Comment 59 – comments and feedback

Jordan Collacutt - Ottawa - RIM Submissions

Resident of Pennycross Lane
Carp, Ontario, K0A1L0

To the Honourable Justice Lynne C. Leitch, Chair

Dr. Karen Bird

Dr. Peter Loewen

Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario

Submitted via email to: ON@redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca ℅ Secretary Paula Puddy

To the members of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario,

Thank you for the opportunity to present my submission to the Commission in relation to the Commission's proposed electoral boundaries for the federal electoral riding of Kanata. In addition to this written submission, I was thankful for the opportunity to present my support for your proposed boundaries in person at the Ottawa Regional Redistribution Hearing on October 20th.

My written submission will reiterate parts of my oral submission to the Commission at their Ottawa Regional Redistribution Hearing, reflect on commentary from other citizens at said Hearing, and include new points for the Commission's review.

As mentioned at the Hearing, my name is Jordan Collacutt. My family and I have been residents of the current riding of Kanata–Carleton for an extensive period of time, living at the intersection of Highway 417 and Highway 7. Upon redistribution, my household will be redistributed out of the Kanata–Carleton riding, yet I fully support the boundary changes and would like to express my satisfaction with the new Kanata riding as proposed.

I maintain that the proposed Kanata riding is a positive change for residents of Kanata, as well as those current Kanata–Carleton riding residents who will not be included in the Kanata riding. I maintain this position for a few reasons:

• The proposed Kanata riding is beneficial for accommodating west Ottawa's population growth, a population which continues to consistently increase now and well into the future with new suburban developments and business investments.
• The proposed Kanata riding better accommodates rural and suburban communities of interests, and more specifically, their diverging (and often diametrically opposed) viewpoints on frequent issues.
• The proposed Kanata riding better reinforces voter parity in neighbouring ridings like Nepean, which have also seen exponential population growth and suffers from disproportionate underrepresentation as a result.

My aim in this written submission is to provide the Commission with local knowledge that will inform your deliberations on the proposed Kanata riding. Ultimately I believe that, should the Commission choose not to proceed with their proposed Kanata boundaries, the suburban-rural divide of our riding will continue to expand and challenge the equitable representation of rural Kanata–Carleton dwellers.

Glossary

In this submission, I will make a few colloquial geographic references which are commonly used by residents of Kanata–Carleton to refer broadly to certain areas of the riding. For the Commission's benefit, I have included some below for clarity:

"West Carleton" is used in this submission to reference any part of the Kanata–Carleton riding besides the townships of Carp and Kanata; West Carleton includes the communities of Kinburn, Dunrobin, Fitzroy Harbour, and Constance Bay. "West Carleton" is synonymous with the rural section of the Kanata–Carleton riding (including municipal Ward 5), and also the section of the riding that the Commission intends to redistribute out of the Kanata–Carleton riding.

"Kanata" is used in this submission as a reference to the area within the municipal wards of Kanata North (Ward 4) and Kanata South (Ward 23). Kanata is synonymous with the suburban section of the Kanata–Carleton riding.

"Carp" is used in this submission as a reference to the distinct community along Carp Road, which runs from Highway 417 to the northern boundary of the proposed Kanata riding. Carp is a suburban area with some rural influences.

Map 1: City of Ottawa municipal electoral wards in relation to the federal electoral district of Kanata–Carleton

1: Accommodating Population Growth & Communities of Interest

The City of Ottawa's population is expected to grow by between 120,000 to 220,000 residents by the next decennial census¹ – growth which has already begun to materialize in the city's suburbs. Accounting for–and preparing for–this growth is fundamental to planning for the balance of political representation across Ottawa's nine ridings.

Any Kanata resident can attest that it is impossible to drive around Kanata and not see a new residential development, a row of townhomes, or a new subdivision being constructed in real time. With this growth, our riding needs to adapt and accommodate this reality by consolidating our boundaries into a smaller, denser, more homogenous suburban riding.

The boundaries which the Commission have proposed are simple, palatable, and easy for voters to understand. Notably, the Commission has made a wise choice at setting the Kanata riding's western and eastern boundaries as major highways–very clear, demarcated lines that will mitigate voter confusion.

Of course, as you redistribute these ridings, you have to be careful to maintain the territorial integrity of rural townships. I am satisfied that the boundaries as proposed do exactly that. As a resident of the rural area of this riding for many years, I know from my own lived experiences that there are no defined communities or logistical concerns that warrant major deviation from the electoral quotient. There exist no Indigenous reserves, nor major religious communities, nor any standout demographic concerns with the boundaries as proposed. No townships have been split in half; no neighbourhoods have been divided. Any argument to the contrary is an exaggeration meant to convince the Commission to edit their boundaries to create an exception where one is not sufficiently justified.

Yet, at the Hearing on October 20th, I noted a fellow Carp resident stated in their intervention that the Carp community will be "cut in half" by the proposed Kanata boundaries. I am eager to correct the record here – to share with the Commission that this is not the case, and in fact simply untrue.

The northern boundary of the proposed Kanata riding rests along Craig's Side Road and Murphy's Side Road; this mirrors the fact that these two roads also serve as the de facto northern border of the Carp township. Save for the occasional sporadic farmhouse, no Carp residents live immediately north of this border. Therefore, no Carp residents would be unfairly impacted by setting the Kanata riding's northern boundaries ¹ along Craig's and Murphy's Side Roads, nor would their community be "cut in half". Both Craig's Side Road and Murphy's Side Road serve as natural boundaries for the Kanata riding, fulfilling the Commission's desire to include the township of Carp within the Kanata riding. I cannot realistically identify any evidence to defend the Carp resident's claim at the hearing that her community is being "cut in half".

I recognize that some constituents may feel negatively that they would no longer be included in the Kanata riding upon redistribution. As someone whose home rests only four meters away from the new Kanata boundary, I understand this firsthand. However, the boundary-setting process does not preclude me from entering, shopping in, visiting, or working in the Kanata riding, despite no longer being a resident. I found that many opponents of the Kanata riding proposal seemed unconvinced by this; they argued that as they do their grocery shopping in Kanata, or perhaps they visit Kanata often, their West Carleton home should be included in the Kanata riding. This argument should not be accepted by the Commission. As the Alberta Commission of 2012 found, "populations near an electoral boundary frequently have attachments and associations with organizations and groups on the other side, but a boundary line has to be drawn somewhere. Associations and attachments will continue regardless of the line, as people do not organize their lives around a federal electoral boundary." I am satisfied that the proposed Kanata riding boundaries do not preclude or inhibit West Carleton residents from maintaining attachments or entering the Kanata township.

Additionally, some opponents of the proposed Kanata boundaries shared their disapproval at the in-person hearing that the boundaries no longer follow the City of Ottawa's municipal boundaries. While it is certainly convenient to have coterminous boundaries, the Alberta Commission of 2012 dismissed this argument, stating that "federal policies are generally not determined on the basis of municipal boundaries." No doubt the Commission has already considered existing municipal boundaries vis-a-vis the Kanata riding and found it desirable to deviate from them.

Local Media and Newspaper Coverage

Conveniently, the Commission's proposed Kanata boundaries align perfectly with the distribution of our riding's two local news outlets. Perhaps this was an intentional and thoughtful consideration by the Commission, or perhaps it was an impressive bout of luck! Nevertheless, whether intentional or coincidental, the proposed Kanata boundaries would be well-served by one vibrant local newspaper whose distribution route follows the proposed Kanata boundaries almost exactly.

The current riding of Kanata–Carleton is home to two local newspapers: Your Community Voice, which serves Kanata, Stittsville, and Carp and focuses on suburban news stories; and West Carleton Online, which digitally serves West Carleton and creates news stories about the goings-on of our riding's rural sector. Your Community Voice distributes their media within Kanata (including Carp) and is the main source of news for Kanata (and Carp) suburban residents; West Carleton Online (as the name suggests) distributes within West Carleton and is the main source of local news for West Carleton rural residents. Rarely, if ever, do the two news outlets' coverage overlap.

Note the below advertising map for Your Community Voice and how it near-exactly follows the proposed Kanata riding boundaries, including by following the Highway 417 for its western boundary and uses Craig's/Murphy's Side Road for its northern boundary. This makes the point that the proposed Kanata boundaries will not negatively impact media service in our riding, nor will it sever any existing print newspaper distribution routes; for example, should the Member of Parliament for Kanata place an advertisement in Your Community Voice, their advertisement will not be displayed in another Member of Parliament's riding, leading to constituent confusion over who their representative is. Additionally, the Member of Parliament for Kanata now has the added benefit that their advertisement in Your Community Voice would reach the entirety of their riding, rather than having to place advertisements in multiple newspapers in order to cover the entire riding of Kanata–Carleton.

Map Two: Local Newspaper (Your Community Voice) Postal Code/Sector Distribution Map in relation to the proposed federal electoral district of Kanata

2: Ideological Conflict Between Rural and Suburban Communities of Interest

Our riding's population is growing, our suburban sector is intensifying, and in turn, our riding's sociological needs, economic interests, and political identities are changing. Most notably, the ideological chasm between rural residents and Kanata's suburban residents–between competing communities of interest and identity–is expanding.

Like many suburban-rural ridings, common issues have heavily wedged the riding of Kanata–Carleton into competing rural and suburban factions. The firearms owners of West Carleton view the issue of gun control far differently than families living in townhomes in suburban Kanata. Commuters in suburban Kanata view the issue of public transit more prominently than the rural dwellers of West Carleton, an area where public transit is nonexistent.

And so, the local Member of Parliament becomes increasingly faced with a choice: prioritize the vast majority of the population's suburban needs at the detriment of the rural minority, or water down the suburban population's influence by compromising on political positions to satisfy the needs of the rural minority. Neither choice is ideal, nor democratic.

This puts the Member of Parliament into the uncomfortable position of choosing between two diametrically opposed viewpoints. Often, on the basis of population and simple majority, the Member of Parliament opts to represent the majority suburban population's views, thus compromising the rural community's electoral weight and effectively making them beholden to the rule of the suburbs.

I have been privy to complaints from my neighbours and fellow West Carleton residents about the lingering feeling of being beholden to the rule of the suburbs. One noted that they felt 'gerrymandered' – that a liberal-leaning suburban appendage had been 'stuck' onto West Carleton despite having no ideological similarities. Another noted that they have never felt properly represented as part of the Kanata–Carleton riding since the Member of Parliament is forced (by virtue of sheer population imbalance between suburban and rural constituents) to cater to the interests of the suburban majority. In my candid discussions with neighbours on the issue of gun control, many fellow firearms owners have felt that their input on the issue has been suppressed by the majority voices of "non-gun owning, gun hating" suburban residents who "just didn't get" the perspectives of law-abiding West Carleton firearms owners. The current rural-suburban divide–or better put, Kanata-West Carleton divide–has built up a culture of frustration in the rural sectors of our riding. No doubt many of these rural residents (whether they have shared their input in the redistribution process or not) would concur that they would be better served by a Member of Parliament who is able to identify with and advocate on behalf of their rural lifestyle.

That's not to say there should never exist a difference of political opinion in a riding; that would be both unreasonable and impossible to achieve. However, this feeling is a common dilemma for suburban-rural ridings: the feeling of incompatibility of rural residents in a suburban majority riding. The Commission repeatedly heard and ruled on this exact situation in its 2012 splitting of urban-rural ridings of Saskatchewan, concluding "residents are entitled to have a member of Parliament who speaks to and focuses on the issues of central importance to them". Leaving Kanata–Carleton's boundaries as-is perpetuates this lack of entitled representation for rural residents, leaving them with an Member of Parliament whose focus is increasingly preoccupied with equitably representing an ever-growing suburban population. That's why redistributing rural West Carleton residents into likeminded rural ridings like Algonquin–Renfrew–Pembroke and Lanark–Frontenac solves this issue.

There are undeniable benefits for the residents of rural Kanata–Carleton to be shifted into new nearby rural ridings of Lanark–Frontenac and Algonquin–Renfrew–Pembroke. One oft-overlooked benefit: Members of Parliament who represent a geographically large or rural riding are allocated an annual geographic supplement to enable them to travel to all corners and equitably represent their large riding. The current Member of Parliament for Renfrew–Nippissing–Pembroke receives an additional $22,060 to represent her riding of 12,500 square kilometers, a supplement which could no doubt facilitate their representation of West Carleton. Notably, the current Member of Parliament for Kanata–Carleton receives not even a fraction of that allocation, effectively financially disincentivizing them from spending the money needed to conduct proper rural outreach.

While our current Member of Parliament has made the extra effort to represent our riding's rural residents equitably (including through rural-specific town halls and rural outreach programs), the fact remains that rural communities are better served by the next Member of Parliament for Algonquin–Renfrew–Pembroke, whose budget is adequately supplemented to enable effective rural engagement and where necessary, establish multiple constituency offices. This is the same rationale applied by the Manitoba Commission of 2012 to justify the expansion of the riding of Churchill in 2012.

3: Voter Parity in West Ottawa (Nepean)

While Kanata–Carleton has the privilege of growing at a steady pace, the neighbouring riding of Nepean's population has effectively exploded. This has ripple effects across west Ottawa that must be addressed.

Addition of Nepean & Bells Corners into Kanata

As the Manitoba Commission noted in 2012, "population trends are pertinent to provide a level of comfort that the contemplated variance from the quota would not soon become more substantial variances that would be at odds with relative parity of voting power." This precedent could not be more relevant and applicable to the neighbouring riding of Nepean, which is estimated to surpass over 140,000 constituents in the next year alone with current development trends.

That growth pattern ensures that next year, the Member of Parliament of Nepean would be burdened with representing 30,000 more constituents than their neighboring ridings; their constituency office staff serving 30,000 more constituents' casework needs; and otherwise being unable to ensure equal service standards compared to a riding next door whose population falls within parity. The Commission cannot accept this.

Many West Carleton residents have raised the privileged position that so long as Kanata–Carleton is within the electoral quotient, we have no need to alter our boundaries. While this is true, electoral ridings do not exist within a vacuum. We are not isolated from the population needs of neighbouring ridings. As the Commission has noted, the redistribution process is like a game of dominoes, in that one change has ripple consequences in neighbouring ridings. The consequence of Nepean growing is that the Kanata–Carleton riding, as Nepean's neighbour, must adapt.

As we are within parity, we have a responsibility to take in similar suburban populations from Nepean to offset their population inequality. The Commission has done this with the inclusion of Bells Corners into the Kanata riding, which I fully support.

As one hearing participant also noted, the inclusion of Bells Corners into the riding of Kanata satisfies religious interests, as the majority of Muslim Kanata residents–especially those living in the suburban Bridlewood neighbourhood–attend a mosque located in Bells Corners (Jami Omar Mosque). Thus, they would be better served with their place of worship being included in the proposed Kanata riding.

Addition of Hazeldean North / Stittsvile into Kanata

Additionally, the Commission has added portions of Stittsville into the Kanata riding, which I also fully support as Stittsville and Kanata are similar in interest. Many residents who work in Kanata–Carleton reside in Stittsville, especially the Hazeldean North area. These workers include Canadian Tire Centre employees, hi-tech workers (i.e. workers in businesses along Palladium Drive), as well as many students who attend Kanata schools yet reside in Stittsville.

In previous iterations of the Kanata–Carleton riding (namely Carleton–Mississippi Mills), Stittsville was included alongside Kanata. It would not be unrealistic or against historical realities to include Stittsville in the same riding as Kanata once again; in fact, given that these communities are so similar in identity, I highly encourage it.

One notable point made at the in-person Ottawa regional hearing by an elderly gentleman, which I would like to take this time to reiterate and amplify to ensure it is reflected in the Commission's deliberations, is the argument made regarding seniors residences in Stittsville and equitable accessibility to constituency services. Most suburban seniors residences in Stittsville lie along Hazeldean Road, which means that upon redistribution, these would become part of the Kanata riding. This is far more equitable for these seniors, as being part of Carleton would mean forcing these seniors (who are often immobile or otherwise reliant on public transportation) to travel lengthy distances to the Carleton constituency office located in rural Manotick. Comparatively, being part of the suburban Kanata riding would enable these seniors to access the Kanata constituency office, located in Kanata North along public transit lines. Being included in the Kanata riding poses accessibility benefits for disabled, senior, or public transit-reliant Stittsville residents.

Additionally, for the purpose of census collection, Kanata and Stittsville are considered under the umbrella of "the population centre of Kanata", indicating that federal government entities already recognize the similarities of these two towns for the purpose of administering federal services. Therefore, Hazeldean North is a natural and positive addition to the Kanata riding.

In adding the suburban populations of Stittsville/Hazeldean North and Bells Corners to the riding, we must shed proportional rural population in return. By redistributing West Carleton out of Kanata, the Commission achieves two goals: bringing Kanata in line with the electoral quotient, and also reuniting our riding's rural West Carleton residents with the similar rural ridings of Lanark–Frontenac and Algonquin–Renfrew–Pembroke, and in turn, bring those rural ridings closer to the electoral quotient. The new Kanata riding is a win for rural residents and suburban alike. It is a win for population parity in western Ottawa.

A Note on Partisan Concerns

I remain concerned about the content of the opposition interventions at the in-person Hearing. Given the similarities in the content and wording of the interventions opposing the new Kanata boundaries, I would suggest that some participants were part of a concerted effort to intervene in the Commission's boundary-drawing for partisan reasons; to put it bluntly, many of the in-person opponents of the Kanata proposed boundaries sought to influence the Commission to retain the rural sectors of the riding to advantage conservative-leaning political parties, including going so far as to exaggerate the supposed impact that the new boundaries would have on their community.

Further, I remain additionally concerned about the input of the current Member of Parliament of Renfrew–Nippissing–Pembroke, Cheryl Gallant, and her impugnment of the independent and non-partisan redistribution process. In a public local news article, she inappropriately mused that the Kanata redistribution process was intentionally advantageous to one political party, stating "they are shaving off the part of Kanata where [the Liberal Member of Parliament for Kanata–Carleton] barely got any votes"². Not only is this untrue, but the comments made by this Member of Parliament (considering that she made them from a position of influence as a Member of Parliament) have had a significant impact on the opinion of West Carleton residents towards the redistribution process. Many local Kanata–Carleton Facebook groups and community chat rooms have since parroted this misinformation, claiming that the current Liberal government is 'gerrymandering' ridings such as Kanata–Carleton, and that the redistribution process is not impartial by any means. I encourage the Commission to consider the impacts of Ms. Gallant's inappropriate input on some of the negative narratives being spun about the proposed Kanata riding. Members of Parliament should be cognizant of their influence on this process and use it appropriately and impartially.

I implore the Commission to move forward with the new Kanata boundaries as proposed, irrespective of concerted partisan efforts to influence the Commission to act to the contrary².

Conclusion

The proposed boundaries for the new Kanata riding are an undoubtedly significant shift from the existing Kanata–Carleton riding boundaries, but they are justified and they are necessary.

This is the continuation of the process of distilling our riding down to a truly suburban riding, rather than a growing suburban city riding that consistently out-influences and suppresses the smaller rural communities within it. Just as it was necessary to condense our riding of Carleton–Mississippi Mills into Kanata–Carleton in 2013, it is now necessary to condense Kanata–Carleton into Kanata, and no doubt condense it even further by the next decennial census. I look forward to future Commissions and hope that they are able to create one riding out of the communities of Stittsville and Kanata by merging Ottawa municipal wards 4, 23, and 6 into one homogenous, suburban, west Ottawa riding of like-minded constituents.

I maintain that the proposed Kanata riding is beneficial for accommodating west Ottawa's population growth, a population which continues to consistently increase now and well into the future with new suburban developments and business investments. The proposed Kanata riding also better accommodates rural and suburban communities of interests, and more specifically, their diverging (and often diametrically opposed) viewpoints on frequent issues. Lastly, the proposed Kanata riding better reinforces voter parity in neighbouring ridings like Nepean, which have also seen exponential population growth and suffers from disproportionate underrepresentation as a result.

I implore the Commission to maintain and move forward with the proposed Kanata boundaries, and I thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments.

¹ Link to PDF document on ottawa.ca

² https://www.eganvilleleader.ca/breaking-news/electoral-district-boundary-and-name-could-change/