Comment 14 (31 August 2022) – comments and feedback

Robert Sonin

Re: Proposed changes to the boundaries of Ville-Marie—Le-Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Sœurs

An adjustment to the boundaries of Ville-Marie—Le-Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs electoral district (hereafter Ville-Marie) is necessary owing to a large recent increase in population of the district, currently about 135,000. What is proposed is to remove sections of the district in its northwest, specifically to transfer Shaughnessy Village to the Nôtre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount electoral district (hereafter N.D.G.) and a swathe of territory including Parc Mont-Royal and part of downtown Montreal adjacent to the park to the Outremont electoral district (hereafter Outremont). However, a proposal that conforms better to the rules set out in Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act would be to sever Île-des-Soeurs from the district, and to leave the rest intact. This would reduce the population of the district to about 113,000, or 3% over the Quebec average of about 109,000. A map of what I propose is presented below.

There are several valid reasons that justify removing Île-des-Soeurs.

1. No historical connection with the district - There is almost no historical connection between the populations of Île-des-Soeurs and the rest of Ville-Marie, and therefore no community of interest or community of identity among them. The island had no permanent road link to the Island of Montreal until 1962, and was very sparsely inhabited until the 1970's. Although two bridges connect the island to the Island of Montreal, they do not carry roads but highways, and seem designed less to connect Île-des-Soeurs to the Sud Ouest than to bypass it.
2. Historical connection with a different district - Île-des-Soeurs and has historically shared ridings with Verdun since the first Verdun riding was created in 1935 (see below). Prior to that, it was contained in the riding of Jacques Cartier, which also included Verdun.
   • 2015-present - Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs
   • 2004-2015 Jeanne-Le-Ber (Le Sud Ouest and Verdun)
   • 2000-2004 Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles
   • 1997-2000 Verdun—Saint-Henri
   • 1981-1997 Verdun—Saint-Paul
   • 1953-1981 Verdun
   • 1949-1953 Verdun—La Salle
   • 1935-1949 Verdun
   • 1867-1935 Jacques Cartier (almost the entirety of the western part of the Island of Montreal)
3. Part of a different provincial district - Île-des-Soeurs is part of the provincial electoral district of Verdun.
4. Part of a different municipal district - Île-des-Soeurs has been part of the City of Montreal borough of Verdun since 2002. Before that it was part of the City of Verdun, from 1956 to 2002. Prior to 1956, it comprised the independent municipality of Île Saint-Paul, from 1899 to 1956. Its modern era of population growth began in 1968, as part of the City of Verdun.

On the other hand, there are several valid reasons to leave the rest intact.

1. Strong historical connection with the district - Shaughnessy Village has been an integral part of western downtown Montreal since the middle of the 19th century. It is currently named after the home of one of its residents, built in 1874. It is part of the municipal borough of Ville-Marie. Prior to this it was part of St. Andrew ward, and before that, St. Antoine ward of the City of Montreal. Although the area has seen many changes, for more than 150 years it has been continuously inhabited as an urban neighbourhood integral to the western part of central Montreal (borough of Ville-Marie). Indeed, Shaughnessy Village has been a part of whichever riding included the rest of western and/or central Montreal since Confederation:

   • 2015-present - Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs
   • 1997-2015 Westmount-Ville-Marie
   • 1979-1997 Saint-Henri—Westmount
   • 1968-1979 Westmount
   • 1935-1968 Saint-Antoine—Westmount
   • 1896-1935 St. Antoine
   • 1867-1896 Montreal West

   It should be noted that ridings named "Westmount," prior to recent times, included various parts of central Montreal including areas as far east as Avenue Parc.

2. Long-standing historical boundary - Avenue Atwater has been the formal and informal border between Montreal and Westmount, and previously the Village of Saint-Paul, since the latter was created, even though the border does not run along its entire length. For decades there was, and to some extent today remains, a gap in the continuity of inhabited property on either side of Atwater, over the years consisting variously of parkland, sports fields, a municipal arena, the incarnations of the Montreal Forum, church buildings, and a CEGEP campus. The streets surrounding Square Cabot served as a western terminus for streetcars, then for busses, and remains the terminus of eight bus routes. The Atwater Metro station was for twelve years the western terminus of the green line.
3. No community of interest or identity with other districts - In order to sever the northern part of downtown from Ville Marie, the district of Outremont must be extended a kilometer over a mountain and past uninhabited park land, ironically, much like attaching an island to it. The proposed border slices arbitrarily through the campus of McGill University, splitting the it into two ridings. Nothing in that area is kin to Outremont, or ever has been, and all of it is within the borough of Ville-Marie.
4. Strange bartering of populations - In order to rebalance the population N.D.G. after adding Shaughnessy Village, part of N.D.G. immediately adjacent to it is being severed and transferred to Outremont. Playing musical chairs in this area seems a complicated solution to a problem when a much simpler one exists.

There are also legal reasons for removing Île-des-Soeurs and to keep the rest of the district intact. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act states rules, vague and ambiguous though they be, in s. 15(1) and 15(2). With that in mind:

There is nothing requiring the commission to propose the boundaries they have. The commission seems to be trying to even out the populations in each riding on the principle of equality of votes, and the proposal achieves a range of 97% to 105% of the Quebec average.

Egregious disparities aside, a too assiduous adherence to that principle runs counter to other principles of democracy enshrined in the law, as well as established practice in setting electoral district boundaries. A member of Parliament does not represent some arbitrary chunk of population, but a district. If the district makes no sense, or is gerrymandered, or cuts through communities of interest or identity, then equalizing numbers contradicts representative democracy, and the law. In its extreme, this is a tactic used to deny representation to historically disenfranchised populations by diluting their vote among districts.

The law recognizes the need to enfranchise communities at the expense of a strict adherence to the principle of maintaining districts of equal size in that it provides legitimacy to keeping districts in Quebec and elsewhere with populations well under the average, for example, Chicoutimi, Manicouagan, Abitibi, and Jonquière. The commission apparently recognizes the principle of departing from equality in order to preserve community representation. All of the latter districts remain 15-18% under average according to the proposed changes.

Nationally, the principle of the equality of votes is virtually ignored in respect of constitutional requirements based on the precedence of representation of communities over strict equality of votes, in some cases egregiously. The average population of districts in British Columbia is 3.4 times as large as the average in Newfoundland. The electoral district of Labrador has a population of 26,700, while the electoral district of Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has a population is 7.9 times larger at 209,400.

If disparities like these are legitimate, one can question why any changes to the boundaries in view of disparities in population are necessary at all. But even if strict adherence to 15(1)(a) is deemed necessary, it must not be at the expense of neglecting 15(1)(b). Members of Parliament represent communities, in as much as that is possible, not 109,000 individuals who happen to live within some boundary arbitrarily drawn on a map.

The proposal does not conform to the law. In determining what ought to change, guidance is provided by the law:

"the population of each electoral district in the province as a result thereof shall, as close as reasonably possible, correspond to the electoral quota for the province" and "the commission shall consider ... the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district"

The commission shall consider, not may consider. In this case, this consideration is not evident. Some part of the district must go: an alien territory added a few years ago is retained for no apparent reason, while historically organic parts are severed, also for no apparent reason. According to s.15(2) the commission may depart only from the rule set forth in s.15(1)(a); there is no provision to depart from the rules set forth in s.15(1)(b). Therefore, I put it to the commission that the proposed changes to the boundaries of Ville Marie are in contradiction to the rule set out in s.15(1)(b)(i).

There is much to recommend the alternative proposed here. Severing Île-des-Soeurs conforms to these rules in greater measure than the proposal because it respects both s.15(1)(a) and s.15(1)(b)(i). It reduces the population of the district to well below the 25% threshold, and does so while respecting the community of interest, community of identity, and historical pattern of the existing electoral district.

An adjustment to the boundaries of Ville-Marie—Le-Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs is needed. The obvious solution is to remove the part of the riding which was unadvisedly attached to it only very recently, and not to remove sections of the district that have been integral parts of the communities that make it up since Confederation.