Is anybody going to be attending the depositions at Metro Hall this Thursday? I am going to speak about the map for Central Toronto - namely, TC/T-S/Mount Pleasant/St. Paul's. My deputation welcomes the breaking up of TC and the removal of territory north of Bloor; Rosedale and Yorkville have a community of interest with what is now the eastern half of St. Paul's. However instead of Wellesley - which violates the community of interest principle by splitting Church and Wellesley in half, our suggestion is to have the boundary go down to Dundas west of Yonge and then up to Bloor east of Yonge. The Bay Corridor above Dundas is more of a "midtown" community socially and economically while Church and Wellesley has more of a community of interest with "downtown" communities.
Electoral Maps 5
There's a big push for the creation for a waterfront riding - backed by both Rosario Marchese and Carolyn Bennett - rather than Mount Pleasant.
Olivia Chow made a rather incoherent presentation calling to keep the Annex and Seaton Village in Trinity-Spadina and remove everything south of Front St. from Trinity-Spadina with everything east of Bathurst going to Toronto Centre and everything west going either to either Davenport or Parkdale-High Park (it wasn't clear).
A lot of people in the Annex spoke out against the moving of the Annex into St. Paul's, saying that the CPR tracks at Dupont represented this great physical barrier and suggested that the condos should be taken out instead. They frankly made a lot of ignorant statements about condo residents in the south as some sort of monolithic bloc.
Kristyn Wong-Tam stated that the boundary between TC and Mount Pleasant be moved from Wellesley to Charles St. so the village would not be split in two ridings. She said this boundary suggestion was backed by both Glen Murray and Pam McConnell.
The most powerful presentation in my opinion was that of John Goyeau on behalf of the Toronto Centre NDP. The boundary proposal was rather similar to my own (Dundas west of Yonge and Bloor east of Yonge), but he had several more minor suggestions that would keep most of Church-Wellesley together. The TC deputation is available online (google "John Goyeau NDP"). The president of the TC NDP also spoke out against the watefront riding idea.
The CPR "barrier" argument is a bit disingenuous. Nobody has an objecton to it in the present Davenport or TC (and no matter how you slice it the ridings will almost certainly cross the tracks in both the proposed Mount Pleasant and revised Davenport.) Why does it matter so much more in Trinity-Spadina/St. Paul's?
I am against a waterfront-centric riding and prefer the Mount Pleasant/TC split for 2 reasons:
1.) The population of the area south of Queen between Dufferin/Atlantic and the Don River was 73,825 in the 2011 census, far too small to justify a riding. You'd have to stretch it further north and all that would do is send a lot more south of Bloor territory into a riding with Rosedale etc. - exacerbating the problem of lack of communities of interest.
2.) The socioeconomic divide and community of interest is VASTLY greater between north and south of Bloor in the present Toronto Centre than between the Annex and the present St. Paul's. In TC, north of Bloor you have wealthy homeowners in Rosedale and south of Bloor it is predominantly made up of tenants in high rises and a huge low income population (ward 28 has the highest poverty rate of all city wards). Since the 1930s, the poor neighborhoods just east of downtown have had to be part of a riding (for most its history) insultingly called "Rosedale." Progressives for years have fought for fair representation and this is a big step in the right direction.
I'm also frankly dumbfounded why nobody in the NDP wants to defend the proposed St. Paul's, which is now winnable for the NDP. I can understand why the Liberals however want a waterfront riding as they'd have the edge in 3 of the 4 central Toronto ridings while the proposed map packs their support into Mount Pleasant.
I'm also frankly dumbfounded why nobody in the NDP wants to defend the proposed St. Paul's, which is now winnable for the NDP.
Maybe it's under the chicken presumption that the Liberals will make it too winnable for themselves, esp. if Carolyn Bennett runs again...
As I've written before in this topic, the proposed downtown Toronto ridings are about as favourable for the NDP as we could hope for. We would have won Toronto Centre by about 1% and St Paul's by about 3%. Trinity-Spadina would have remained safe.
Granted the Gay Village should not be split but that requires only a minor adjustment. Yet Olivia and others in the NDP seem to demand changes that would make St Paul's unwinable and imperil our chances in TC, all without materially improving our position in T-S.
Very disappointing they can be so stategically blind.
Maybe it's under the chicken presumption that the Liberals will make it too winnable for themselves, esp. if Carolyn Bennett runs again...
Carolyn Bennett lives in Chaplin Estates so she may opt to run in the safer Mount Pleasant.
As I've written before in this topic, the proposed downtown Toronto ridings are about as favourable for the NDP as we could hope for. We would have won Toronto Centre by about 1% and St Paul's by about 3%. Trinity-Spadina would have remained safe.
Granted the Gay Village should not be split but that requires only a minor adjustment. Yet Olivia and others in the NDP seem to demand changes that would make St Paul's unwinable and imperil our chances in TC, all without materially improving our position in T-S.
Very disappointing they can be so stategically blind.
The Commission is still accepting letters for a few more days. Their e-mail address is: [email protected]
It's remarkable what happens when you put in charge a Northern Ontario judge who was a city council member for seven years, a lawyer since 1970 and judge since 1990 (nothing to prove at this point). His commission gives priority to community of interest. He doesn't insists on staying within 10%, or even 15%. Look at their latest revised proposals:
Brant: 132,454 (they started with 115,901, but the public wanted more of the county kept together, and it currently has 137,102 people): 24.7% over quotient.
Niagara Falls: 128,357 (they started with 98,397, but no one liked shifting Fort Erie into Welland): 20.8% over quotient.
Niagara West: 86,528 (they started with 115,563, but no one liked shifting Thorold into Niagara West): 19.5% under quotient.
And when the government gives the public and the Commission shorter, inadequate, timelines, they make decisions on the road, and schedule a partial second round of hearings to consider new alternatives for 15 of the 121 ridings. Pundits have suggested a second round for decades, with no legislative action. So these guys did it themselves.
Brilliant!
Someone in the Conservative Party must have gotten to the Electoral Commission here in N.S.
The first proposal would have seen a Conservative-friendly section at the very western end of South Shore-St. Margaret's put into Southwest Nova (helping the Conservatives greatly in keeping this traditional swing seat from going back to the Liberals) while adding a very NDP-friendly section from Halifax West (thus helping to keep the NDP from defeating the Liberal there). This would've greatly increased the NDP's chances of winning S.S.S.M.
However, now that western section is to remain in S.S.S.M.
Looks like the Cons want to prevent the NDP from winning either riding.
Interesting how all the comments here are about a small number of metropolitan communities.
We Canadians don't all live in metropolitan areas the size of Winnipeg or larger. In fact, only half of us do.
Analyzing the results of the 2011 Canadian census, 50.3% of us live in the top eight metropoltian areas: Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa - Gatineau, Calgary, Edmonton, Québec, and Winnipeg. The NHL cities (well, if the Nordiques can be brought back).
The other 49.7% of us don't. Where do we live?
The typical resident of the other half of Canada lives in an area of 55,000 people. I took Statistics Canada figures for "census agglomeration areas" (like metropolitan areas these include suburbs, but under 100,000 they are not called metropolitan). Courtenay (B.C.) has 55,213 people, and 24.9% of us live in places smaller than that. Another 24.9% of us live in the 50 places like Courtenay or larger, smaller than Winnipeg.
The typical places where "the other half" lives include Grande Prairie (Alta.) with 55,032, Cornwall (Ont.) with 58,957, Brandon (Man.) with 53,229, and Saint-Hyacinthe (Que.) with 56,794. Going further afield, in Atlantic Canada are Charlottetown (P.E.I.) with 64,487 and Truro (N.S.) with 45,888.
They are growing. In the five years from 2006 to 2011, Courtenay grew 7.5%, Grande Prairie 16.8%, Cornwall 0.8%, Brandon 10.3%, Saint-Hyacinthe 3.3%, Charlottetown 8.7%, Truro 1.8%.
They are urban. Courtenay is 80% urban, Grande Prairie is 99.8% urban, Cornwall 84% urban, Brandon 87% urban, Saint-Hyacinthe 86% urban, Charlottetown 70% urban, and Truro 51% urban.
Many of us can identify with such areas. The Cobourg/Port Hope/West Northumberland area where I live has 58,594 people, 56% urban. We don't have an NHL team, but we support our own daily newspaper, hospital, and all the other community institutions we need.
Like most of the other half of Canada.
Communities over 56,000 people invariably are the centre of their own riding, until you get up to Prince George B.C. (84,232) and Red Deer Alta. (90,564) which each centre two ridings.
But poor Courtenay B.C. (55,213) is proposed to be split between two ridings: VANCOUVER ISLAND NORTH centred on Campbell River (36,096), and NANAIMO--ALBERNI centred on Parksville (27,822) and Port Alberni (25,465).
Duncan, BC (43,252) is a winner. Until now, it has been part of Nanaimo--Cowichan. The south half of that riding, centred on Duncan, is proposed to join some Victoria suburbs in the new SOUTH COWICHAN--JUAN DE FUCA, 62% of which comes from Nanaimo--Cowichan.
Not until you get down to Midland, Ont. (35,419) do you find a community in a riding centred on a larger community (Orillia, 40,731).
Moose Jaw, Sask. (34,421) is a winner. Today it is partnered with southwest Regina, making 50% of Palliser, but it is proposed to centre MOOSE JAW--LAKE CENTRE--LANIGAN.
Alma, Que. (33,018) is a winner. Currently it is part of Jonquière--Alma, while underpopulated Roberval--Lac-Saint-Jean (78,765) is centred on Dolbeau-Mistassini (16,019). Alma is proposed to be elbowed into the new LAC-SAINT-JEAN (105,783) where it will be the largest centre. Its gain is the region's loss, as the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region drops from three seats to 2.7 when CHARLEVOIX--SAGUENAY takes in 32% of the present Montmorency--Charlevoix--Haute-Côte-Nord.
Baie-Comeau, Que. (28,789) and Sept-Îles, Que. (28,487) continue as partners in Manicouagan.
No joy for Leamington (28,574), proposed to remain shoved in with Chatham (44,074, the urban part of Chatham-Kent's 104,075), in CHATHAM-KENT (106,636). That's because Windsor-Essex-Chatham-Kent-Sarnia-Lambton is proposed to be under-represented.
But Miramichi, N.B. (28,115) remains the centre of the proposed MIRAMICHI (53,587), which that Commission finds more exceptional than Churchill or Timmins--James Bay.
Thetford Mines, Que. (27,968) stays the centre of the enlarged Lotbinière—Mégantic. And Rivière-du-Loup (27,734) stays the centre of its enlarged riding. And Corner Brook, N.L. (27,202) stays the centre of its riding, now LONG RANGE MOUNTAINS.
Will Centre Wellington, Ont. (26,693) (Fergus) be a winner, as the population centre of WELLINGTON--WOOLWICH? Stay tuned.
Fort St. John, B.C., (26,380) is unchanged as a junior partner with part of Prince George.
Kentville, N.S. (26,359) stays the centre of KINGS-HANTS. Cranbrook, B.C. (25,037) stays the centre of KOOTENAY--COLUMBIA. Okotoks, Alta. (24,511) stays the centre of a riding, now FOOTHILLS. Pembroke, Ont. (24,017) stays the centre of its riding.
Brooks, Alta. (23,430) is a winner, the largest centre in the new BOW RIVER, no longer shoved in with Medicine Hat.
Quesnel, BC (22,096) and Williams Lake (18,490) remain junior partners with part of Prince George in CARIBOO--PRINCE GEORGE.
Edmundston, N.B. (21,903) and Campbellton (17,842) remain partners in MADAWASKA--RESTIGOUCHE. Collingwood, Ont. (19,241) and Alliston (New Tecumseth, 30,234) stay the centres of SIMCOE-GREY.
North Battleford, Sask. (19,216) stays the centre of a riding.
Enough for now.
Three final redistribution reports are now in - for Newfound land Lab, Nova Scotia and Manitoba.
http://blunt-objects.blogspot.ca/2012/12/newfoundland-nova-scotia-and-ma...
So far the NDP seems to have lost a little ground.
The initial N&L boundaries seem to be confirmed with few changes. The NDP remains a long distance from picking up a third seat on these boundaries.
In NS, as noted by David Young, above, the commission has reversed its changes to SSSM and shored up the Conservative margin. It has also abandoned major changes to Dartmouth which would have significantly expanded Robert Chisholm's precarious margin.
In Manitoba the major change is to Winnipeg North. Under the first proposal Lamereux's stronhold in the Maples was to be excised, which would have plunged him into third place. It has now been restored, together with his chances of re-election.
Is there a deadline for the final redistributiion reports for the other provinces? I seem to recall that they have to report by the end of the year or perhaps the end of January.
The deadline is supposed to be December 21st, though the commissions can ask for an extension.
The final report for PEI is also in. Not a very exciting read, since no changes are proposed!
I have had a closer look at the Newfoundland and Labrador final report.
The initial proposal left much of central St John's in St J Mt Pearl. This has now been transferred to St J N.
I think this weakens Ryan Cleary's hold on his seat by adding NDP polls to augment Jack Harris' massive majority.
So the pattern is pretty evident through the first few reports. Every major change between the preliminary and final reports has been to the detriment of the NDP. I am not saying this is deliberate. It may simply reflect the organizational acumen of the other parties in promoting changes beneficial to them. But let's hope it doesnt continue.
Interesting how all the comments here are about a small number of metropolitan communities.We Canadians don't all live in metropolitan areas the size of Winnipeg or larger. In fact, only half of us do.
Analyzing the results of the 2011 Canadian census, 50.3% of us live in the top eight metropoltian areas: Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa - Gatineau, Calgary, Edmonton, Québec, and Winnipeg. The NHL cities (well, if the Nordiques can be brought back).
The other 49.7% of us don't. Where do we live?
The typical resident of the other half of Canada lives in an area of 55,000 people.
Continuing this point, some people assume NDP voters and MPs are primarily urban. Not so, on the 2011 results and those 103 ridings (ignoring the fact that two of those MPs are no longer in caucus).
From those top eight metropolitan areas, the NDP elected 54 MPs, 52% of caucus, just right: 27 Montreal, 8 Toronto, 7 Vancouver, 6 Quebec City, 1 Edmonton, 1 Winnipeg, 3 Gatineau, 1 Ottawa.
From the third quartile of Canada's population (Hamilton to Courtenay): 26 (25% of caucus), just right: 3 Hamilton, 3 Halifax, 2 Windsor, 2 St. John’s, 2 Thunder Bay, 2 Victoria, 2 Chicoutimi—Jonquière, 2 Sherbrooke, 1 each in London, Sudbury, Nanaimo, Drummondville, Saint Hyacinthe, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Shefford (Granby), and Trois-Rivieres.
From the fourth quartile 23 (22% of caucus), almost right: Saint-Maurice-Champlain (Shawinigan 55,009), Rimouski-Neigette—Temiscouata—Les Basques (Rimouski 50,912), Welland (City 50,631), Joliette (city & area 46,932), Timmins—James Bay (Timmins 43,165), Abitibi – Temiscamingue (Rouyn-Noranda 41,798), Beauharnois-Salaberry (Salaberry-de-Valleyfield 40,077), Acadie—Bathurst (Bathurst 33,484), Abitibi—Baie James—Nunavik—Eeyou (Val D’Or 33,265), Manicouagan (Baie-Comeau 28,789, Sept-Iles 28,487), Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Riviere-du-Loup (Riviere-du-Loup 27,734), Brome—Mississquoi (Magog 25,358), Nickel Belt (Valley East 20,676, Azilda/Chelmsford 11,689, etc.), Western Arctic (Yellowknife 19,234), Skeena - Bulkley Valley (Terrace 15,569, Prince Rupert 13,052), Gaspésie-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Gaspe 15,163), Laurentides—Labelle (Mont-Laurier 13,779, Saint-Adele 12,137, Saint-Agathe 10,115), Berthier—Maskinonge (Lavaltrie 13,267, Louiseville 7,517, and 37,280 in part of Trois-Rivieres), Churchill (Thompson 12,839), Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel (Lachute 12,551, but almost half the riding is in the metro Montreal area), Algoma - Manitoulin – Kapuskasing (Elliott Lake 11,348, Kapuskasing 8,196), BC Southern Interior (Nelson 10,520, Trail 9,276, Castlegar 8,992), Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord (La Malbaie 8,862, but 43% in Quebec City metro area).
A remarkably well balanced group.
But poor Courtenay B.C. (55,213) is proposed to be split between two ridings: VANCOUVER ISLAND NORTH centred on Campbell River (36,096), and NANAIMO--ALBERNI centred on Parksville (27,822) and Port Alberni (25,465).
I am not sure what you are including in Courtenay but that town is nowhere near 50,000 people. Even if you add in Comox and Cumberland it still doesn't get to 50,000. I suspect you have gotten the stats for the Comox Regional District mixed up with the stats for the City of Courtenay. However I agree that this is a gross way to split up the riding.
The City of Courtenay is a culturally diverse, scenic city of approximately 24,000 people. Courtenay is on the east coast of Vancouver Island and located within the traditional lands of the K'ómoks First Nation.
Cumberland’s 2011 census population was 3,398, an 23% increase from 2,762 in 2006.
Comox population 13,627 in 2011.
Statistics Canada has released the first data from the 2011 Census (house counts and total population). Our population grew 10% to 13,627 in 2011, from 12,385 in the 2006 census.
But poor Courtenay B.C. (55,213) is proposed to be split between two ridings: VANCOUVER ISLAND NORTH centred on Campbell River (36,096), and NANAIMO--ALBERNI centred on Parksville (27,822) and Port Alberni (25,465).
I am not sure what you are including in Courtenay but that town is nowhere near 50,000 people. Even if you add in Comox and Cumberland it still doesn't get to 50,000. I suspect you have gotten the stats for the Comox Regional District mixed up with the stats for the City of Courtenay. However I agree that this is a gross way to split up the riding.
I am using Stats Can's definition for Courtenay's Census Agglomeration Area (like a metropolitan area, but for areas below 100,000 they don't call them "metropolitan"). That includes Courtenay, Comox, Comox Valley B (Lazo North), Comox 1 Reserve, Pentledge 2 Reserve, Cumberland, and Comox Valley A. For example, Comox Valley B includes two or three odd enclaves within Comox or between Comox and Courtenay.
No wonder I can't follow your population stats. Courtenay is a small town and not near the size of Sudbury or Halifax which are real urban cities. If you add a few other towns and villages and all the rural areas then it becomes larger but if you add all of the environs to Sudbury then it would be over 100,000.
Seems like it is comparing apples to oranges. Courtenay is the same as Sudbury but only if you add towns to Courtenay and remove the Nickel Belt from Sudbury. I'm lost as to the rationale for those kinds of decisions.
I have had a closer look at the Newfoundland and Labrador final report.
The initial proposal left much of central St John's in St J Mt Pearl. This has now been transferred to St J N.
I think this weakens Ryan Cleary's hold on his seat by adding NDP polls to augment Jack Harris' massive majority.
So the pattern is pretty evident through the first few reports. Every major change between the preliminary and final reports has been to the detriment of the NDP. I am not saying this is deliberate. It may simply reflect the organizational acumen of the other parties in promoting changes beneficial to them. But let's hope it doesnt continue.
The final report in Alberta was just as good for the NDP in Edmonton as the first proposal - if not better
if you add all of the environs to Sudbury then it would be over 100,000.
The Sudbury CMA had 160,770 people in the 2011 census, of which 92,048 are in Sudbury riding and 68,722 are in Nickel Belt, making 74% of Nickel Belt. So you're right, it is really a second Sudbury riding, which puts 27 in the third quartile, and only 22 in the fourth quartile, 21% of caucus. Still not bad. I have trouble thinking of Nickel Belt that way because, politically, it is not just 74% part of Sudbury plus a few other areas like Sturgeon Falls. It is a collection of francophone communities which are in the Sudbury CMA, and some are even in the Greater Sudbury municipality, but they are identifiable: Valley East (20,676), Azilda/Chelmsford (11,689), Coniston/Garson/Falconbridge (9,928), Capreol (3,276), Onaping/Levack (2,042), and Dowling (1,690).
While many of those areas in the Nickel Belt have large francophone communities, they are still a minority of the population. Much of Nickel Belt is in fact suburban sprawl dating from the '60's and '70's. I found the numbers interesting because I grew up in that region and now have major ties to the Courtenay area.
http://www.rdee.ca/statistique/en/ontario/region-nickel-belt/coup_oeil.html
Krago sent me a great link regarding linguistic preferences.
The map for Vancouver area shows that the part of Burnaby i live in has more than 56% of the population whose mother tongue is other than French English or Aboriginal. The areas surrounding me are between 35 and 56%. Despite a century and a half of anti-Asian racism the West Coast was and still is as much an Asian community as it is a white European one.
What is telling is no one would take the language data and say that Burnaby is a Chinese community but the Nickel Belt with lower numbers has Francophone communities. Systemic racism is the kind that is embedded in our thinking not from bad intentions but from the predominate world view.
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/geo/map-carte/ref/the...
While many of those areas in the Nickel Belt have large francophone communities, they are still a minority of the population.
Large minorities, though, and they are in geographic communities. By mother tongue, a majority in the three census tracts of Chelmsford/Azilda (10,720).
Moncton is an interesting one. Will Moncton-est get a riding including all of it, along with the francophone communities to its east and north? Or be split?
I just heard from someone who presented in Oshawa November 13, 2012, that, after the hearing, those presenters got an e-mail from the Commission stating that the Commission was preparing a revised proposal and they would be notified of a second round hearing in Oshawa in due course. Which I suppose will be posted on the Commission website next week.
Anyone else in Ontario heard of this?
We are stuck with that scumbag Lamoureux in Winnipeg North, AGGH!!!!!!!!!!!!! How the hell did a working class riding end up going Liberal. Thank you oh NDP leadership geniuses. You did SO good!
We are stuck with that scumbag Lamoureux in Winnipeg North, AGGH!!!!!!!!!!!!! How the hell did a working class riding end up going Liberal. Thank you oh NDP leadership geniuses. You did SO good!
The BC Report is tabled. I have seen a comment that "Surrey has been rejigged to be way better for the NDP and ditto with Vancouver Island - unfortunately north Burnaby is still stuck folded in with North Vancouver." Comments?
The Saskatchewan Report is tabled. The new urban ridings have prevailed!
The New Brunswick Report is tabled. Is the new Saint John better?
The BC Report is tabled. I have seen a comment that "Surrey has been rejigged to be way better for the NDP and ditto with Vancouver Island - unfortunately north Burnaby is still stuck folded in with North Vancouver." Comments?
The Saskatchewan Report is tabled. The new urban ridings have prevailed!
The New Brunswick Report is tabled. Is the new Saint John better?
Good to see, but don't all of these still have to make it over the PM's desk (formerly known as parliament)?
The BC Report is tabled. I have seen a comment that "Surrey has been rejigged to be way better for the NDP and ditto with Vancouver Island - unfortunately north Burnaby is still stuck folded in with North Vancouver." Comments?
I'm really disappointed that they kept Burnaby North--Seymour in the final report. Looks like they got more opposition to this than to anything else they proposed. There was a way around this, but they unfortunately placed a higher priority on other things.
Also disappointed that they kept the east-west division of the two ridings on Vancouver's westside. I really think that a north-south divison would have made more sense.
Agree that Surrey is much better for the NDP in the final report.
Yeah Burnaby North-Seymour blows for sure.
Anyway - I look forward to seeing these ridings reflected at PollMaps.
The Sask report is a really interesting read. Apparently the Commission was flooded with pro-rurban submissions but they rejected all the reasons and stuck with the proposal more or less.
http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/content.asp?section=sk&...
Example:
Currently, voter apathy is at an all-time high. The Commission will compound this problem if it makes significant changes to the electoral boundaries.
The Commission did not accept this argument. Assuming that voter apathy is a significant problem, the Commission fails to see how maintaining the status quo will alleviate that problem. The commissioners heard from young urban dwellers – among them immigrants, refugees, Aboriginal people, Francophones and gay people – who felt disenfranchised by having to share their member of Parliament with others who did not understand their current, largely urban, concerns. Many of these urban dwellers also expressed a lack of knowledge of rural concerns. It is not the role of the Commission to set boundaries encompassing people whose community of interest is weak in an attempt to force them to become more knowledgeable about the situation of others.
Those in favour of the proposal for solely urban ridings in Regina and Saskatoon acknowledged that there were similarities in the issues facing both urban and rural dwellers, but argued that the nature of those issues was significantly different. For example, everyone is concerned about crime; however, gang violence, drug addiction, prostitution and incarceration of criminals are issues that take on a far different focus and immediacy in Saskatoon and Regina than they do in Rosetown or Humboldt.
The Commission heard a recurring theme in submissions from a significant number of people who favoured the proposal, which was the need for the member of Parliament to focus on their concerns and to emphasize solutions acceptable to people living in the cities. As stated by one presenter, "I would like to take this opportunity to say that as an urban resident ... I am in full support of the boundary changes. I feel that the proposed changes would ensure that my own voice, as well as the voices of the vast majority of other urban voters, are actually heard."
I notethat there is a dissenting opinion in the Saskatchewan Report which reccommends keeping the blended urban -rural ridings and asking the Parliamentary Committee to restore them.
I think we can expect the Conservatives who control that committee to seize on the minority report and perpetuate the blended riidings which have proved so advantageous to them.
I notethat there is a dissenting opinion in the Saskatchewan Report which reccommends keeping the blended urban -rural ridings and asking the Parliamentary Committee to restore them.
I think we can expect the Conservatives who control that committee to seize on the minority report and perpetuate the blended riidings which have proved so advantageous to them.
Except the Committee has no such power.
The dissent is weird. "I ask that the parliamentary committee reject the proposal put forward by Mr. Justice Mills and Professor Courtney of the Saskatchewan Commission. I would also ask that the committee request the commission to redraft the federal electoral boundaries report in order to come back with fairer representation for Regina and Saskatoon and to revisit the blended urban-rural ridings requested by approximately 75% of all submissions received." Does he seriously think the majority will change their minds just because the Conservative MPs ask them to? The MPs already made their views well-known and well-supported by submissions that the other two Commissioners, thank heavens, rejected. Is this a man who can't see that the horse he has been flogging has just died?
The BC Report is tabled. I have seen a comment that "Surrey has been rejigged to be way better for the NDP and ditto with Vancouver Island -
Well. It's still not that good. The Burnaby riding combined with North Van.
Fin Donnelly's riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam has now gone heavier Con than what the proposed boundaries initially were. It now includes parts of higher-end Heritage Mountain in Port Moody as well as neighbouring Belcarra and Anmore. These areas went heavily Con in 2011.
As for Surrey, Jasbir's seat is essentially the same. The only other NDP potential would be Surrey-Newton, but based upon the new boundaries, the Libs would have won that seat in 2011, believe it or not.
And then we have Atamenko still losing South Okanagan-West Kootenay in 2011.
I've just gone through Krago's colour-coded riding maps.
Haven't had a chance to check out Van Isle yet.
Wilf, do I understand you correctly that the parliamentary committee only has the power to ask the redistribution commissioners to reconsider their report and not impose changes?
If so it is reassuring that the Cons cannot simply dictate changes to their liking.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Well. It's still not that good. The Burnaby riding combined with North Van.
Fin Donnelly's riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam has now gone heavier Con than what the proposed boundaries initially were. It now includes parts of higher-end Heritage Mountain in Port Moody as well as neighbouring Belcarra and Anmore. These areas went heavily Con in 2011.
As for Surrey, Jasbir's seat is essentially the same. The only other NDP potential would be Surrey-Newton, but based upon the new boundaries, the Libs would have won that seat in 2011, believe it or not.
And then we have Atamenko still losing South Okanagan-West Kootenay in 2011.
I guess NDP prospects in these seats will depend on a number of factors. First of all in 2011 the Tories beat the NDP by 13 points in BC (46% to 33%). If in 2015 BC is more of a tossup (whihc most current polls indicate) then the NDP would easily win all these seats regardless of the new boundaries. The other factor to consider is that the NDP vote will probably go up in areas that go from having been in an NDP dead zone riding to being in an NDP incumbent riding. For example in North vancouver in 2011 the NDP vote was almost non-existent since it was a riding that was expected to be a tight CPC-Liberal contest. I suspect that while the NDP will not actually win the north Van part of Burnaby-North Vancouver - the NDP vote in that section will probably be far higher than it was in 2011 because people will find themselves in an NDP/CPC tossup contest. Similarly, the NDP vote will probably go up once the campaign "invades" previously unexploited territory in Penticton etc...
Well. It's still not that good. The Burnaby riding combined with North Van.
Fin Donnelly's riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam has now gone heavier Con than what the proposed boundaries initially were. It now includes parts of higher-end Heritage Mountain in Port Moody as well as neighbouring Belcarra and Anmore. These areas went heavily Con in 2011.
As for Surrey, Jasbir's seat is essentially the same. The only other NDP potential would be Surrey-Newton, but based upon the new boundaries, the Libs would have won that seat in 2011, believe it or not.
And then we have Atamenko still losing South Okanagan-West Kootenay in 2011.
I guess NDP prospects in these seats will depend on a number of factors. First of all in 2011 the Tories beat the NDP by 13 points in BC (46% to 33%). If in 2015 BC is more of a tossup (whihc most current polls indicate) then the NDP would easily win all these seats regardless of the new boundaries. The other factor to consider is that the NDP vote will probably go up in areas that go from having been in an NDP dead zone riding to being in an NDP incumbent riding. For example in North vancouver in 2011 the NDP vote was almost non-existent since it was a riding that was expected to be a tight CPC-Liberal contest. I suspect that while the NDP will not actually win the north Van part of Burnaby-North Vancouver - the NDP vote in that section will probably be far higher than it was in 2011 because people will find themselves in an NDP/CPC tossup contest. Similarly, the NDP vote will probably go up once the campaign "invades" previously unexploited territory in Penticton etc...
And again, an overarching effect is going to be - what will the reprecussions be for federal politics after 2 years of the BCNDP under Adrian Dix? Never in BC's history has the NDP made federal gains while under BCNDP rule, with the one exception of a federal election that was held only a few months after Dave Barrett became premier. If Dix's idea of incremental, predictable change actually still manages to resonate halfway through his term, he could help deliver federal votes. But if there is a big backlash by then, it could play right into the fortunes of federal Liberals.
The NDP to win more seats needs to have three way races. Even provincially the NDP does not win elections when it runs against one right of centre party. The BC Liberals are still polling respectably and the voters who have abandoned them are not going to the NDP in droves instead they are looking for another right wing alternative. In federal ridings when the Liberal vote collapses it often leads to Conservative wins since the reality is that many Liberal voters would rather eat glass than vote NDP. Of course the same goes for many NDP voters and the Liberal party.
The only other NDP potential would be Surrey-Newton, but based upon the new boundaries, the Libs would have won that seat in 2011, believe it or not.
With Sukh Dhaliwal's peculiar ethno-bloc out of the picture, it should be much easier, I presume.
The only other NDP potential would be Surrey-Newton, but based upon the new boundaries, the Libs would have won that seat in 2011, believe it or not.With Sukh Dhaliwal's peculiar ethno-bloc out of the picture, it should be much easier, I presume.
WTF
Last time I looked every major party in BC had a significant South Asian constituency and presence. What about the white ethno-bloc how do you think it is effecting the results?
As I suspected, the Montreal riding of st. Leonard shifts to the NDP on the new map and it isn't even close!
Before the Quebec Commission proposal passes into history, let's record what it did for the NDP. Six new NDP seats, less one loss to the Bloc, net gain of five. One of the new NDP seats is indeed the gain of St. Leonard from the Liberals, offset by the Liberals picking up a new seat.
New:
Outaouais NDP 59.81%, new riding. (The majority of Hull-Aylmer goes to Aylmer, the majority of Gatineau goes to Petite-Nation.)
Lignery NDP 49.93%, new riding. (The majority of Châteauguay--Saint-Constant goes to Châteauguay, the majority of Brossard--La Prairie goes to Urbain-Brossard.)
Sainte-Rose NDP 48.64%, new riding. (Partly from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, but the majority of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin goes to Mille-Îles. Part of new Terrebonne NDP 51.54% is from Terrebonne—Blainville, but more of Terrebonne-Blainville goes to Mille-Îles. Terrebonne is mostly from Montcalm, but the majority of Montcalm stays as Montcalm.)
Saint-Léonard NDP 38.96%, gain from Lib Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel
Maurice-Richard NDP 31.89%, gain from Bloc Ahuntsic.
Lévis NDP 39.85%, gain from Conservative Lotbinière--Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
New Liberal seat: George-Étienne-Cartier Lib 40.92%. (From leftover parts of Saint-Laurent--Cartierville and Ahuntsic.)
Net loss of one Conservative. Net loss of one Bloc, since Haute-Gaspésie--La Mitis--Matane—Matapédia disappears, but Bloc takes Gaspésie—Les Îles from NDP, but loses Ahuntsic.
The only other NDP potential would be Surrey-Newton, but based upon the new boundaries, the Libs would have won that seat in 2011, believe it or not.With Sukh Dhaliwal's peculiar ethno-bloc out of the picture, it should be much easier, I presume.
WTF
Last time I looked every major party in BC had a significant South Asian constituency and presence. What about the white ethno-bloc how do you think it is effecting the results?
All I meant was that in a climate when the federal Grits in BC were imploding everywhere but Van/NorthWestVan/Whistler, Sukh Dhaliwal somehow survived through a disproportionately super-galvanized South Asian vote--with him (or at least his incumbency) gone and presuming his party's still in the basement, the Liberal vote should be ripe for the picking, perhaps most likely by the NDP.
As far as "white ethno-bloc" goes: that's the reason why Dhaliwal was pretty firmly in third in the North Delta portion of his riding.
In the event of a crushing BCNDP majority this year, another consideration is - a large number of experienced BC Liberal politicians will be out looking for work, and potentially running for both the federal Liberals and Conservatives. In fact a friend of mine has speculated Kevin Falcon will want one of those new Surrey ridings as a Conservative.
All I meant was that in a climate when the federal Grits in BC were imploding everywhere but Van/NorthWestVan/Whistler, Sukh Dhaliwal somehow survived through a disproportionately super-galvanized South Asian vote--with him (or at least his incumbency) gone and presuming his party's still in the basement, the Liberal vote should be ripe for the picking, perhaps most likely by the NDP.
As far as "white ethno-bloc" goes: that's the reason why Dhaliwal was pretty firmly in third in the North Delta portion of his riding.
Yes, especially since the new NDP incumbent Jini Sims is South Asian herself and is undoubtedly expanding her support among people from her community who might have voted for Dhaliwal last time because he was the incumbent.
In fact a friend of mine has speculated Kevin Falcon will want one of those new Surrey ridings as a Conservative.
Is it too much to hope that he might retire from politics? 
In fact a friend of mine has speculated Kevin Falcon will want one of those new Surrey ridings as a Conservative.
Is it too much to hope that he might retire from politics?
Just like the players in the Harris government who didn't retire Falcon likely will run federally. He and Harper have the same CEO's on speed dial. These guys want power and have the money backing them because we all know who they wield their power on behalf of.
Considering Harper's plum appointment for Gordo, I would not be surprised if his party welcomes the Campbell-ites in with open arms. And those of Gordo's losers who prefer the colour red will be welcomed with open arms by their soul sister Joyce Murray.
Margaret MacDiarmid (Vancouver-Fairview) has a strong chance of losing her seat. I could imagine her making a run for Vancouver-Granville either as a Lib or Con.
Ralph Goodale tweets "Conservatives in Sask once again using illicit robocalls, this time to slander the work of their own electoral boundaries Commission." What's that about?
Oy vey. I guess the incumbents are getting anxious.
Goodale will be 66 if the next election occurs in the fall of 2015.
Wanna bet if he thinks the new boundary will be his downfall, he'll grab his parliamentary pension and run?
The same with Heddy Fry, who'll be 74 in 2015.
Lawrence MacCaulay will be 69.
Rae will be 67.
Garneau will be 66.
McCallum will be 65.
Except for MacCaulay in P.E.I., all of their ridings will be affected by redistribution.
Goodale will be 66 if the next election occurs in the fall of 2015.
Wanna bet if he thinks the new boundary will be his downfall, he'll grab his parliamentary pension and run?
The same with Heddy Fry, who'll be 74 in 2015.
Lawrence MacCaulay will be 69.
Rae will be 67.
Garneau will be 66.
McCallum will be 65.
Except for MacCaulay in P.E.I., all of their ridings will be affected by redistribution.
Goodale is happy. He loses a little rural territory. The new boundaries give him a transposed majority of 2233, up from 1532.
Fry's candidacy won't, surely, depend on the boundaries? Although Vancouver Centre loses some Liberal voters to the new Granville riding, it's still a Liberal (transposed) seat, I expect.