Comment 15 – comments and feedback

Nicholas Fok

Thank you for your email. I have reviewed the proposed boundaries for Ontario. I generally agree with the proposed boundaries, but would like to propose the following improvements:

1. Instead of dividing Milton in half between the proposed ridings of Burlington—Milton West and Georgetown—Milton East, I believe it would make more sense for the urban area, or the core city of Milton to be contained in one riding, as this would represent a more coherent community of urban Milton, and would be close to the average riding population. Please see the image below for my proposal for the Milton riding. The remainder of the two proposed ridings, including rural Milton, could be another riding called Halton. In that case, the riding to the northwest should retain its original name of Wellington—Halton Hills.

   

2. The proposed riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock has quite a high population despite its large size, whereas neighbouring Nipissing has a population lower than 100,000. I believe some changes should be made to address this imbalance. This could be achieved by extending the proposed Nipissing riding further south to include Huntsville and the rest of Algonquin Provincial Park. The riding should therefore be called Nipissing—Algonquin. The Manitoulin—Nickel Belt riding would absorb the far western parts of your proposed Nipissing riding that are not part of West Nipissing. This would allow Parry Sound—Muskoka to absorb northern parts of the commission's proposed Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock to reduce its size and area. Please see below for images of my proposal.

   
3. The existing boundaries for the ridings of Cambridge and Kitchener South—Hespeler should be maintained, as their populations are close to the riding population average, so there is no need to modify their boundaries. Keeping the existing boundaries would preserve existing community ties. Furthermore, the population of the proposed Oxford—Brant riding is very high, so there is no need for it to absorb parts of the existing Cambridge riding. By keeping the boundaries of the existing Cambridge riding, Oxford—Brant could have a population closer to the average.
4. The proposed Kiiwtinoong—Mushkegowuk riding makes very little sense. Not only is it absurdly large in area, its population of 36,427 is also ridiculously small. The existing Kenora and Timmins—James Bay ridings each have higher populations, but are not as large as Kiiwtinoong—Mushkegowuk. There is also a lack of transport links between the west and east of the proposed riding. For instance, there are no regular flights between Fort Severn and other Hudson Bay/James Bay communities, from Peawanuck to Moosonee. On the other hand, the Hudson Bay/James Bay communities in the existing Timmins—James Bay riding are linked by flights as well as the city of Timmins as a hub. So it makes more sense for the existing dividing line between Kenora and Timmins—James Bay to remain in place. After all, it is highly undesirable to have such a large riding that may require flying to Manitoba just to travel between the western part and eastern part of Kiiwtinoong—Mushkegowuk.

I propose that the proposed Cochrane—Timmins—Timiskaming include the entirety of the original Timmins-James Bay riding. If the population of that is too high, despite being below the provincial average, then Sault Ste. Marie could absorb Hornepayne township and the rest of North Algoma.

For the western part, either:

1. the existing boundaries of the ridings of Kenora, Thunder—Rainy River, and Thunder Bay—Superior North could be maintained, or
2. the urban part of Thunder Bay City, including Fort William First Nation, could become its own riding called Thunder Bay City which could have a population of around 104 thousand due to the riding's small size. The existing Kenora riding would remain intact, except maybe excluding parts from Thunder Bay District. The remainder of Thunder Bay District would form a riding with Rainy River District to become the new Thunder Bay—Rainy River. The two rural ridings' low populations could be justified by their large geographic size.

I believe option b would be preferable, as urban Thunder Bay City would no longer be split between two ridings, it would no longer have competing interests with far away rural parts of the same riding under the current boundaries, and it would be a more coherent community as one riding.

Finally, I would like to express my approval of London's riding boundaries - although London Northeast could simply be named London East.

Thank you for taking time to read my email and I hope you take my proposals into consideration.

Regards,

Nicholas