Comment 63 – comments and feedback

Crispin Colvin

Email: ON@redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca

27 October 2022

Dear Commissioners,

Re: Electoral Redistribution 2022

Thank you for the opportunity to address the issue of Electoral Redistribution in our area. As one who ran in the federal riding of Elgin Middlesex London, I feel that I have some insight into the issues faced under the current electoral boundaries commission proposals.

I have started with some point form notes, using the criteria set out by the Elections Commissioner.

Criteria:

1. Historical Patterns
2. Manageable Geographic Size
3. Community of Interest or Identity

1. Historical Patterns

   • At one time, rural ridings were predominantly rural.
   • Recognizing that small towns and villages have grown, this should not mean that the rural fabric of the riding should be removed
   • Rural needs are different than urban needs
   • Access to services needs to be considered when changing boundaries

2. Geographic Size

   • Rural ridings tend to be larger, understandably as the population is spread over farmland
   • Size of riding has less importance than identity of the riding

3. Community of Interest

   • Urban centres have much different needs than rural areas
   • Rural areas recognize the diversity of their community
   • Urban ridings will not be able to meet the concerns of their rural citizens as they will be looking to serve the needs of their primary constituents who form the largest voting block

The Ideal Number per riding is listed as 116,590 population. Riding numbers in the following electoral districts all fall within the 25% plus/minus ratio as outlined in the redistribution criteria.

• Lambton County: 123,399
• Chatham-Kent: 105,529
• Essex: 181,530
• Windsor: 233,763 (2 members, Windsor-Essex, Windsor-Tecumseh, average electors 116,881)
• London: 404,699 (3 MP's, average electors 134,899)
• Oxford: 121,781
• Elgin-Middlesex-London: 115,052

All of these ridings fit the three criteria of the Commission. However, further concerns, beyond simple numbers, do not appear to be taken into consideration .

A major concern of rural Ontario is the loss of a voice representing the agricultural community and our small urban centres. This is illustrated in several situations. For example, in the recent London Free Press article dated 22 September, 2022, former MP Irene Mathyssen points out the need to work on urban issues of housing and poverty. She is quoted as saying they need to deal with London issues. This shows the deep urban/rural divide. Urban and rural issues are very different, from transportation to infrastructure and land use. Furthermore, rural constituents will need to travel further for services. Social services, health care and other government services. Dividing communities adds to confusion from both service providers and those in need. An example of a hard service, internet. This is just one example of the disadvantage that rural Ontario knows too well. Emphasis is placed on urban centres for all services. The electoral boundaries need not exacerbate this disparity.

Recently, with federal and provincial funding, a Farmer Wellness program has been started. This is a mental health support initiative designed and directed at the agricultural community. Both the federal and provincial governments recognized that mental health issues on farms are different from those who suffer from mental health issues in urban centres. This is an example of the differences in required services from urban and rural needs.

Historical communities will be split with a piecemeal approach to riding boundaries whose only criteria appears to be numerical, discounting the three criteria outlined as part of the mandate for redistribution. What does Oxford County and Thamesford have in common with London as is proposed? A further example of the loss of the rural voice can be seen by the actions undertaken by the Thames Valley District School Board. They had proposed the reduction of a rural trustee position and adding the seat to the City of London. This would have reduced the rural voice and further eroded the ability to have rural concerns heard in an urban dominated board. While this proposal was not passed at the time, it will, no doubt, be revisited this term. This is what will happen to representation for our rural Ontario population. This illustrates the point of the large urban centre being the focal point of the riding and further diminishes the concerns and voice of the rural population.

The economic impact of Ontario agriculture is $47 `billion dollars to the provincial GDP. This is just one of the reasons why the current riding map for southwest Ontario should remain. The value of agriculture, the difference in needs and the community of interest must be taken into account. With the proposed changes, much of this will be lost.

Should the commission feel the need to alter some boundaries in order to adjust riding populations, perhaps shifting small parts of the City of London to the rural areas would create the least disruptions to the communities of interest. With such a minor change, the urban residents would not be overrun by their rural neighbours and nor would the rural population feel that they are merely an adjunct of the city. Should the current proposal be implemented, rural Ontario, specifically southwest Ontario, will no longer matter or be counted.

Yours sincerely,