Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts 2012

[Wilfred Day]

The Ontario Commission seems to have done a good job in most of Ontario, judging by objections from municipal councils.

The major hot spot is the belt of seven ridings: HALIBURTON—UXBRIDGE, OSHAWA-BOWMANVILLE, OSHAWA-DURHAM, KAWARTHA LAKES—PORT HOPE—COBOURG, PRINCE EDWARD—QUINTE WEST, BELLEVILLE—NAPANEE—FROTENAC, and LANARK—FRONTENAC—HASTINGS. Virtually every municipal council and County or Regional council has objected, and has set up working groups preparing alternative plans.

There is a small, easily fixed hot spot in SIMCOE—GREY. Both The Blue Mountains council and members of Collingwood council have expressed a desire for Blue to remain in Simcoe-Grey. In Dufferin County, Mulmur and its county council agree: don't remove Mulmur from DUFFERIN—CALEDON. Moving Mulmur back out of SIMCOE—GREY into DUFFERIN—CALEDON would put DUFFERIN—CALEDON back to its present population of 116,341, less than 10% above quotient. SIMCOE—GREY would lose Mulmur and regain The Blue Mountains, making it 116,307, also less than 10% above quotient. BRUCE—GREY—OWEN SOUND would shrink to 106,475, perfect. Problem solved.

Other than that, nothing coherent that I can find. Did I miss something?

[Hatman 🍁]

The plan is sh*t. I have many objections. I have until Monday to decide whether or not I am going to submit my own proposal. Since they are coming to Ottawa in the middle of a work day, I will probably not bother.

[Wilfred Day]

The Ontario Commission is ready to make decisions on the road.

They held their first hearing Tuesday, October 9, in Kenora. By the next day, at their hearing in Thunder Bay Wednesday, October 10, http://www.tbnewswatch.com/news/239832/Riding-left-alone Commission Chair Justice George Valin said a proposal to move a pair of communities and two First Nations into the Kenora riding met with plenty of opposition, convincing commission members it was a bad idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With 121 ridings to design, leaving all the decisions until after Nov. 15 might prove difficult, while meeting their deadline: "No later than December 21."

But will they keep making decisions on the road? For example, the hearings in Richmond Hill October 18 and 19 will deal with the ten proposed York Region ridings including YORK--SIMCOE which would add the north half of Uxbridge, and all of Bradford - West Gwillimbury, into the York Region ten. When the Commission reaches Oshawa November 13 to deal with the the five ridings entirely in Durham Region and the proposed HALIBURTON--UXBRIDGE will they say "based on what we heard in Richmond Hill, we have already decided to keep Uxbridge together and put it all in YORK--SIMCOE?" Or if they don't say it, will they be thinking it?

[Poirot]

I imagine it was easy to make the decision on the road if there was big opposition to the proposal. Not sure how a commission works but members of the commission must look at the written proposal before the hearing to be familiar with issues. They recognized a problem with their proposal, and I don't think it causes population numbers problem, and in that case putting the communities in one riding or the other doesn't impact other ridings on the map.

The commission will probably not make decisions on the road in more urban areas if it affects other urban areas. They could have made other scenarios since the first proposal with the input they received, see different options they have. That is what I hope they do anyway.     

[Poirot]

The Quebec hearings covering mostly the eastern half of the province are completed. I have read some opposition to name change, like keeping Saint-Maurice instead of Shawinigane or wanting to have Bellechasse in the name (Louis-Fréchette).

Besides the obvious opposition when the proposal came out, there is the case of Saint-Augustin just west of Quebec City. Part of it is in the riding of Cap-Rouge and part in Anne-Hébert. I think it was the council who told its preference of being in only one riding and if possible linked to Quebec City and not with all the territory of Anne-Hébert.

Lotbinière says it has more links to Lévis than Thetford Mines and Mégantic. If Mégantic can't be expanded in Beauce or Lotbinière, maybe they will try adding from Eastern Townships.

The commission has added three dates for hearings in November in Montreal. I guess more people than they expected are not happy.

A newspaper article stated that the councils of Crabtree, Saint-Paul, Saint-Thomas which are located south of Joliette and part of MRC Joliette, will oppose being put in the Gilles-Villeneuve riding instead of staying in Joliette. The NDP will soon make public a document about their position for Québec. I don't know if every party does this.   

[MaxQue]

The commission has added three dates for hearings in November in Montreal. I guess more people than they expected are not happy.

104 persons wants to be heard, in Montreal.

[Poirot]

From what I understand, at the Montreal hearing the Bloc, NDP and LPC-Q have said they prefer Montreal island to have 18 ridings (18 is status quo number; the commission is proposing 19 with the transfer of 1 riding from Gaspésie).

I think the NDP is proposing just changes to ridings that have become too large in population, but I have not found detail on the web so far. 

The Liberal party has made a map based on 19 ridings.
www.liberal.ca/files/2012/10/Proposition-PLCQ-2012-Montréal_small.pdf

Their website says the commission has asked they submit a map also based on 18 ridings.

With many federal parties agreeing, is this going in the direction of the Gaspésie not losing a riding and Montreal not gaining one?

The new names have some negative comments in Montreal and Laval. MPs don't like the name change. A commissioner admitted one new proposed proper name in Laval would not be kept.   

[Hatman 🍁]

Excellent news

[Poirot]

Using google news I found MRC Papineau in the Outaouais region will make a proposal. The commission puts them in a Hautes-Laurentides-Pontiac riding, the big crescent around Gatineau. This was discussed in this thread some time ago.

MRC Papineau is proposing to be put with L'Ange-Gardien, Notre-Dame-de-la-Salette, Val-des-Monts and the eastern part of Gatineau up to Labrosse blvd. 

[Wilfred Day]

From the Ontario hearings to date, an observer says presenters who suggest anything for Southern Ontario with more than a 20% deviation from quotient are causing raised eyebrows and skeptical comments from the Commissioners, but not for 15%. Presenters have suggested solutions over 15% with no adverse reaction, as long as it is under 20%. This is consistent with what the Commission itself has proposed for southern Ontario. However, this could be misleading. Rumour has it that the Commissions were all advised by Elections Canada to try to stay within 10%. The New Brunswick Commission clearly wasn't listening. But the Ontario Commission may have simply run out of time, since they requested an extension of time to publish their proposals and were turned down. Once the hearings are over, and they start on a final map, will they try to get more southern Ontario ridings within 10%? Possibly, but they have shown no inclination to do so, to date.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Do these boundary commissions not employ someone who knows how to use a GIS program? I would think that any one of us who know our way around the province could sit down with Alcon or Averroes Nix and get this done in a couple of days.

[Wilfred Day]

Do these boundary commissions not employ someone who knows how to use a GIS program?

I listened to a report today that said the Ontario Commission not only does have such a person, but during the hearings that person will almost instantly put on the screen (unbidden) a map of the area the presenter is speaking of, and the presenter is given a light pencil to point to the feature on the screen he or she is speaking of.

By the way, after all registered presenters are finished, unregistered presenters are usually given a chance to speak briefly, assuming there is a bit of time left or the Commission can sit a bit later.

[MaxQue]

Do these boundary commissions not employ someone who knows how to use a GIS program?

I listened to a report today that said the Ontario Commission not only does have such a person, but during the hearings that person will almost instantly put on the screen (unbidden) a map of the area the presenter is speaking of, and the presenter is given a light pencil to point to the feature on the screen he or she is speaking of.

I suppose it's standard procedure, given than the Parliament hearings of MP after reports looked like that in 2003.

[MaxQue]

Wierd. Ontario commision is calling new hearing in 4 cities, as they changed their proposal about the surrounding areas (Sault Ste. Marie, Cambridge, Oakville, Hamilton).

[Hatman 🍁]

Sault Ste Marie? Oh dear...

[Wilfred Day]

Wierd. Ontario commision is calling new hearing in 4 cities, as they changed their proposal about the surrounding areas (Sault Ste. Marie, Cambridge, Oakville, Hamilton).

Not weird, but brilliant. These guys are hot.

Instead of leaving everything to the end, going behind closed doors, coming up with a new plan, and saying "don't like it? Too bad, the legislation doesn't create a second round of hearings" these guys are working on the road, redesigning as they go, and when their redesign is sufficient to justify a second hearing, they schedule a further hearing.

At the Cobourg hearing today I explained what they are starting to do, said I wish every Commission across Canada would follow their example, and got a big round of applause from the sellout crowd who all wanted the Commission to go back to the drawing board in our region. (The Commissioners said today's hearing had the largest attendance of any of their hearings to date.) This process should be a template for all the Commissions.

They started by announcing a Sault Ste. Marie hearing to reconsider the Algoma and Sault ridings. And now they have announced:
Instead of their proposal for Perth–Wellington, Kitchener–Conestoga, Kitchener South–North Dumfries–Brant, Brant, Waterdown–Glanbrook, Ancaster, Hamilton Centre, Hamilton Mountain, Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, Burlington, Halton, Milton, and Wellington–Halton Hills, they have a new proposal for Perth–Wellesley–Wilmot, Wellington–Woolwich, Kitchener South – North Dumfries, a revised Brant, Ancaster–Flamborough–Glanbrook, Hamilton West–Dundas, Hamilton East, Hamilton Mountain West, Stoney Creek–Mountain East, a revised Burlington, Oakville North–Burlington, Burlington North–Milton South, and Halton Hills–Milton. This shifts half a riding from the Brant+Waterloo+Wellington region to Halton, while changing a total of 13 ridings. So they are holding new hearings in Cambridge and Hamilton (half-days in each) and Oakville.

Their 12 proposed ridings in Durham Region and everything from Kawartha Lakes to Kingston would benefit from a major redraft. Whether this will justify a second round in our region I cannot say, but this kind of flexibility is so refreshing for those experienced in this process.

[King of Kensington]

I will be making a deposition at the Toronto hearings tomorrow.  For the central city, I think they did a superb job.  It's good to see Rosedale and Yorkville removed from TC, which was a horribly gerrymandered riding.  However the Wellesley boundary is problematic as it splits Church-Wellesley so I am proposing they move the boundary between Queen's Park and Yonge and then up Yonge to Bloor over Sherbourne and continue on with Rosedale Valley from there.  This puts Bay St. Corridor between Dundas and Bloor - which is more of a "midtown" community socially and economically - in Mount Pleasant and has all of Church-Wellesley together in TC.

[lilTommy]

I will be making a deposition at the Toronto hearings tomorrow.  For the central city, I think they did a superb job.  It's good to see Rosedale and Yorkville removed from TC, which was a horribly gerrymandered riding.  However the Wellesley boundary is problematic as it splits Church-Wellesley so I am proposing they move the boundary between Queen's Park and Yonge and then up Yonge to Bloor over Sherbourne and continue on with Rosedale Valley from there.  This puts Bay St. Corridor between Dundas and Bloor - which is more of a "midtown" community socially and economically - in Mount Pleasant and has all of Church-Wellesley together in TC.

That would make much more sense then the proposed Wellesley border.

[lilTommy]

I just had coffee with Rosario Marchese (my MPP) he's speaking today at the Toronto hearings. He's looking for a) the commission to take into account future population growth (like the BC commission) and b) following that thought, Trinity-Spadina should be basically split in half, two new ridings, due to the fact that there is expected to be 50-60k more people in the riding (which is 149k already).

Anyone agree with a) and/or b)

I think both are good moves the commission should make; but that being said it would mean, possibly three ridings in the proposed two ridings of TS and TC.

[Linus Van Pelt]

I just had coffee with Rosario Marchese (my MPP) he's speaking today at the Toronto hearings. He's looking for a) the commission to take into account future population growth (like the BC commission) and b) following that thought, Trinity-Spadina should be basically split in half, two new ridings, due to the fact that there is expected to be 50-60k more people in the riding (which is 149k already).

Anyone agree with a) and/or b)

I think both are good moves the commission should make; but that being said it would mean, possibly three ridings in the proposed two ridings of TS and TC.

"Taking into account population growth" doesn't actually reduce malapportionment; it just shifts it from the end of the ten-year cycle to the beginning. If there's going to be malapportionment somewhere, I'd prefer that at least it was based on concrete census data rather than more uncertain projections. Also, although this reasoning doesn't depend on partisan considerations, this is also really really not a game the NDP wants to get in, because most high-growth areas are still Conservative suburbs.

Now, I once suggested on the forum that a split of Trinity-Spadina on east-west lines might make sense, but without very underpopulated ridings it pushes Toronto Centre far enough that it has to go up into Rosedale. I actually don't think this is as bad an idea as the rest of the internet does, since really any version of Toronto Centre is going to consist of a grab-bag of very unlike areas (is Church and Wellesley more like Regent Park than like Rosedale? Not actually all that clear), but I can see the motivation against it.

[King of Kensington]

I spoke today at the deputations.  I argued in favor of the new boundaries in central Toronto for the most part but for a minor land swap, as Wellesley St. was a bad boundary and violated the community of interest principle.  I suggest moving the boundary down to Dundas west of Yonge, up to Bloor between Yonge and Sherbourne and then continue as planned along Rosedale Valley.

Under my proposal, the Bay St. Corridor ends up in Mount Pleasant.  It is more of a "midtown" community socially and economically.  Church and Wellesley is more of a "downtown" community and stays entirely in Toronto Centre.

Most of the deputations - including from Olivia Chow and Rosario Marchese - were about Trinity-Spadina.  I think the opposition is wrong-headed and didn't take into account the larger picture.  The argument was that the Annex "belongs" in Trinity-Spadina, that many U of T professors lived in the Annex and Seaton Village and the CPR tracks at Dupont represented a major physical barrier.  And that a waterfront riding should be created south of Queen or Front, rather than Mount Pleasant.  Or that TC should take in everything T-S below Front and east of Bathurst and Liberty Village going to Davenport (this was Olivia Chow's suggestion).

I argued strongly in favor of the new ridings (with the land swap).  I welcome the removal of the very wealthy area north of Bloor from the lower- and middle-income high density mostly tenant communities south of Bloor.  I also pointed out that this proposed waterfront riding wouldn't work because if you add up the population of census tracts south of Queen between Dufferin and the Don you get 80,000.  So it isn't that simple.  You'd have to go a bit further north.

Overall I'd prefer this Mount Pleasant riding and new map: eastern St. Paul's and northern TC right now are demographically similar.   And the demographic divide/community of interest between north and south of Bloor in TC is far more significant than between the Annex and St. Paul's.

It was also pointed out by another deputant (representing the TC NDP!) that the opposition to the physical barrier in TC was if anything more insurmountable than on the T-S side - yet nobody was objecting to the inclusion of Rosedale (south of the tracks) in Mount Pleasant.  And for that matter the Davenport NDP was arguing to keep the riding together - north and south!  

It's a good question: why do the CPR tracks matter so much above Christie, Bathurst or Spadina but not so much elsewhere?

Yesterday I learned there were 11 deputations in North York about Eglinton-Lawrence, where the western boundary would be moved from the CNR to Keele.  Now that is an example of a true physical barrier!

[King of Kensington]

The Trinity-Spadina and Davenport NDP strategy is bizarre.  The former want to take the Annex and Seaton Village out of St. Paul's and the Davenport NDP want to take the very NDP sliver between Winona and Oakwood out of St. Paul's.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Sounds like everyone just wants to keep their own riding as safe as possible, with no co-ordinated strategy.

[MaxQue]

Sounds like everyone just wants to keep their own riding as safe as possible, with no co-ordinated strategy.

In Montreal, both the Liberals and the NDP presented one unique proposal for all the island.

[King of Kensington]

Interesting.  I knew that Irwin Cotler and Stephane Dion were not happy what happened to their ridings, and from what I heard I think they had a real case. 

Is this proposal publicly available?