Requested Boundary Changes of Electoral Districts – Ontario

The Standing Committee received 16 objections related to boundary changes. These boundary changes will be discussed with reference to their respective Geographic Piece.

Throughout the redistribution process the Commission communicated a strong commitment to maintaining as much population equality as possible, in accordance with our mandate. We are mindful of all the considerations regarding effective representation within the districts—however, voter equality (that is, the expectation that citizens should be equal in the importance of their vote for electing a representative) should not be unduly diluted.

The Commission has carefully considered submissions in public hearings and written objections from Members of Parliament. The Commission has also articulated in its Report its reasons—rooted in legislation—for reallocating districts to the faster-growing and overpopulated regions of Ontario. In doing so, we have achieved substantially greater population equality overall, while respecting the other criteria for effective representation. The Commission maintains that this is the correct course of action. We further recognize that there are steps that can take to adjust the resources allocated to Members of Parliament for their constituency offices to further enhance the ability of residents to interact with their elected representatives.

Northern Ontario

Five Members of Parliament representing districts in Northern Ontario filed objections to our Report. As the Committee notes, the common thread across these objections was the claim that there would be harmful effects to established communities and to effective representation as a result of the reduction of one Northern district.

These submissions commonly identified the provincial Quota—and the Commission's adherence to it—as an inadequate way of drawing boundaries in Northern Ontario. The Commission has no mandate to disregard the Quota because some Members of Parliament assert it disadvantages one part of the province in comparison to another.

In Northern Ontario, a strict adherence to population equality would have resulted in the loss of two districts. However, recognizing the challenges of a vast geography and sparse population, the Commission reduced the number of districts by just one and generated three extraordinary circumstance districts, with populations below the minus 25 percent population deviation identified within Section 15(2) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act as being allowable in extraordinary circumstances. The average deviation from population equality in the North as a whole is -18.5%.

We note again that solutions to the particular and persistent concerns of Northern Ontario are in the hands of Parliament. This was described in Part B of the Report.

Two of the Northern Ontario Members of Parliament presenting objections make erroneous or misleading statements in this respect. Charlie Angus (MP for the existing district of Timmins—James Bay) states in his written objection that: In 2017 the provincial boundary commission for Ontario ruled that Northern Ontario, with 11 seats, was politically underrepresented. Terry Sheehan (MP for the existing district of Sault Ste. Marie) states in his written objection that the provincial Boundary Commission for Ontario: ... determined that they believed the North should gain two additional seats and they stated that taking away a seat would lead to the decrease in democratic representation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups within Northern Ontario. Both Mr. Angus and Mr. Sheehan argued that, based on the decision at the provincial level to add two seats, our Commission's determination to remove a seat from the North is wrong. Mr. Sheehan writes: With this in mind, there should be at least a status quo of seats, if not gaining a seat. Mr. Angus states: It is not credible for the Federal Boundary Commission to take a contrary position stating that Northern Ontario, with ten seats, is somehow overrepresented.

As we explained in detail in our Report, the level of political representation currently enjoyed by Northern Ontarians at the provincial level is the result of decisions made by the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario. This includes three pieces of legislation: 1) the Representation Act, 2005 retaining 11 Northern Ontario provincial electoral districts (PEDs) as per the Representation Act, 1996, which in turn was based on data from the 1991 Census; 2) the Representation Act, 2015, which established the Far North Electoral Boundary Commission and imposed the statutory mandate to add at least one, and no more than two, PEDs to the area comprising the PEDs of Timmins—James Bay and Kenora—Rainy River; and 3) the Representation Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017, which created four new northern PEDs out of the two PEDs of Timmins—James Bay and Kenora—Rainy River.

Provincial parliament made the decision to add two more provincial electoral districts to Northern Ontario.

As we have explained, the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario is constrained by a different statutory mandate, which we have followed assiduously.

Charlie Angus (MP for the existing district of Timmins—James Bay), in objecting to the reduction of a district in Northern Ontario, particularly noted that larger districts would make it more difficult for Members of Parliament interact with their constituents, given the substantial distances involved and lack of resources for more staff or offices. The Commission recognized this concern and considered travel times, distances and transportation networks very carefully in setting boundaries. Importantly, it is the role of Parliament to determine the constituency office and travel budgets of its members. Given the importance of constituency services, it is within the authority of Parliament to allocate more resources to members, whether on a basis of geography, population or population sparsity.

Mr. Angus asserts that the Commission has ignored the views of people from across Northern Ontario and imposed arbitrary boundary lines that do not reflect the realities or the democratic rights of northern citizens. The Commission, respectfully, disagrees. We have heard very clearly the views expressed by Northern Ontarians and understand their particular concerns, just as we have listened to and appreciate the concerns expressed by those living elsewhere in the province. The democratic and representational rights of residents throughout Ontario have been fully respected by the Commission, as per its legislative mandate. Compliance with the federal legislation does not result in the imposition of arbitrary lines, nor is it an application of arbitrary percentages of population quotients.

Other Members of Parliament also commonly noted that representation would be more difficult in the expanded ridings necessitated by the reduction of one district in Northern Ontario. We address this further on a riding by riding basis in Part E (Northern Ontario) of the Report.

The Commission respectfully declines to allocate an additional district to Northern Ontario, as requested in Mr. Angus' objection.

Carol Hughes (MP for the existing district of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) objected to both the reduction of Northern Ontario seats from ten to nine, and the elimination of the current riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. She asked that the boundaries of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing be maintained. Ms. Hughes noted that the proposed boundaries would exacerbate difficulties of representation in sparsely populated areas. She also raised objections to the process followed by the Commission for the drawing of boundaries. We address these latter objections below in the Comment on Process or Procedural Issues section of this Addendum.

Finally, Ms. Hughes raised concerns that the voices of Francophone Ontarians would be diluted by the placement of Dubreuilville and Wawa within the revised riding of SAULT STE. MARIE—ALGOMA. The placement of these two communities—especially the majority French speaking community of Dubreuilville—did raise challenges for the Commission in drafting our Report, and we considered their needs very carefully. The fact is this is a very small isolated community of 576 residents, of which 470 are Francophone. Ultimately, the Commission is faced with the alternative of placing Dubreuilville in KAPUSKASING—TIMMINS—MUSHKEGOWUK which would result in an awkwardly elongated boundary, and substantially lengthen the distance these residents would have to travel to their Member's constituency office; or leaving it centred within the new boundaries of the district of SAULT STE. MARIE—ALGOMA. The Commission believes that the best solution for the effective representation of this community is to keep it within the district of SAULT STE. MARIE—ALGOMA. Furthermore, the Commission is confident that there will be no erosion of French language services (such as Francophone schools and health services) as a result of its location in this district.

The Commission thus respectfully declines to adopt Ms. Hughes' submission.

Viviane Lapointe (MP for the existing district of Sudbury) objected, on behalf of the Northern Ontario Liberal Caucus, to the removal of a riding from Northern Ontario. The Commission addresses these concerns about the removal of a district elsewhere in this Report.

Ms. Lapointe observed that legislative change may be necessary to solve problems of effective representation in northern regions. The Commission agrees.

Ms. Lapointe requested that the Commission enact a temporary solution, such as additional districts of extraordinary circumstance in the North. The Commission noted that there is no feasible temporary solution that would not incur underrepresentation in other regions of the province.

The Commission thus respectfully declines to implement Ms. Lapointe's submission.

Terry Sheehan (MP for the existing district of Sault Ste. Marie) lodged three objections. These are: first, that Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing should maintain their existing boundaries; second, that the current riding of SAULT STE. MARIE—ALGOMA should maintain its existing boundaries, including the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Prince Township, Garden River First Nation, Batchewana First Nation and townships from the St. Mary's River to the Montreal River area ending in the eastern part of the riding in the townships of Gaudry, Nahwegezhic, Lamming, Hughes, Curtis, Gillmor and McMahon, up to the boundary of Aberdeen; third, that Northern Ontario should maintain ten districts, not nine.

Mr. Sheehan provided extensive reasons for his objections, including those related to the vastness of Northern Ontario and the challenge of representing citizens in large geographic areas, the need to consider the boundaries of districts vis-a-vis Indigenous communities, and the alleged lack of consultation by the Commission. The Commission asserts that we have considered all of these factors, as addressed in other parts of this Report. Addressing directly Mr. Sheehan's recommendations, then, the Commission contends that maintaining the existing boundaries of Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing while reducing the number of districts in Northern Ontario by one would dramatically increase the size of the remaining seven districts in Northern Ontario, exacerbating the kinds of problems which Mr. Sheehan notes throughout his submission. Accordingly, given the decision of the Committee to reduce the number of districts by one, we cannot support a recommendation to maintain the boundaries of Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

Mr. Sheehan argued that the Commission should apply the same extraordinary circumstances criteria to both Northwestern Ontario to Northeastern Ontario. Namely, he suggested that the Commission should allow one or more of Northeastern Ontario's districts to be extraordinary circumstances and deviate below 25% from the Quota. The Commission does not share this view. Northwestern Ontario's population is considerably more sparsely distributed than that of Northeastern Ontario, especially in relation to the Highway 17 corridor between North Bay and Sault Ste. Marie. This is discussed in Part E (Northern Ontario) of our Report.

The Commission also notes and agrees with Mr. Sheehan's observation that the budgets granted to Members of Parliament to operate their parliamentary and constituency offices may need to be increased to ensure effective representation of those they are elected to serve. Adjusting the amount and terms and conditions of the resources allocated to Members of Parliament, and ensuring that the needs of large, sparsely populated and northern electoral districts are met is a matter for Parliament to consider, as discussed in Part B of our Report.

In his submission, Mr. Sheehan questioned whether the Commission consulted with Indigenous communities. The Commission notes that it sent its Proposal directly to Indigenous organizations and governments (including the band offices of First Nations and Tribal Councils in Ontario). Part C of our Report discussed the issue of effective representation of Indigenous Peoples.

The Commission also notes that in adding First Nations to SAULT STE. MARIE—ALGOMA, the Commission paid great care and attention to Tribal Council allegiances and First Nations' reserve lands. In the case of this district, careful consideration was taken of Mamaweswen, The North Shore Tribal Council and the reserve lands of the Missanabie Cree First Nation. In both of these cases, the SAULT STE. MARIE—ALGOMA boundary was explicitly drawn to respect these territories.

Mr. Sheehan also raised several concerns about process. These issues are addressed below, in the Comment on Process or Procedural Issues section.

The Commission thus respectfully declines to implement Mr. Sheehan's submission.

Marc Serré (MP for the existing district of Nickel Belt) objected to the placing of the communities of the former Town of Nickel Centre (part of the amalgamated City of Greater Sudbury since 2001) into the district of SUDBURY. These communities include Wanup, Wahnapitae, Coniston, Garson, Falconbridge and Skead. Mr. Serré has requested that these communities be moved into SUDBURY EAST—MANITOULIN—NICKEL BELT (renamed from Manitoulin—Nickel Belt - see the Requested Name Changes of Electoral Districts section above).

While we may have been prepared to consider this further, moving the former Town of Nickel Centre back into SUDBURY EAST—MANITOULIN—NICKEL BELT, as Mr. Serré proposes, would undermine the effective representation of the Francophone community. The Commission notes that approximately 2,905 of the 14,498 (20%) residents of the former Town of Nickel Centre claim French as their First Official Language according to the 2021 Census. Moving these residents into SUDBURY EAST—MANITOULIN—NICKEL BELT would therefore reduce the Francophone population of that district from 31% to 29%. This Commission has made every effort to preserve Francophone representation in SUDBURY EAST—MANITOULIN—NICKEL BELT. The Commission believes that moving the former Town of Nickel Centre would run counter to its efforts to preserve Francophone representation.

Further, this change would have negative impacts on population equality. Moving these communities of the former Town of Nickel Belt into SUDBURY EAST—MANITOULIN—NICKEL BELT would have the effect of altering SUDBURY's deviation from the Quota from -1.9% to -14.3% and SUDBURY EAST—MANITOULIN—NICKEL BELT's deviation from the Quota from -14.4% to -1.9%.

The Commission feels that these deviations from the Quota, especially for SUDBURY, are inconsistent with the Commission's overall approach and are counter to Section 15(1)(a) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. SUDBURY is a small, compact, urban district. The Commission is reluctant to move citizens from a compact urban riding to a more sparsely populated rural riding when it will not have the claimed effect of increasing Francophone representation in SUDBURY EAST—MANITOULIN—NICKEL BELT.

Further, the Commission notes that the communities of the former Town of Nickel Centre have been kept together, preserving their community of interest. The importance of keeping these communities was made clear to the Commission in the public consultation process, with submissions coming from both residents and the former municipal councillors representing the Town of Nickel Centre. Notably, this was the reason that the community of Skead was placed in SUDBURY in the final boundaries.

We note Mr. Serré's concern about SUDBURY EAST—MANITOULIN—NICKEL BELT's Francophone population falling from 35% to 31%. We again carefully examined whether there was any potential to resolve this. We further note that Northern Ontario's Francophone population share fell from 15% to 13% (a decline of 17,370 residents) between the 2011 and 2021 censuses.

Various efforts to boost the Francophone population within the district have been made, including consideration of whether to exclude the area of Manitoulin Island, Sables-Spanish Rivers and Espanola, which has a lower Francophone population share, and include it instead within the district of PARRY SOUND—MUSKOKA, or the district of SAULT STE. MARIE—ALGOMA. Having investigated these various options, each was found to have substantively negative effects that the Commission determined would significantly outweigh the marginal gains for the Francophone population share of SUDBURY EAST—MANITOULIN—NICKEL BELT.

For example, if Manitoulin Island were to be included within the district of PARRY SOUND—MUSKOKA, those living on the Island would have to travel approximately 200 km along Highways 17 and 69, including passing through two other districts, to reach the rest of their district. If the area were to be included within SAULT STE. MARIE—ALGOMA, there would be a more logical road connection, however it would result in a driving span of 725 km through that entire district; whereas keeping Manitoulin Island, Sables-Spanish Rivers and Espanola within SUDBURY EAST—MANITOULIN—NICKEL BELT results in a total driving span of just 440 km. The Commission has ultimately determined that none of these alternative options is suitable. For the residents of Manitoulin Island, Sables-Spanish Rivers and Espanola, including the significant Indigenous population living there, effective representation is best achieved by keeping them within the boundaries of SUDBURY EAST—MANITOULIN—NICKEL BELT. In short, moving Manitoulin Island, Sables-Spanish Rivers or Espanola into PARRY SOUND—MUSKOKA or SAULT STE. MARIE—ALGOMA would make these districts too large and reduce the effective representation of the residents in these areas.

Further, any such changes of the nature described above would have negative impacts on overall population equality. The area of Manitoulin Island, Sables-Spanish Rivers and Espanola comprises a population of 21,900 people. Moving these communities out of SUDBURY EAST—MANITOULIN—NICKEL BELT would have the effect of altering that district's deviation from the Quota from -14.4% to -33.2%. If this population was moved into PARRY SOUND—MUSKOKA it would not have an offsetting benefit for population inequality, as that district's population deviation would shift from -10.4% to +8.4%. Likewise, moving the population into SAULT STE. MARIE—ALGOMA would raise that district's deviation from -2.4% to +16.3%, and would make it adjacent to a district with a deviation from the Quota of -33.2%, which is intolerable.

Further, it would be unreasonable and disrespectful to the residents of Manitoulin Island to move them at this point in the process with no consultation. This is especially true considering that 40% of the population of Manitoulin Island identify as Indigenous according to the 2021 Census.

Importantly, the Commission has respected the Francophone community of interest given that SUDBURY EAST—MANITOULIN—NICKEL BELT's Francophone population share is at 31%. The vitality of the Francophone language in this district is strong, considering that the Francophone population in Northern Ontario has declined from 17% to 15% between 2011 and 2021.

Finally, the Commission notes that Mr. Serré requested, in his oral testimony to the Standing Committee, that the Committee consider making recommendations to Parliament to alter the constituency funding formula to achieve greater fairness in the ability of Members of Parliament representing Northern and Southern Ontario districts to serve their constituents. This request was not transmitted in the Committee's report, however the Commission views this as a very constructive suggestion.

The Commission is sympathetic to the objections raised by Mr. Serré regarding the concerns of Northern Ontario in general, and the concerns related to Francophone representation more specifically. However, the Commission must be guided by its mandate with regard to setting electoral boundaries.

The Commission thus respectfully declines to implement Mr. Serré's submission.

City of Toronto

The Commission received submissions from seven Members of Parliament concerning the City of Toronto's boundary changes, all of which were from the eastern part of Toronto and Scarborough. Two of these were the joint submission from Jean Yip (MP for the existing district of Scarborough—Agincourt) and Shaun Chen (MP for the existing district of Scarborough North) supporting the Commission's boundaries for Scarborough, as discussed above, in the Expressions of Support section.

Three large overarching themes were present in the objections concerning the City of Toronto: (1) the loss of a district in Toronto as a whole and/or Scarborough specifically, (2) the abandonment of the boundary on Victoria Park Avenue, and (3) concerns about process.

Due to uneven population growth in the province of Ontario and specifically within the Greater Toronto Area, the Commission maintains that it is necessary to move a district to other areas of the Greater Toronto Area that, while equally diverse, are growing much faster than the City of Toronto. As previously noted, the population of the City of Toronto only grew by 6.9% from 2011 to 2021, compared to 11.7% for the remainder of the province. Responding to uneven population growth is a primary reason for undertaking the redistribution process every ten years after the decennial Census.

With respect to the objection to district boundaries crossing Victoria Park Avenue, while the Commission understands the importance of this street as a landmark and old municipal boundary within the community, the Commission cannot implement this request as more fully explained in Part E (City of Toronto) of the Report. The Commission has maintained as much of Victoria Park Avenue as possible, notably in SCARBOROUGH SOUTHWEST. However, maintaining Victoria Park Avenue as a boundary for its entire length within the City of Toronto would unfairly cause the former City of Scarborough to bear the full consequence of the reduction of a district. Crossing Victoria Park Avenue is the optimal solution to reduce the disparities across the entirety of Toronto while reducing Toronto by one district. Notably, the joint submission from Jean Yip (MP for the existing district of Scarborough—Agincourt) and Shaun Chen (MP for the existing district of Scarborough North) expressed satisfaction with the SCARBOROUGH—AGINCOURT boundary that crossed Victoria Park Avenue.

Several Members of Parliament also objected to the process, noting especially the significant changes between the initial Proposal and the Report and the lack of opportunity for public input on those changes. The Commission received 545 oral and written submissions concerning the City of Toronto's proposed boundaries, and made revisions to its Proposal in response to these submissions following the process established under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Comments on the process are further discussed below in the Comment on Process or Procedural Issues section.

Michael Coteau (MP for the existing district of Don Valley East) objected to the elimination of the district of Don Valley East.

Mr. Coteau's objection took three parts. First, an objection based on the process followed by the Commission. Second, a lack of concern for the impact of the newly drawn district on communities of new Canadians, especially Muslim Canadians. Third, a lack of appreciation for the distinctiveness of North York communities.

Mr. Coteau's concerns about process are discussed below in the Comment on Process or Procedural Issues section.

On the second and third objections, the Commission did in fact pay close attention to the composition and unique circumstances of various immigrant communities in and around Don Valley East. Most notably, in redrawing boundaries between our Proposal and our Report in response to public submissions, we substantially changed boundaries to keep intact the communities in Flemingdon Park. The Commission is confident that the unique needs of various neighbourhoods can be represented by a Member of Parliament in a different constituency. Moreover, the Commission has endeavoured to keep intact the various North York communities which Mr. Coteau notes.

Ultimately, adopting Mr. Coteau's recommendation of keeping Don Valley East intact, as endorsed by the Standing Committee, would require adding a constituency back into Toronto and redrawing the balance of Ontario.

The Commission thus respectfully declines to implement Mr. Coteau's submission.

Salma Zahid (MP for the existing district of Scarborough Centre) submitted an objection that included a proposed map for the eastern portions of the City of Toronto, including Scarborough.

While this map does meet the Commission's acceptable criteria in terms of population equality and communities of interest, the Commission does not see the benefit in making large scale changes at this stage of the process which do not materially improve population equality or, in the Commission's view, effective representation. The Commission notes that Ms. Zahid's written submission acknowledges that her proposed map was prepared in consultation with only two Members of Parliament while the proposed map includes changes to eight electoral districts. Further, the Commission notes that the proposed map includes changes to the final district of SCARBOROUGH NORTH and the Member of Parliament for the existing district of Scarborough North has provided written support for the Commission's boundaries for this district as described above.

Ms. Zahid expressed concern that Scarborough Centre's Muslim and Tamil populations were divided in the Report. In drawing these boundaries and in considering this request, the Commission carefully reviewed data from the 2021 Census. Our conclusion is that Muslim and Tamil populations will maintain significant weight in newly drawn districts.

Scarborough Centre has now become SCARBOROUGH CENTRE—DON VALLEY EAST and SCARBOROUGH—WOBURN. The Muslim and Tamil populations are comparable between all three districts. The existing district of Scarborough Centre had a Muslim population of 19,375, representing 17% of the district. Based on estimates with the 2021 Census data, the final district of SCARBOROUGH CENTRE—DON VALLEY EAST has a Muslim population of 17,820, representing 16% of the district. The final district of SCARBOROUGH—WOBURN has a Muslim population of 21,104, representing 19% of the district. In these circumstances, the Commission submits that there will be no diminution of the effective representation of the Muslim population.

The existing district of Scarborough Centre has a Tamil population of 4,610, representing 4% of the total population (based on the Census category of Ethnic or Cultural Origin). The final district of SCARBOROUGH CENTRE—DON VALLEY EAST has an estimated Tamil population of 1,898, representing 2% of the population. The final district of SCARBOROUGH—WOBURN has an estimated population of 5,002, representing 5% of the population. Again, in these circumstances, the Commission submits that there is no diminution of the effective representation of the Tamil population.

Ms. Zahid also referenced procedural issues which are discussed below in the Comment on Process or Procedural Issues section.

The Commission notes that Ms. Zahid's objections were not endorsed by the Standing Committee or in the dissenting report.

The Commission thus respectfully declines to implement Ms. Zahid's submission.

Han Dong (MP for the existing district of Don Valley North) objected to moving the neighbourhoods of Pleasant View and parts of Henry Farm and Hillcrest Village from DON VALLEY NORTH. Mr. Dong points out that these neighbourhoods are in the old City of North York and requests the boundaries respect the old municipal limit on Victoria Park Avenue. These concerns are addressed above.

Mr. Dong's objection also states that he welcomes the addition of the areas north of Old York Mills Road. However, Mr. Dong objects to the boundary on the Don River, preferring that the boundary be placed on the Don Valley Parkway instead. Mr. Dong notes that the remainder of the district's boundaries are on major roadways and argues that the use of a river is inconsistent with the remainder of the district's boundary. Respectfully, the Commission does not agree with this argument. Rivers form major and easily discernible boundaries and are used elsewhere in the province.

Mr. Dong further points out that this boundary would not adversely affect the deviation from the Quota for DON VALLEY NORTH, bringing it to an acceptable +0.9%. However, the Commission notes that this would bring SCARBOROUGH CENTRE—DON VALLEY EAST's deviation from the Quota to a borderline unacceptably low -10%, as well as complicating SCARBOROUGH CENTRE—DON VALLEY EAST's boundaries.

Mr. Dong also referenced procedural issues which are discussed below in the Comment on Process or Procedural Issues section.

The Commission notes that Mr. Dong's objections were not endorsed by the Standing Committee or in the dissenting report.

The Commission thus respectfully declines to implement Mr. Dong's submission.

Robert Oliphant (MP for the existing district of Don Valley West) objected to the addition of the neighbourhood of Governor's Bridge to the district of Don Valley South (renamed DON VALLEY WEST - see the Requested Name Changes for Electoral Districts section above). Mr. Oliphant argued that this neighbourhood is better connected to UNIVERSITY—ROSEDALE, based on community of interest concerns. Mr. Oliphant argued this neighbourhood is separated from DON VALLEY WEST by a large valley. Based on traffic patterns, and economic and sociological makeup, the residents of Governor's Bridge are linked with neighbourhoods in Rosedale.

The Commission agrees with this assessment, and also acknowledges that Governor's Bridge has been in UNIVERSITY—ROSEDALE for several redistribution cycles. Further, given the small population of UNIVERSITY—ROSEDALE, there will be negligible impact on voter parity.

The Commission agrees with the Member of Parliament and will move Governor's Bridge into UNIVERSITY—ROSEDALE.

John McKay (MP for the existing district of Scarborough—Guildwood) objected to the proposed configuration of the district of Scarborough—Guildwood (renamed SCARBOROUGH—GUILDWOOD—ROUGE PARK). Mr. McKay argued that the proposed reconfiguration would divide contiguous neighbourhoods, disrupt well established relationships among constituents and community groups.

The Commission notes that Mr. McKay does not provide specific suggestions to improve the district.

Mr. McKay also referenced procedural issues which are discussed below in the Comment on Process or Procedural Issues section.

The Commission notes that Mr. McKay's objections were not endorsed by the Standing Committee or in the dissenting report.

The Commission thus respectfully declines to implement Mr. McKay's submission.

Ottawa

Marie-France Lalonde (MP for the existing district of Orléans) objected to the removal of the neighbourhoods of Cardinal Village and Blackburn Hamlet from the district of ORLÉANS. These neighbourhoods were respectively moved into PRESCOTT—RUSSELL—CUMBERLAND and OTTAWA—VANIER—GLOUCESTER.

Ms. Lalonde argued that these changes undermine communities of interest considerations, as these neighbourhoods both identify with the district of ORLÉANS. These areas are suburban in nature and the residents frequent establishments within ORLÉANS on a regular basis.

The Commission is sympathetic to these concerns. However, placing these neighbourhoods in ORLÉANS would bring the deviation from the Quota up to +19.5%. In the view of the Commission, this is unacceptably high and is counter to Section 15(1)(a) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The weight of their vote would be significantly diminished and negatively affect their democratic representation.

The Commission is of the opinion that the residents of these neighbourhoods will still have adequate representation by their Member of Parliament in their new districts, resulting in effective representation.

Ms. Lalonde also argued that several landmarks and greenspaces that were removed from ORLÉANS are important to the identity, history and culture of the residents of the district. The Commission notes that these landmarks and greenspaces can still be part of the social, cultural and historical fabric of residents. Moving electoral district boundaries in no way inhibits residents' ability to visit and enjoy these amenities.

We also note that the existing districts in question (Ottawa—Vanier, Orléans, and Glengarry—Prescott—Russell) had Francophone populations of 27%, 31%, and 56% respectively. We further note that the final districts (OTTAWA—VANIER—GLOUCESTER, ORLÉANS, AND PRESCOTT—RUSSELL—CUMBERLAND) have estimated Francophone populations of 27%, 31%, and 57% respectively.

The Commission acknowledges that Ms. Lalonde's secondary request to include St. Joseph Boulevard up to Highway 174 in ORLÉANS will have minimal effect on population equality. The Commission agrees to make this request and has redrawn the boundary accordingly.

Northern Greater Toronto Area (GTA)

Anna Roberts (MP for the existing district of King—Vaughan) raised an objection based on the splitting of the Holland Marsh area from the rest of the Township of King. Ms. Roberts has argued that this area should be placed in KING—VAUGHAN instead of NEW TECUMSETH—GWILLIMBURY. Ms. Roberts' written submission included a letter of support from the Mayor of the Township of King, reflecting a change in opinion from his original support for the boundary, apparently reflecting feedback from local residents.

This request is consistent with the Commission's goal of respecting municipal boundaries. The Commission also notes that this change will not have significant impacts on voter parity. Based on this, the Commission will implement this suggestion.

The Commission acknowledges that this will negatively impact the compactness of NEW TECUMSETH—GWILLIMBURY by cutting a large triangle out of the centre of the district. However, this loss of compactness is justified based on the stated goal to keep municipal boundaries whole as well as respecting requests from elected municipal officials.

Brampton, Caledon and Dufferin

Michael Chong (MP for the existing district of Wellington—Halton Hills) objected to three residences being placed in the district of KITCHENER—CONESTOGA due to a mapping error, when they should be placed in WELLINGTON—HALTON HILLS NORTH.

The Commission uses Statistics Canada's census subdivisions for drawing boundaries. In theory, census subdivisions are supposed to match municipal limits. In actual practice, there are small errors that generally do not affect residences. In this instance, this error affects three residences.

The Commission notes this mistake and appreciates Mr. Chong's attention to detail. The error will be rectified and the electoral district boundary will be placed on the proper municipal limit, allowing these residences to be placed in WELLINGTON—HALTON HILLS NORTH along with the rest of the Township of Guelph/Eramosa.

Ruby Sahota (MP for the existing district of Brampton North) made an objection to the division of the neighbourhood of Springfield. The Commission notes that, as a member of the Standing Committee, Ms. Sahota recused herself from the discussion and consideration of her objection.

Ms. Sahota has defined this neighbourhood as being bounded by Countryside Drive, Heart Lake Road, Bovaird Drive, and Tobram Road.

Ms. Sahota objected to this neighbourhood being divided into three districts. However, this neighbourhood is only divided into two districts: BRAMPTON—CHINGUACOUSY PARK and BRAMPTON NORTH—CALEDON. The eastern boundary of this neighbourhood, according to Ms. Sahota's definition, is along Tobram Road, matching the eastern boundaries of BRAMPTON—CHINGUACOUSY PARK and BRAMPTON NORTH—CALEDON.

From this neighbourhood, 27,798 people are in BRAMPTON—CHINGUACOUSY PARK. Moving these people into BRAMPTON NORTH—CALEDON would make the district's deviation from the Quota +15.4%. BRAMPTON—CHINGUACOUSY PARK's deviation would become -24.7%. The Commission believes that these deviations are unreasonable and contrary to Section 15(1)(a) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and would require many further boundary changes to reduce these deviations to an acceptable level.

The Commission is not comfortable making large scale changes at this stage of the process, particularly when the Brampton districts were revised in response to public feedback.

The Commission thus respectfully declines to implement Ms. Sahota's submission.

Hamilton and Niagara

Vance Badawey (MP for the existing district of Niagara Centre) made an objection to the removal of a small portion of the City of Thorold from the final district of NIAGARA SOUTH.

This small portion of Thorold was removed in order to keep the campus of Brock University whole, as was requested by numerous submitters in the public feedback process. The Brock University campus is in the unusual situation of crossing the municipal boundary between the City of St. Catharines and the City of Thorold. The entirety of the campus was placed in the final district of ST. CATHARINES, including the portions that lay in the City of Thorold.

The Commission has generally tried to respect municipal boundaries throughout Ontario. However, an exception was made in this case given the public feedback about keeping the campus whole. In making this exception, the Commission inadvertently moved the Thorold City Hall into the final district of ST. CATHARINES.

The Commission recognizes this error and will align the district boundary with the municipal boundary. Given that the Thorold City Hall and the Brock University dormitories share a parking lot, the Commission does not see a reasonable scenario where the City Hall can be placed in NIAGARA SOUTH and the Brock University campus can be placed in ST. CATHARINES. Regrettably, the Brock University Campus will need to be split.

The population of this zone is 109 people. The effects of this change on population equality is negligible.

The Commission notes that this objection was not endorsed by the Standing Committee or in the dissenting report. However, the Commission will implement Mr. Badawey's request.

Southwestern Ontario

Peter Fragiskatos (MP for the existing district of London North Centre) objected to the removal of the parts of the City of London north of Fanshawe Park Road into the district of MIDDLESEX—LONDON. He argues that this would disservice the approximately 37,000 urban residents by moving them into a largely rural district. He further argues that the Commission should return the boundaries put forward in the initial Proposal.

The Commission rejects both claims. The Commission also notes that the Standing Committee and the dissenting report did not endorse this objection.

The Commission maintains that it is necessary to move a large portion of urban London into a mainly rural district in light of Section 15(1)(a) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which states that district populations shall be as close as reasonably possible to the Quota. Moving these 37,000 residents back into the three urban London districts would result in an average deviation from the Quota among these three districts of +15.5%. This is an unreasonably high deviation from the Quota and would diminish the voting power of all urban London residents.

The Commission also maintains that moving a large number of urban residents into the rural district is appropriate in order to give those residents significant demographic weight within the district. That is, it is preferable to shift a larger segment of this urban community of interest, rather than fragment it into a smaller and less consequential segment within a largely rural district.

Finally, the Commission does not agree that the boundaries should be returned to the initial Proposal. The initial Proposal for the London area was deeply unpopular in London and Southwestern Ontario. There were several problems identified in the public feedback process: the loss of three urban districts in London, the creation of multiple mixed urban-rural districts, and the disregard of municipal boundaries. The final boundaries do a much better job of solving these issues.

The Commission thus respectfully declines to implement Mr. Fragiskatos' submission.