Commentaire 164 – commentaires et rétroaction

John K Aitken

Dear Sirs / Mesdames:

John Aitken Response to Proposal of the Federal Electoral

Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario

I have examined the Commission's proposal and would like to comment on four items dealing with the criteria or guiding principles that the Commission refers to or might otherwise apply to the methodology adopted in the case of electoral districts within the Halton Region, being:

1. community of identity and interest;
2. historical patterns of electoral districts;
3. numeric quota applied to equalize the size of each riding; and
4. Member of Parliament accountability.

1. Community of Identity and Interest

   The 2022 Proposal for Ontario explains the Commission's approach is governed by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. This legislation requires the Commission to consider the relevant "communities of interest" for each electoral district.

   In this case, the Commission has selected the Regional Municipality of Halton as representing the appropriate "community of identity and interest", rejecting the more obvious separation between the traditional communities of Oakville, Burlington, Halton Hills and Milton.

   Accordingly, the electorate in the Town of Oakville that is currently represented in two districts (Oakville and Oakville-North Burlington) will now be represented in three (Oakville Lakefront, Oakville North and Georgetown — Milton East). In addition, a large segment of the Burlington electorate currently included in the Burlington electoral district will now be transferred into the Oakville Lakefront district.

   The Commission's rationale for making its selection is disclosed in the Report as follows:

   "the municipal boundaries could not always serve as an electoral boundary, considering the legislative rules the Commission is obliged to apply. For example, municipal boundaries could not be used as electoral boundaries for a number of mid- sized and larger cities whose populations have grown to exceed the Quota and where continued population growth is expected."

   The Commission seems to have considered its first priority was to make its solution fit within the confines of the Region's geography. What is wrong with this approach is it assumes voters are content with being moved around as long as it is within Halton; but in this case, the electorate does not relate to the Region, they relate to their local communities of Oakville, Burlington, etc. The distinct nature of these communities is evidenced by each of Burlington, Oakville and Milton having its own Council, newspaper, hydro, BIA, Chamber of Commerce, etc. If you really want to identify the appropriate community of interest, you need only ask the people involved. On that question, the locals will undoubtedly identify Oakville, Burlington, Halton Hills or Milton. Only one in a thousand might refer to Halton.

   Despite this, the current proposal envisages transferring a large area of Burlington into the new Oakville-Lakefront district. This runs counter to what the electorate in either Burlington or Oakville would prefer. Similarly, an area of Oakville lying north of Dundas is to be included in the new Milton East—Georgetown electoral district, completely divorced from the rest of Oakville. A better approach would acknowledge residents of Oakville preferring to be in an Oakville electoral district, and conversely, residents of Burlington preferring to be in a Burlington district.

2. Historical Patterns of Electoral Districts

   The 2022 Proposal for Ontario explains the Commission's approach is governed by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. This legislation requires the Commission to consider the "historic pattern" for each electoral district. The Report confirms its boundary recommendations try to be consistent with these historic patterns. However, in this case, it appears that the Commission felt it could noretain them, as a result of having to respond to the significant growth occurring in this part of the Province. Accordingly, it seems the Commission settled on equalizing the number of eligible voters in each electoral district by moving them around willy-nilly within the Region. But, this apparent solution is clearly at odds with the historic pattern.

   In terms of the relevant history, Halton is relatively new, having been established by the Province on January 1, 1974; in stark contrast to the Town of Oakville being founded in 1857 and the City of Burlington being founded in 1874. The Oakville electoral district was first created in 1996 from parts of the previous Halton and Oakville-Milton ridings. It consisted initially of the area of the Town of Oakville lying southeast of the QEW and Upper Middle Road. So, this would have included those polls located in the Glen Abbey and College Park areas that the Commission now proposes to transfer over to the new Oakville North riding.

   A better move would be to retain the historic dividing line between the Oakville and North-Oakville at Upper Middle Road. This would cause less disruption by allowing Glen Abbey and College Park to remain in the existing riding. The newer housing developments north of Upper Middle, including Joshua Creek, would then fall into Oakville North. In turn, retaining Glen Abbey would then eliminate having to add sections of Burlington into Oakville Lakefront.

   A large portion of the community housing projects in Oakville are located in the area north of the QEW and south of Upper Middle Road; exactly the area the Commission proposes to move out of Oakville into Oakville North. Significant low income housing projects supported by the Halton Community Housing Corporation at 1150 Abbeyview Drive, 2299 Brays Lane, 1531 Sixth Line (Donaghey Square), 1478 Elm Road and 1220 Glen Valley Road (Glen Valley Place) would all be affected. Their transfer over to Oakville North would have the unintended effect of "gentrifying" one electoral district versus another. Consequently, the proposal to move the dividing line from Upper Middle Road to the QEW creates an unintended consequence and should be reconsidered for that reason alone.

3. Deviations from the Numeric Quota

   An objective of the Commission will be to minimize any disruption or "churn" caused by moving electors from one electoral district to another. In addition, however, the Report discloses the legislation mandates that each electoral district shall, as close as reasonably possible, correspond to the Provincial Electoral Quota ("the Quota").

   The Commission observed in its Report the significant population growth in Ontario, causing the Quota in many districts to increase. The Commission further noted this population growth was uneven, with significant growth in some areas and only modest growth in others.

   The Commission's recommendations for Halton, Guelph and Wellington indicate that the existing districts of Oakville—North Burlington, Guelph and Milton are at the highest end for population size across the province. The populations in these three districts are, respectively, 27.7%, 23.2% and 17.5% above their Quota. The existing Electoral District of Oakville, on the other hand, was only 4.9% above Quota, by far the lowest in the area.

   These observations beg the question: why make radical changes to the Oakville district (by adding a sizeable portion of Burlington but then shedding a large segment of the riding north of the QEW) when the Commission's own numbers indicate this was unnecessary? A better approach would have been to avoid this amount of churn by maintaining the Oakville electoral district substantively as is.

4. Accountability of the Member of Parliament

   An important aspect of the Westminster model of government is its focus on the role of the individual Member of Parliament representing the voters who elected him or her, and on that Member's personal accountability for his or her actions on behalf of the electoral district. The following extract describes the importance of this accountability, as follows:

   "The exercise of power without accountability is likely to lead to tyranny. Thus it is necessary to hold those who exercise power responsible for its exercise. "Accountability is what makes delegated authority legitimate; without accountability, there is nothing to prevent abuse"

   W.T. Stanbury "Accountability to Citizens in the Westminster Model of Government; More Myth than Reality" (W.T. Stanbury; Fraser Institute February 2003).

   While between elections MP's attempt to keep constituents well informed about issues addressed and decisions made, accountability is ultimately fulfilled through the election process. Unlike the assignment of responsibilities and accountabilities in a commercial setting that frequently involve a one-to-one relationship, an MP's accountability involves a one-to-many relationship, where the one Member is accountable to the many in the electorate. Obviously, the process does not work if the Member is not required to face the same electorate who voted for him or her. Similarly, the process would be seriously flawed if a material change occurs to the individuals comprising the electorate. This is a fundamental reason the Commission should be trying to minimize any unnecessary "churn" in the electorate and to limit, to the maximum extent possible, moving individuals from one riding to another.

   Accordingly, it seems unwise for the Commission to recommend moving Glen Abbey and College Park out of the Oakville riding. These two areas represent a surprisingly large portion (estimated at between 20% and 25%) of the eligible voters in the existing riding. The current MP (and MPP) should be accountable in the next election to the people who elected her and whom she has been representing for several years now.

Please contact me if you have any questions at the address below.

Regards

John K Aitken

⁵ Telephone XXX-XXX-XXXX

Oakville, Ontario, Canada