Commentaire 193 – commentaires et rétroaction

Simone Racanelli

I would like to express my appreciation for the commission extending the period for written submissions to after the Toronto municipal election, making Ontario's period for public feedback more in line with other provinces.

I want to firstly state that I am wholly opposed to Toronto losing a seat. I support the arguments made by James Maloney, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Arif Virani, Julie Dabrusin, and Salma Zahid amongst others as to why Toronto needs to retain 25 seats. I want to remind the commission that a reduction in seats wouldn't just result in a smaller Toronto caucus, it would result in less people to serve more Torontonians. I worry about the greater strain that will be put on consistency offices and public service offices, and how that could negatively impact residents who need timely assistance. Toronto is the economic heart of Canada. We can't afford to lose political representation.

Within the city of Toronto I am primarily concerned about the changes to Etobicoke—Lakeshore. The proposed boundary would make Bloor our northern boundary, moving south from Dundas. Bloor is not a natural divider for our riding, it's a natural gathering place. It's a hub for transit, businesses, and community. It's a main artery, especially for the eastern part of the riding. I am strongly opposed to annexing any part of Etobicoke to a non-Etobicoke ward. Etobicoke is the often forgotten former city. When you compare transit, infrastructure, and general government investment in Etobicoke vs the other 5 former boroughs it's obvious that Etobicoke only gets results if one of our own is advocating for us. By putting the Kingsway into the proposed riding of Humber you would isolating them from the rest of Etobicoke, and ignoring how interwoven the neighbourhoods here are.

Post-amalgamation the former city of Etobicoke has retained many of its unique by-laws, separate contracts with municipal service providers, and grandfathered legislation. Etobicoke is very much a distinct region of Toronto. The commission states that "in proposing district names, the Commission sought to maintain the historical connection of communities to the electoral districts," In my opinion that means that the commission has to ensure that historical connections of communities need to be respected in relation to the communities that make up the riding, not just the names. The Kingsway has no historical connection to Humber. It has never been a part of the former municipality of York. It

The proposed riding of Humber would try to blend two area with little in common but bordering opposite sides of the Humber River. I also worry about how putting one of the poorest neighbours in the same riding as one of the wealthiest a would creature an imbalance of power, and potentially impact local decision-making.

In the current riding the area between the Queensway and Dundas St W, from Highway 427 to Kipling Ave is currently exclusively zoned for industrial use, resulting in the Queensway a natural northern boundary from the Etobicoke creek to Kipling. Therefore I propose that the new boundaries for Etobicoke—Lakeshore be the Etobicoke creek to the east, the Humber River to the west, Lake Ontario to the south, and the northern boundary be the Queensway from the Etobicoke creek to Kipling Avenue, and from Kipling to the Humber River the northern boundary be Dundas St W. This would retain all of the former Etobicoke—Lakeshore riding within a respective Etobicoke riding.

As an aside I would like to suggest to the commission that Etobicoke—Lakeshore's name remain the same, and that the hyphen isn't dropped. Not only would it incur unnecessary costs for all levels of government and political associations, but in this riding we have the neighbourhood of Lakeshore Village, Lake Shore Blvd, and the lakeshore. The hyphen makes more sense as Lakeshore is not just a direction in this community.

Best,
Simone Racanelli