Comment 34 – comments and feedback

Taylor Kirby

Below is a submission for your consideration, in relation to the proposal to redefine the boundaries of Niagara Falls(NF) riding, from a number of voters across NF riding.

I am submitting via your website a Public hearing (virtual) participation form to be an observer on behalf of the signatories of our submission at the hearing on Sept 27.

Best regards,

Rick Kirby, on behalf of all the signatories listed on the submission

Text begins

RE: Proposed redefinition of electoral boundaries of Niagara Falls, Ontario, riding

Given, under existing relevant legislation, that:

-the proposed changes to federal electoral boundaries are recommended by an independent, non-partisan commission for each province;

-the proposed changes are based on the fundamental democratic principle of 'representation by population'; and it's operational corollary that each federal electoral district in Ontario should, to the extent possible, contain equal population, using the latest official national census data;

-as a result of population growth since the 2011 census, Niagara Falls riding has risen to near the top of the list of Ontario federal ridings that is furthest (25.6%) above the population riding norm for Ontario established based on 2011 census data. Under the renewed redistribution proposal now again on the table, Niagara Falls riding, and the affected neighbouring riding (to be renamed Niagara South), both ridings would be slightly lower than the population riding norm based on 2021 census data (-2.7% and -3.1% respectively).

We fully support the proposal for Niagara Falls riding.

One exception to the population criterion sometimes used by the Commission is 'community of interests and identity' in a geographic region. This was in fact, cited by the Commission in not proceeding with the same current redistricting proposal in 2013, based on the 2011 census, for Niagara Falls and neighbouring ridings. 'Community of interest and identity' is, however, an intangible, hard-to-define, or quantify, concept: 'common interests and identity' could mean virtually anything, and could affect virtually every federal electoral boundary in Canada. We submit that the 'interest and identity' concept is out of step with the basic principle of 'representation by population': districting by 'common interests and identity' groupings could be inequitable, biased, partisan, and divisive, whereas, 'rep by pop' is objective, equitable, and based on hard data. We submit that exceptions for 'common interests and identity' should be used only exceedingly rarely anywhere, and consider that it is high time to proceed with the redistricting for Niagara Falls(and neighbouring) electoral boundaries, as already proposed a decade ago, based now on the latest 2021 census data.

In any case, cooperation on local 'common interests' will almost always be organized and handled at the local or regional level, including dealing with or lobbying, federal authorities if/as required; for that purpose, having 2 (or more)local representatives in the federal Parliament could, in fact, be advantageous.

It is instructive, and cautionary, to note the widespread use of 'gerrymandering', a term invented, and a practice used widely in our southern neighbour to define its electoral boundaries, and the inequity, division, contentiousness, ultrapartisanship that that engenders. Let us continue our own Canadian system for redistributing based on equity, nonpartisanship, and objective data.

Endorsed and submitted by the following Niagara Falls riding voters:

Redacted: 18 names

Text ends