnight 121352 - shifts north a bit. If you wish, can swap Rundle for Monterey Park
Forest Lawn 121840
Shepard 123717 - largest ridings in the city. With this arrangement, all the eastern ridings need to be overpopulated a little
Midnapore 115238 - aligns with Fish Creek
Heritage 116845 - north-western boundary becomes the reservoir
Centre 120219 - can you call a riding Centre when it borders the edge of the city?
Signal Hill 118852 - probably improved by not containing Valley Ridge
Confederation 119096 - but this is worsened. It goes with Bowness, but not the rest of the riding. Rather elongated
Crowchild 117478 - as proposed
Nose Hill 112215 - as proposed

I don't think this is better than a map that doesn't cross Deerfoot Trail, but it might be easier to convince a commission of this than to get them to do a total re-draw.

Not bad given the constraints. I'd probably switch Monterey Park and Rundle. And if it was possible, Valley Ridge and Crestmont would probably fit better in Crowchild or Signal Hill. I know that the resulting boundary of that would be weird, but in terms of demographics and development patterns, Bowness has more in common with communities in Confederation like Montgomery and Parkdale, while Valley Ridge and Crestmont have more in common with communities like Tuscany (Crowchild) or Cougar Ridge (Signal Hill).

[EastAnglianLefty]

Looking at the rurals, the issue is definitely Beaumont. Restoring Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan definitely makes sense, but the knock-on consequences pretty much always means Beaumont ends up somewhere odd. Like Njall I think Battle River is probably the least bad option, but it's still not exactly good.





Peace River-Westlock 115995 - I don't think it makes sense to have Peace River and Mackenzie County in one riding and Northern Lights County in another. To make room for it, I've cut out Birch Hills County and areas south of the Simonette River
Grand Prairie 114266 - adding in Grand Cache
Fort McMurray-Cold Lake 110519 - I still think this is an odd pairing, but it's the current one and I don't see the point in arguing over it
Lakeland 112235 - loses Fort Saskatchewan, regains Lloydminster
Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan 117125 - compared to the present riding, it loses eastern Strathcona County
Sturgeon County-St. Albert 111152 - unifies Sturgeon County
Spruce Grove-Devon 112401 - I'd rather keep Devon with the bulk of Leduc County, but I don't think this is terrible
Yellowhead 118616 - Innisfail is a bit out of place here, but less than it is in the proposed Bow River
Leduc-Wetaskiwin-Lacombe 120018
Battle River-Beaumont 117424 - I did consider replacing Beaumont with Lacombe County, but Camrose is much connected to Beaumont than anywhere in the riding is to Lacombe
Red Deer 118018
Bow River-Olds 113215 - not sure the first part of the name is still appropriate, as it follows the valley of the Red Deer at least as much as that of the Bow
Banff-Cochrane 113019 - puts Banff back where it ought to be
Airdrie-Chestermere 118018 - pretty much as the commission has it
Foothills 114788 - doesn't need to add Vulcan, so it doesn't
Lethbridge 115705 - Commission got this basically right
Medicine Hat-Cardston-Warner 117739 - makes a bit more use of the Saskatchewan as a boundary

[EastAnglianLefty]

Alternatively, you can put Beaumont into Spruce Grove-Leduc, at the cost of removing Stony Plain. Which is not great, but does mean you've got a reasonably coherent seat based on Edmonton's southern and western outskirts.



Compared to the map I just posted, Battle River-Crowfoot gains Wetaskiwin, the central seat (Lacombe-Ponoka-Sylvan Lake?) gains western bits of Red Deer County and Yellowhead gains Stony Plain and most of Lac Ste. Anne County.

Probably not a good idea, but I thought I'd chuck it out there.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

The problem with arguing for a different arrangement of seats is that you need to convince them twice - first that their arrangements are wrong, and secondarily that your individual seats are better than theirs. Whereas if you accept the arrangement, you only need to convince them once.

Agreed. I'm a big supporter of not using hybrid ridings if it can be avoided anyway, though I don't mind having St. Albert or Sherwood Park be lumped into Edmonton if necessary.

Speaking of Edmonton, I much prefer ridings that follow borders that separate communities of interest (i.e., rivers, creeks, expressways, industrial corridors, railways, powerlines, etc). Here's a good map made by Alex McPhee that shows where the industrial corridors are pretty well:



Here's Calgary:



You can really see how bad the new Skyview riding is on that map.

I don't understand how they thought crossing the Deerfoot with Skyview was a good idea in the first place, because the Skyview Ranch-Forest Lawn corridor so obviously appears as a distinct population centre separated from others by industrial areas. Take this non-Calgarian's take with a grain of salt, but I would think crossing the Bow in the Ogden area or even throwing Mayland Heights into Confederation would be a more geographically coherent choice.

[Poirot]

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

[DL]

Do the proposed new boundaries in Edmonton make Blake Desjarlais’s seat any more or less safe for thé NDP?

[Hatman 🍁]

Do the proposed new boundaries in Edmonton make Blake Desjarlais’s seat any more or less safe for thé NDP?

I think it's bad news for him. The riding gains the Castle Downs area which voted Conservative in 2021 (though lost some Conservative leaning areas in the process). Castle Downs did vote NDP in the provincial election, so if he can win over those voters, he should be able to keep the seat.

The NDP in Alberta should be pushing for my map though, which I think makes his riding safer (though that fact is purely a coincidence )

[Hatman 🍁]

Proposed maps are now available for Manitoba (https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/com/mb/med/jun1622_e.aspx) and New Brunswick (https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/com/nb/med/jun1622_e.aspx)

Highlights include the newly re-named Winnipeg West riding reaching out into the rural hinterlands for some reason, and splitting Saint John in half!

[MaxQue]

Proposed maps are now available for Manitoba (https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/com/mb/med/jun1622_e.aspx) and New Brunswick (https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/com/nb/med/jun1622_e.aspx)

Highlights include the newly re-named Winnipeg West riding reaching out into the rural hinterlands for some reason, and splitting Saint John in half!

NB is always a pain, because the eastern half (Acadie-Bathurst/Miramichi/Beauséjour) is pretty much legally locked the way it is right now.

[Krago]

Commission	Current Status
Newfoundland and Labrador	God only knows.
Prince Edward Island	"The deadline to submit feedback and notices of representation at public hearings has now passed. Thank you for your interest in the redistribution process."
Nova Scotia	Last (virtual) hearing is next Monday, June 27.  The deadline to send comments and feedback to the Commission without attending a public hearing is June 28.
New Brunswick	The proposed map is out.  Public hearings will take place in September.
Quebec	Patiently waiting for Bill C-14 to pass the Senate.
Ontario	See Newfoundland and Labrador.
Manitoba	See New Brunswick.
Saskatchewan	The first public hearing in Saskatoon finished 30 minutes ago.  Hearings will continue to July 14.  People with day jobs are screwed.
Alberta	The proposed map is out.  Public hearings will start after Labour Day and finish after Thanksgiving.
British Columbia	Still time to get to the Heritage Inn in Cranbrook.  Hearings will continue to June 28 and then take a summer hiatus (for the Commissioners to repent their sins) until September.

[Krago]

Which Halifax option is better?

Option 1




Option 2

[Njall]

Which Halifax option is better?

Option 1




Option 2

I think option 1 looks a bit better, though I'm not the most familiar with Halifax's geography.

[Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope]

Which Halifax option is better?

Option 1




Option 2

Ooh, this is a good one. It makes sense to include the Cowie Hill area with Halifax West in option 2, but I think that map includes too much of the mainland with the peninsula. I'd suggest something in-between: shift the boundary with the peninsula to line up with the rail line, roughly, then shift some of the area around Chocolate Lake to the Halifax peninsula riding to compensate?

[Philly D.]

Early on when Krago made his first proposal I said that Miramichi--Kent was a no-no due to language requirements. In truth I was relying on "received wisdom" and the likely opinion of the court-happy SANB. Then I noted in the Commission's proposal that putting Moncton with Dieppe allows a critical mass of Francophones to be in that riding... of about 25%. Playing around with ridingbuilder allows a Miramichi--Kent riding close to the provincial average with 42-43% French-speaking population:



Kent and Northumberland counties minus Doaktown (which improves the French share of the population and significantly reduces distances) yields a population of 75,867 for a -2,18% variance. Making the Kent--Westmorland border the border between Beauséjour and Miramichi--Kent also more or less represents the border between Coastal Acadian accents and the Chiac accent predominant in the Moncton area.

Westmorland alone is 163,576 people or 2,11 ridings (that a variance over +5% in SE NB is too small for the Commission, let alone in the fastest growing part of the province--15,000 people more since 2016--is very telling. They obviously consider rural overrepresentation an unwritten redistribution principle.) Getting one riding a majority Francophone requires the eastern part, all of Dieppe and a suitable split of Moncton. There are many possibilities, for instance:







In each case the population of Beauséjour (in blue) is 79,914, 81,949 or 82,448 with Moncton becoming "Petitcodiac", because naming the capital of Acadie (it is--is has the university, Georges Dumont hospital and Capitole Theatre) after a general who supervised the Deportation of the Acadiens seems... rather daft.

The second map has all these institutions within Beauséjour, although it is the ugliest and downtown Moncton is not the most Francophone part. The first map has only the university and is more Francophone, while the third changes the boundaries the least, although I question the Francophone pop in Beauséjour's westernmost extremity, which may be important as the riding may be close to the 50% French mark. Note that a large number of French-speakers in Moncton lies just to the north of the University, although in all 3 cases it lies in Petitcodiac. This riding is more anglophone than the Commission proposal of Moncton--Dieppe, but I feel that if New Brunswick can only have 3 majority-Francophone and one "bilingual" riding, that it is preferable that the "bilingual" one be centred around Miramichi where Francophone services are more scant and access to a Francophone MP more important (Moncton has more Francophone "mass" than isolated communities even if in absolute numbers the Francophone proportion of Petitcodiac would be around 15-20%.)

By the way, it's all over C-14 except Royal Assent. No extra districts in any provinces but Quebec. Not to mention a proposal with 77 seats in Quebec would have been nice to see

[Hatman 🍁]

Ahh, the old Derry/Foyle approach. Another name for the Moncton area is just "Codiac", which might work.

Eventually a commission in the future is just going to have to bite the bullet vis-a-vis the hard Miramichi/Beasejour border as it's going to be impossible to keep Miramichi big enough without crossing over.