Skip to main content

Part I – Initial Report to the House of Commons (February 15, 2013) – Quebec – Representations and Outcome

Representations and Outcome

Our Approach

The themes addressed by the participants at the public hearings stem from three main sources. As expected, some of the representations were made in reaction to the proposal we disseminated in summer 2012. A substantial number of opinions were also grounded in the legislative and regulatory texts pertaining to our mandate. Finally, in large part, participants' statements and requests stemmed from local knowledge gained in their day-to-day lives or based on their experience. This combination of viewpoints made for a very broad variety of representations, which nevertheless had a strong convergence with respect to the concerns brought to our attention with a view to guiding our reflections on the boundaries and names of electoral districts in Quebec’s new federal electoral map.

Electoral Quota

The most widespread representation pertained to the electoral quota as established according to the rule. While acknowledging the legitimacy of giving more or less equivalent weight to each of the 78 electoral districts, the vast majority of participants argued that the pursuit of that ideal must not be perverted into a purely mathematical exercise. Apart from some appeals for the recognition of rare exceptions justified by special situations, and others put forward to serve specific interests in clear opposition to our commission's mandate, participants generally found the ±10% limits identified as an ideal variance from the electoral quota of 101,321 to be reasonable.

We duly took the "criticism" into account in preparing our final proposed map, in view of other representations pertaining, in particular, to the geographic size of electoral districts and communities of interest.

Communities of Interest

The comments on the electoral quota were especially significant in the context of defining communities of interest. Our assiduity in giving all necessary importance to that dimension of our mandate inevitably depended on our relative "distance" from the realities to be considered; local residents made it their duty, with the greatest civility, to educate us on their experience as citizens and the socio-economic characteristics of their surroundings. This resulted in a number of modifications to our initial proposal, which was opened to consultation for that purpose.

The communities of interest taken into consideration are diverse in nature. The representatives of the Anglophone minority, for example, enlightened us on the best ways to maintain their common identity and not compromise their electoral weight. We also tried to draw an electoral map that, as much as possible, reflected the existence of ethnic communities. As a case in point, we could not overlook the strongly expressed concerns of the Jewish community. Furthermore, to the greatest extent possible, we paid due attention to the socio-political and socio-economic characteristics of the populations that occupy the territory. During the hearings, another fault line led us to further reflect on the treatment of non-urbanized regions, currently described as rural in contrast to urban; that point of view, which was forcefully expressed, ultimately led to what are undoubtedly the most radical changes to our proposal.

Rural Regions, Territory Size and Complexity of Representation

Tables 2, 3 and 4 make it clear: the most pronounced shift from our proposal is the return to the province’s far east, on the south shore of the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence, of an electoral district that we had added to the Island of Montréal. New Democratic Party and Liberal spokespeople from the Montréal region were unanimous in immediately suggesting that we not add an electoral district on the Island of Montréal at the expense of Eastern Quebec. Their remarks echoed those of Eastern Quebec stakeholders, who harshly criticized our proposal in that regard. The arguments on the geographic size of the electoral districts and the complex task of an MP representing such districts quickly highlighted the flaw in our initial position.

That type of problem arose again in a different context for the Charlevoix region, which was merged with the Saguenay region under our proposal. Those two regions saw no relationship between themselves, much less a community of interest. We were therefore logically requested to abandon our proposal to unite the eastern portion of Charlevoix and the southern part of Saguenay in one electoral district. As is the case in five other electoral districts, the accommodation that such a decision entails obliges us to consider it as exceptional.

A similar attitude of rejection met our proposal to create an electoral district named Hautes-Laurentides—Pontiac. We backtracked there as well, acknowledging the tenuous link uniting the two territories. Fortunately, in that case, we found a solution that does not create an exceptional situation.

In line with the foregoing, the territory size within various electoral districts’ boundaries generated considerable reaction. In addition to the regions already mentioned (Gaspésie, Saguenay, Laurentides), the same concern was expressed in almost every corner of Quebec. Contrasted with the pride of the MP for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou in serving the largest electoral territory in Quebec, it was almost ironic to see the concerns expressed by so many other people about the immensity of "their" territory, and this in such regions as Valleyfield, Lanaudière and Mauricie. On that score, however, the problem is quite different in Nunavik and Gaspésie. In any event, we did not neglect the aspect of electoral geography but interpreted our mandate in such a way as to, while rejecting absolutist positions, seek an optimal statistical balance – sometimes, as we shall see, more relevantly assessed on a "regional" scale – rather than seek equivalent territory sizes… populated at extremely variable densities. Although variances from the electoral quota are legally authorized within the limits of ±25%, we feel it is reasonable for them to be kept within the limits of ±10%. Less stringent than in the United States, and even in the United Kingdom where the legally permissible variance is set at ±5% for the elections scheduled in 2015, this operational "rule" appears to us as simply more appropriate.

While noting that the geographic size of electoral districts can make elected representatives’ work more difficult, we believe that other bodies are better suited to implement the more satisfactory solutions that may be required, such as compensatory measures in the form of allowances and services for MPs as determined by the House of Commons itself (the most recent version of which is dated December 15, 2010).

Respecting Boundaries of Existing Political and Administrative Entities

Apart from a few unrealistic proposals for us to apply the provincial electoral boundaries to federal electoral districts, we were often called on to retain the boundaries already established for other political and administrative purposes, including municipalities and boroughs, regional county municipalities (RCMs) or, in rarer cases, administrative regions. This made us realize the extent to which new territories of reference, even those established for the purposes of administrative rationality, can fairly quickly become significant new foundations of identity. For example, we were relatively surprised by the great attachment many expressed toward their RCMs, established just over 30 years ago. The content and tone of the representations made in the context of the public hearings quickly convinced us to review our initial proposals so as to reinforce our previously expressed position in principle or, more often, to adapt our proposal to the wishes clearly expressed during our local consultations.

We also understood that the same logic applied to the boroughs (or sectors) recognized in a number of cities. Accordingly, we tried to avoid splitting up or dividing such entities (RCMs, municipalities, boroughs, districts, etc.) whenever it seemed possible and reasonable, while not neglecting our own objective of greater electoral fairness.

History and Belonging

While generally more difficult to translate into tangible boundaries, historical references and shared attachments were evoked on several occasions, with the ultimate view of highlighting the weaknesses in our proposal. Rather curiously, certain other "rules," such as respecting the boundaries and integrity of RCMs, were flouted in favour of a sense of belonging conceived on the basis of a specific history. For example, we witnessed some heartfelt expressions by citizens convinced of the inviolable nature of their identity: "Beaucerons we were born, Beaucerons we shall die!" Expressed elsewhere with greater restraint, such feelings of belonging marked many of the representations made at one hearing or another. We bore them in mind when deciding on the boundaries of the electoral districts making up the new electoral map.

Geographic References and People's Names

Acts that are repeated over time are often declared traditional, but also viewed as unchangeable. We became aware of this “truth” during the discussions on drawing electoral boundaries and giving names to the units thus created. For example, not keeping the name Chambly to designate the electoral district historically associated therewith could have been considered tantamount to treason. More generally speaking, we should state that the names presented in our proposal were met with a surprisingly large number of strong reactions.

An Unspoken Preference for the Status Quo

Let us be clear: defending the status quo was not part of the Commission’s mandate. Nevertheless, we observed that most people had a preference for this scenario at the local level, leaving it to “others” to assume the inevitable changes that the Act generates. We did not wish to impose change for the sake of change, but neither could we bow to too many requests for keeping the present order.

Outcome

Better informed of how we proceeded, we can now describe the results of our work. The many and varied comments received in response to our proposal provide a fairly precise indication of the outcome of our deliberations which, informed by the contributions of myriad stakeholders (citizens, municipal and parliamentary elected representatives, as well as interest groups and political parties), takes shape in our proposed electoral map for the next federal elections. The tables that follow, accompanied by brief comments, provide a succinct account.

Table 1 shows that the redistricting exercise produced a distribution that, seen strictly through a numeric lens, groups 68 of the 78 electoral districts to be drawn within the ±10% margin seen as ideal. For the three districts with a population surplus, the largest deviation is 11.05%, in the electoral district of Beauce. All in all, this deviation appears tolerable; and it results in part from the firm position of the population that more than keenly wishes to keep its “territory” intact.

The case of the seven electoral districts whose populations are insufficient to ensure compliance with our ideal limit of –10% requires a more detailed explanation. In reality, only the electoral district of Mégantic—L’Érable appears quite unusual with a deviation of –12.41%; we must point out, however, that this stems from the attention we paid to the wishes of the populations in question and from the application of the other criteria set out in the Act, including consideration of communities of interest. The other case that departs from the ideal, with a population deficit of some –15.64%, is the electoral district of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou; this is, we hasten to point out, the largest electoral territory in Quebec!

The last five electoral districts with a negative deviation of more than 10% are concentrated in two regions – Saguenay and Gaspésie – both of which are found in the eastern part of Quebec. In terms of Saguenay, we find the electoral districts of Chicoutimi and Jonquière with deviations from the quota that are particularly pronounced (see Table 3). We could have mitigated this result by amalgamating the case of Lac-Saint-Jean with the other two, but this would have brought about a very unsatisfactory correction, while at the same time neglecting the communities of interest that very clearly distinguish the two groupings comprised of the entities of Chicoutimi and Jonquière on the one hand, and the territory of Lac-Saint-Jean on the other.

The three units comprising the last group of electoral districts whose deficits exceed our ideal limit of 10% are found in the Gaspé Peninsula (see Table 4). There seemed to be a consensus all the way to Montréal about the need for Gaspésie to receive special treatment. The Gaspé Peninsula, divided by the Chic-Chocs Mountains, is made up of a string of villages all along the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence as well as Chaleur Bay. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the MP to represent this territory. This is why we feel that MP-elector relations would be improved by the proposed delimitation, which would also respect the RCMs’ boundaries. In this context, Avignon—Matane is the only electoral district that calls for a specific justification based on the extraordinary nature of its demography and geography (–26.42%). We were unable to meet the standard suggested by the Act when it came to this electoral district.

Before closing this statistical chapter, we should note that the Saint-Laurent electoral district, on the Island of Montréal, received special treatment in light of the views expressed by numerous stakeholders that this borough was experiencing very strong demographic growth, and that we could reasonably expect this trend to continue in the years to come. Checking this assertion in Montréal en statistiques, a set of documents prepared by the City of Montréal’s Direction du développement économique et urbain, Service de la mise en valeur du territoire, convinced us that the demographic deficit that our proposed map reveals in Saint-Laurent would in all likelihood be temporary and, what is more, short-lived.

We can now present a summary of the changes made to the existing map (Table 5). First, we see that the new map includes three additional electoral districts. Of the 75 existing electoral districts, 11 are unchanged, 30 have been adjusted slightly, and 34 have undergone considerable change. In practice, the line between the latter two categories is established at 25% according to the estimated extent of the changes made in terms of geography and demography. The change is therefore qualified as considerable or not (slight). This classification determines in large part – without being automatic – the decisions presented further on relative to the naming of electoral districts.

Table 1

Distribution of the 78 Electoral Districts by Deviation

Deviation Number of Electoral Districts
≥10% 3
Between 5% and 9.99% 19
Between 2% and 4.99% 15
Between 1.99% and –1.99% 17
Between –2% and –4.99% 7
Between –5% and –9.99% 10
≤–10% 7
Total 78

Table 2

Distribution of the 18 Electoral Districts on the Island of Montréal by Various Types of Deviation

Deviations from General Quota of 101,321 Number of Electoral Districts Deviations from "Regional" Quota of 104,804 Number of Electoral Districts
≥10% – ≥10% –
Between 5% and 9.99% 7 Between 5% and 9.99% 2
Between 2% and 4.99% 5 Between 2% and 4.99% 4
Between 1.99% and –1.99% 5 Between 1.99% and –1.99% 7
Between –2% and –4.99% – Between –2% and –4.99% 4
Between –5% and
–9.99%		 1 Between –5% and
–9.99%		 –
≤–10% – ≤–10% 1
Total 18 Total 18

Table 3

Deviations Calculated for the Two Electoral Districts in Saguenay by Type of Electoral Quota

Electoral District General Quota 101,321 "Regional" Quota 84,548
Jonquière –13.55%   3.61%
Chicoutimi –19.56%  –3.60%

Table 4

Deviations Calculated for the Three Electoral Districts in Eastern Quebec by Type of Electoral Quota

Electoral District General Quota 101,321 "Regional" Quota 79,396
Rimouski –16.30%  6.82%
Gaspésie—Les Îles –22.19%  –0.71%
Avignon—Matane –26.42%  –6.11%

Table 5

Extent of Change by Electoral District from the Current Map (2003) to the Proposed Map (2013)

Extent of Change Number of Electoral Districts
None 11
Slight 30
Considerable 34
New district 3
Total 78

Table 6

Distribution of the 78 Electoral Districts by Deviation

Quota: 101,321

Deviations ≥10% Between 5% and 9.99% Between 2% and 4.99% Between –1.99% and 1.99% Between –2% and –4.99% Between –5% and –9.99% ≤–10%
Districts • Beauce
• Saint-Maurice
•Vaudreuil		 • Ahuntsic-Cartierville
• Belœil—Chambly
• Dorval—Lachine
• Gatineau
• Lac-Saint-Louis
• Laurentides—Labelle
• Laurier—Sainte-Marie
• Louis-Saint-Laurent
• Montmagny—Rivière-du-Loup
• Papineau
• Pierrefonds—Dollard
• Pontiac
• Repentigny
• Saint-Jean
• Saint-Léonard—Villeray
• Salaberry
• Shefford
• Sherbrooke
• Trois-Rivières		 • Hochelaga
• Hull—Aylmer
• Lac-Saint-Jean
• La Pointe-de-l’Île
• LaSalle—Verdun
• LeMoyne
• Longueuil
• Louis-Hébert
• Mirabel
• Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount
• Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier
• Richmond—Arthabaska
• Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie
• Terrebonne
• Vimy		 • Abitibi—Témiscamingue
• Bellechasse—Lévis
• Bourassa
• Brossard—Saint-Lambert
• Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles
• Compton—Stanstead
• Honoré-Mercier
• La Prairie
• Laval—Les Îles
• Lévis—Lotbinière
• Montcalm
• Mont-Royal
• Outremont
• Rivière-des-Mille-Îles
• Rivière-du-Nord
• Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot • Ville-Marie		 • Alfred-Pellan
• Berthier—Maskinongé
• Blainville
• Brome—Missisquoi
• Drummond
• Joliette
• Québec		 • Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation
• Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour
• Beauport—Limoilou
• Charlevoix—Montmorency
• Châteauguay—Lacolle
• Manicouagan
• Montarville
• Sainte-Rose
• Saint-Laurent
• Verchères—Les Patriotes		 • Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou
• Avignon—Matane
• Chicoutimi
• Gaspésie—Les Îles
• Jonquière
• Mégantic—L’Érable
• Rimouski
Total 3 19 15 17 7 10 7

Most pronounced deviations:
Negative: Avignon—Matane: –26.42%
Positive: Beauce: +11.05%

Table 7

Deviations from the Electoral Quota for Quebec's 78 Federal Electoral Districts (in descending numerical order)*

Electoral District Deviation (Percentage)
Beauce 11.05
Saint-Maurice 10.88
Vaudreuil 10.45
Laurentides—Labelle 9.91
Repentigny 9.74
Saint-Léonard—Villeray 9.21
Ahuntsic-Cartierville 9.03
Beloeil—Chambly 8.52
Papineau 7.56
Lac-Saint-Louis 7.38
Trois-Rivières 7.36
Pierrefonds—Dollard 7.32
Saint-Jean 6.83
Sherbrooke 6.58
Shefford 6.14
Montmagny—Rivière-du-Loup 5.96
Laurier—Sainte-Marie 5.64
Salaberry 5.64
Dorval—Lachine 5.49
Louis-Saint-Laurent 5.49
Pontiac 5.11
Gatineau 5.04
Terrebonne 4.94
Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie 4.91
Lac-Saint-Jean 4.40
LaSalle—Verdun 3.94
LeMoyne 3.53
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount 3.05
Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier 3.03
Longueuil 3.01
Vimy 3.01
Louis-Hébert 2.68
Richmond—Arthabaska 2.54
Mirabel 2.19
La Pointe-de-l’Île 2.16
Hull—Aylmer 2.10
Hochelaga 2.09
Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles 1.98
Ville-Marie 1.73
Laval—Les Îles 1.71
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles 1.48
Abitibi—Témiscamingue 1.45
Honoré-Mercier 1.25
Bellechasse—Lévis 0.95
Rivière-du-Nord 0.75
Compton—Stanstead 0.62
Lévis—Lotbinière 0.09
Mont-Royal –0.06
Outremont –0.40
Brossard—Saint-Lambert –0.49
Bourassa –1.02
La Prairie –1.49
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot –1.67
Montcalm –1.78
Drummond –2.61
Brome—Missisquoi –2.67
Joliette –2.68
Berthier—Maskinongé –2.70
Blainville –2.79
Alfred-Pellan –3.23
Québec –4.73
Sainte-Rose –5.17
Verchères—Les Patriotes –5.92
Montarville –6.14
Manicouagan –6.47
Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation –7.02
Saint-Laurent –7.38
Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour –7.44
Beauport—Limoilou –8.27
Charlevoix—Montmorency –8.71
Châteauguay—Lacolle –9.03
Mégantic—L’Érable –12.41
Jonquière –13.55
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou –15.64
Rimouski –16.30
Rimouski –19.56
Gaspésie—Les Îles –22.19
Avignon—Matane –26.42

*The alternation between clear and shaded sections corresponds to the categories set for the distribution of the 78 electoral districts in terms of their deviations from the electoral quota (Table 6). With regard to the dark line, it signals the extraordinary nature of the deviation calculated for Avignon—Matane.

Names of Electoral Districts

An electoral district’s name is subject to change as soon as its boundaries are significantly altered. In our proposal, we showed a clear preference for using people’s names in such cases, with a view to blunting the resistance that typically greets proposed modifications when it comes to geographic references. Our proposal contained 21 original ideas along those lines:

Anne-Hébert Maurice-Richard
Curé-Labelle Nicolas-Vincent
Denis-Benjamin-Viger Ozias-Leduc
Elzéar-Bernier Paul-Comtois
Étienne-Parent Paul-Ragueneau
George-Étienne-Cartier Paul-Sauvé
Gilles-Villeneuve Pierre-Legardeur
Idola-Saint-Jean Roger-Lemelin
John-Peters-Humphrey Urbain-Brossard
Louis-Fréchette Wilder-Penfield
MacDonald-Langstaff  

Met with skepticism and, in some cases, outright opposition, these names have in the end been withdrawn in the proposal presented here. This operation alone accounts for nearly half of the "corrections" made in preparing our final proposed map, which speaks to a genuine sensitivity to the representations communicated to us, in one form or another, on this subject as well as others.

This open-minded attitude was also apparent in our reception of the many written and oral representations communicated to us in respect of the existing electoral map on which 44 electoral districts are keeping their name, sometimes in response to strongly worded remarks. The 31 others saw minor or significant name changes, principally under two objectives: simplifying names that had become overly complex (e.g. Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup), or ensuring a better correspondence with the geographic reality resulting from the redistribution (e.g. Avignon—Matane or Lévis—Lotbinière).

Ahuntsic-Cartierville Lévis—Lotbinière
Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation Longueuil
Avignon—Matane Mirabel
Bellechasse—Lévis Montarville
Beloeil—Chambly Montmagny—Rivière-du-Loup
Blainville Mont-Royal
Brossard—Saint-Lambert Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount
Charlevoix—Montmorency Rimouski
Châteauguay—Lacolle Saint-Laurent
Chicoutimi Saint-Léonard—Villeray
Dorval—Lachine Saint-Maurice
Gaspésie—Les Îles Salaberry
Jonquière Terrebonne
Lac-Saint-Jean Vaudreuil
La Prairie Ville-Marie
LaSalle—Verdun  

Lastly, three brand new names were inserted into the new map for the 3 electoral districts added to the 75 on the current map: LeMoyne, Sainte-Rose and Vimy. The latter name requires a somewhat elaborate explanation.

At a hearing in Montréal, the Commission was persuaded of the importance of honouring the memory of veterans. That suggestion garnered broad support among those attending the hearing. Accordingly, the Commission felt it appropriate to give the name Vimy to an electoral district on Île-Jésus. It was during the battle of Vimy Ridge that Canadians fought for the first time under Canada's colours. Canadian casualties, of the 30,000 troops who took part in the battle, reached 10,602 men, including 7,004 injured and 3,598 deceased. Close to 1,700,000 Canadians took part in various global conflicts during the 20th century, and 116,000 of them were killed in action.

The Commission also agreed to keep some existing names even when a strict application of the rule would have suggested we be more daring. Those decisions were based on repeated resistance to eliminating a reference to a specific corner of the land in the name of electoral districts comprising several regions. However, we would recommend further reflection on this point, in light of the expressed desire to simplify names that have become overly complex.

Table 8 provides a basic account of the complex operations that marked our work, backed by the rules surrounding the choice of electoral district names and by the written and oral representations communicated to us during the exercise of our mandate.

In addition to the eight tables that buttress our report, precise demographic data and geographic maps covering the 78 electoral districts are annexed to and form an integral part of this report.

Table 8

Changes to the Names of Electoral Districts (2013) in Comparison with the Current Map (2003) and the Proposal (2012)

Electoral District Change Made to the Name
A – Compared to the Current Map B – Compared to the Proposal
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou I C
Abitibi—Témiscamingue I I
Ahuntsic-Cartierville* C NP
Alfred-Pellan I I
Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation* C C
Avignon—Matane* C C
Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour I NP
Beauce I I
Beauport—Limoilou I NP
Bellechasse—Lévis* C NP
Beloeil—Chambly* C NP
Berthier—Maskinongé I NP
Blainville* C NP
Bourassa I I
Brome—Missisquoi I I
Brossard—Saint-Lambert* C C
Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles I NP
Charlevoix—Montmorency* C C
Châteauguay—Lacolle* C C
Chicoutimi* C NP
Compton—Stanstead I I
Dorval—Lachine* C C
Drummond I I
Gaspésie—Les Îles C I
Gatineau I NP
Hochelaga I I
Honoré-Mercier I NP
Hull—Aylmer I C
Joliette I I
Jonquière* C NP
La Pointe-de-l'Île I NP
La Prairie* C NP
Lac-Saint-Jean C I
Lac-Saint-Louis I I
LaSalle—Verdun* C C
Laurentides—Labelle I C
Laurier—Sainte-Marie I NP
Laval—Les Îles I NP
LeMoyne* NE NP
Lévis—Lotbinière* C C
Longueuil C I
Louis-Hébert I NP
Louis-Saint-Laurent I NP
Manicouagan I I
Mégantic—L'Érable I C
Mirabel* C NP
Montarville C I
Montcalm I I
Montmagny—Rivière-du-Loup* C NP
Mont-Royal* C NP
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount* C NP
Outremont I I
Papineau I I
Pierrefonds—Dollard I NP
Pontiac I C
Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier I NP
Québec I I
Repentigny I NP
Richmond—Arthabaska I I
Rimouski C I
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles I C
Rivière-du-Nord I NP
Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie I NP
Sainte-Rose NE I
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot I I
Saint-Jean I I
Saint-Laurent* C NP
Saint-Léonard—Villeray* C C
Saint-Maurice* C NP
Salaberry* C NP
Shefford I I
Sherbrooke I I
Terrebonne C I
Trois-Rivières I I
Vaudreuil C I
Verchères—Les Patriotes I I
Ville-Marie C I
Vimy* NE NP

 

Legend: * New name in comparison with both the current map and the proposal
  C Name changed in reference to the current map, or to the proposal
  I Identical name to that on the current map, or to that in the proposal
  NE Non-existent: new name required by the addition of three electoral districts
  NP New name in comparison with the proposal

 



Please note that this application does not work correctly in Internet Explorer 8. Please use a newer version of Internet Explorer or another browser such as Firefox or Chrome.

Launch the Map Viewer →
(will open a new browser window)


Site Map

Important Notices