PROC Committee Report

Report on the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario: Conservative Dissenting Report

This Dissenting Report reflects the views of the Conservative Members of Parliament who serve on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (“PROC”): MP John Nater (Vice Chair of the Committee, Perth—Wellington), MP Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L’Érable), MP Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe), and MP Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton).

Introduction

There are sixteen Notices of Objection in response to the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario requesting electoral boundary changes (the “Boundary Objections”). The Boundary Objections are made by MP Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay), MP Vance Badaway (Niagara Centre), the Honourable Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills), MP Michael Coteau (Don Valley East), MP Han Dong (Don Valley North), MP Peter Fragiskatos (London North Centre), MP Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing), MP Marie-France Lalonde (Orléans), MP Vivian Lapointe (Sudbury), the Honoursable John MacKay (Scarborough—Guildwood), the Honourable Rob Oliphant (Don Valley West), MP Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan), MP Ruby Sahota (Brampton North), MP Terry Sheehan (Sault Ste. Marie), Marc G. Serré (Nickel Belt), and MP Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre).

There are six Notices of Objection requesting electoral boundary name changes (the “Name Objections”). The Name Objections are made by MP Tony Baldinelli (Niagara Falls), MP Irek Kusmierczyk (Windsor—Tescumseh), MP Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill), MP Doug Shipley (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte), as well as by MPs Oliphant and Serré.

Additionally, The Honourable Karina Gould (Burlington) submitted an objection in support of the Commission’s report as it pertains to the Burlington riding. MP Shaun Chen (Scarborough North) and MP Jean Yip (Scarborough—Agincourt) submitted a joint objection in support of the Commission’s report as it pertains to their respective ridings. Finally, there is a joint objection in support of the Commission’s report as it pertains to the Region of Waterloo signed by MP Valerie Bradford (Kitchener South—Hespeler), the Honourable Bardish Chagger (Waterloo), MP Bryan May (Cambridge), and MP Tim Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga).

We respectfully disagree with the conclusions of the Report of PROC to support the Boundary Objections, except for the targeted Boundary Objections of MPs Chong, Roberts, and Oliphant. We note that PROC reported back but did not endorse the objection of MP MacKay. We do not support this objection. We concur with the report of PROC to support the Name Objections of MPs Baldinelli, Lantsman, and Shipley. We take no position with regards to the other Name Objections.

The Northern Ontario Objections

Five Northern Ontario MPs submitted notices of objection. The objections of MPs Angus, Hughes, Lapointe, and Sheehan are primarily focused on maintaining ten ridings in Northern Ontario. As such, we will analyze these objections collectively. MP Serré’s objection also argues for the status quo of ten Northern ridings, however, raises substantive issues specific to the proposed Manitoulin—Nickel Belt riding. As such, we will analyze MP Serré’s objection separately.

Respectfully, we submit that no changes should be made to the Commission’s final proposal for Northern Ontario ridings.

The Angus, Hughes, Lapointe, and Sheehan Objections

MPs Angus, Hughes, Lapointe, and Sheehan argue that the Commission should add a seat to Northern Ontario, thereby maintaining the status quo of ten northern ridings. Collectively, the MPs make three general arguments: (1) the Commission gave undue weight to population parity relative to the provincial quota (the “Quota”); (2) the loss of a riding would significantly and negatively impact effective representation for Northern Ontario; (3) the Commission should use its discretion to deem additional Northern Ontario ridings as “extraordinary circumstances” ridings. 

The assertion that the Commission used a “mathematical formula” to eliminate a Northern Ontario riding without attaching appropriate weight to other factors pursuant to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. E-3 (the “EBRA”), is without merit.[1] It is evident, based on its report, that the Commission carefully considered factors such as communities of interest and identity, manageable geographic size, as well as the historical pattern of electoral districts. However, the Commission appropriately recognized, based on the of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, that voter parity must be the “primary concern” in drawing electoral boundaries.[2]

Having regard for voter parity being the “primary concern”, the Commission had to address that five of the ten existing Northern Ontario ridings fall more than 25% below the Quota.[3] When the boundaries were drawn in 2012, only one riding, Kenora, which was deemed an “extraordinary circumstances” riding fell below 25%.[4] The population parity challenge faced by the Commission was compounded by “uneven population shifts across the province” over the past decade, with Northern Ontario growing by a mere 2.8% compared to 11.2% across the rest of Ontario.[5] This has resulted in “patterns of voter under-representation and over-representation.”[6] As the Commission noted, if all ten ridings were maintained they would on average be 73% of the Quota, and that “[c]ontinued gaps in population growth between Northern Ontario and the rest of the province will only make this disparity more acute.”[7]

To achieve relative parity to the Quota, the Commission could have eliminated two Northern Ontario ridings. However, the Commission was of the view that a further reduction would “imperil effective representation.”[8] It should be noted that even after the loss of one riding, the average deviation for Northern Ontario ridings is -18.5% relative to the Quota, underscoring the reasonableness of the Commission’s decision. Taken together, we submit that the Commission reasonably balanced non-population factors relevant to effective representation, while respecting that population parity is the “primary concern.” 

In a related argument against the loss of a Northern Ontario riding, the objectors in general cited challenges associated with representing sparsely populated, geographically large ridings. While these are legitimate challenges, they are not new to MPs from Northern Ontario. Most Northern Ontario MPs must address these challenges with the existing boundaries. To claim that the loss of a single Northern Ontario riding will create “undue hardship” is unpersuasive.[9]

It is further argued that the Commission, having deemed three ridings as “extraordinary circumstances” ridings, should categorize other Northern Ontario ridings in the same way.[10] Respectfully, this was already considered by the Commission. The Commission determined that while “geographic size” might apply to other ridings, other factors, including “their social and physical geography” merited special consideration for the three ridings.[11]

While the objectors were critical of the Commission’s decision to eliminate one Northern Ontario riding, they did not offer a solution, beyond imploring the Commission to maintain the status quo. Without more, this is unrealistic, having regard for the population of Northern Ontario relative to the rest of the province. Moreover, to maintain ten Northern Ontario ridings, the Commission would have to eliminate a riding elsewhere in Ontario. This would likely result in a disruptive cascading effect across the province. We submit that it is not reasonable at this stage of the process to ask the Commission to make significant changes across the province to maintain the ten-riding status quo for Northern Ontario. The time to make such arguments, in our opinion, is during the public consultation process. Such arguments were already forcefully made at that stage and were reasonably rejected by the Commission.

The Serré Objection

MP Serré argues that the communities of Coniston, Falconbridge, Garson, Skead, Wanup, and Wahnapitae be moved from the Sudbury riding to Manitoulin—Nickel Belt. We respectfully disagree.

These communities except for Skead were placed in the Sudbury riding in the Commission’s initial proposal. The Commission noted in its final report that it received support during the consultation process on the way in which it drew Sudbury.[12] In its final proposal, the Commission added Skead to Sudbury, based on “submissions made by individuals and elected municipal representatives” who argued that all communities of Nickel Centre be situated in Sudbury.[13]

MP Serré argues that placing these communities, particularly Coniston and Garson, in Sudbury significantly dilutes the Francophone speaking population of Manitoulin—Nickel Belt. We disagree. With a sizeable 31% Francophone speaking population, the Commission reasonably kept Franco-Ontario communities of interest together, in the face of the task of having to make significant adjustments to the boundaries of Northern Ontario ridings. As the Commission noted, Manitoulin—Nickel Belt was altered from the initial proposal “based on feedback from the Franco-Ontarian community.”[14] As for Coniston and Garson, these communities are part of Sudbury, which, as the Commission notes has a strong Franco-Ontarian influence, with 17% of its population being Francophone speaking.[15]

The Toronto Objections

The Coteau, MacKay and Zahid Objections

The objections of MPs Coteau, MacKay and Zahid have overlapping issues pertaining to the eastern part of Toronto, including Scarborough. As such, we will analyze them together. Respectfully, their objections should be rejected.

Contrary to their collective assertions that the Commission did not respect procedural fairness and public input, the riding boundaries for Toronto, and in particular Scarborough are a result of significant public input during the consultation process.

The Commission reasonably decided to eliminate one Toronto riding, having regard for the slower population growth over the past decade of 6% compared to provincial average of 11.7%.[16] The Commission’s decision to eliminate Don Valley East and merge it with neighbouring ridings is supported by the fact that the riding is a substantial -18.48% from the Quota.[17]

This decision and the cascading effect that it has had on the riding map of Scarborough should be viewed through the wider lens of the riding map of Toronto as a whole. As the Commission acknowledged, the initial proposal for Toronto was “widely criticized by elected officials, civic organizations, and the general public.”[18] The initial proposal of the Commission to eliminate an entire riding in Scarborough was “seen as another act against a part of Toronto which feels it has suffered a long series of setbacks and disappointments.”[19] Based on this input, the Commission’s final proposal provides that “the loss of a district is shared between Scarborough and the rest of Toronto.”[20] Moreover, the Commission’s final proposal has the benefit of constraining the cascading effects to the eastern portion of Toronto, allowing “the remainder of the City to remain very close to the existing boundaries.”[21]

The general criticisms of the map by the objectors are, in our opinion, unpersuasive. We acknowledge that Victoria Park Avenue has long been a recognized demarcation between the former cities of North York and Scarborough. However, the Commission was faced with Toronto-wide considerations, given uneven population growth, with Don Valley East and most Scarborough ridings being significantly below the Quota. Given this, the Commission’s decision to configure two ridings that traverse Victoria Park Avenue is reasonable. We observe that MP Jean Yip, whose Scarborough riding, as redistributed, extends into the former city of North York, is supportive of the Commission’s final proposal, as is fellow Scarborough MP Shaun Chen.[22] There is also precedent with respect to riding boundaries for parts of Scarborough being connected with neighbouring communities. For example, the easternmost parts of Scarborough were connected to Pickering in the former Pickering—Scarborough East riding between 2004 and 2015. Likewise, neighbourhoods in North York and Scarborough were part of the same York—Scarborough riding between 1979 and 1988.

While many residents of the former cities of North York and Scarborough identify as such, the demographics of Don Valley East and Scarborough Centre are reasonably similar. The ridings have many immigrants, as well as a significant Muslim population. They are also relatively similar on a socio-economic basis, and have many common issues of concern amongst residents, including immigration processing, transportation, and housing. There is no evidence that residents will be disadvantaged in representation because the riding traverses Victoria Park Avenue.

The Commission faced a difficult task in drawing riding boundaries in Toronto. While hard decisions had to be made, the Commission’s decisions respecting the eastern part of Toronto, including Scarborough are appropriate and should be maintained.

The Dong Objection

The boundary lines drawn by the Commission for Don Valley North are reasonable. As the Commission noted, the reconfiguration of the riding is the “result of the merger of Don Valley East and its neighbouring districts,” which we support for reasons provided above. We further observe that the decision of the Commission to use the Don River as a boundary line is appropriate as it is a natural demarcation. We note that no objection to this demarcation was raised MP Rob Oliphant whose existing Don Valley West riding has been impacted by the Commission’s decision to use the Don River as a boundary.

The Oliphant Objection

In our opinion, the minor boundary adjustment proposed by MP Oliphant makes sense. Based on the submissions of MP Oliphant, we are persuaded that the Governor’s Bridge neighbourhood more appropriately belongs in University—Rosedale. Shifting the approximately 400 residents, based on this proposal, will have a negligible impact on the populations of these ridings.[23]

The Badaway Objection

We observe that the boundary line drawn by the Commission between Niagara South and St. Catharines, that is being challenged by MP Badaway, reflects public input to the Commission. In that regard, the Commission heard several submissions to keep Brock University within a single riding.[24]

In his testimony, MP Badaway indicated that his proposed adjustment to the boundary would result in adding approximately 100 residents to Niagara South.[25] That is not accurate. We estimate that the proposed adjustment would add closer to 1000 new residents to Niagara South. While normally a shift of 1,000 people would not be significant, we observe that Niagara South is already +13.5% from the Quota – by far the largest regional deviation.

We do not find persuasive MP Badaway’s submission that the boundary line should be adjusted so that the headquarters of the Niagara Regional government be situated in Niagara South. Several ridings overlap with the jurisdiction of the Niagara Regional government, including the St. Catharines riding.

However, we agree with MP Badaway’s submission that Thorold’s city hall more appropriately belongs in the same riding as much of the rest of the City of Thorold, Niagara South. We observe that the Commission can adjust the boundary such that Thorold’s city hall be placed in Niagara South, without adding to the population of the riding, and keeping the Brock University campus whole in St. Catharines. We respectfully request that the Commission favourably consider this more targeted adjustment.

The Chong Objection

We respectfully request that the Commission adopt MP Chong’s objection. The objection seeks to correct a minor oversight by the Commission, which placed three addresses in the Guelph Eramosa Township in the riding Kitchener—Conestoga instead of Wellington—Halton Hills.

The Fragiskatos Objection

In our opinion, the objection of MP Fragiskatos is unpersuasive. If adopted, it would result in a significant cascading effect for Southwestern Ontario ridings that would necessarily undo many boundary adjustments the Commission made, based on public feedback, between its initial and final proposal.

MP Fragiskatos objects to “the fact that approximately 37,000 Londoners will live in a rural riding (Middlesex—London) that are separated from the rest of London.” He argues that the Commission placed “undue weight on the population Quota and not enough weight on keeping intact established communities.”

In drawing riding boundaries for London, an urban-rural configuration in one or more ridings is necessary, having regard for population. Accordingly, in both the initial and final proposal the Commission drew urban-rural ridings that included parts of London.[26] 

However, the Commission made significant adjustments between the initial and final proposal to Southwestern Ontario ridings, based on public input, impacting London. This input urged the Commission to “restore three primarily urban districts in London, as opposed to two urban districts and two urban-rural mixed districts contemplated in the proposal” and to keep municipalities and counties whole.[27] Consistent with this, the final proposal restores three urban London ridings, while keeping Elgin and Middlesex Counties whole.[28]

We submit that the urban-rural Middlesex—London riding is reasonably drawn, and keeps communities of interest together, including Middlesex County. The southern boundary of Middlesex—London, Fanshawe Park Road, is a main arterial road, providing an appropriate and clear demarcation.

MP Fragiskatos argues that the Stoneybrook area will be separated from communities that it shares schools, a community centre, shopping centre, and fire and EMS services with.[29] However, as the Commission observed, these are not bona fide communities of interest relevant to the drawing of federal riding boundaries.[30]

MP Fragiskatos argues that the concerns of urban Londoners who live in Middlesex—London will be “significantly diminished if not done away with altogether.”[31] Respectfully, this is without merit. London comprises of approximately one-third of the population of the riding, and therefore will have significant weight with whoever is the MP. MP Fragiskatos essentially conceded this point in his testimony at PROC, stating: “we're talking about 37,000 people, not 370 people.”[32] Moreover, representing London and Middlesex County should not prove difficult, given the “huge connection” between the two, as observed by MP Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex).[33]

The Lalonde Objection

We respectfully submit that MP Lalonde’s objection is not practicable, having regard for population. As the Commission noted, the existing Orléans riding is a significant +19.49% above the Quota. If adopted, MP Lalonde’s proposal would result in a similar deviation, which would be nearly double the largest regional deviation, Ottawa West—Nepean.[34] It would also be one of the largest deviations in the province. This is more problematic considering that Orléans boasts an annual growth rate of approximately 20%. Moreover, Cardinal Creek Village, which MP Lalonde proposes be moved into Orléans, is a new development, and is expected to experience population growth.

MP Lalonde’s community of interest arguments are not persuasive. There is no evidence to suggest that Blackburn Hamlet has a closer connection to Orléans than Ottawa—Vanier. In fact, at PROC MP Lalonde acknowledged that residents of Blackburn Hamlet “don’t even at this point refer to themselves as Ottawa or Orléans”, and that they “consider themselves one entity.”[35] That certain landmarks and parks that will be in Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester instead of Orléans, has no bearing on the ability of Orléans residents to access and enjoy these places and spaces. The Commission identified such concerns as “unnecessary” to the “consequences of redistribution.”[36] Further, that Francophone family-owned business will be in Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester rather than Orléans, should not have any real impact, from a Francophone perspective. Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester and Orléans both have substantial and similar Francophone populations of 27% and 31%, respectively.[37]

The Roberts Objection

We respectfully request that the Commission adopt MP Roberts objection. MP Roberts requests that the Commission transfer King Township’s Ward 6 from New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury to King—Vaughan. This minor adjustment will make King Township whole within the King—Vaughan riding. This adjustment is consistent with the approach that the Commission has taken of keeping municipalities whole, where reasonably possible.[38] Ward 6 has a population of only 1,165 residents[39]. Therefore, this proposed adjustment will have a negligible impact on the populations of King—Vaughan and New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, and no cascading effect.

The Sahota Objection

We respectfully submit that the riding boundaries drawn by the Commission for the Brampton area are reasonable. In our observation, the Commission had a difficult task in the Brampton area, having regard for the significant and uneven population growth. The deviation range relative to the Quota for the existing ridings in the Brampton area is a massive 49.6%.

MP Sahota is effectively asking the Commission to redraw the boundaries for the Brampton area to keep Springdale whole. The Commission noted, there were many different submissions relating to historical patterns and communities of interest to consider in Brampton. Making Springdale whole would effectively require the Commission to draw the other Brampton area ridings around Springdale, creating a cascading effect that would likely sever communities of interest and identity that the Commission appropriately accounted for in drawing the Brampton area map. MP Sahota’s request to prioritize Springdale over all other communities in Brampton is unreasonable. 

The Baldinelli, Lantsman, and Shipley Name Change Objections

We respectfully request the Commission to adopt the name changes proposed by MPs Baldinelli, Lantsman, and Shipley.

With respect to MP Baldinelli’s objection, we agree that a name change from Niagara North to Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake more accurately describes the riding. The proposed name includes the two municipalities in the riding. Moreover, as MP Baldinelli notes, the name Niagara North is confusing, because north Niagara transcends the riding.[40]

MP Lantsman notes that the Vaughan—Thornhill riding consists of both the City of Vaughan and the City of Markham, and yet only Vaughan is included in the riding name. The entirety of the riding encompasses an area that is known as Thornhill with residents identifying as Thornhillers.[41] Accordingly, the standalone name of Thornhill, in our opinion, is a better descriptor of the riding.

During the consultation process, MP Shipley had proposed changing the name of his riding by adding the word “North” to clarify that the riding consists of roughly the northern half of Barrie. The Commission accepted the substance of this submission. However, French translation issues necessitated the word “North” be placed after “Barrie”, and not before as MP Shipley proposed.[42] In his objection, MP Shipley states that he has heard local feedback that the new name is “cumbersome.”[43] Moreover, contrary to the intention, the new name creates confusion.[44] Accordingly, reverting to the riding’s existing name should be adopted.

Respectfully submitted,

John Nater, MP, Vice-Chair Perth—Wellington

Luc Berthold, MP Mégantic—L’Érable

Blaine Calkins, MP Red Deer—Lacombe

Michael Cooper, MP St. Albert—Edmonton