Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts 2012

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Great work! are you going to make a counter propsal map? I like your idea about the Seymour area being moved: " However, if you take out Squamish and Whistler from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, and move that riding into North Vancouver, and move North Vancouver eastward into the Seymour area, you solve this problem"

But what to do with Burnaby? and the Port Coquitlam splitting up issue?... (if this pop makes sense) could you not move the southern Port Moody in with North Burnaby? at least there is a natual connection... Burnaby North - Port Moody riding. It would still be an NDP/Tory battle it just looks like it makes more geographic and connective sense.
Then have Coquitlam and the area of Port Coquitlam which is in Pitt Meadow-Maple Ridge in the same riding. Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam riding.
Pitt Meadows-Maple ridge is now even smaller... but what if all of Maple Ridge is included in this riding? does that bring it back to quota?[/quote]
Here you are:

1.   WEST VANCOUVER--NORTH VANCOUVER--SUNSHINE COAST has West Vancouver’s 42,694 residents, 2,700 from Capilano reserve, and about 27,500 in North Vancouver District (some of whom were already in West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast - Sea to Sky Country), along with  4,791 in Lions Bay/Bowen Island, and 28,619 in Sunshine Coast. Leave out Whistler and Squamish. With about 106,304 residents, it is 1.5% over quotient.  

2.   NORTH VANCOUVER then has about 107,261 residents, 2.4% above quotient.

3.   Shift a belt of six proposed ridings to the east: Burnaby North--Seymour, Port Moody—Coquitlam, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Mission—Matsqui, and Abbotsford—Sumas. These become: BURNABY NORTH—PORT MOODY, COQUITLAM CENTRE, PORT COQUITLAM—EAST COQUITLAM—PITT MEADOWS, MAPLE RIDGE—MISSION, ABBOTSFORD CENTRE, and CHILLIWACK—ABBOTSFORD EAST (Chilliwack 81,011 and about 23,750 in Abbotsford).

4.   Remove the rest of Chilliwack from FRASER CANYON. It then has 26,401 people from Fraser Valley Regional District (Kent, Hope, etc.). Add Whistler and Squamish, making 38,171 in the whole of Squamish—Lillooet RD. Add Merritt, Logan Lake, Clinton, and the parts of Thompson-Nicola not included in the new Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, making the total from Thompson-Nicola RD 23,624. Include the 100 Mile House area and Cariboo G (6,851). Add Princeton and Okanagan-Similkameen H (4,492). Total: 99,539 (5% under quotient).

5.     OKANAGAN CENTRAL—SOUTH then includes West Kelowna, Peachland and area (45,107), the Penticton area not including Okanagan—Similkameen D (36,644), Summerland (11,280), and about 20,850 in Kelowna, total 113,881 (8.7% over quotient) .  (KELOWNA—LAKE COUNTRY will then have about 113,882 people, 8.7% over quotient.)

6.     SOUTH  OKANAGAN—WEST KOOTENAY, after moving 5,284 people in New Denver, Silverton, Slocan and Central Kootenay H to KOOTENAY—COLUMBIA, then has 93,823 people including 26,412 people in Oliver, Osoyoos, Keremeos, and Okanagan—Similkameen A, B, C, D, and G; 31,138 people in Kootenay—Boundary, and 36,273 in Central Kootenay: 10.4% under quotient.

7.     KOOTENAY—COLUMBIA then has about 22,168 people in Central Kootenay along with East Kootenay’s 56,685 and 14,457 in Columbia-Shuswap, making about 93,310 people, 10.9% under quotient. Since the Commission finds Skeena—Bulkley Valley acceptable with 14.1% under quotient, Kootenay—Columbia should have some consideration.

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The current "registered populations" listed on the AANDC site for these 13 total 9,289. Since these make up almost 15 per cent of the population of the present electoral district of Kenora, I submit omitting them is impossible or at least unacceptable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here you are:

The Township of White River and the Township of Hornepayne are longstanding members of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association and the Thunder Bay District Municipal League. Adding them gives the two Thunder Bay districts 165,343 residents, 22.3% below quotient. By shifting 4,801 residents of the west Rainy River region (west of Emo), twice as far from Thunder Bay as they are from Kenora, into a KENORA—WEST RAINY RIVER electoral district, it has a population of 70,067, 34.12% below quotient (it was accepted as exceptional by the last Commission already) but only 19.89 percent below the Northern Ontario average. This adds eight Indian Reserves around Lake of the Woods into the aboriginal-oriented district of KENORA—WEST RAINY RIVER. This leaves the two Thunder Bay electoral districts at 163,030, each about 23.36% below quotient, both within 25% if the City is split carefully: THUNDER BAY—FORT FRANCES (comparable to the electoral district of Thunder Bay—Atikokan that existed until 2004) and THUNDER BAY—SUPERIOR NORTH. Adding Fort Frances is necessary to keep within the 25% limit.

When Ontario is getting 15 new electoral districts, a reduction in representation for Northern Ontario would appear shocking. The solution is to follow the Ontario Government’s definition of Northern Ontario used by every Ministry, and include Parry Sound District but not Muskoka. This brings the population of Northern Ontario to 787,215, 7.4015 electoral quotients, or 9 electoral districts with an average population of 87,468, 17.76 per cent below the provincial quotient. As will be seen, these can be accommodated without undue special treatment. 

The electoral district of SAULT STE. MARIE can be enlarged to include Wawa and Dubreuilville to the north, while the municipalities east of Laird (east of the Sault Ste. Marie Census Agglomeration Area) can be shifted to the Algoma-based district. This leaves SAULT STE. MARIE with a population of 89,207, 16.13 per cent below quotient.

The district of Cochrane has a population of 81,122. Adding the four First Nations now in Timmins—James Bay makes the population of the electoral district of TIMMINS—COCHRANE 84,872, 20.2 per cent below quotient. Splitting Cochrane District and splitting Timiskaming District are no longer necessary. (Since 51% of its residents live in the City of Timmins, I have kept Timmins in the name.)

North Bay and the portion of Nipissing district east of West Nipissing have a population of 67,006. The district of Parry Sound has a population of 42,162, of which 8,946 are already within the present electoral district of Nipissing--Timiskaming. An electoral district of NIPISSING—PARRY SOUND would have a population of 109,168, 2.64 per cent above quotient. It reflects a clear community of interest: the Near North District School Board covers Nipissing and Parry Sound, as do the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit and the North East Local Health Integration Network. Splitting Parry Sound district and splitting Timiskaming district are no longer necessary. About 70 per cent of the population of NIPISSING—PARRY SOUND is within the present Nipissing—Timiskaming.

Sudbury’s growing urban core now has 106,840 residents. The balance of Greater Sudbury has another 53,536, and Sudbury District outside Greater Sudbury has another 21,196, for a total of 181,572. Adding the balance of Nipissing district west of North Bay, the Timiskaming district, the balance of Algoma District east of SAULT STE. MARIE, and Manitoulin, makes a population of 269,388, for three electoral districts an average of 15.57 per cent below quotient.

An urban-core district of SUDBURY could have about 92,000 residents, 13.5 per cent below quotient, much like the present population of 92,048 but shifted slightly east.

The 2002 Commission originally proposed a Timiskaming—Great Sudbury electoral district, but that proposal isolated several francophone communities by putting French River and St.-Charles into Parry Sound--Muskoka. Then in their final report they had to restore Nickel Belt as a francophone/bilingual electoral district. An electoral district of NICKEL BELT—TIMISKAMING would include about 35,000 residents of Valley East, Capreol, Chelmsford, and Azilda in Greater Sudbury, 6,021 more from French River, St.-Charles and Markstay-Warren, and 16,753 from Nipissing District much as the present Nickel Belt does, but adding Timiskaming’s 32,634, making a population of about 90,462, 14.95 per cent below quotient. Since Timiskaming was about 26 per cent French mother tongue in 2006, compared to North Bay’s 15 per cent, Timiskaming will be a better linguistic fit with Nickel Belt than with North Bay. About 64 per cent of residents of NICKEL BELT—TIMISKAMING are within the present Nickel Belt electoral district.

An electoral district of SUDBURY—ALGOMA—MANITOULIN would have about 4,800 from Sudbury’s urban core, 10,654 from Lively and smaller centres and about 17,828 from rural areas of Greater Sudbury, another 15,175 from Sudbury District (including Espanola, Chapleau etc.) plus about 25,717 from Algoma district running west to Tarbutt, and 13,048 from Manitoulin, for a total of about 87,272, 17.96 per cent below quotient, about 57 per cent within the present Algoma - Manitoulin – Kapuskasing. The present Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is a geographic monster that few want to leave unchanged (Kapuskaking and Hearst have no community of interest with Manitoulin).

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here you are:

WINDSOR-ESSEX, CHATHAM-KENT AND SARNIA-LAMBTON

Windsor-Essex, Chatham-Kent and Sarnia-Lambton have a population of 621,303, 5.84 quotients, justifying 6 districts rather than the present 5.47 districts one of which straddles the regional boundary with Middlesex. For example, Chatham-Kent and Lambton share the Lambton-Kent District School Board and the St. Clair Catholic District School Board. Essex, Chatham-Kent and Lambton are served by the Erie St. Clair Local Health Integration Network.

The City of Windsor has 210,891 residents, enough for two districts. WINDSOR WEST and WINDSOR EAST will each be only 0.86 per cent below quotient on average.

ESSEX NORTH WEST (or should it be WINDSOR—ESSEX?) would combine the Essex County municipalities of Tecumseh and Amherstburg with the growing municipalities of Lakeshore and LaSalle, all in Windsor’s Census Metropolitan Area, with a population of 108,355, 1.88 per cent over quotient. This could be seen as a new district since the present Essex electoral district is centred on the Town of Essex, even though ESSEX NORTH WEST (WINDSOR—ESSEX?) is 78 per cent within the present electoral district of Essex.

ESSEX—KENT would combine the Town of Essex with the Essex County municipalities of Leamington, Kingsville and Pelee (total population 69,536), and with the 33,102 residents in the part of Chatham—Kent now within Chatham-Kent—Essex district except for the former City of Chatham; that is, Wards 1, 2 and the part of 3 southeast of the Thames River. Focussed on Leamington, it would have a population of 102,638, 3.5 per cent below quotient. In some ways it is the successor to the present Essex, although 59.9 per cent of this district is within the present Chatham-Kent—Essex district.

SARNIA—LAMBTON would combine the City of Sarnia, St. Clair, Point Edward and Indian Reserve Sarnia 45, all in the Sarnia Census Agglomeration, with the adjacent Plympton-Wyoming, population 97,131 (8.7 percent below quotient). While the present Sarnia—Lambton is right on quotient, it separates Petrolia, the natural centre for rural Lambton, from the rest of rural Lambton. Shifting Enniskillen, Petrolia and Oil Springs to CHATHAM-KENT—LAMBTON unites rural Lambton and creates a good balance between the two districts.

CHATHAM-KENT—LAMBTON would combine the former City of Chatham and the part of Chatham—Kent northwest of the Thames River now in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex (population 70,973) with Petrolia and the other 8 rural municipalities and reserves of Lambton County (population 31,314 including about 2,246 residents in uncounted Walpole Island reserve), making 102,287 (3.83 per cent below quotient); 43 per cent of this district (Chatham) is within the present Chatham-Kent—Essex district, while 48 per cent is within the present Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

Niagara Region has 431,346, enough for four districts with an average of 1.39 per cent over quotient.

The City of St. Catharines has a population of 131,400, too large for one electoral district. Although the present St. Catharines electoral district is only 5.3% above quotient, growth in the abutting districts requires looking at the configuration of the whole region. The growing electoral district of Niagara Falls has a population of 128,357, 20.7 per cent over quotient. The growing electoral district of Niagara West—Glanbrook has a population of 122,134, 14.8 per cent above quotient, 64 per cent within Niagara Region. Although the present Welland electoral district is only 6 per cent above quotient, it excludes Pelham in order to accommodate surplus population from St.Catharines.

NIAGARA FALLS--FORT ERIE would have a population of 112,957, 6.2 per cent over quotient, entirely within the existing and growing electoral district of Niagara Falls.

ST. CATHARINES—NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE would have about 88,825 people from St. Catharines, for a total of about 104,225, about 2 per cent below quotient, 85 per cent within the present St. Catharines electoral district.

ST. CATHARINES—LINCOLN—GRIMSBY would unite the other 42,575 residents of St. Catharines with the growing municipalities of Lincoln, West Lincoln and Grimsby, with a population of 104,224, about 2 below quotient, being 59 per cent within the present electoral district of Niagara West—Glanbrook.

NIAGARA CENTRE would unite the City of Welland with the municipalities of Port Colborne, Thorold, Pelham and Wainfleet, with a population of 109,940, 3.37 percent over quotient, being 85% within the present electoral district of Welland. This moves Pelham from a Lincoln (Niagara North) alignment to a Welland alignment, respecting the fact that it is part of many groups like the Welland Pelham Chamber of Commerce, the YMCA branch serving Welland/Pelham, and Community Living Welland Pelham, and is in Niagara South Judicial District. Unlike the existing electoral district of Welland, NIAGARA CENTRE would include no part of the City of St. Catharines.

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here you are:

SIMCOE COUNTY AND MUSKOKA

This growing region reflects many common interests: the Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit, the North Simcoe Muskoka Local Health Integration Network, the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board, the North Simcoe Muskoka Community Care Access Centre, and others. It has a population of 504,110 residents, now in two electoral districts and parts of three others, making up a total of about 4 districts, but it now deserves about 4 and a half districts. The additional half district comes from shifting to the south the half district removed from Northern Ontario; that is to say, Parry Sound has been shifted into NIPISSING—PARRY SOUND.

The growing Muskoka District has a population of 58,212 (including Wahta Mohawk Territory). Uniting it with the growing City of Orillia, the growing Township of Severn, the Township of Ramara and Mnjikaning First Nation, MUSKOKA—SIMCOE NORTH has a population of 111,320, 4.66 per cent over quotient; 52 per cent of it is within the present Parry Sound—Muskoka electoral district.

The portion of Simcoe County in GREY NORTH—OWEN SOUND—SIMCOE WEST has a population of 50,512, 0.47 quotients. The balance of Simcoe County centred on the growing city of Barrie has a population of 342,443, enough for three electoral districts with an average population of 114,148, 7.32 per cent over quotient. Barrie has 135,711, too big for one district.

To Barrie’s north are the growing Town of Midland (population 16,572) and the town of Penetanguishene, the Townships of Tay and Tiny, and the Indian Reserve of Christian Island. Between Barrie and Midland are the growing township of Springwater (part of Barrie’s Census Metropolitan Area) and the Township of Oro-Medonte. The district of BARRIE NORTH—MIDLAND, including about 26,600 residents in Barrie’s Wards 1 & 3 and the north part of ward 4, would have a population of about 112,834, about 6.09 per cent over quotient; 60 per cent of it is within the present Simcoe North.

BARRIE would include most of the City of Barrie along with about 3,750 residents in the Big Bay Point area (which is served by Barrie schools) in Ward 6 of Innisfil, a population of about 112,861 residents, about 6.11 per cent over quotient. (Note: this is almost the only instance where a 10 per cent target for deviation from quotient requires splitting a municipality. The split is so simple that it may generate no opposition at the hearings. If it does, the Commission could simply add those 3,750 residents to SIMCOE SOUTH making it 13.29 per cent over quotient.)

SIMCOE SOUTH will include the four growing municipalities of New Tecumseth (centred on Alliston), Bradford West Gwillimbury, Essa, and Adjala-Tosorontio, and most of the growing municipality of Innisfil (excluding the Big Bay Point area in Ward 6). With a population of about 116,748, 9.77 per cent over quotient, 51 per cent of it is within the present Simcoe—Grey, 49 per cent the present York—Simcoe.  SIMCOE SOUTH reflects the community of interest exemplified by the South Simcoe Economic Alliance, the South Simcoe Arts Council, many agencies like the South Simcoe Community Information Centre, and the soccer league.

[Hatman 🍁]

Interesting proposals. I like what you've done with the BC problem, but I'm not a fan of your Ontario proposals (mostly because they contradict mine ). Your Northern Ontario proposal in effect does remove a riding from the north, but in a sneaky way. As mentioned, there is no need to do this. The average riding size in Northern Ontario is actually closer than the provincial average now than 10 years ago.

I don't like your Essex Northwest district, as it's not very compact, and it connects North Essex and West Essex through a small narrow part. I think my proposal deals with the Essex situation. Although, your proposal would be better for the NDP, as Essex NW would be a good pick up opportunity.

As for Simcoe County, I think while your proposal isn't bad, I think the more likely scenario will be dividing Barrie in half. That's what the commission usually does in these types of scenarios. Splitting off only a bit of the city might not make sense to the commission. Why put some of Barrie in an urban riding, and put some into one of those rurban ridings, when you can have two rurban ridings? I do hate rurban ridings in general, but it's Barrie. It's not like it's really that urban. It's suburban.

Anyways, don't let my criticisms discourage you. I love seeing other people's proposals and debating them. You've done a lot of hard work, and I hope to see some more of them.

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed. Saint-Laurent – Cartierville 117,950 (1.164) shift 8,500 to Ahuntsic. Jeanne-Le Ber 115,821 (1.143) shift 8,000 to LaSalle – Émard. That's it.

By the way, those who complain about Quebec being over-represented should consider this: the new Boundaries Commission will set up one riding for each 101,321 Quebecers, and one for each 86,305 Manitobans.

That means metropolitan Winnipeg, with 730,018 residents, rates 8.46 MPs, while metropolitan Quebec City, with 765,706 residents, gets 7.56. The smaller city has one more MP cheering for the Jets than the larger city has mourning the Nordiques.

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It adds 33,216 people into the North, which is 0.31 quotient. Far from removing one riding.

I did try to find a way to keep 6 ridings in the northeast. Can you do it? Show me.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The largest urbanizing area is Lakeshore, which Stats Can calls a continuation of the Windsor Urban Area. That makes it the core of the Windsor suburban riding, along with Tecumseh. Similarly, a lot of Lasalle is an extension of Windsor. I'm sorry if Amherstburg offends your sense of compactness, but there was no alternative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't start with Barrie. I started with South Simcoe, a cohesive community torn apart by the last Commission, and the Muskoka--Simcoe North riding made inevitable by recognizing that Parry Sound is part of Northern Ontario (which it is, right?) That left Barrie and my Barrie North--Midland, right?

[Hatman 🍁]

Oh I see, you count Parry Sound-Muskoka as being outside of Northern Ontario. I've been counting it as part of it, hence the confusion.

As for Essex, I see no reason to keep all of Windsor's suburbs in one riding. Especially if they are on two different sides of the city.  But, your proposal isn't the first I've seen to do this, so maybe I'm in the minority.

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All I have done is this:

Beauharnois-Salaberry 61,950 + Vaudreuil-Soulanges 139,353 = 201,303 (1.99 quotients), so make two ridings there.

Le Haut-Richelieu 114,344 + Brome-Missisquoi 55,621 + Les Jardins-de-Napierville 26,234 + Le Haut-Saint-Laurent 21,197 = 217,396 (2.15 quotients), so make two ridings there.

La Haute-Yamaska 85,042 + Rouville 35,690 less Saint-Mathias-sur-Richelieu 4,618 and Richelieu 5,467 = 110,647 (1.09 quotients), one riding.

Les Maskoutains 84,248 + Acton 15,381 = 99,629 (0.98), one riding.

Pierre-De Saurel (formerly Le Bas-Richelieu) 50,900 + Saint-Antoine-sur-Richelieu 1,659 + Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu 2,285 + Saint-Marc-sur-Richelieu 2,050 + Saint-Charles-sur-Richelieu 1,643 + Contrecoeur 6,252 = 64,789 + Mont-Saint-Hilaire 18,200 + Saint-Jean-Baptiste 3,191 + Beloeil 20,783 = 106,963 (1.06 quotients), one riding.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All I have done is note that Longueuil, Roussillon, the rest of La Vallée-du-Richelieu, and the rest of Lajemmerais have 706,495 (6.97 quotients).  I see this as adding one new riding.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For the 13 Indian reserves and Indian settlements in Kenora electoral district where enumeration was not possible as a result of forest fires in Northern Ontario at the time of census collection, a Stats Can person has suggested the "registered populations" listed on the AANDC site “may be an acceptable option.” But that doesn't end the Akwesasne problem. That reserve is partly within Ontario, partly Quebec, and partly the USA. Akwesasne claims a total resident population of 9,170, of which 3,288 are in the USA (says their census) and perhaps 2,686 are in Quebec (says Quebec Stats), so perhaps 3,196 are in Ontario.

[Wilfred Day]

Oh I see, you count Parry Sound-Muskoka as being outside of Northern Ontario.

Not me. I'm just accepting the Ontario government's definition. By its definition, the present Parry Sound--Muskoka riding's 91,263 residents are 58,047 in southern Ontario (64%) and 33,216 in Northern Ontario.

Of course this makes sense to me as a lawyer: Muskoka's Family Court is a satellite of Simcoe County's, while Parry Sound is not in Central East judicial district at all.

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice map. Here's my version (no map, sorry):

I assume five ridings largely unchanged since 1996 need no change: TORONTO—DANFORTH (2.2% under quotient), BEACHES—EAST YORK (0.7% above quotient), SCARBOROUGH SOUTHWEST (2.2% above quotient), SCARBOROUGH CENTRE (5.2% above quotient), and SCARBOROUGH—GUILDWOOOD (4.5% above quotient). Similarly in the west end four electoral districts which are almost unchanged since 1996 need no change: DAVENPORT (3.8% under), PARKDALE—HIGH PARK (1.2% under), YORK SOUTH—WESTON (9.6% over) and EGLINTON—LAWRENCE (6.4% over).

One big change would start with about 62,500 residents from the present Scarborough—Rouge River (currently 27% over quotient) uniting with the Scarborough portion of the present Pickering—Scarborough East (assumed to be about 46,500 residents) to form a renamed SCARBOROUGH EAST with about 109,000 residents, 2.5 per cent over quotient. About 72,600 residents from the old Scarborough—Rouge River would combine with about 36,500 from the present Scarborough—Agincourt (currently only 5.3 per cent over quotient) to form a renamed SCARBOROUGH-ARMADALE with about 109,100 residents, 2.58 per cent over quotient. The dominos would continue as the new electoral district of SCARBOROUGH—DON VALLEY NORTH (north of 401) takes about 75,500 from the present Scarborough—Agincourt, about 18,300 from the present Willowdale east of Leslie, and about 15,000 from the present Don Valley East which will need to pick up about 12,400 residents from the present Don Valley West.

A second big change would be downtown where the surplus 35,700 from TRINITY—SPADINA (36% over quotient) and the south 73,300 of the present Toronto Centre (22.5% over) would be combined as a new TORONTO HARBOUR with a population of about 109,000 (about 2.5 per cent over quotient). ST. PAULS (9.5% over quotient) would remain largely unchanged since 1996, but would give its surplus 7,500 to combine with the remaining 57,000 residents of old Toronto Centre and about 44,500 from the present Don Valley West to form ROSEDALE—LEASIDE, again with a population of about 109,000. From the present Don Valley West (16% over quotient) about 12,700 will shift to DON VALLEY EAST (currently 4.7% over) to give it a population of about 109,000 after it loses about 15,000 residents to the new SCARBOROUGH—DON VALLEY NORTH. About 66,300 residents in the present Don Valley West will form a renamed electoral district of ORIOLE shifted north, taking about 42,600 from the present Willowdale (east of Bayview) to give ORIOLE a population of about 108,900.

Meanwhile ETOBICOKE—LAKESHORE (currently 15.6% over quotient) would have a population of about 109,000 after it gives up about 14,000 residents to ETOBICOKE CENTRE (currently 6.8% over) which in turn has about 109,000 after it gives up about 18,600 to ETOBICOKE NORTH to leave it with about 109,000 after a renamed YORK WEST—ETOBICOKE NORTH takes about 21,000 from Etobicoke North. The present York West gives up about 20,000 to YORK CENTRE (now 11.3% over) leaving it with about 109,000 after it in turn gives about 29,500 to WILLOWDALE (already 32% over quotient), which will shift to the west as all three domino chains meet. The present Willowdale will give up about 18,300 to the new SCARBOROUGH—DON VALLEY NORTH and about 42,600 to the north-shifted Don Valley West renamed ORIOLE, so a cross-401 configuration at the Don Valley continues.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or not.

[Hatman 🍁]

Oh I see, you count Parry Sound-Muskoka as being outside of Northern Ontario.

Not me. I'm just accepting the Ontario government's definition. By its definition, the present Parry Sound--Muskoka riding's 91,263 residents are 58,047 in southern Ontario (64%) and 33,216 in Northern Ontario.

Yeah, most of the riding is in Northern Ontario. I suppose it's possible the commission will split Parry Sound and Muskoka up, but they've been historically together, and are very similar places. Both Districts are the epitome of cottage country, and are very Anglo-Protestant. It's not like the rest of Northern Ontario, which has different industries, and is more Catholic, more French, and has a fair number of Italians too. The only think that keeps Parry Sound in the North is the geography. It's part of the Canadian shield, and is full of lakes and mosquitoes.  

[Hatman 🍁]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice map. Here's my version (no map, sorry):

I assume five ridings largely unchanged since 1996 need no change: TORONTO—DANFORTH (2.2% under quotient), BEACHES—EAST YORK (0.7% above quotient), SCARBOROUGH SOUTHWEST (2.2% above quotient), SCARBOROUGH CENTRE (5.2% above quotient), and SCARBOROUGH—GUILDWOOOD (4.5% above quotient). Similarly in the west end four electoral districts which are almost unchanged since 1996 need no change: DAVENPORT (3.8% under), PARKDALE—HIGH PARK (1.2% under), YORK SOUTH—WESTON (9.6% over) and EGLINTON—LAWRENCE (6.4% over).

One big change would start with about 62,500 residents from the present Scarborough—Rouge River (currently 27% over quotient) uniting with the Scarborough portion of the present Pickering—Scarborough East (assumed to be about 46,500 residents) to form a renamed SCARBOROUGH EAST with about 109,000 residents, 2.5 per cent over quotient. About 72,600 residents from the old Scarborough—Rouge River would combine with about 36,500 from the present Scarborough—Agincourt (currently only 5.3 per cent over quotient) to form a renamed SCARBOROUGH-ARMADALE with about 109,100 residents, 2.58 per cent over quotient. The dominos would continue as the new electoral district of SCARBOROUGH—DON VALLEY NORTH (north of 401) takes about 75,500 from the present Scarborough—Agincourt, about 18,300 from the present Willowdale east of Leslie, and about 15,000 from the present Don Valley East which will need to pick up about 12,400 residents from the present Don Valley West.

A second big change would be downtown where the surplus 35,700 from TRINITY—SPADINA (36% over quotient) and the south 73,300 of the present Toronto Centre (22.5% over) would be combined as a new TORONTO HARBOUR with a population of about 109,000 (about 2.5 per cent over quotient). ST. PAULS (9.5% over quotient) would remain largely unchanged since 1996, but would give its surplus 7,500 to combine with the remaining 57,000 residents of old Toronto Centre and about 44,500 from the present Don Valley West to form ROSEDALE—LEASIDE, again with a population of about 109,000. From the present Don Valley West (16% over quotient) about 12,700 will shift to DON VALLEY EAST (currently 4.7% over) to give it a population of about 109,000 after it loses about 15,000 residents to the new SCARBOROUGH—DON VALLEY NORTH. About 66,300 residents in the present Don Valley West will form a renamed electoral district of ORIOLE shifted north, taking about 42,600 from the present Willowdale (east of Bayview) to give ORIOLE a population of about 108,900.

Meanwhile ETOBICOKE—LAKESHORE (currently 15.6% over quotient) would have a population of about 109,000 after it gives up about 14,000 residents to ETOBICOKE CENTRE (currently 6.8% over) which in turn has about 109,000 after it gives up about 18,600 to ETOBICOKE NORTH to leave it with about 109,000 after a renamed YORK WEST—ETOBICOKE NORTH takes about 21,000 from Etobicoke North. The present York West gives up about 20,000 to YORK CENTRE (now 11.3% over) leaving it with about 109,000 after it in turn gives about 29,500 to WILLOWDALE (already 32% over quotient), which will shift to the west as all three domino chains meet. The present Willowdale will give up about 18,300 to the new SCARBOROUGH—DON VALLEY NORTH and about 42,600 to the north-shifted Don Valley West renamed ORIOLE, so a cross-401 configuration at the Don Valley continues.

Interesting. Not a bad proposal, and one that I think the commission might go with. Toronto Harbour is a riding that I think DL has suggested might be created, and would be heavily populated with all those condo developments. Would be interesting to see how a riding like that would vote. Of course, 10 years from now the riding will be way over populated again.

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Northern Ontario Districts as defined by Ontario's Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry, the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario, the Northern Ontario Energy Credit, and everything else, include only Parry Sound.

For Ontario elections, Muskoka and Parry Sound were separate districts until Mike Harris shrank the House in 1999.

For school boards, Muskoka is in Trillium Lakelands District School Board along with the City of Kawartha Lakes and Haliburton County, and is in the Central East Region of OPSBA. Parry Sound is in Near North District School Board along with North Bay and Nipissing, and is in the Northern Ontario region of OPSBA. For the Local Health Integration Networks, Parry Sound is in North East, Muskoka is in "North Simcoe Muskoka." We have the Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit and the North Simcoe Muskoka Community Care Access Centre, and the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit. We find the District of Parry Sound Domestic Violence Coordinating Committee, while there is a Muskoka Women's Advocacy Group which runs their shelters.

And judicially we have eight regions in Ontario (remember a judge chairs the Commission): the Northeast includes Parry Sound, while Central East includes Muskoka.

The last time a provincial Electoral Boundaries Commission was created in Ontario (1983), Northern Ontario was defined as roughly the area north of the French River. However, everything the province has done in recent years has clearly added Parry Sound to the Ontario government's definition of Northern Ontario.

[Hatman 🍁]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hard to believe those boundaries lasted 16 years. Why didn't they do anything in the early 1990s? What was the formula they used? I really wish Ontario had separate provincial ridings again.

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My version:

HALTON AND PEEL

With a population of 1,798,483 people, 16.91 electoral quotients, this region deserves 17 electoral districts with an average of 105,793 people each: 12.19 in Peel, 4.72 in Halton. Since it has 12 present electoral districts (counting the two that straddle the GTA as one-half each) it will have 5 new electoral districts. Halton Hills has 59,008, more than half a quotient. Halton Hills is a natural extension of the northwest portion of Brampton, joined by Highway 401 and the Go Train.  The balance of Halton has 441,869, 4.155 quotients, calling for 4 districts, one more than the present 3. No electoral district would straddle the boundary of the Greater Toronto Area (Peel, Halton, York and Durham Regions).

PEEL

Mississauga’s population is 713,443, enough for 7 districts (which I have not attempted to delineate) each on average 4.17 per cent below quotient, two of which are new districts.

Brampton, Caledon and Halton Hills have 642,379, 6.04 quotients, just right for 6 districts, two more than at present. Peel and Halton Hills thus gets four new electoral districts.

HALTON HILLS—BRAMPTON MOUNT PLEASANT would combine Halton Hills (population 59,008) with about 47,000 residents in the northwest neighbourhood of Brampton based on its Ward 6. Its population would be about 106,008, about 0.33 per cent below quotient; 56 per cent of it is within the present electoral district of Wellington—Halton Hills. Mount Pleasant and Georgetown (in Halton Hills) are stations on the same Go Train line, joined also by Highway 401. A Halton Hills--Caledon alignment might have been possible, but Halton Hills is more aligned to the Mount Pleasant neighbourhood than it is to Caledon, and it would be 11.39 per cent over quotient, while everywhere else in southern Ontario the proposed electoral districts are within 10 per cent of quotient.

CALEDON—BRAMPTON HEART LAKE would unite Caledon (population 59,460) with the northern portion (based on Ward 2) of the City of Brampton with about 47,000 residents. Its population would be about 106,460, about 0.09 per cent above quotient; 56 per cent of it is within the present Dufferin—Caledon. When the 2002 Commission proposed an alignment of Caledon with Ward 10, this sparked considerable opposition; Ward 2 will be a better fit.

BRAMPTON CENTRE would be based on Wards 1 & 5, BRAMPTON SOUTH on Wards 3 & 4, BRAMPTON—BRAMALEA on Wards 7 & 8, and BRAMPTON—GORE on Wards 9 & 10. This is the same ward pattern that is used for Brampton City Council. Each would have on average a population of about 107,478, about 1.05 per cent above quotient. Both BRAMPTON CENTRE and BRAMPTON SOUTH are more than half within the present Brampton West which has swollen to hold 1.92 electoral quotients.

HALTON

Oakville, Burlington and Milton have 442,661 residents, 4.162 electoral quotients, making 4 electoral districts, each on average 4.05 per cent over quotient. Halton Hills has been dealt with above.

The electoral district of OAKVILLE with about 110,000 residents (3.4 per cent over quotient) would be based on wards 2, 3, 5, & 6 of the City of Oakville, whose City population is 182,520.

MILTON—OAKVILLE would combine Milton (population 84,362) with about 26,500 residents of Oakville (part of Ward 4), for a total of about 110,862, about 4.23 per cent over quotient.

The new electoral district of BURLINGTON—BRONTE (population about 110,820, about 4.19 per cent above quotient) would combine about 64,800 residents in Burlington with the remaining 46,020 residents of Oakville including its ward 1.

BURLINGTON—ALDERSHOT with about 110,979 residents (4.34 per cent over quotient) would comprise the balance of Burlington (whose City population is 175,779).

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not very different from mine:

OTTAWA—PRESCOTT AND RUSSELL

The City of Ottawa has a population of 883,391, 8.306 quotients. Russell is partly within the Ottawa metropolitan area. Prescott & Russell has a population of 85,381, 0.8028 quotients. Together they deserve 9 electoral districts, each with an average population of 107,641, 1.21 per cent over quotient. Note that it is no longer necessary to include Mississippi Mills with Ottawa, nor to include North Glengarry with Prescott & Russell. This adds one new electoral district.

It seems likely that OTTAWA—VANIER with population 103,687 (2.56 per cent below quotient), OTTAWA CENTRE with population 114,043 (7.22 above quotient) and OTTAWA WEST—NEPEAN with population 111,457 (4.79 per cent above quotient) might be unchanged. The present Glengarry—Prescott—Russell will, after removing North Glengarry, have a population of 101,961, 4.14 per cent below quotient, and might simply be renamed PRESCOTT—RUSSELL—CUMBERLAND (recognizing that 16% of its residents are within the City of Ottawa). The remaining 537,624 Ottawa residents will form five electoral districts with an average population of 107,525, 1.10 per cent over quotient.  A new electoral district (OTTAWA—BARRHAVEN?) will need to be inserted between the present Nepean—Carleton which has 159,032 residents (49.5 per cent above quotient), and the remaining 137,384 in the present Carleton—Mississippi Mills after removing Mississippi Mills (29.17 per cent over quotient), while adjusting the boundaries of the present OTTAWA—ORLEANS with population 119,287 (12.16 per cent above quotient), and OTTAWA SOUTH with population 121,921 (14.63 per cent above quotient). I have not attempted to design these.

[Hatman 🍁]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not very different from mine:

OTTAWA—PRESCOTT AND RUSSELL

The City of Ottawa has a population of 883,391, 8.306 quotients. Russell is partly within the Ottawa metropolitan area. Prescott & Russell has a population of 85,381, 0.8028 quotients. Together they deserve 9 electoral districts, each with an average population of 107,641, 1.21 per cent over quotient. Note that it is no longer necessary to include Mississippi Mills with Ottawa, nor to include North Glengarry with Prescott & Russell. This adds one new electoral district.

It seems likely that OTTAWA—VANIER with population 103,687 (2.56 per cent below quotient), OTTAWA CENTRE with population 114,043 (7.22 above quotient) and OTTAWA WEST—NEPEAN with population 111,457 (4.79 per cent above quotient) might be unchanged. The present Glengarry—Prescott—Russell will, after removing North Glengarry, have a population of 101,961, 4.14 per cent below quotient, and might simply be renamed PRESCOTT—RUSSELL—CUMBERLAND (recognizing that 16% of its residents are within the City of Ottawa). The remaining 537,624 Ottawa residents will form five electoral districts with an average population of 107,525, 1.10 per cent over quotient.  A new electoral district (OTTAWA—BARRHAVEN?) will need to be inserted between the present Nepean—Carleton which has 159,032 residents (49.5 per cent above quotient), and the remaining 137,384 in the present Carleton—Mississippi Mills after removing Mississippi Mills (29.17 per cent over quotient), while adjusting the boundaries of the present OTTAWA—ORLEANS with population 119,287 (12.16 per cent above quotient), and OTTAWA SOUTH with population 121,921 (14.63 per cent above quotient). I have not attempted to design these.

I hope and suggest that then new riding will be named Rideau-Carleton. As for adding the name "Cumberland" to Prescott-Russell, that's not necessary, as Cumberland is part of the historic Russell County. And why remove North Glengarry anyways?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My version:

HALTON AND PEEL

With a population of 1,798,483 people, 16.91 electoral quotients, this region deserves 17 electoral districts with an average of 105,793 people each: 12.19 in Peel, 4.72 in Halton. Since it has 12 present electoral districts (counting the two that straddle the GTA as one-half each) it will have 5 new electoral districts. Halton Hills has 59,008, more than half a quotient. Halton Hills is a natural extension of the northwest portion of Brampton, joined by Highway 401 and the Go Train.  The balance of Halton has 441,869, 4.155 quotients, calling for 4 districts, one more than the present 3. No electoral district would straddle the boundary of the Greater Toronto Area (Peel, Halton, York and Durham Regions).

PEEL

Mississauga’s population is 713,443, enough for 7 districts (which I have not attempted to delineate) each on average 4.17 per cent below quotient, two of which are new districts.

Brampton, Caledon and Halton Hills have 642,379, 6.04 quotients, just right for 6 districts, two more than at present. Peel and Halton Hills thus gets four new electoral districts.

HALTON HILLS—BRAMPTON MOUNT PLEASANT would combine Halton Hills (population 59,008) with about 47,000 residents in the northwest neighbourhood of Brampton based on its Ward 6. Its population would be about 106,008, about 0.33 per cent below quotient; 56 per cent of it is within the present electoral district of Wellington—Halton Hills. Mount Pleasant and Georgetown (in Halton Hills) are stations on the same Go Train line, joined also by Highway 401. A Halton Hills--Caledon alignment might have been possible, but Halton Hills is more aligned to the Mount Pleasant neighbourhood than it is to Caledon, and it would be 11.39 per cent over quotient, while everywhere else in southern Ontario the proposed electoral districts are within 10 per cent of quotient.

CALEDON—BRAMPTON HEART LAKE would unite Caledon (population 59,460) with the northern portion (based on Ward 2) of the City of Brampton with about 47,000 residents. Its population would be about 106,460, about 0.09 per cent above quotient; 56 per cent of it is within the present Dufferin—Caledon. When the 2002 Commission proposed an alignment of Caledon with Ward 10, this sparked considerable opposition; Ward 2 will be a better fit.

BRAMPTON CENTRE would be based on Wards 1 & 5, BRAMPTON SOUTH on Wards 3 & 4, BRAMPTON—BRAMALEA on Wards 7 & 8, and BRAMPTON—GORE on Wards 9 & 10. This is the same ward pattern that is used for Brampton City Council. Each would have on average a population of about 107,478, about 1.05 per cent above quotient. Both BRAMPTON CENTRE and BRAMPTON SOUTH are more than half within the present Brampton West which has swollen to hold 1.92 electoral quotients.

HALTON

Oakville, Burlington and Milton have 442,661 residents, 4.162 electoral quotients, making 4 electoral districts, each on average 4.05 per cent over quotient. Halton Hills has been dealt with above.

The electoral district of OAKVILLE with about 110,000 residents (3.4 per cent over quotient) would be based on wards 2, 3, 5, & 6 of the City of Oakville, whose City population is 182,520.

MILTON—OAKVILLE would combine Milton (population 84,362) with about 26,500 residents of Oakville (part of Ward 4), for a total of about 110,862, about 4.23 per cent over quotient.

The new electoral district of BURLINGTON—BRONTE (population about 110,820, about 4.19 per cent above quotient) would combine about 64,800 residents in Burlington with the remaining 46,020 residents of Oakville including its ward 1.

BURLINGTON—ALDERSHOT with about 110,979 residents (4.34 per cent over quotient) would comprise the balance of Burlington (whose City population is 175,779).

Not a fan of connecting parts of Brampton with Caledon or Halton Hills. I can't see the commission doing this at all.

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So would you propose CALEDON--HALTON HILLS? (11.39 per cent over quotient.) That had been my first thought. Then BRAMPTON MOUNT PLEASANT--HEART LAKE would match the city council ward.

[Hatman 🍁]

That might be necessary. Or removing some municipalities from Dufferin.

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The current electoral districts fail to reflect the community of interest between Wellington and Dufferin, including the Upper Grand District School Board, the Health Unit (Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health), the Guelph, Wellington Dufferin Crisis Line, and other agencies.

The growing region of Waterloo, Wellington and Dufferin has a population of 772,337, enough for 7 electoral districts an average of 3.74 per cent over quotient, while it now has five electoral districts and parts of three others for a total of 6.27 districts. Effectively, this region gets a new electoral district. It no longer has to share one with Perth, another with Halton, and another with Peel.

DUFFERIN—WELLINGTON would include Dufferin County, the municipality of Erin (which shares a school trustee with Dufferin’s East Garafraxa, and was in the same electoral district as Dufferin until 2004), and the established northern region of Wellington County: Wellington North, Minto and Mapleton, which were in the same electoral district with Dufferin until 1996. It includes the population centres strung along road 109 and Highway 89: Orangeville, Grand Valley, Arthur, Harriston, Palmerston, Mount Forest and Shelburne. With a population of 97,451, DUFFERIN—WELLINGTON is 8.38 per cent under quotient; 58 per cent of it is within the present Dufferin—Caledon.

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is McGuinty doing about redistribution? (Other than waiting for the Kitchener-Waterloo byelection.)

Liberal MPPs have always complained privately that using the federal ridings made no sense, because they were designed without reference to provincial responsibilities like education and health. (We will soon see whether the federal Ontario Commission will pay any attention to school boards, health units, LHINs and hospital catchment areas.) And they used to complain that Mike Harris had made the number of MPPs too small to staff the committees and exercise proper legislative oversight.

If McGuinty had won a majority last year I am fairly confident he would have appointed a provincial Boundaries Commission. Among other things this would have let him grandfather the Northern ridings again if he wanted to (did Liberal candidates promise this last fall?) But I haven't seen a word from Queen's Park, and the press gallery seem to have been asleep on this point.

[Wilfred Day]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 2002 Commission created, in Southern Ontario, 12 electoral districts which, primarily because of matching numbers to the quotient, straddled the boundaries of regions, regional municipalities, counties, districts and/or school districts in an otherwise unnecessary way. (If I refer to school districts too often, it may be because I was a public school board trustee from 1982 to 1994, active in the Ontario Public School Boards Association.) The 12 were: Carleton—Mississippi Mills, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell (splitting Glengarry), Northumberland—Quinte West, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock (straddling the GTA and Durham Region), Pickering—Scarborough East, York—Simcoe, Niagara West—Glanbrook, Welland (as to part of St. Catharines), Perth—Wellington, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex (straddling Middlesex), Dufferin—Caledon (straddling the GTA), and Wellington—Halton Hills (again the GTA).

There is no need to split STORMONT–DUNDAS–GLENGARRY, which can follow the county boundaries. (Municipally it is the United Counties of S, D & G.) It then has a population of 111,164, 4.52 percent above quotient, not counting any part of Akwesasne Reserve. That reserve is partly within Ontario, partly Quebec, and partly the USA. Akwesasne claims a total resident population of 9,170, of which 3,288 are in the USA and perhaps 2,686 are in Quebec, so perhaps 3,196 are in Ontario? How the Commission can obtain a reliable number I do not know, but it appears desirable. Taking 3,196, the total is 114,360, 7.52 per cent above quotient.

[Hatman 🍁]

I think one reason that North Glengarry is in a different riding is that there is a large Francophone population there, and it makes sense to put it with a Francophone riding.

[lilTommy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice map. Here's my version (no map, sorry):

I assume five ridings largely unchanged since 1996 need no change: TORONTO—DANFORTH (2.2% under quotient), BEACHES—EAST YORK (0.7% above quotient), SCARBOROUGH SOUTHWEST (2.2% above quotient), SCARBOROUGH CENTRE (5.2% above quotient), and SCARBOROUGH—GUILDWOOOD (4.5% above quotient). Similarly in the west end four electoral districts which are almost unchanged since 1996 need no change: DAVENPORT (3.8% under), PARKDALE—HIGH PARK (1.2% under), YORK SOUTH—WESTON (9.6% over) and EGLINTON—LAWRENCE (6.4% over).

One big change would start with about 62,500 residents from the present Scarborough—Rouge River (currently 27% over quotient) uniting with the Scarborough portion of the present Pickering—Scarborough East (assumed to be about 46,500 residents) to form a renamed SCARBOROUGH EAST with about 109,000 residents, 2.5 per cent over quotient. About 72,600 residents from the old Scarborough—Rouge River would combine with about 36,500 from the present Scarborough—Agincourt (currently only 5.3 per cent over quotient) to form a renamed SCARBOROUGH-ARMADALE with about 109,100 residents, 2.58 per cent over quotient. The dominos would continue as the new electoral district of SCARBOROUGH—DON VALLEY NORTH (north of 401) takes about 75,500 from the present Scarborough—Agincourt, about 18,300 from the present Willowdale east of Leslie, and about 15,000 from the present Don Valley East which will need to pick up about 12,400 residents from the present Don Valley West.

A second big change would be downtown where the surplus 35,700 from TRINITY—SPADINA (36% over quotient) and the south 73,300 of the present Toronto Centre (22.5% over) would be combined as a new TORONTO HARBOUR with a population of about 109,000 (about 2.5 per cent over quotient). ST. PAULS (9.5% over quotient) would remain largely unchanged since 1996, but would give its surplus 7,500 to combine with the remaining 57,000 residents of old Toronto Centre and about 44,500 from the present Don Valley West to form ROSEDALE—LEASIDE, again with a population of about 109,000. From the present Don Valley West (16% over quotient) about 12,700 will shift to DON VALLEY EAST (currently 4.7% over) to give it a population of about 109,000 after it loses about 15,000 residents to the new SCARBOROUGH—DON VALLEY NORTH. About 66,300 residents in the present Don Valley West will form a renamed electoral district of ORIOLE shifted north, taking about 42,600 from the present Willowdale (east of Bayview) to give ORIOLE a population of about 108,900.

Meanwhile ETOBICOKE—LAKESHORE (currently 15.6% over quotient) would have a population of about 109,000 after it gives up about 14,000 residents to ETOBICOKE CENTRE (currently 6.8% over) which in turn has about 109,000 after it gives up about 18,600 to ETOBICOKE NORTH to leave it with about 109,000 after a renamed YORK WEST—ETOBICOKE NORTH takes about 21,000 from Etobicoke North. The present York West gives up about 20,000 to YORK CENTRE (now 11.3% over) leaving it with about 109,000 after it in turn gives about 29,500 to WILLOWDALE (already 32% over quotient), which will shift to the west as all three domino chains meet. The present Willowdale will give up about 18,300 to the new SCARBOROUGH—DON VALLEY NORTH and about 42,600 to the north-shifted Don Valley West renamed ORIOLE, so a cross-401 configuration at the Don Valley continues.

Interesting. Not a bad proposal, and one that I think the commission might go with. Toronto Harbour is a riding that I think DL has suggested might be created, and would be heavily populated with all those condo developments. Would be interesting to see how a riding like that would vote. Of course, 10 years from now the riding will be way over populated again.

How this area votes will depend on where the riding boundary is. Using Bloor Street is a natural, and my preference since there is a long standing "divide" between south of bloor and north of bloor (here being Rosedale, and the start of Mid-town). The NDP was most competative south of bloor thats where they won their polls, and Trinity-Spadina had all but under a half-dozen won by someone other then Chow. So this riding would be solid-strong NDP exp. if Chow ran. Is it possible to make two DT ridings? so make 4 ridings out of mostly 3 current ones (Tor.Centre, TS and St. Pauls), these are high-growth areas so the commission should feel ok about putting them delow quota... does that work? names:
Rosedale-Leaside, Toronto-Old York (or maybe St. David), St. Pauls and Toronto-Fort York
Tor. Old York(St. David) would have a west boundary of Queens park-University(to queen)-Simcoe; Bloor to the north, Don Valley to the east. (would include the Islands as well). Not sure what the pop. would be though
I hate the name Harbour, or any geographic name for large cities; using the old wards for TO (like St. David) I think is appropriate (the old Prv. Ridings used them) or community names.