Ridings and Riding Reform [Archive]

View Full Version : Ridings and Riding Reform

bzmwillemsen

04-02-2011, 02:11 PM

Ridings and Riding Reform

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff482/bzmwillemsen/Ridings.png (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=211511865910035277267.00049ff2b30f38a2be35e&ll=43.483816,-80.48584&spn=0.649664,1.454315&z=10)
Larger Map (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=211511865910035277267.00049ff2b30f38a2be35e&ll=43.483816,-80.48584&spn=0.649664,1.454315&z=10)

In May of this year there will be a new census, and with the new census there will most likely be a review of ridings across Canada. There are a lot of people estimating that the Waterloo Region is expected to get 1 new riding due to the influx of population in the area.

Do you like the current riding setup?
Is the current riding setup fair for all?
Is the current riding setup free of partisanship?
Where do you think the new riding will be?

Populations:
Kitchener-Centre: 107,545 (http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=35037)
Kitchener-Waterloo: 126,740 (http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=35039)
Kitchener-Conestoga: 114,405 (http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=35038)
Cambridge: 129,435 (http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=35011)

dunkalunk

04-02-2011, 03:18 PM

bzmwillemsen

04-02-2011, 04:22 PM

Without knowing population distributions, I'm not sure how exactly the ridings should be redrawn, but I would like to see the urban cores of Kitchener and Waterloo represented in one riding with the rough boundaries of Westmount Road, Columbia Street, and Highway 85.

I also believe that the Kitchener--Waterloo Riding is too large for the actual number of people who are living there (I'm guesing 140 000-150 000).

In the OP the populations of the ridings are displayed at the end.
On average a riding in Canada has just over 105,000.
While the ideal size is 105,000.
See: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/riding-profiles.html

dunkalunk

04-02-2011, 06:14 PM

I meant more local, by neighbourhood, I guess I meant densities.

Haljackey

04-02-2011, 08:13 PM

I could see two ridings for Kitchener (east/west) and one for Waterloo. Any new riding will surely consume land in more than one of the existing ridings (ex use Highway 401 and/or Grand River as a diving line).

UrbanWaterloo

10-27-2011, 06:04 PM

Fair Representation Act Moves Every Province Towards Rep-By-Pop
October 27, 2011 | Government of Canada | Link (http://www.democraticreform.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=news-comm&doc=news-comm/20111027)

The Harper Government today announced the introduction of the Fair Representation Act. This legislation will move every province towards representation by population in the House of Commons.

“Canadians living in Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta have become significantly underrepresented as their populations have grown,” said Minister Uppal. “The Fair Representation Act delivers on our Government’s long-standing commitment and moves every single province towards the principle of representation by population.”

The Fair Representation Act updates the formula allocating House of Commons seats to provinces. Under the new legislation:

Ontario will receive an additional 15 seats
British Columbia will receive an additional 6 seats
Alberta will receive an additional 6 seats

The legislation also fulfils our platform commitment to prevent Quebec from becoming under-represented relative to its population, since the purpose of the bill is to move every single province towards representation by population. To this end, Quebec will receive three new seats which will be proportionate to its share of the population.

“Canadians gave our Government a strong mandate to move towards representation by population in the House of Commons,” said the Honourable Tim Uppal, Minister of State for Democratic Reform. “With the introduction of the Fair Representation Act, we are delivering on our commitments.”

The formula updates are nationally applicable and reflect the Government’s three distinct promises to provide fairer representation by:

Allocating an increased number of seats now and in the future to better reflect population growth in Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta; while,
Maintaining the number of seats for slower-growing provinces; and,
Maintaining the proportional representation of Quebec according to population.

The Fair Representation Act also includes amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act that streamlines the boundary readjustment process to ensure that it will be completed and in effect before the end of the Government’s mandate.

For information, contact: Kate Davis, Office of the Minister of State for Democratic Reform | (613) 943-1835

Backgrounder

The Fair Representation Act will update the constitutional formula for allocating seats in the House of Commons among the provinces. The Act legislates a principled, nationally-applicable formula used to determine seat counts; it does not legislate specific provincial seat numbers.

The readjustment formula has been updated by Parliament a number of times since Confederation. Each reformulation has sought to strike a balance between providing that provinces be represented in the House of Commons in a manner that is roughly proportional to their populations while ensuring that smaller or slower-growing provinces continue to be represented in a fair manner.

The constitutional formula for allocating seats updates the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons following each decennial census.

The Status-Quo Seat Allocation Formula

The current formula for allocating seats in the House of Commons among the provinces was passed by Parliament in the Representation Act, 1985. It is based on the following steps as outlined in section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867:

662

Step 1 is based generally on the principle of representation by population in determining an electoral quotient (which theoretically represents the average population per seat). The electoral quotient then divides the population of each province to determine the initial number of seats allocated to each province.

The formula set 279 as a permanent divisor in determining the electoral quotient. 279 was the number of provincial seats in the House of Commons at the time that the formula was passed in 1985. This divisor was not allowed to readjust over time to reflect the actual number of provincial seats in the House of Commons (which is currently 305).

Step 2 provides additional seats to certain provinces when the seat count determined under Step 1 is lower than the number of seats they are entitled to under one of two minimum seat guarantees outlined in the Constitution:

The “Senate floor”: Added in 1915 and outlined in section 51A of the Constitution Act, 1867, the senate floor guarantees that no province can have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it has Senators.
The “grandfather clause”: Added in 1985 and outlined in section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the grandfather clause guarantees that no province can be allocated a number of seats that is less than the number of seats it had in 1985.

Step 3 adds the provincial total seats and one seat for each territory to determine the total number of seats.

The combined effect of fixing the divisor at 279 and the seat guarantees to slower-growing provinces prevents faster-growing provinces from receiving a share of seats that is in line with their relative share of the population. Currently, all provinces except Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta benefit from a constitutionally-guaranteed seat floor.

While the current formula has tempered the rate of growth in the House of Commons, it has done so at the expense of provinces with faster-growing populations. Faster-growing provinces have accordingly become significantly and increasingly under‑represented in the House of Commons relative to their population and are likely to become even more under-represented in future seat reallocations with this formula.

The Updated Seat Allocation Formula

The updated allocation formula presented in the Fair Representation Act will move every province towards representation by population.

The Fair Representation Act is introduced pursuant to Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution in relation to the House of Commons under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (this was the same constitutional authority under which the existing formula was passed in 1985). The new formula supports the “principle of the proportionate representation of the provinces” that is entrenched in section 42(1)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

As set out in the diagram below, the Fair Representation Act proposes to introduce an updated seat allocation formula as follows:

The electoral quotient for the 2011 readjustment will be set at 111, 166, reflecting the average riding population prior to the last seat readjustment in 2001, increased by the simple average of provincial population growth rates.
The Senate floor and grandfather clause would continue to apply.
A representation rule would apply such that if a currently overrepresented province becomes underrepresented as a result of the application of the updated formula, additional seats would be allocated to that province so that its proportional representation according to population is protected.
For the purposes of calculating the provincial seat allocation, provincial populations are based on Statistics Canada’s annual population estimates. These estimates correct for net undercoverage in the census and provide a more accurate representation of total provincial population.

Readjustment following the 2011 Census:

663

As set out below, for the 2021 readjustment and each subsequent readjustment, the electoral quotient will be increased by the simple average of provincial population growth rates since the preceding readjustment.

Readjustments following the 2021 Census and onward:

664

Readjustment of Electoral Boundaries within Provinces

Where and how House of Commons seats are distributed within provinces is a separate and distinct process occurring after the number of seats per province is established.

Once the number of seats per province is established, the process set out in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is used to readjust and redistribute electoral boundaries within provinces. The readjustment of electoral boundaries is taken in accordance with census data, which provides population counts at the geographic level that are necessary to most accurately revise electoral boundaries.

Currently, within 60 days of the receipt of census return, independent non-partisan boundary commissions are established in each province. The commissions have one year to produce an initial report setting out proposed boundaries and names for ridings, during which time they carry out public consultations on their proposals.

Once the reports are finalized, the Chief Electoral Officer prepares a draft representation order, which is forwarded to the responsible Minister and proclaimed by the Governor in Council. The order becomes effective on the first dissolution of Parliament that occurs at least one year after the proclamation is issued. Under the current timelines set out in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, approximately 30 to 38 months are necessary following the release of the census results to complete the readjustment process.

Updates to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

The Fair Representation Act includes several updates to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act aimed at streamlining the boundary readjustment process:

commissions would be established no later than six months following the census, or within 60 days of the census results being released, whichever comes first;
The notice period for public hearings will be set at 30 days. Additionally, although persons interested in making submissions at public hearings would still need to provide commissions with a notice of intent, commissions would have the option of waiving this requirement if it was considered in the public interest;
The timeline for the commissions to produce their reports would be streamlined to 10 months, with a possible two month extension; and
The time period for the implementation of the representation order would be reduced to seven months.

Backgrounder - Seat Projections

Readjustment following the 2011 Census:

<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4"> <tbody><tr> <td rowspan="3">Province</td> <td rowspan="3">Population estimate* (% share of combined provincial population)</td> <td colspan="2" rowspan="2">House of Commons - Current Seats</td> <td colspan="2">After 2011 Readjustment</td> <td colspan="2">After 2011 Readjustment</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">Status Quo (1985 Formula)</td> <td colspan="2">Fair Representation Act Formula</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">Seats</td> <td valign="bottom">% of Seats</td> <td valign="bottom">Seats</td> <td valign="bottom">% of Seats</td> <td valign="bottom">Seats</td> <td valign="bottom">% of Seats</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">Ontario </td> <td valign="bottom">38.91</td> <td valign="bottom">106</td> <td valign="bottom">34.75</td> <td valign="bottom">109</td> <td valign="bottom">34.94</td> <td valign="bottom">121</td> <td valign="bottom">36.12</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">Quebec </td> <td valign="bottom">23.22</td> <td valign="bottom">75</td> <td valign="bottom">24.59</td> <td valign="bottom">75</td> <td valign="bottom">24.04</td> <td valign="bottom">78</td> <td valign="bottom">23.28</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">British Columbia </td> <td valign="bottom">13.31</td> <td valign="bottom">36</td> <td valign="bottom">11.8</td> <td valign="bottom">37</td> <td valign="bottom">11.86</td> <td valign="bottom">42</td> <td valign="bottom">12.54</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">Alberta </td> <td valign="bottom">11</td> <td valign="bottom">28</td> <td valign="bottom">9.18</td> <td valign="bottom">31</td> <td valign="bottom">9.94</td> <td valign="bottom">34</td> <td valign="bottom">10.15</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">Manitoba </td> <td valign="bottom">3.64</td> <td valign="bottom">14</td> <td valign="bottom">4.59</td> <td valign="bottom">14</td> <td valign="bottom">4.49</td> <td valign="bottom">14</td> <td valign="bottom">4.18</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">Saskatchewan </td> <td valign="bottom">3.08</td> <td valign="bottom">14</td> <td valign="bottom">4.59</td> <td valign="bottom">14</td> <td valign="bottom">4.49</td> <td valign="bottom">14</td> <td valign="bottom">4.18</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">Nova Scotia </td> <td valign="bottom">2.75</td> <td valign="bottom">11</td> <td valign="bottom">3.61</td> <td valign="bottom">11</td> <td valign="bottom">3.53</td> <td valign="bottom">11</td> <td valign="bottom">3.28</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">New Brunswick </td> <td valign="bottom">2.2</td> <td valign="bottom">10</td> <td valign="bottom">3.28</td> <td valign="bottom">10</td> <td valign="bottom">3.21</td> <td valign="bottom">10</td> <td valign="bottom">2.99</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">Newfoundland and Labrador</td> <td valign="bottom">1.49</td> <td valign="bottom">7</td> <td valign="bottom">2.3</td> <td valign="bottom">7</td> <td valign="bottom">2.24</td> <td valign="bottom">7</td> <td valign="bottom">2.09</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">Prince Edward Island </td> <td valign="bottom">0.42</td> <td valign="bottom">4</td> <td valign="bottom">1.31</td> <td valign="bottom">4</td> <td valign="bottom">1.28</td> <td valign="bottom">4</td> <td valign="bottom">1.19</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">Provincial Total</td> <td valign="bottom">100%</td> <td valign="bottom">305</td> <td valign="bottom">100%</td> <td valign="bottom">312</td> <td valign="bottom">100%</td> <td valign="bottom">335</td> <td valign="bottom">100%</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">Territories</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">3</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">3</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">3</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom">Total</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">308</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">315</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">338</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
* Based on Statistics Canada’s Population Estimates as at July 1, 2011

UrbanWaterloo

12-15-2011, 01:53 PM

Adding seats to House of Commons a political windfall for Tories
December 15, 2011 | John Ibbitson | Globe and Mail | Link (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/adding-seats-to-house-of-commons-a-political-windfall-for-tories/article2271940/)

The Senate will pass the legislation enlarging the House of Commons by 30 seats either Thursday or Friday. By the weekend, it should have royal assent. This matters a lot.

Elections Canada has warned that unless the law is enacted by the New Year, it might not be able to take the new seats into account in time for the 2015 election. But now we know those new seats, created to give the growing parts of the country more equal representation, will be in place.

Each provincial elections commission will decide where the new ridings go. But your correspondent decided to get a jump on things, by identifying clumps of seats, each with populations of 110,000 or more, in the provinces that will get the new ridings. It’s from these clumps of large seats that new seats are most likely to be carved.

...

But the tri-city area of Guelph, Cambridge and Kitchener-Waterloo gets bluer with every election, and the Tories should be expected to pick up the extra seat that the technology triangle generates.

...

UrbanWaterloo

08-27-2012, 02:40 PM

Commission Redraws the Federal Electoral Map of Ontario
August 27, 2012 | Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario | Link (http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/content.asp?section=on&dir=media&document=aug2712&lang=e)

The Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario has proposed a new electoral map for consideration at public hearings this fall. Ontario will gain 15 electoral districts as a result of the increase in its population from 11,410,046 in 2001 to 12,851,821, as captured in the 2011 Census.

The proposed new electoral districts are located in the following areas: Brampton (2), Cambridge, Durham (2), Hamilton, Markham (2), Mississauga, Oakville, Ottawa, Simcoe, Toronto (2) and York. As well, despite a slight population decline, the commission has maintained 10 electoral districts in Northern Ontario as a minimum for its effective representation.

"Population shifts and increases, efforts to honour existing municipal boundaries whenever possible, and the establishment of 15 new electoral districts have required substantial adjustment to Ontario's electoral map," said the Honourable Mr. Justice George Valin, chair of the three-member commission. Mr. Douglas Colbourne and Dr. Leslie Pal are the other members of the commission responsible for readjusting the province's federal electoral boundaries.

Under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the commission's main aim in redrawing boundaries is to divide the province into electoral districts as close to the average population as reasonably possible. The population of a district should remain within 25% of the average once consideration is given to communities of interest or identity, and historical and geographic factors. A commission can depart from the 25% guideline to deal with extraordinary circumstances.

The commission makes final decisions about where the electoral boundaries will be located after consultation, giving the public and members of Parliament an opportunity to express their views and participate in the process.

To consult the proposal online, visit www.federal-redistribution.ca; to obtain a copy, contact the commission (see contact information below).

Public hearings

Residents of Ontario are invited to share their views on the proposed federal electoral map at the following public hearings:
KENORA, Best Western Lakeside Inn & Conference Centre, Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.
THUNDER BAY, Best Western Plus Nor'Wester Hotel & Conference Centre, Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.
SUDBURY, City Hall, Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.
NEW LISKEARD, Riverside Place, Monday, October 15, 2012 at 1:00 p.m.
NORTH BAY, Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites, Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.
BARRIE, City Hall, Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.
RICHMOND HILL, Sheraton Parkway Toronto North Hotel & Suites, Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. and Friday, October 19, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
WINDSOR, Holiday Inn Downtown Windsor, Monday, October 22, 2012 at 1:00 p.m.
LONDON, Four Points by Sheraton, Tuesday, October 23, 2012 at 1:00 p.m.
CAMBRIDGE, City Hall, Wednesday, October 24, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.
HAMILTON, Crowne Plaza Hamilton Hotel & Conference Centre, Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.
HAMILTON, Courtyard by Marriott Hamilton Hotel, Friday, October 26, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
NIAGARA FALLS, City Hall, Monday, October 29, 2012 at 1:00 p.m.
OAKVILLE, Holiday Inn & Suites, Tuesday, October 30, 2012 at 1:00 p.m.
MISSISSAUGA, Central Library, Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
BRAMPTON, Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott, Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. and Friday, November 2, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
OTTAWA, Hampton Inn & Conference Centre, Monday, November 5, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. and Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
KINGSTON, Radisson Hotel Kingston Harbourfront, Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
BELLEVILLE, Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites, Thursday, November 8, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. and Friday, November 9, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
COBOURG, Best Western Plus Cobourg Inn & Convention Centre, Monday, November 12, 2012 at 1:00 p.m.
OSHAWA, Quality Hotel & Conference Centre, Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.
TORONTO, North York Civic Centre, Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
TORONTO, Metro Hall, Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 11:30 a.m.Everyone is invited to attend. For complete address information for public hearings, visit www.federal‑redistribution.ca under Ontario > Public Hearings. Those wishing to make a presentation at a hearing are requested to send the commission written notice no later than October 1.

Notices of presentation should include:
the person's name, address and contact information
the organization he/she represents (if any)
the date of the public hearing he/she wishes to attend
a short overview of the issue(s) he/she intends to address
the official language of preference
any accommodation needs the person may have
Written notice can be sent by e-mail to ontario@rfed-rcf.ca or by mail to the address below. Alternatively, the Public Hearings Notice Form can be filled out online at www.federal‑redistribution.ca under Ontario > Public Hearings.

Learn more about the redistribution of federal electoral districts at www.federal‑redistribution.ca.

Existing Local Ridings

http://wonderfulwaterloo.com/wdrive/Politics/Federal/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution%20-%20August%202012%20-%20Exisiting.jpg

Proposed Local Ridings

http://wonderfulwaterloo.com/wdrive/Politics/Federal/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution%20-%20August%202012%20-%20Proposed.jpg

Cambridge

Population 2011: 126,748

Consisting of that part of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo comprised of the City of Cambridge.

http://wonderfulwaterloo.com/wdrive/Politics/Federal/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution%20-%20August%202012%20-%20Cambridge.jpg

Kitchener South - North Dumfries - Brant

Population 2011: 108,391

Consisting of:

(a) that part of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo comprised of:

(i) the Township of North Dumfries;
(ii) that part of the City of Kitchener lying southerly and westerly of a line described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the westerly limit of said city with Conestoga Parkway; thence generally northeasterly along said parkway to Highway No. 8; thence generally southeasterly along said highway to the Grand River; thence generally easterly along said river to the easterly limit of the City of Kitchener; and

(b) that part of the County of Brant lying northerly of a line described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the westerly limit of said county with Highway No. 403; thence generally easterly along said highway to the westerly limit of the City of Brantford; thence northerly, generally easterly and generally southeasterly along the westerly, northerly and easterly limits of said city to Highway No. 403; thence easterly along said highway to the easterly limit of said county.

http://wonderfulwaterloo.com/wdrive/Politics/Federal/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution%20-%20August%202012%20-%20Kitchener%20South%20-%20North%20Dumfries%20-%20Brant.jpg

Kitchener Conestoga

Population 2011: 101,432

Consisting of that part of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo comprised of:

(a) the townships of Wellesley, Wilmot and Woolwich; and

(b) that part of the City of Kitchener lying easterly and northerly of a line described as follows: commencing at the intersection of Bridgeport Road and Conestoga Parkway; thence southeasterly, easterly and generally southerly along said parkway to Highway No. 8; thence generally southeasterly along said highway to the Grand River; thence generally easterly along said river to the easterly limit of said city.

http://wonderfulwaterloo.com/wdrive/Politics/Federal/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution%20-%20August%202012%20-%20Kitchener-Conestoga.jpg

Kitchener Centre

Population 2011: 92,946

Consisting of that part of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo comprised of that part of the City of Kitchener lying westerly and northerly of Conestoga Parkway.

http://wonderfulwaterloo.com/wdrive/Politics/Federal/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution%20-%20August%202012%20-%20Kitchener%20Centre.jpg

Waterloo

Population 2011: 98,780

Consisting of that part of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo comprised of the City of Waterloo.

http://wonderfulwaterloo.com/wdrive/Politics/Federal/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution/Federal%20Electoral%20Districts%202012%20Redistrib ution%20-%20August%202012%20-%20Waterloo.jpg

dunkalunk

08-27-2012, 04:53 PM

I certainly like that Waterloo and Cambridge now have their own ridings, but I am curious as why there was not more of an attempt to make the urban areas of Kitchener (pop 219,000 as of 2011 census) more contiguous. You could fit most of Kitchener within 2 ridings as opposed to carving it up into 3.

I would have preferred something more along the lines of this: http://goo.gl/maps/98l6d

KevinL

08-27-2012, 06:33 PM

I agree with Dunk: Kitchener needs to be more contiguous. I'm not sure what that means for the townships, but the triple-split proposed defies clear logic.

Smore

08-27-2012, 09:01 PM

not only that, but S. Kitchener now extends to Brantford??

dunkalunk

08-27-2012, 10:37 PM

Well I've updated my map (http://goo.gl/maps/98l6d) gave it my best shot...

1400

And zoomed in on K-W-C

1401

I've included the Pioneer Park-Sportsworld-Toyota area in the larger Waterloo Region Riding as this area is still largely rural, add population to to the townships riding, and to improve Cambridge's representation slightly.

KingandOttawa

08-28-2012, 08:53 AM

From a Waterloo Region perspective, these maps make more sense to me. The big question is whether they are justified by the population especially the rural riding around Brantford. My guess is that there aren't enough people in that area which is why we have the current proposal. But maybe that area is better affiliated with another community where it has a more natural connection.

Don

11-12-2012, 05:58 PM

After receiving feedback in the public consultation sessions, the commission has now changed some of its proposals for ridings in the Waterloo Region area. It will have another public consultation session in Cambridge on Tuesday, November 20 at 9:30am in city hall to gather feedback about these new proposals.

This is from the description on the Federal Redistribution website, in the section "Additional public hearing in Cambridge"

The new proposed changes are pretty significant:

"The Commission was persuaded that a new electoral district proposed for the Cambridge area would be a better fit in the Halton region". This is in spite of the fact that, according to the 2011 census, Waterloo Region has a population of 507,000 and Halton Region has 502,000.
The proposed riding of Kitchener South–North Dumfries–Brant would be adjusted to include much less of the northern part of Brant County, no longer including Paris or St George. (This is a fairly minor change.)
The new proposal says that the riding of Kitchener–Conestoga will "be eliminated." However, as of the current information available on the website, this is only partially explained: Wellesley and Wilmot townships will be joined with Perth County into a riding of Perth–Wellesley–Wilmot, and Woolwich township will be joined with all of Wellington County (except Guelph) into a riding of Wellington–Woolwich. They don't say what will happen to the eastern part of the City of Kitchener that was supposed to be part of riding of Kitchener–Conestoga as they proposed it a few months ago.

About the "missing" eastern part of Kitchener, I guess that either they totally forgot about it and will need to re-revise their updated proposal, or they intend to go back to the old (current) ridings of Kitchener–Waterloo and Kitchener Centre but they forgot to mention that in the information currently on the website. Reverting to the old definitions of Kitchener–Waterloo and Kitchener Centre would geographically work with the rest of their updated proposals, but I don't think it would be justifiable - the 2011 population of the Kitchener–Waterloo riding is 130,000!

bzmwillemsen

11-19-2012, 01:50 PM

Here is a quick map I made of the new changes.
Note that Guelph will still be it's own riding.

http://goo.gl/maps/nKDsC

Edit: Looks like I forgot to link it, oops!

KevinL

11-19-2012, 02:11 PM

Here is a quick map I made of the new changes.

!!!

bzmwillemsen

11-19-2012, 10:34 PM

Fixed

mpd618

11-20-2012, 01:39 AM

When inner suburban areas of Kitchener are lumped in with mostly rural areas, you know there is some kind of gerrymandering going on.

markster

11-20-2012, 10:26 AM

Wow, Kitchener is subdivided into 4 separate ridings.

I always knew that those living on Ottawa St N had more in common with Fergus than they did with Fairway.

Don

11-20-2012, 11:49 AM

bzmwillemsen, do you have a source saying that the eastern part of Kitchener will be in the Wellington--Woolwich riding?

The most recent thing I've seen from the commission simply seems to have forgotten about eastern Kitchener. It says that the township of Woolwich will be grouped with Wellington (except Guelph) in a riding, but it doesn't say what will happen to eastern Kitchener.

I'm waiting to see what will come out of the public hearing held in Cambridge this morning.

---------- Post Merged at 11:49 AM ----------

Wow, Kitchener is subdivided into 4 separate ridings.

Markster, I don't think bzmwillemsen's map is completely precise. It is very useful to get an overview of the general shapes of the proposed ridings but I think that some of the borders are not precise. For example, unless there's been a very recent update that I don't know about, the Chicopee area of Kitchener is not part of the Cambridge riding. The Cambridge riding will consist of only the city of Cambridge.

For now, I think they have Kitchener divided among three ridings - Kitchener Centre, Kitchener South--North Dumfries--Brant, and the mysterious eastern Kitchener which, under the first proposal this summer, was to be part of the redefined Kitchener--Conestoga. As far as I know, it is now unclear where eastern Kitchener would fit in their updated proposal.

I hope their formal definitions of the new proposals will be published soon - so far they only have informal, undetailed descriptions of their updated proposal.

Update: Here is a map (https://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=215612120153888965501.0004cef03032f1a8b702 6&msa=0&ll=43.468868,-79.873352&spn=1.313578,2.900391) I created showing the updated ridings for this area. This map is not perfectly drawn, especially where the borders change a lot, so don't assume that every side street along the Kitchener and Waterloo border is on the correct side.

This is based on the official detailed proposal from August 27 (http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/content.asp?section=on&dir=media&document=aug2712&lang=e) and the informal less-detailed updated proposals from November 9 (http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/content.asp?section=on&dir=media&document=nov0912c&lang=e).

Edit: I had incorrectly referred to KevinL's map, but it is bzmwillemsen's map.

markster

11-20-2012, 12:26 PM

Thank you for clearing some of that up!

KevinL

11-20-2012, 11:54 PM

Just to clarify, Don, those maps are by bzwillemsen, not myself.

isUsername

11-21-2012, 12:41 AM

Thanks for drawing up the maps guys, but unfortunately they are not accurate. Here is the link to the maps on the official website: http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/content.asp?section=on&dir=now&document=index&lang=e#a2

As you can see, Kitchener Centre now extends east to the Grand River and south on the east side of highway 8, but no longer includes west of Fischer Hallman.

Don

11-21-2012, 11:21 AM

Thanks, isUsername! I think those maps are new or, at least, I didn't notice them before. I think they answer all the questions I had.

I have now updated my maps in Google Maps to incorporate the new information from those new hand-drawn maps on the Federal Redistribution website. I've also added population figures.

My updated riding maps. (https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215612120153888965501.0004cef03032f1a8b702 6&msa=0&ll=43.383593,-80.452194&spn=0.328862,0.725098)

Don

11-21-2012, 03:19 PM

Map of most recent proposal for Waterloo Region ridings from the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario. (I have tried my best, but cannot guarantee that this completely reflects the FEBC's proposal in all details.)
1552

WaterlooNative

11-22-2012, 01:20 PM

Out of curiosity, how who represents the current surrounding ridings? Is there a chance that taking MP Albrecht's Conservative supporters and adding them to the voter pool next door might swing the new riding one way or another?

Don

11-22-2012, 02:11 PM

OIs there a chance that taking MP Albrecht's Conservative supporters and adding them to the voter pool next door might swing the new riding one way or another?

Albrecht's riding is currently Kitchener—Conestoga. Under the current definition in effect in the House of Commons and during the past few elections, it includes the part of Kitchener south of Hwy 7/8 and west of Hwy 8, plus the townships of Wilmot, Wellesley, and Woolwich. In the 2011 Census, the population of the current riding of Kitchener—Conestoga was 130,937. The combined population of Wilmot, Wellesley, and Woolwich in the 2011 Census was 53,081, meaning that the "South Kitchener" part of Kitchener—Conestoga must contribute 77,856 to the population of the riding - 59.5%.

If the most recent proposals from the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission go into effect unchanged, I would assume that Albrecht would run in the riding of Kitchener South—North Dumfries. It seems like the most direct "successor" to Kitchener—Conestoga. Using 2011 population figures, the area of Kitchener South—North Dumfries has a population of 116,392. So "South Kitchener" makes up 66.9% of the population of the new riding.

So the new riding will be slightly more suburban/urban and less rural. But Albrecht won by a large enough margin that I don't think it would significantly swing the riding. Of course, the race could be close in the next election for other reasons and then the shift in population could make a difference but I don't think, in itself, the new riding would be substantially less "safe" for Albrecht.

dunkalunk

11-22-2012, 06:38 PM

Based on Ken Seiling's comments in The Record (http://www.therecord.com/opinion/columns/article/840238--don-t-dismember-waterloo-region-in-the-allocation-of-federal-seats) I have to agree that based on the Region's current population and it's projected increase, it makes a large amount of sense to keep the Region's ridings inside the region.

I've thus come up with an alternate map to do just that:

http://i48.tinypic.com/16iwaci.jpg

The ridings would be as follows:

CAMBRIDGE CENTRE
-The City of Cambridge excluding the part North of Highway 401 (Hespeler) and the Village of Blair.

DOON--HESPELER--CONESTOGA
-The townships of Woolwich, Wellesly, Wilmont, and North Dumfries.
-The part of Kitchener south of Huron Road, Homer-Watson Parkway, and the Grand River (Doon/Pioneer).
-The part of Cambridge north of Highway 401 (Hespeler).

WATERLOO
-The City of Waterloo.

KITCHENER CENTRE
-The City of Kitchener North and West of the Conestoga Expressway.

KITCHENER SOUTHEAST
-The City of Kitchener South and East of the Conestoga Expressway, North of Huron Road and Homer-Watson Blvd, and East of the Grand River to Victoria Street.

I have done my best to be sensitive to historical divisions, physical barriers, and urban-rural divides in both Kitchener and Cambridge. I've also attempted to evenly divide growth areas (both infill and greenfield) evenly between the ridings.

Harold Albrecht's Kitchener -- Conestoga riding would still be broken up but he would have the option of either running in the urban or rural sections.

I'll be sending this off to the comission for consideration shortly.

KevinL

11-22-2012, 07:15 PM

Very happy with that setup, myself. Thanks for laying it out, Dunk.

BuildingScout

11-22-2012, 07:36 PM

I'll be sending this off to the comission for consideration shortly.

Please do. This looks very good.

dunkalunk

11-22-2012, 08:13 PM

Please do. This looks very good.

Done.

If you're interested, I've also finalized the Google Map (http://goo.gl/maps/M6OtH)

Don

11-22-2012, 10:37 PM

dunkalunk, do you know if the populations of your proposed ridings should be roughly in-line with the target?

Your proposal seems to be a good improvement over the current official ones.

dunkalunk

11-22-2012, 11:58 PM

To be honest, I just guesstimated, but I should actually probably actually figure this out...

First off, let me note that the provincial quota is 106,213

I know for a fact that the 2011 population of KITCHENER CENTRE is 92,946 and the population of WATERLOO is 98,780 because they are the exact same electoral districts as proposed before.

The 2011 populations for the Region are as follows;

Wellesley 10,713
Wilmont 19,223
Woolwich 23,145
North Dumfries 9,334

Townships Total 62,415

Waterloo 98,780
Kitchener 219,153
Cambridge 126,748

Regional Total: 507,096

The rest is an estimation this point as I don't have access to detailed population data polling station by polling station.

(pardon me while I do some math)

Now subtracting the KITCHENER CENTRE population (92,946) from the City of Kitchener population (219,153) leaves 126,807.

So, lets say you take 23,000 people each from both Kitchener and Cambridge and then add them to the townships.

This would put the population of KITCHENER SOUTHEAST as 103,807
and the population of CAMBRIDGE CENTRE as 103,748

This will also give you an amount forDOON--HESPELER--CONESTOGA [The Townships]+[Section of South Kitchener]+[Section of North Cambridge] at 108,415

In the end, parts of Cambridge and Kitchener can be added and subtracted from the townships riding as need be.

OK, so to recap:

PROVINCIAL QUOTA =106,213

CAMBRIDGE CENTRE ~103,748
DOON--HESPELER--CONESTOGA ~108,415
KITCHENER CENTRE =92,946
KITCHENER SOUTHEAST ~103,807
WATERLOO =98,780

The lower population numbers in the cities leaves some nice buffer room for them to grow in the next 20 years.

Short Answer: They are pretty close, but I need more specific numbers to be sure.

bzmwillemsen

11-23-2012, 07:22 PM

My map was based off of both the original proposal and the less detailed update.
Like you I didn't know where East Kitchener was going so I kept it as it was in the original.

My map was obviously drawn very quickly to get a rough outline of how the ridings would look. Your map is a much better representation of what I was trying to acheive, good work :)

dunkalunk

11-25-2012, 09:35 AM

I encourage everyone giving this thread a passing glance (if you haven't already) to email the commission with your feedback concerning the electoral district redistribution.

Send it to:

ontario@rfed-rcf.ca

Recommended CCs:

Kseiling@regionofwaterloo.ca,
stephen.woodworth@parl.gc.ca,
peter.braid@parl.gc.ca,
harold.albrecht@parl.gc.ca,
gary.goodyear@parl.gc.ca

I also wonder; would it be worthwhile to hold our own public open house concerning this issue?

Don

02-01-2013, 11:26 AM

We'll have to wait until as late as about February 21 to find out if Waterloo Region really will be getting an additional riding, and what the layout will be.

The final report for the Ontario boundary commission will be delayed. It was supposed to be submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer by December 21, 2012, but they have been granted a two-month extension.

From The Hill Times:

[T]he Quebec and Ontario boundary commissions, which are adding three and 15 seats respectively, requested and have been granted a two-month extension on the deadline for their reports—both reports are now due by Feb. 21, 2013. Elections Canada spokesperson Diane Benson said these extensions would not effect the timeline set out by the agency, which indicates that by June 2013 the commissions will be considering the objections and recommendations to be received in reports from the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, among other things.

FYI, after the commission submits their final report to the Chief Electoral Officer, it goes to the House of Commons, where a committee will study it and, by June, return it to the boundary commission with their objections and comments. The commission will review the comments and objections from the House committee and can make some changes to their report before submitting the final version to the Chief Electoral Officer to be implemented. The commission is under no legal obligation to make any changes just because the House committee requests it.

Don

02-25-2013, 04:00 PM

The Ontario federal boundary commission's report (http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/content.asp?section=on&dir=now/reports&document=index&lang=e) has been submitted to Parliament.

This report does give Waterloo Region its extra riding, a fifth one. It is mostly a complete step back from their interim proposal in November that would have split off the townships of Wilmot, Woolwich, and Wellesley and grouped them with Perth and Wellington counties. However, it does group the Bridgeport area of Kitchener into the Waterloo riding.

It has something like the Doon--Hespeler--Conestoga riding that dunkalunk proposed. Well, it does group South Kitchener with Hespeler, but the more I look into it the more I see differences from dunkalunk's Doon--Hespeler--Conestoga. South Kitchener--Hespeler includes a lot of Kitchener.

The new Kitchener--Conestoga is the three northern townships of Waterloo Region plus the strip of Kitchener that is west of Fischer-Hallman.

Here is a map I've created in Google Maps of the proposed ridings in Waterloo Region (http://goo.gl/maps/21xRU).

1665 (http://goo.gl/maps/21xRU)

Cambridge. Pop 111,693
Kitchener Centre. Pop 102,433
Kitchener—Conestoga. Pop 93,827
Kitchener South—Hespeler. Pop 97,673
Waterloo. Pop 103,192

The next steps, as I said in an earlier comments, are:

it goes to the House of Commons, where a committee will study it and, by June, return it to the boundary commission with their objections and comments. The commission will review the comments and objections from the House committee and can make some changes to their report before submitting the final version to the Chief Electoral Officer to be implemented. The commission is under no legal obligation to make any changes just because the House committee requests it.

KevinL

02-25-2013, 07:13 PM

Now THAT is quite reasonable. I look forward to being a Kitchner South-Hespeler constituent.

Brenden

02-25-2013, 09:53 PM

Interesting to see so much of South Kitchener becoming part of a "rural" riding

Don

02-25-2013, 10:44 PM

Brenden, are you referring to Kitchener--Conestoga? It is actually a much smaller part of Kitchener that is part of this newly-proposed riding of Kitchener--Conestoga than is part of the current riding of Kitchener--Conestoga that we have today.

If you mean South Kitchener--Hespeler, I wouldn't call that a rural riding overall.

dunkalunk

02-26-2013, 06:43 PM

Thanks for putting up the Google Map Don!

I'd personally call the new Cambridge riding Cambridge - Dumfries to reflect the inclusion of areas of South Dumfries added to the Cambridge riding.

Kitchener South - Hespeler is what I'd call a mix of suburban and rural.

In this proposal, Kitchener is still divided between 4 ridings.

From the newly proposed ridings, (barring a major political shift or scandal) the Conservatives look to have two guaranteed seats in Cambridge and Kitchener-Conestoga and a good shot at Kitchener South - Hespeler. Waterloo and Kitchener Centre are completely up in the air as to who would take them in a future election; the current Kitchener-Waterloo is held by NDP provincially and Conservative Nationally.

Hopefully, this will be the last time we will see single-member districts redrawn. There is a push in Ottawa by the current opposition parties for a different kind of representation. I recently saw a debate in Waterloo which had Stephane Dion pitch his P3 (proportional, preferential, personalized) voting system which combines elements of STV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote) and Proportional representation. 3 to 7 candidates are elected per district and district sizes would be increased to ensure that current seat counts do not change.

I've visualized an example of what this would mean for riding size in SW Ontario here: http://goo.gl/maps/DgRtp
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBpPe-rCAAAphDw.jpg:large

Scribbler

03-02-2013, 10:58 AM

I don't know if voting reform is really that imminent or even likely. Everyone says they want it when they're not benefiting from the current system, but once they're able to do something about it, suddenly the current system seems just find.

I like the new ridings quite a bit though. They're not perfect, but perfect was never a realistic option. My vote, like those of a few thousand fellow suburbanites west of Fischer-Hallman, won't count for much -- but it's still far better than having everybody south or east of the Expressway in that situation.

BuildingScout

03-02-2013, 03:31 PM

I like the new ridings quite a bit though. They're not perfect, but perfect was never a realistic option. My vote, like those of a few thousand fellow suburbanites west of Fischer-Hallman, won't count for much -- but it's still far better than having everybody south or east of the Expressway in that situation.

The way that part of town is growing it won't be long before the riding is considered urban.

Don

05-23-2013, 03:28 PM

The House of Common's Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs has been studying the Ontario federal boundary commission's report that was submitted in late February. This consists of hearing objections from MPs and then the committee will send their report of objections and their recommended changes back to the Ontario federal boundary commission. The commission will update their report based on the House Affairs committee's feedback - although they are under no obligation to do what the committee says - and send the final report to the Chief Electoral Officer, and that will define the boundaries to be used in the next federal election.

Stephen Woodworth, the MP for Kitchener Centre, was the only Waterloo Region MP to make a presentation to the committee. On April 30, he met with them and suggested some changes to the proposed border between the new Kitchener Centre and Kitchener South -- Hespeler. You can read the transcript here. He refers to a map that he had at the meeting showing his proposed change but, unfortunately, it is not available online. From the transcript, I can't determine what the exact changes he proposes are.

Based on the discussion and the questions asked by committee members of different parties, it seems like his requested changes are relatively small and are uncontroversial and not perceived as partisan. I think that they consist of jiggering the border somewhere near the Chicopee area, to move some older neighbourhoods into Kitchener Centre that have stronger historical ties to Kitchener Centre, and to move some new development areas into Kitchener South--Hespeler.

By the end of June, I expect that the House Affairs committee will have released their report, which should describe more precisely what Woodworth's proposal is.

Don

06-13-2013, 12:00 PM

There could be a minor adjustment to the proposed boundary between the new Kitchener Centre riding and the new riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler.

The House of Commons House Affairs committee has published their report of recommended changes for Ontario's new federal ridings (http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6223962&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1). As the independent boundaries commission considers this report and finalizes the new federal electoral map for Ontario this summer, it will be up to them to decide if they will make any of the changes suggested here by the House Affairs Committee.

The House Affairs committee endorses a suggestion from Stephen Woodworth that swaps land between the ridings of Kitchener Centre and Kitchener South—Hespeler. It transfers the Chicopee area from Kitchener South—Hespeler into Kitchener Centre and transfers the "Grand River South" area (the neighbourhood around Zeller Dr and Natchen Hill Park) from Kitchener Centre to the Kitchener South—Hespeler riding. You can read the full details of Woodworth's suggested change on pages 9 and 10 of the report.

According to Mr. Woodworth, his proposal would place undeveloped portions of this part of south
Kitchener, which are slated for development, into the proposed electoral district of Kitchener
South–Hespeler, a new riding, while maintaining the unity of developed, established
neighbourhoods, by placing these in the proposed electoral district of Kitchener Centre.

I have created a map in Google Maps showing this new proposal (https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215612120153888965501.0004df0a7e9df9e48aff 7&msa=0).
1960 (https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215612120153888965501.0004df0a7e9df9e48aff 7&msa=0)

For comparison, here is my older map (https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215612120153888965501.0004d692d9c1c607b1c7 6&msa=0) showing the proposed riding boundaries as submitted by the commission to Parliament in February.

1961

Under this proposal, both ridings would have a variance well within the maximum allowable
deviation from the provincial quota. Further, according to Mr. Woodworth, these deviations would
be in line with predicted future growth trends for that part of south Kitchener, and would leave the
riding which is more likely to experience future growth with a slightly larger negative deviation
from the province’s electoral quota. This outcome would be in line with the Commission’s Report,
in which it is stated that the Commission was cognizant of projected population growth in the
region surrounding Kitchener and established electoral districts in these regions of the province that
provided some flexibility for such growth.

The Committee finds Mr. Woodsworth’s proposal to be minor yet logical, and to be in line with
rules as provided for by section 15 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. As such, the
Committee supports Mr. Woodsworth’s proposal, and recommends the electoral boundaries be
adjusted accordingly.

Gary Goodyear, MP for Cambridge, also suggested changes to the proposal that the boundaries commission had submitted to Parliament. He wants Hespeler to remain part of the same riding as the rest of Cambridge. His suggestion is not endorsed by the House Affairs committee but, like all the feedback that they got from MPs, it is included in the report.

According to Mr. Goodyear, Hespeler’s community of interest is with Cambridge, of which it is a
vital part. He indicated that in 1973, the communities of Hespeler, Galt and Preston were
amalgamated under the Cambridge name. The new city spent a great deal of time and effort to
bring unity to Cambridge and overcome the resistance felt by these communities to the
amalgamation. Mr. Goodyear indicated that, in his view, removing Hespeler from the electoral
district of Cambridge would add to this historic tension, causing further division in the city

The population of Cambridge would rise from 111,693 (5.16% above the provincial quota) to
136,648 (28.65% above the provincial quota).

You can find the full details of Goodyear's proposal on pages 9 and 10 of the committee's report.

Notes about process: This report with the House of Commons's recommended changes to the Ontario federal electoral boundaries commission's proposal is non-binding. In several weeks, the commission will publish their final report. Based on the final reports that have already been produced by the federal boundaries commissions for other provinces, the commission will likely accept some of the suggestions from the House of Commons and incorporate those in their final report, but they will also reject several suggestions. Whatever report the boundaries commission decides to submit to the Chief Electoral Officer this summer will be the next federal electoral map for Ontario.