Comment 26 – comments and feedback

Hon. Helena Jaczek

Redistribution 2022: Markham-Stouffville

Introduction

Redistributing electoral districts is an immense task. I appreciate that reconciling the Act's requirement that each electoral district correspond as closely as is reasonably possible to the Provincial Electoral Quota, while taking into account communities of interest, and the historical patterns of electoral districts, and ensuring districts in more sparsely populated areas are a manageable size, is not easy, especially when you are dealing with a province that covers over 1 million square kilometers of territory, and over 14 million people. I want to begin by thanking you for the impressive work that you've done so far.

This stage of process, that includes the participation of local community members, is an important recognition that people within communities across Ontario can help the commission refine the boundaries to ensure they best meet the commission's mandate.

With that in mind, I have a concern I would like to bring forward about the proposed boundary for Markham-Stouffville. I currently serve as the federal Member of Parliament for Markham—Stouffville. Before that, I served for over ten years as the Member of Provincial Parliament for much of the same area, and before that, for over 18 years, I was the Medical Officer of Health and Commissioner of Health Services for the Regional Municipality of York, which includes the area that's now the federal electoral district of Markham—Stouffville. These roles and their related responsibilities provided me with a good understanding of the communities within and around the riding of Markham—Stouffville.

I am concerned that the commission's current proposal for the riding of Markham—Stouffville would breakup established communities. My primary concern is that it would split community of Markham Village in two, and by doing so, it would also cut off the community of Raymerville—Markham East, which is connected to Markham Village. To understand how these changes will negatively impact Markham Village and the adjacent of Raymerville—Markham East, it's important to understand the historical and social contexts of both communities.

Historical Perspective

Markham Village is a community that dates back to the beginning of the 19th century. It is the location of Markham's original settlement and downtown. First settled by Europeans at the beginning of the 19th century, by 1825, it was known as Markham Village. By 1850, the community was recognized as a 'police village,' and by 1873 it had officially been incorporated as a village within York County. In 1971, Markham Village was combined with the villages of Unionville and Thornhill to create the Town of Markham.

Since that time, Markham Village has retained a distinct identity. Today, Main Street Markham, which is at the heart of Markham Village, is a commercial district that blends history with modern shops, spas, art studios, cafes, pubs, restaurants and services. Markham Village has its own Business Improvement Area and community centre, there is a Main Street Markham Farmers' market, a historic Markham Train Station, and a Main Street Markham Santa Claus Parade (a second Santa Claus parade is held in Markham—Unionville). The City of Markham has designated Markham Village as a heritage conservation district to preserve the area's unique character. Markham Village is one of Markham's three Heritage Conservation Districts. The district straddles both sides of Main Street (Highway 48). There is a Markham Village Conservancy — a citizen group that initiates projects that strengthen the sense of community in Markham Village, to preserve its quality of life, and conserve the Village's heritage and natural elements. The community has a strong sense of identity and a shared sense of interests—which should be maintained as a whole, and the adjacent community of Raymerville—Markham East is the suburban extension of Markham Village.

Proposal

The commission's proposed boundary for Markham—Stouffville would cut Markham Village in two. Dividing a community with a strong sense of identity is not in the best interests of its residents or businesses. There is a danger that splitting this community of interest would disrupt existing relationships, weaken Markham Village's voice, and could potentially play a role in extinguishing the community's unique identity.

I appreciate that the commission's approach to the redistribution of electoral boundaries is governed by Electoral Boundaries Adjustment Act, and that the legislation mandates that each electoral district be as close as reasonably possible to the Provincial Electoral Quota of 116,590. The commission is also obliged to consider communities of interest, communities of identity and the historical pattern of electoral districts.

In the case of Markham—Stouffville, by preserving the existing boundary in this section of the riding, it is possible to protect the community of interest in Markham Village and Raymerville-Markham East without having a significant impact on Markham—Stouffville's proximity to the Provincial Electoral Quota.

Of the three ridings that are in whole or in part within the City of Markham, Markham—Stouffville is currently the closest to the Quota. By maintaining the current riding boundary in the area bordered by McCowan Road in the west, 16th Avenue in the North, Highway 48 (also known as Main Street Markham) in the east, and Highway 407 in the south, the commission can preserve the integrity of Markham Village, and its connection to the adjacent neighbourhood of Raymerville — East Markham.

By keeping the boundaries in this area as they are in this area of Markham, the population gain that would be generated in Markham—Stouffville would largely be balanced out by the population that would go to Markham—Thornhill. The area of Markham—Thornhill west of the Rouge, north of Steeles, south of 14th Avenue of and east of McCowan Road is almost equal in population to Markham Village and Raymerville—East Markham.

By maintaining the current boundaries, Markham—Stouffville would:

• take approximately 12,692 voters from Markham—Unionville
• give 12,744 voters back to Markham—Thornhill (Cedarwood and North Cedarwood), and
• take 1970 voters back in the area between McCowan and Markham Rd that's currently slated for Markham—Thornhill.

The net population gain for Markham—Stouffville would be approximately 1900.

While this approach would move Markham—Stouffville slightly further from the quota, it would complement the proposals brought forward by the Members of Parliament for Markham—Thornhill and Markham—Unionville, and their efforts to preserve communities of interests within the electoral districts they represent. It would directly address concerns raised by local stakeholders about protecting the community of Cedarwood and its connection to Markham—Thornhill. The adjacent area to the north is closely connected to Cedarwood, and geographically separated from Markham—Stouffville by the Rouge River. The Rouge River has been the boundary between the two electoral districts because it is a natural barrier that separates communities—it makes sense to retain it as a boundary.

Conclusion

In summary, my concern is that the commission's current proposal would split Markham Village and the adjacent community of Raymerville—East Markham—harming an important community of interest in Markham. That doesn't need to happen. The commission's current proposal does not provide a significant benefit in terms of voter equality. If you maintain the existing boundaries in this area of Markham, you can preserve several communities of interest without significantly affecting Markham—Stouffville's proximity to the quota. I think this approach would help the commission meet its objectives in York Region.

Thank you for all your hard work, and for giving me this opportunity to share my concerns.

Sincerely,

Hon. Helena Jaczek

MP for Markham—Stouffville