Comment 179 – comments and feedback

Graham Burrow

Ms. Paula Puddy

Commission Secretary, Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario
PO Box 37018 Southdale
London, ON N6E 3T3

Dear Secretary Puddy,

I am adamantly opposed to the new electoral boundary realignment proposed for a portion of Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. My objection is not emotional. It is based on logic, potential administration and cost burdens, and historical issues created by previous politically induced change.

I understand the current electoral boundary review is constitutionally mandated every 10 years, to balance constituent representation. But it should be just that - a review. And as a review it should take into account all the needs of the constituents.

Given the enormity of performing this task country-wide, or even at the provincial level, I can well imagine much use has been made of software to help reduce the effort. And, given the rise in Artificial Intelligence software and the popular hype surrounding it, I can also imagine AI has been brought to bear on the task.

AI may indeed be a good first-pass tool to arrive at the start of a discussion. But the discussion should involve rational human involvement and good judgement in order to arrive at a sensible solution. When AI is used without oversight and scrutiny, I am reminded of the expression "wherever there is Artificial Intelligence, one finds Natural Stupidity". Please do not allow this process to become yet another bad example.

More than two decades ago, the Province of Ontario all but mandated, outright, that municipalities amalgamate to reduce costs and duplication of effort. While it naturally dealt a blow to the municipal pride of affected communities, at the time it also appeared to have logic and fiscal merit.

With regard to the current boundary realignment process, amalgamation can serve as an excellent lesson – to avoid new unintended consequences. Of great significance is that communities which refused to amalgamate were not actually forced to do so – even though the government of the day had stated if the municipalities did not make their own arrangements, the Province would do so. In the end, it appears that it was not actually as crucial as had been stated.

Nevertheless, the results of the (implied) forced amalgamation created lingering conflict for many communities which feared an external heavy hand. In many cases, those conflicts have lasted for decades. Any heavy-handed policy is doomed to failure of some sort. It is just a question of time. Yet, with proper consultation, which is deeper than simple "lip service", such mistakes can be avoided. I certainly hope that your current consultations are genuine and meaningful.

The current Municipality of Elizabethtown-Kitley is one such amalgamation case and it now finds itself caught in yet another potential conflict created by the proposed riding boundary adjustment which threatens to undo two decades of healing. This particular division makes no real political, logical, or moral sense. How does division create unity?

Originally, Elizabethtown (to the South) and Kitley (to the North) existed as separate townships. Neither rural township had much in common with its neighbouring city – Brockville in the South, and Smith Falls in the North. Both townships feared losing their identities and their voices if they were absorbed by their urban neighbours.

As a result, they entered into negotiations to join forces and in 2001 the new Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley (E-K) was incorporated. Neither partner was fully pleased with the situation, but at least they had a rural landscape and rural values in common. Still, a disconnect resulted which split the new community into a North vs. South mentality – even though there was a single new Council. As a result, controversy often arose where it would not have when the townships existed separately.

By 2013, I was acutely aware of this unfortunate circumstance and, along with my brother, began attending council meetings to try to understand the dynamics. After several months of observation, we co-founded a local grass-roots citizens' group in an attempt to get people interested in municipal affairs. Among other key goals, was a strong desire to help resolve the North-South differences, heal wounds, and to help grow a healthier and more involved community.

After a decade, that original work and continued efforts have begun to bear fruit and there is a noticeable increase in the sense of E-K being a single community of like-minded people.

If the proposed new electoral boundary is not modified to exclude the division of E-K, it will effectively recreate the original divide – at essentially the exact boundary of the two old townships. This would certainly rekindle some still smoldering embers of social animosity and undo a decade or more of effort to create a homogenous community. There is no value or justification for creating a boundary which would prompt a return to unproductive Council meetings and general unrest in the community.

At the moment, E-K is a single community and even if it is split by boundary realignment, it will remain a single community. As a unit, its needs would remain the same. But now its Council would be forced to negotiate inter-governmental issues within two separate jurisdictions. This could easily include having to deal with two different representatives at the Federal level – and possibly also at the Provincial level, if Ontario decides to adjust to the realignment.

If E-K is split on the proposed boundary – even in the imaginary sense – it also threatens to undo the financial good which amalgamation was intended to foster. Councils need to spend their time focusing on the many financial challenges which modern times present to them, rather than being distracted by the disruption caused by disenchanted citizens.

If nothing else, such disruptions can consume staff time to investigate issues and generate reports. Any time staff or Council spends on those types of issues is time they cannot devote to overall budgetary, infrastructure, policy, or general administration issues.

Because infrastructure projects must still proceed, normal business must carry on. So the extra burden of divisive attitudes translates into a real and measurable financial drain – not only in salaries but also in terms of delayed projects. Project delays are potentially the most costly. In the current financial and labour landscape, the purchasing value of a dollar diminishes rapidly and it is not projected to improve in the near future. Consequently, most projects will end up over budget.

All that translates into a real and measurable increase in costs. Costs which are borne by the taxpayers. But the boundary change serves no good or useful purpose for the citizens of this municipality.

The Federal Government's responsibility includes keeping spending in check – at all levels. Anything which interferes with that aspect contravenes the mandate.

Regardless of the citizens' group's success in merging the Township's North-South tendencies into a cohesive whole, there is also a strong case for a positive North-South aspect as it pertains to local interests, trade, and traffic patterns. The Township's main artery is County Road 29 – which runs (roughly) North-South, between Brockville and

Smith Falls. Elizabethtown-Kitley lies almost entirely between those two communities. People travel to work on that route, in both directions. Despite the differences between rural and urban living, this county road creates a natural alignment of all three communities' regional perspectives – and has been unchanged for decades.

The new proposed boundaries would tend to alter the North-South relationship between the communities, into one of an East-West orientation. To our West, the proposed boundary change would pair us with a part of Kingston which is a rapidly expanding urban municipality. There is absolutely no common ground for the interests of a fully urban community and a largely rural community. At a regional level, these differing interests would be divisive - rather than inclusive, as are our common interests currently.

Thus, a contraction of the North-South alignment coupled with an expansion of the West alignment of an altered boundary will create yet another cultural and economic divide – where there would be much less shared commonality of social and economic need, or interests

If you do not live in the area or do not fully understand its make-up, you may have a tendency to think that Provincial Highway 401 is a conduit which connects communities along the horizontal axis. That is not the case.

On either side of E-K, the combination of employment opportunities and the general distribution of wealth differs far more than those factors do within the current boundary alignment. So, overall, this realignment just makes no logical sense. There would be far less commonality, in the new mix, than currently exists.

When I look beyond my own community and consider the more far-reaching aspects of the proposed boundary change, I can't understand the logic in (effectively) splitting Kingston in the middle. Although I do not live there and I am not intimately familiar with Kingston's affairs, that division appears as divisive as the one for E-K. Again, the municipality will have to deal with the problems of negotiating with two representatives. Again, it creates yet another potential waste of Council and Staff time.

Looking at the new boundary for Lanark-Frontenac, I see yet another negative consequence. The change will reduce the effectiveness of the representative of that proposed riding. The sheer size a representative would have to cover makes no logical sense.

To effectively serve the real needs of his or her constituents, a representative needs to see and visit them – where they live. How can a representative provide a high quality of service to those residents while spending so much unproductive time travelling? It is folly to assume the work can be performed as a desk exercise. If a hands-off approach was workable, this commission would not feel the need for local consultation.

Looking at the map, the first-pass boundary restructuring appears to be blatantly altering the landscape without any consideration for the diverse cultural and economic aspects of many of the communities in the region.

Politicians and Government Staff are servants of the people – not the reverse.

Where is the sense or value in trying to force groups of citizens with differing needs and points of view into a new and contrived coalition? And just for the sake of numerically balancing out a few thousand voters – in a sea of millions.

Division is not what builds a strong country. A strong country is built from strong communities with local pride – which transcends to higher levels of government only if those governments are sensitive to the communities' needs and desires.

Please do not allow some faceless software or uninformed human judgement to disrupt this community, and others, on either a social or financial level.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,
Graham Burrow