Commentaire 134 – commentaires et rétroaction

Alida Moffatt

I object to the the proposed change to the Lanark Frontenac Kingston riding boundary as it willl:

• Split communities of interest, which historically have strong connections on a north-south axis along major arterial roads;
• Divide communities in the south such that they would no longer share common governmental interests with their new riding;
• Tear the fabric of social communities, which have strong links to historic municipal boundaries and seats of government; and
• Further destabilize this riding which has been reconfigured twice in the last round due to population pressures.

Thanks

Alida Moffatt

Background History, Identity and Community Ties

Upon Confederation, the riding of Frontenac was designated as a federal electoral district (BNA Act, 1867). In 1903, it was expanded to include all of Frontenac County, except for carving out a riding consisting of the City of Kingston and the village of Portsmouth. In every electoral district reconfiguration since then, North, Central and South Frontenac townships have remained together as a single political entity, no matter the configuration of the resulting riding.

The county structure in Ontario was a significant factor in the initial creation of electoral districts, particularly in Eastern Ontario. Frontenac, as one of the original, historical counties, continues to play a significant role in the identity formation for the citizens who reside there. In turn, longstanding and steadfast ties to history and identity have produced a significant community of interest along the north-south axis of this geography. While North, Central and South Frontenac exist as separate municipal entities, they often share resources and make decisions together through County government that impact the whole. Removing South Frontenac and placing it into a separate electoral district would create an unnecessary additional layer of complexity to the well-established community and political relationships that already exist.

The Commission's proposal to separate South Frontenac Township from its siblings will result in a tear in the fabric of history, identity, and community. In 2012, the then Commission proposed a similar reconfiguration, which would have combined South Frontenac in an electoral district with an east-west orientation along Hwy 401. This proposal was strongly rebuffed by the citizens of the area because it would have split a significant community of interest that has existed in the area since before the formation of Canada. From the 2012 Commission's Final Report:

"The Commission's original treatment of the balance of Eastern Ontario was influenced by two factors: the substantial growth in population along Lake Ontario, and the existing configuration of north–south electoral districts that mixed urban and rural areas. Its Proposal attempted to realign a number of electoral districts on an east–west axis.

"The Commission received substantial criticism that its approach severed communities of interest, divided and combined parts of counties, and ignored an historical attachment that runs along north–south lines despite the mixing of rural and urban areas. In particular, the Commission heard strong criticism of its proposed electoral districts of Lanark—Frontenac—Hastings, Belleville—Napanee—Frontenac and Prince Edward—Quinte West, and the effect on the current electoral district of Northumberland—Quinte West. The strongest criticism focused on the division of counties.

"The first rule in the Act is population equality. Another rule is community of interest. The submissions at the hearings made it clear that the public generally gives community of interest significantly greater weight than an impersonal numerical quota. This was particularly true in Eastern Ontario, where the counties were founded as part of the creation of Upper Canada in the late 18th century. The message from the hearings in this part of the province was clear: keep communities of interest together as much as possible, and respect county boundaries as much as possible, even if that might result in significant variances from the provincial quota.

"Accordingly, the Commission has decided to revise the boundaries in its Proposal for this area with a view to keeping counties as unified as possible, taking into account other historical communities of interest and respecting the population quota as much as possible within those constraints. This results in substantial changes to the boundaries for electoral districts southwest of Ottawa."

The Numbers

According to the 2021 Census numbers, Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston, without a reconfiguration of its electoral boundaries, has a population of 111,424 and is 4.43% under the Commission's proposed quota of 116,000. It is interesting to note that under the Commission's proposed redistribution, the newly created riding of Lanark-Frontenac would have a population of 109,784 and would be 5.84% under quota, which serves to undermine the Commission's main priority of trying to equalize representation across all electoral districts in Ontario as much as possible.

A Plea for Stability

Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston has been reconfigured significantly during the last two rounds of redistribution, mainly due to outside population pressures. These changes have resulted in confusion among voters about which district they belong to, where they should vote, who they're representative is, etc. In turn, this has added to the general and growing malaise and apathy that exists amongst voters when it comes to participation in the political process and turnout at the polls. Since the existing riding is close to being on quota, one must beg the question, "Why would the Commission suggest such drastic changes to Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston and its neighbouring rural ridings?" It seems from the Commission's proposed boundaries that the answer is: urban electoral districts matter more and rural electoral districts just exist to take up the leftovers, without any regard for citizens and their communities.

In the case of Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston, it is currently near quota and exists as a cohesive, stable electoral district representing strong communities of interest (Lanark County and Frontenac County). Citizens are just getting used to this configuration after 10 years, albeit citizens in the City of Kingston north of the 401 remain resentful of being removed from their original electoral district of Kingston and the Islands. In the quest for maintaining a stable electoral district that works for our area, we ask the Commission to stop trying to fix what is not broken as a means of solving population issues that exist elsewhere.

The legislation says equal representation by population is the number one priority but goes on to say not at the expense of communities of interest. Representation is more than just numbers; it also needs to make sense. The Commission's proposal to significantly configure two neighbouring rural ridings, shattering significant communities of interest in the process, in favour of fixing the urban population challenges in the City of Ottawa, doesn't make any sense. The people of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston and Leeds-Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes deserve better.