Part II – Amendments to the Initial Report (July 31, 2013) – Ontario – Objections

Northern Ontario

In addition to reporting on objections by members of Parliament and making related recommendations, the Standing Committee made a number of comments regarding Northern Ontario to which the Commission feels obliged to respond.

The Standing Committee commented on limits imposed by the Commission's decision to award 10 electoral districts to Northern Ontario when strict adherence to the provincial quota would result in only eight electoral districts in that region. It expressed concern about whether the Commission had appropriately considered community of interest, ease of service by members of Parliament, and constituents' access to their member. The Standing Committee advocated that the Commission invoke the extraordinary circumstances rule for more than one electoral district in the region because there is nothing in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (the "Act") that precludes such a decision. It stated that the creation of a second electoral district in Northern Ontario with a population in excess of 25% below the provincial quota would have no implications for representation by population in any other part of the province.

In response, the Commission notes that the primary rule in the Act governing the establishment of electoral boundaries is population equality, i.e. that the province be divided into electoral districts with populations as close to the provincial quota as reasonably possible. The Act also instructs the Commission that it may depart from the goal of population equality where it feels that it is necessary or desirable to do so in order to respect communities of interest, communities of identity, or the historical pattern of electoral districts, or to maintain a manageable geographic size in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province. However, if the Commission departs from the population equality rule, the Act requires it to "make every effort to ensure" that, except in extraordinary circumstances, the deviation does not exceed 25% above or below the provincial quota.

In its Report, the Commission made it abundantly clear that, after applying the extraordinary circumstances rule to the electoral district of Kenora, there was sufficient population in the balance of Northern Ontario to justify nine other electoral districts, each having populations that fall within the maximum deviation of 25% below the provincial quota. A strict application of the population equality rule would have resulted in two fewer electoral districts in Northern Ontario, thereby elevating concerns about community of interest, historical patterns and manageable geographic size even further.

It is not correct to suggest that the creation of a second northern electoral district in excess of 25% below the provincial quota would have no implications for population equality in other parts of Ontario. Any departure from the maximum deviations permitted in the Act must be reasoned, principled, and truly extraordinary.

The Commission's decision to establish 10 electoral districts in Northern Ontario effectively increased the deviation above the provincial quota for the remaining 111 electoral districts in the province. The rules set out in the Act are unambiguous. Having regard to those rules, the Commission remains convinced that, for the purposes of this Final Report, there is no need to make further use of the extraordinary circumstances rule in Northern Ontario.

The Standing Committee also chose to comment on the Commission's concern expressed in its Report about inappropriate involvement by members of Parliament in the electoral redistribution process. The Standing Committee stated that its review of the Report and the evidence before it compelled a conclusion that "nothing inappropriate had been done" by any member of Parliament.

The Commission respectfully disagrees.

Prior to releasing its Proposal for boundaries and names of electoral districts in July 2012, the Commission had received a letter from the President of the Northeastern Ontario Municipal Association ("NEOMA") that deplored the manner in which communities along Highway 11 from Smooth Rock Falls to the west had been reassigned by the previous commission in 2003 from the electoral district of Timmins—James Bay to the electoral district of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing without notice or opportunity to object. The letter also expressed the view that those communities had virtually no community of interest with any other communities in the electoral district of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. In that letter, the President of NEOMA implored the Commission to reassign the communities along Highway 11 West to the electoral district of Timmins—James Bay.

That request was central to the Proposal the Commission developed for Northern Ontario. The Commission honoured that request, and included the Highway 11 West communities in a proposed electoral district to be named Timmins—Cochrane—James Bay. At the public hearing held in New Liskeard on October 15, 2012, when asked if he was aware of NEOMA's letter to the Commission and its contents, the Member of Parliament for Timmins—James Bay informed the Commission that, because of budget constraints, he could not properly service the people in those communities, and that the Member of Parliament for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing was willing to do so. When asked by the Commission Chair if he was aware of the sentiments expressed to the Commission in NEOMA's letter, the Member of Parliament for Timmins—James Bay stated: "I am. Actually I would say that that might not necessarily be the case."

At the public hearing held in North Bay on October 16, 2012, the Member of Parliament for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing told the Commission that, because the Member of Parliament for Timmins—James Bay had established offices in Timmins and Kirkland Lake, and because budget constraints precluded the establishment of any additional offices in that electoral district, people in the communities represented by NEOMA would have to go to Timmins to see their member of Parliament. She asked the Commission for more time to present the views from those communities with respect to the proposed boundaries. When asked if she was aware of the letter the Commission had received from NEOMA, the Member of Parliament for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing indicated that she was aware of it, that she had since "had a chat with them", that she knew additional information would be forthcoming, and, by inference, that she could serve the people of those communities better than the Member of Parliament for Timmins—James Bay. She concluded her presentation with a request that the Commission give the Highway 11 West communities an opportunity to reconsider their position.

By letter dated October 23, 2012, the President of NEOMA informed the Commission that, "as a result of more information received", NEOMA had altered its position and requested the Commission to reconsider the size of the proposed electoral district of Timmins—Cochrane—James Bay (which it considered to be too large) or to maintain the status quo. Prior to that letter, the Commission had no indication from NEOMA, or from any of its member communities, that they were not content with the Proposal as it related to the electoral district to which they were assigned.

By letter dated October 25, 2012, the Member of Parliament for Timmins—James Bay informed the Commission that, given the choice between being moved into a much larger electoral district of Timmins—Cochrane—James Bay or maintaining the status quo, the member communities of NEOMA chose the status quo. By letter dated October 29, 2012, the Member of Parliament for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing also informed the Commission of the NEOMA resolution supporting the status quo. She stated in the letter: "Many of the mayors are very concerned that the increased size of the proposed riding will limit the influence of their communities and more importantly would limit the ability of any MP to provide a continuum of appropriate accessibility to their constituents."

The first indication the Commission had of any concern about its Proposal was expressed by the Members of Parliament who made submissions at the public hearings in New Liskeard and North Bay. Having regard to the chronology of events, and the comments made by the Members of Parliament at those public hearings, the Commission does not consider the letter from NEOMA dated October 23, 2012 to be either a coincidence or something with which those Members of Parliament had no involvement.

The Commission's view of what transpired is confirmed in the letters it received from the two Members of Parliament. In addition, their evasive answers to simple questions from the Commission suggest they were more deeply involved in NEOMA's reversal than they chose to admit. While members of Parliament are certainly entitled to participate in public consultation in the electoral boundaries readjustment process, they should be mindful of the risk that overly enthusiastic participation may shade into manipulation.

Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing

Mr. Bryan Hayes, Member of Parliament for Sault Ste. Marie, objected to the reassignment of one village, one town, one geographic township, and eight townships from his electoral district to the electoral district of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. He submitted that the Commission's decision to remove those communities from the electoral district he represents ignores the rules in the Act requiring the Commission to respect communities of interest or identity and the historical pattern of an electoral district. Mr. Hayes wished to maintain the status quo for his electoral district and advocated that the Commission invoke the extraordinary circumstances provision of the Act to address the deficient population that would result in the adjacent electoral district of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission stated above its position that it would not be appropriate and, indeed, that there is no need to invoke the extraordinary circumstances provision set out in the Act for any northern electoral district other than Kenora. The Commission also notes that arguments based on community of interest and historical pattern do not favour the position Mr. Hayes advanced. Rather, they support the Commission's decision to assign those communities to the electoral district of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. Prior to the 2003 representation order, all the affected communities were assigned to the electoral district of Algoma—Manitoulin. That large, substantially rural electoral district surrounded the electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie, and included most of the communities along Highway 17 and the coast of Georgian Bay, currently assigned to the electoral district of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie as set out in its Report.

Nipissing—Timiskaming and Timmins—James Bay

Mr. Jay Aspin, Member of Parliament for Nipissing—Timiskaming, objected to the alteration of the boundary between the electoral districts of Nipissing—Timiskaming and Timmins—James Bay. In its Report, the Commission reassigned the Townships of Hudson and Harris, as well as that part of Timiskaming, Unorganized, West Part lying west of the westerly boundary of the City of Temiskaming Shores and north of the northern boundary of the Township of Coleman, from the electoral district of Nipissing—Timiskaming to the electoral district of Timmins—James Bay. Mr. Aspin's objection was based on the community of interest that the residents of the area share with the City of Temiskaming Shores. He told the Standing Committee that those communities have always been aligned with the Highway 11 corridor located in the electoral district of Nipissing—Timiskaming.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The area in question is largely agricultural. At the public hearing conducted in New Liskeard on October 15, 2012, the Member of Parliament for Timmins—James Bay argued that the community of interest in agriculture flowed in a northerly direction from the City of Temiskaming Shores. Other presenters at that hearing confirmed that opinion. The Commission found those submissions persuasive.

In addition, Mr. Aspin overstated the historical alignment of those communities along the Highway 11 corridor with the electoral district of Nipissing—Timiskaming. Prior to the 2003 representation order, the electoral district of Nipissing—Timiskaming did not exist. The communities in question were located within the boundaries of the electoral district of Timiskaming—Cochrane. They had no association or community of interest with any community within what was then the electoral district of Nipissing.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral district of Nipissing—Timiskaming as set out in its Report.

Central South Ontario

The census population of the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge is 541,739, warranting the creation of five electoral districts. The populations of each of the Cities of Waterloo and Cambridge are sufficient to create electoral districts within their boundaries. However, following its second hearing in Cambridge, the Commission learned about a preferred community of interest that the Township of North Dumfries had with the City of Cambridge, and a community of interest between the southern part of the City of Kitchener and that part of the City of Cambridge lying north of Highway 401 (formerly the Town of Hespeler). As a result, the Commission attempted to balance population by combining part of the Township of North Dumfries with the southern part of the City of Cambridge. Joining the Hespeler area of Cambridge with the southern portion of the City of Kitchener responded to the expressed communities of interest.

The Standing Committee received two objections requesting changes in boundaries.

Kitchener Centre and Kitchener South—Hespeler

Mr. Stephen Woodworth , Member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre, objected to the boundary between the electoral districts of Kitchener Centre and Kitchener South—Hespeler. His proposal would reassign 2,671 people from Kitchener South—Hespeler to Kitchener Centre.

He argued that this would maintain the unity of the area's established neighbourhoods within the electoral district of Kitchener Centre, while placing the undeveloped and developing areas in the electoral district of Kitchener South—Hespeler.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission finds no merit in the objection. The boundaries Mr. Woodworth proposed are streets in strictly residential neighbourhoods. The major roads the Commission selected are superior boundaries.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of Kitchener Centre and Kitchener South—Hespeler as set out in its Report.

Cambridge and Kitchener South—Hespeler

Mr. Gary Goodyear, Member of Parliament for Cambridge, objected to the boundary between the electoral districts of Cambridge and Kitchener South—Hespeler. He proposed to reassign the former Town of Hespeler to the electoral district of Cambridge. This would increase the population of the electoral district of Cambridge to 136,648 (28.65% above the provincial quota). The population of the electoral district of Kitchener South—Hespeler would decrease to 72,718 (31.45% below the provincial quota).

Mr. Goodyear argued that, by dividing the City of Cambridge, the Report aggravates historic tensions among the communities of Hespeler, Galt, and Preston (amalgamated as the City of Cambridge in 1973). He further argued that time and effort has been expended to overcome resistance to the amalgamation, and that his proposal was manageable.

The Standing Committee made no recommendation.

The Act permits deviation beyond the maximum allowable variance of 25% above or below the provincial quota in extraordinary circumstances. To accommodate Mr. Goodyear's proposal, the Commission would have to apply the extraordinary circumstances rule to both electoral districts – something this Commission is not prepared to do. There is population available to create electoral districts within reasonable and permissible variations from the provincial quota.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of Cambridge and Kitchener South—Hespeler as set out in its Report.

Haldimand—Norfolk and Brant

Ms. Diane Finley, Member of Parliament for Haldimand—Norfolk, objected to a part of the boundary between the electoral districts of Haldimand—Norfolk and Brant. Her objection invited the Commission to respect the boundary between the Counties of Brant and Haldimand.

The Standing Committee supported the objection and invited the Commission to clarify the boundary.

In its Report, the Commission stated that the boundaries of the electoral district of Haldimand—Norfolk remained unchanged. The Commission had also endeavoured to maintain the integrity of the boundaries of First Nation communities. However, the Commission was not aware that, subsequent to 2003, a small portion of land on the border between the Counties of Haldimand and Brant was transferred to the jurisdiction of Brant County.

To the extent that the objection requests clarification, the Commission accepts the objection. The first sentence of the first paragraph on page 18 of the Report is amended to read as follows: "The electoral district of HALDIMAND—NORFOLK is composed of the Counties of Haldimand and Norfolk."

Halton, Hamilton and Niagara

The census population of the City of Hamilton is 519,949. In its Report, the Commission established five electoral districts located entirely within the City boundaries. In its Sixty-First Report, the Standing Committee indicated that it had received a letter signed by five Members of Parliament: Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook); Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain); Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre); Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek); and Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale). The letter supported the boundaries of the electoral districts within the City of Hamilton as set out in the Report.

The Standing Committee did not support any changes to the boundaries of those electoral districts set out in the Report.

The census population of Niagara Region is 431,346 and therefore justified the creation of four electoral districts. The Commission stated in its Report that, wherever possible, it endeavoured to respect the integrity of municipal boundaries when establishing electoral districts.

With respect to Niagara Region, the Commission received two objections requesting boundary changes and two objections requesting name changes.

St. Catharines, Niagara West and Niagara Centre

Mr. Dean Allison, Member of Parliament for Niagara West—Glanbrook, and Mr. Rick Dykstra, Member of Parliament for St. Catharines, objected to the boundaries set out in the Report for the electoral districts in the Niagara Peninsula. Both argued that the communities of interest in the Niagara Peninsula would be best represented by retaining the current electoral boundaries. In the alternative, they argued that the boundaries set out in the Commission's Proposal better protected the communities of interest than the boundaries set out in the Report.

Mr. Allison's objection contained two proposals. First, he proposed that the Commission maintain the boundaries of the current electoral districts in the Niagara Peninsula, including the electoral district of Niagara West—Glanbrook. Second, he proposed that the Commission establish electoral districts in Niagara Region in the manner set out in the Proposal.

The Standing Committee made no recommendations with respect to the objection.

Mr. Allison's first proposal stands in contradiction to the letter that he signed which supported the Report's establishment of five electoral districts entirely within the boundaries of the City of Hamilton.

Regarding Mr. Allison's second proposal, the Commission had attempted to establish electoral boundaries in Niagara Region on an east–west axis in its own Proposal. Historically, the boundaries of the electoral districts in that Region have been aligned on a north–south axis. At the public hearing held in Niagara Falls, there was substantial opposition to the Proposal. The Commission was persuaded that communities of interest and historical attachment favoured the establishment of electoral boundaries on a north–south axis.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral district of Niagara West as set out in its Report.

Mr. Dykstra objected to portions of the City of St. Catharines being assigned to three electoral districts. He argued that the City represents a clear community of interest with common concerns.

The Standing Committee made no recommendations with respect to the objection.

The Commission's goal has been to respect the integrity of municipal boundaries wherever possible. Given the census population, that goal was not achievable in Niagara Region. The Commission notes that the boundaries set out in the 2003 representation order divided the City of St. Catharines into two electoral districts.

The census population of the current electoral district of St. Catharines is 112,015. The Report reassigned 1,419 people from a rural area of the electoral district of St. Catharines to the largely rural electoral district of Niagara West. Its boundaries are otherwise unchanged from the 2003 representation order. The Commission's Proposal had involved a far more significant change to electoral boundaries relating to the City of St. Catharines, but met with strong opposition at the public hearing and in written submissions.

The Commission acknowledges that the City of St. Catharines will now have representation in three distinct electoral districts. Not everyone sees that as a weakness. St. Catharines is the municipality with the largest population in the region. Previous commissions, and this Commission, have determined that it is the logical place in the region to attempt to balance population, bearing in mind existing communities of interest and historical attachments.

Even if the Commission were to agree with Mr. Dykstra's objection and retain the boundaries of the current electoral district of St. Catharines, the City would still be divided among three electoral districts.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral district of St. Catharines as set out in its Report.

Change of Name: Oakville South

Mr. Terence Young, Member of Parliament for Oakville, objected to the name of the electoral district of Oakville South. He proposed the name Oakville.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission is persuaded by the objection, since the boundaries of the electoral district remain unchanged from the 2003 representation order.

The electoral district of Oakville South is renamed OAKVILLE.

Change of Name: Ancaster

Mr. David Sweet, Member of Parliament for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, objected to the name of the electoral district of Ancaster. He proposed the name Ancaster—Dundas—West Hamilton. He argued that it would be more appropriate to include the names of three historically distinct communities in the name of the electoral district.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

While the Commission generally is not in favour of names of electoral districts that include more than one historical community, it is persuaded by the substance of the argument. However, it does not agree with the name Mr. Sweet proposed. The names of the other three urban electoral districts located within the City of Hamilton begin with the name Hamilton. The Commission believes that all four should begin in the same fashion.

The electoral district of Ancaster is renamed HAMILTON WEST—ANCASTER—DUNDAS.

Georgian Bay, Barrie and Simcoe

The Standing Committee received two objections from members of Parliament representing electoral districts in this region.

York—Simcoe and Barrie—Innisfil

Mr. Peter Van Loan, Member of Parliament for York—Simcoe, objected to a part of the boundary between the electoral districts of York—Simcoe and Barrie—Innisfil. He proposed that the boundary in the Report (the municipal boundary of the Town of Innisfil) be shifted north to 4 Line (also known as Killarney Beach Road). If implemented, that change would reassign 4,707 people from the electoral district of Barrie—Innisfil to the electoral district of York—Simcoe. Mr. Van Loan argued that the community of interest of those people lay with communities to the south.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

There were a number of presentations at the public hearing in Barrie regarding the Town of Innisfil, including one similar to Mr. Van Loan's objection. However, the prevailing opinion expressed in all other presentations favoured a boundary that included the whole of the Town of Innisfil within an electoral district associated with part of the City of Barrie. Those presentations were consistent with the theme the Commission developed in its Report, namely that, wherever possible, it would strive to maintain the integrity of municipal boundaries.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of York—Simcoe and Barrie—Innisfil as set out in its Report.

Change of Name: Barrie—Oro—Springwater

Mr. Bruce Stanton, Member of Parliament for Simcoe North, objected to the name of the electoral district of Barrie—Oro—Springwater. He proposed that the name be changed to include the historical community of the Township of Medonte.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission accepts the objection. The electoral district of Barrie—Oro—Springwater is renamed BARRIE—SPRINGWATER—ORO-MEDONTE.

Brampton and Mississauga

The Standing Committee received two objections from members of Parliament representing electoral districts in the City of Brampton, and five objections from members of Parliament representing electoral districts in the City of Mississauga.

Brampton North, Brampton South, Brampton West and Brampton East

Mr. Parm Gill, Member of Parliament for Brampton—Springdale, objected to the boundaries of the electoral districts of Brampton North, Brampton West, and Brampton East.

Mr. Gill's objection concerns two boundaries.

First, he argued that the Commission's use of Hurontario Street as a boundary divided the community of Snelgrove. He proposed that the community be kept whole. His proposal would reassign 6,606 people from the electoral district of Brampton West to the electoral district of Brampton North.

Second, he argued that the neighbourhood bounded by Sandalwood Parkway, Bramalea Road, Torbram Road, and Bovaird Drive (15,590 people) had a community of interest with adjacent neighbourhoods in the electoral district of Brampton East. He proposed that it be reassigned from the electoral district of Brampton North to the electoral district of Brampton East.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission finds Mr. Gill's first proposal persuasive. The Commission accepts that the community of interest of the community of Snelgrove lies with the electoral district of Brampton North.

Accordingly, the area bounded by Hurontario Street, the municipal boundary, the Orangeville-Brampton Railway and Wanless Drive is reassigned from the electoral district of BRAMPTON WEST to the electoral district of BRAMPTON NORTH.

The Commission is not persuaded by Mr. Gill's second proposal. It would result in a population of 115,302 for the electoral district of Brampton East, an area identified at the public hearings as having the greatest potential for future growth in the City of Brampton.

The Commission therefore rejects the balance of the objection and, with the exception of the adjustment of boundaries to reassign the community of Snelgrove, retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of Brampton North and Brampton East as set out in its Report.

Mr. Kyle Seeback, Member of Parliament for Brampton West, objected to the inclusion of the area known as Northwood Park (5,692 people) in the electoral district of Brampton West. He argued that the area is historically linked with the downtown core of Brampton for shopping and entertainment. For that reason, he argued that the area should be reassigned from the electoral district of Brampton West to the electoral district of Brampton South.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission is not persuaded by the objection. Mr. Seeback's proposal fails to consider the community of interest of that part of Northwood Park lying north of Flowertown Avenue to the rail line.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of Brampton West and Brampton South as set out in its Report.

Mississauga East—Cooksville, Mississauga North, Mississauga Centre and Mississauga—Erin Mills

Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon, Member of Parliament for Mississauga East—Cooksville, objected to the boundaries of the electoral districts of Mississauga East—Cooksville, Mississauga North, and Mississauga Centre.

He argued that the redevelopment that has occurred at the intersection of Hurontario Street and Dundas Street has obliterated the heart of the historical community of Cooksville to the extent that it no longer has an identity similar to other historical villages within the City of Mississauga.

His proposal realigned the three electoral districts to maintain what he described as communities of interest of similar neighbourhoods developed in the same era.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

At the public hearing, the Commission learned that its Proposal had split the historical community of Cooksville as well as the core of the City of Mississauga. The Commission accepted the advice it received; its Report responds to that advice.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of Mississauga East—Cooksville, Mississauga North and Mississauga Centre as set out in its Report.

Mississauga—Erin Mills and Mississauga Centre

Mr. Bob Dechert, Member of Parliament for Mississauga—Erindale, objected to part of the boundary between the electoral districts of Mississauga—Erin Mills and Mississauga Centre. He proposed to move that boundary further east from the Credit River to Erindale Station Road. He argued that this would consolidate a community of identity based on similar homes (in terms of size, value, and age) and demographics, which historically had been kept within one electoral district.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

In its Report, the Commission endeavoured to use, wherever possible, major physical features or roads as boundaries. In the case of the City of Mississauga, the Credit River is a major boundary. With respect to Mr. Dechert's objection, there is a significant public park and greenbelt area located immediately to the north of and adjacent to the River. In the view of the Commission, his proposed use of Erindale Station Road as a boundary would have a far greater negative impact on community of interest than the use of the Credit River.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of Mississauga—Erin Mills and Mississauga Centre as set out in its Report.

Change of Name: Mississauga East—Cooksville, Mississauga North, Mississauga South and Mississauga West—Streetsville

Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon, Member of Parliament for Mississauga East—Cooksville, objected to the name of the electoral district of Mississauga East—Cooksville. He proposed the name Mississauga East. For the reasons stated in his boundary change objection, he argued there was no longer any justification for reference to Cooksville in the name of the electoral district.

Ms. Eve Adams, Member of Parliament for Mississauga—Brampton South, objected to the name of the electoral district of Mississauga North. She proposed the name Mississauga—Britannia—Malton. She argued that the name would recognize the history and role of the former communities of Malton and Britannia in the Canadian war effort during World War II.

Ms. Stella Ambler, Member of Parliament for Mississauga South, objected to the name of the electoral district of Mississauga South. She proposed the name Mississauga—Lakeshore. She argued that the name would reflect the importance of the shore of Lake Ontario as a defining feature of the community.

Mr. Brad Butt, Member of Parliament for Mississauga—Streetsville, objected to the name of the electoral district of Mississauga West—Streetsville. He proposed the name Mississauga—Streetsville. He argued that the names of electoral districts in this area generally do not refer to compass points, but rather to names of neighbourhoods.

The Standing Committee supported the objections of Ms. Adams, Ms. Ambler and Mr. Butt, and gave qualified support to Mr. Lizon's objection, contingent on the Commission's approval of the boundary changes he requested.

The Commission is persuaded by Mr. Butt's argument that the names of electoral districts in the City of Mississauga do not require compass points, and preferably should contain a reference to an historical community. The Commission rejects Mr. Lizon's objection to the continued reference to the historical community of Cooksville in the name of the electoral district he represents. With regard to Ms. Adams' objection, the Commission thinks it is unnecessary to refer to more than one historical community in the name of any electoral district in the City of Mississauga. The Commission accepts Ms. Ambler's objection.

The electoral district of Mississauga East—Cooksville is renamed MISSISSAUGA—COOKSVILLE.

The electoral district of Mississauga North is renamed MISSISSAUGA—MALTON.

The electoral district of Mississauga South is renamed MISSISSAUGA—LAKESHORE.

The electoral district of Mississauga West—Streetsville is renamed MISSISSAUGA—STREETSVILLE.

York

The Standing Committee did not receive any objections to the electoral boundaries set out in the Report for the nine electoral districts in the York region. It did, however, receive three objections requesting name changes.

Change of Name: Vaughan—Thornhill—Markham

Mr. Peter Kent, Member of Parliament for Thornhill, objected to the name of the electoral district of Vaughan—Thornhill—Markham. He proposed the name Thornhill. He argued that the name would recognize the strong historical contribution that the Thornhill community had made to the York region. Mr. Kent informed the Standing Committee that the city councils of both Vaughan and Markham supported the proposed name.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission finds the objection persuasive. The electoral district of Vaughan—Thornhill—Markham is renamed THORNHILL.

Change of Name: Aurora—Richmond Hill

Mr. Costas Menegakis, Member of Parliament for Richmond Hill, objected to the name of the electoral district of Aurora—Richmond Hill. He proposed the name Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. He argued that the Oak Ridges community should be included in the name of that electoral district to reflect geographic and historical realities, as well as to assert its unique and distinct identity.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission finds the objection persuasive. The electoral district of Aurora—Richmond Hill is renamed AURORA—OAK RIDGES—RICHMOND HILL.

Change of Name: Markham—Stouffville

Mr. Paul Calandra, Member of Parliament for Oak Ridges—Markham, objected to the name of the electoral district of Markham—Stouffville. He proposed the name Markham—Stouffville—Rouge Valley. He argued that the name would reflect in a more comprehensive manner the geographic composition of the electoral district, and recognize the national ecological significance of the Rouge Valley watershed. The City of Markham supported the proposed name.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission notes that it has used the term "Rouge" when naming the adjoining electoral district of Scarborough—Rouge and it is concerned that using all or part of the same name has the potential to confuse electors. In addition, the Rouge River Valley runs through the centre of the electoral district of Scarborough—Rouge, while it marks the territory of the electoral district of Markham—Stouffville to a far lesser extent.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection.

City of Toronto

York Centre and Willowdale

Mr. Mark Adler, Member of Parliament for York Centre, objected to part of the boundary between the electoral districts of York Centre and Willowdale. His proposal would move part of the easterly boundary of the electoral district of York Centre further east to the residential streets of Cactus Avenue, Peckham Avenue, and Grantbrook Street. He argued that the Bathurst Street boundary used by the Commission divided Jewish and Russian-speaking communities.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

In its Report, the Commission endeavoured to balance population moving across the north portion of the City of Toronto, using Highway 401 as the southern boundary. Mr. Adler's eastern boundary would return only a part of the area included in the current electoral district of York Centre. While his proposed boundary would bring the populations of both electoral districts closer to the provincial quota, the Commission is not persuaded that the proposed boundary is as effective as the major thoroughfare of Bathurst Street.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of York Centre and Willowdale as set out in its Report.

University—Rosedale, Spadina—Fort York, Toronto Centre and St. Paul's

Ms. Olivia Chow, Member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina, objected to the boundaries of the electoral districts of University—Rosedale, Spadina—Fort York, Toronto Centre, and St. Paul's. Her proposal would radically alter the boundaries of those electoral districts. The east–west configuration of the electoral districts of St. Paul's and University—Rosedale would be replaced by a north–east configuration.

Ms. Chow argued that her proposed boundaries are based on communities of interest, such as the neighbourhoods of Forest Hill, Rosedale, and Casa Loma, with areas of high average and median household incomes to be grouped together in a proposed electoral district of St. Paul's—Rosedale. She also argued that her proposal would better maintain Italian and Aboriginal communities of interest. She used Vaughan Road as a diagonal boundary for her proposed electoral districts of University—St. Clair and St. Paul's—Rosedale.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett, Member of Parliament for St. Paul's, made a written submission to the Standing Committee strongly objecting to Ms. Chow's proposal, and supporting the electoral boundaries in the Report. She argued that the boundaries proposed by Ms. Chow would divide natural communities and had no public support. She also argued that it would be inappropriate to make such significant changes to electoral boundaries at this stage of the process, when public consultation can no longer take place.

The Standing Committee noted that Ms. Chow's objection would cause the boundaries between these electoral districts to be "altered substantially", and simply referred her objection to the Commission.

The Commission notes that Ms. Chow's proposals do not resemble the proposals either she or others made at the public hearings in Toronto. The Commission agrees that such radical changes at this stage of the process are unacceptable.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of University—Rosedale, Spadina—Fort York, Toronto Centre, and St. Paul's as set out in its Report.

Mr. Bob Rae, Member of Parliament for Toronto Centre, objected to the boundary between the electoral districts of Toronto Centre and Spadina—Fort York. He proposed to move the boundary of the electoral district of Toronto Centre south to encompass more of the community south of the St. Lawrence Market, and to eliminate what he argued was a split in the St. Lawrence Market community resulting from the boundaries in the Report.

To offset the deviation from the provincial quota created by his proposal, he proposed that the area west of Yonge Street to Bay Street, south from Dundas Street to Front Street be reassigned from the electoral district of Toronto Centre to the electoral district of Spadina—Fort York. He argued that the highly mobile population in this area would fit into either electoral district.

While acknowledging that Mr. Rae's proposal attempted to maintain a community of interest, the Standing Committee noted that the resulting deviation of population in the electoral district of Spadina—Fort York would exceed permissible limits under the Act, short of a determination of extraordinary circumstances.

The Standing Committee did not support the objection.

The Commission notes that the historical St. Lawrence Market itself is wholly located within the same electoral district. The neighbourhood south of the Market and east to the Distillery District is still developing and evolving, and does not represent an historical community.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of Spadina—Fort York and Toronto Centre as set out in its Report.

Eglinton—Lawrence, St. Paul's and York South—Weston

Mr. Joe Oliver, Member of Parliament for Eglinton—Lawrence, objected to the boundaries between the electoral districts of Eglinton—Lawrence, St. Paul's, and York South—Weston. His proposal was based on uniting the Upper and Lower Village of Forest Hill.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett, Member of Parliament for St. Paul's, opposed Mr. Oliver's proposal, describing it as "drastic". Mr. Mike Sullivan, Member of Parliament for York South—Weston, also questioned the existence of the community of interest for which Mr. Oliver advocated.

The Standing Committee did not support the objection.

Mr. Oliver's proposal blatantly disregarded considerations of the effect on neighbouring electoral districts. The Standing Committee noted that his proposal would increase the population of the electoral district of York South—Weston to 38.87% above the provincial quota, increase the population of the electoral district of Eglinton—Lawrence to 28.84% above the provincial quota, and decrease the population of the electoral district of St. Paul's to 53.49% below the provincial quota. To rectify those unacceptable deviations in population, the Commission would have to alter significantly the boundaries of adjacent electoral districts. The Commission is of the view that such radical changes at this stage of the process are unacceptable.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of Eglinton—Lawrence, St. Paul's, and York South—Weston as set out in its Report.

Don Valley West and University—Rosedale

Mr. John Carmichael, Member of Parliament for Don Valley West, objected to the boundary between the electoral districts of Don Valley West and University—Rosedale.

He argued that the neighbourhoods of Bennington Heights and Governor's Bridge have a community of interest with the electoral district of Don Valley West, as most of the residents travel to Leaside for their shopping, entertainment, sports, parks, schools and other public services. He suggested that the Moore Park Ravine represents a natural boundary separating those neighbourhoods from Rosedale.

Currently Bennington Heights is in the electoral district of Don Valley West, and Governor's Bridge is in the electoral district of Toronto Centre. Mr. Bob Rae, Member of Parliament for Toronto Centre, observed that some residents of Governor's Bridge identified themselves with Rosedale, but did not object in stronger terms.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission finds Mr. Carmichael's objection as it relates to Bennington Heights persuasive. It accepts that the community of interest of that neighbourhood lies with the electoral district of Don Valley West.

Accordingly, the area bounded by Moore Avenue to the west, the Moore Park Ravine to the south, the rail line to the east, and Bayview Avenue to the north is reassigned from the electoral district of UNIVERSITY—ROSEDALE to the electoral district of DON VALLEY WEST.

However, the Commission is not persuaded that the Governor's Bridge neighbourhood has a significant community of interest with that electoral district.

The Commission therefore rejects that part of the objection relating to Governor's Bridge and, with the exception of the adjustment of boundaries to reassign the community of Bennington Heights, retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of University—Rosedale and Don Valley West as set out in its Report.

Change of Name: Don Valley East

Mr. Joe Daniel, Member of Parliament for Don Valley East, objected to the name of the electoral district of Don Valley East. He proposed the name Don Valley South. He argued that the name would reflect more accurately the new boundaries of the electoral district.

The Standing Committee supported his proposal.

The Commission observes that, while the electoral district is situated south of the electoral district of Don Valley North, it is also situated east of the electoral district of Don Valley West. The electoral district also contains the east branch of the Don River.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection.

Change of Name: University—Rosedale and St. Paul's

Ms. Olivia Chow, Member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina, objected to the boundaries of the electoral districts of University—Rosedale, Spadina—Fort York, Toronto Centre, and St. Paul's. Based on that objection, she objected to the names of the electoral districts of University—Rosedale and St. Paul's. She proposed the names St. Paul's—Rosedale and University—St. Clair.

The Standing Committee supported her objection to change the names, contingent on the Commission's decision to accept the boundary changes she proposed.

The Commission rejected the electoral boundary changes Ms. Chow proposed. It therefore rejects the objection to the names.

Scarborough

In 2003, the previous commission established five electoral districts situated entirely within the former City of Scarborough, and a sixth electoral district that was shared with the City of Pickering in the Durham area. With a census population of 625,698, the Scarborough area warrants six electoral districts.

In its Proposal, the Commission reassigned the Pickering portion of the current electoral district of Pickering—Scarborough East to the electoral district of Pickering—Uxbridge. This respected the integrity of the boundaries of the City of Pickering and the former City of Scarborough. The six electoral districts in the Proposal were only moderately changed from the current ones, with the exception of the electoral district of Scarborough East, which had run on a north–south axis and crossed Highway 401.

The Proposal was the subject of substantial criticism and some support at the public hearing in Toronto on November 14, 2012. The major concerns were the division of the communities of Malvern and Morningside Heights between two electoral districts, the failure to use Rouge River in an electoral district name, and the creation of an electoral district that crossed Highway 401.

Acting on the advice it received, the Commission made significant changes to the boundaries of the six electoral districts. These are reflected in its Report. The Commission would have preferred to conduct a second hearing for the area, as it did in Cambridge and Hamilton, for further public input. Unfortunately, time constraints imposed by the Act precluded that possibility.

The Standing Committee conducted a hearing on April 30, 2013. It appears from the evidence of that hearing that the members of Parliament for Scarborough were divided in their opinions on the merits of the boundaries set out in the Report.

Regrettably, the Member of Parliament for Scarborough—Agincourt made a comment in the media that the Commission had engaged in gerrymandering. Members of the Standing Committee asked him nine times whether he was prepared to withdraw that comment. He did not. The Member of Parliament for Scarborough—Guildwood also expressed the same opinion to the Standing Committee.

The Commission is deeply disappointed by those comments. They directly impugn its independence and integrity. The Commission worked diligently to maintain neutrality in the electoral boundaries readjustment process, as well as to respect submissions and opinions from the public. It is thankful that the Standing Committee endeavoured to encourage the Member of Parliament for Scarborough—Agincourt to withdraw those unwarranted remarks, and that it also formally dissociated itself from those remarks.

All six Members of Parliament from Scarborough filed objections to the Report. Two of them agreed with the Report: Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest) and Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River). The remaining four objected to the boundaries of the electoral districts in Scarborough: Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East); Ms. Roxanne James (Scarborough Centre); Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt); and Mr. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood). Although their objections varied in some details, they essentially agreed with the boundaries established in the Proposal, except in relation to the Bendale community, South Cedarbrae, and the electoral district of Scarborough Southwest. They argued that the electoral boundaries for the area outlined in the Report significantly damaged numerous communities of interest.

The Standing Committee made no recommendation, and simply referred these objections to the Commission.

The Commission received several submissions at the public hearing on November 14, 2012 arguing that its Proposal divided the communities of Malvern and Morningside Heights. The effort to keep those communities together, while at the same time balancing population across Scarborough, created a domino effect that required the Commission to make significant boundary changes in its Report to five of the six electoral districts.

Having considered the objections of the Members of Parliament for the area, and notwithstanding the unwarranted and disrespectful comments of two of them, the Commission is persuaded that the electoral boundaries set out in its Proposal are more appropriate than those in the Report. It is clear that the attempt to reunite the communities of Malvern and Morningside Heights resulted in disruptions of numerous other communities of interest which are impossible to ignore.

The Commission therefore accepts the spirit of the objections made by Mr. Chisu, Ms. James, Mr. Karygiannis, and Mr. McKay. However, it rejects the proposals contained in the objections to reassign the Bendale community from the electoral district of Scarborough—Guildwood to the electoral district of Scarborough Centre, to reassign South Cedarbrae from the electoral district of Scarborough Centre to the electoral district of Scarborough—Guildwood, and to retain the current boundaries of the electoral district of Scarborough Southwest. The Commission is of the view that population is better balanced with the boundaries in its Proposal than it would be with those proposed readjustments.

The Commission therefore reverts to the electoral boundaries for Scarborough as set out in the Proposal.

Scarborough—Agincourt

The electoral district of SCARBOROUGH—AGINCOURT is composed of the boundaries from the 2003 representation order, less that part lying east of Midland Avenue, assigned to the electoral district of Scarborough North.

Scarborough Centre

The electoral district of SCARBOROUGH CENTRE is composed of the boundaries from the 2003 representation order, adjusted as follows: less that part lying east of McCowan Road and north of Lawrence Avenue East, assigned to the electoral district of Scarborough—Guildwood; plus that part of the current electoral district of Scarborough Southwest lying north of Eglinton Avenue East.

Scarborough Southwest

The electoral district of SCARBOROUGH SOUTHWEST is composed of the boundaries from the 2003 representation order, adjusted as follows: less that part lying north of Eglinton Avenue East, assigned to the electoral district of Scarborough Centre; plus that part of the current electoral district of Scarborough—Guildwood bounded on the north by Eglinton Avenue East and on the east by Markham Road.

Scarborough North

The electoral district of SCARBOROUGH NORTH is composed of the following: that part of the current electoral district of Scarborough—Rouge River lying west of Neilson Road and Morningside Avenue to the power line, then west of the Rouge River; plus that part of the current electoral district of Scarborough—Agincourt lying east of Midland Avenue.

Scarborough—Guildwood

The electoral district of SCARBOROUGH—GUILDWOOD is composed of the boundaries from the 2003 representation order, adjusted as follows: less that part lying east of Morningside Avenue, assigned to the electoral district of Scarborough East; less that part lying south of Eglinton Avenue East and west of Markham Road, assigned to the electoral district of Scarborough Southwest; plus that part of the current electoral district of Scarborough Centre lying east of McCowan Road and north of Lawrence Avenue East.

Scarborough East

The electoral district of SCARBOROUGH EAST is bounded as follows: on the north by Steeles Avenue East; on the east by the municipal boundary of the City of Toronto; on the south by Lake Ontario; and on the west by Morningside Avenue north to Highway 401 as far as Neilson Road, north on Neilson Road to Morningside Avenue as far as the power line, east along the power line to the Rouge River, and then north along the Rouge River to Steeles Avenue East.

Change of Name: Scarborough East

Several members of Parliament from the Scarborough area objected to the name of the electoral district of Scarborough East. They proposed that the name include a reference to the Rouge River Valley or Rouge Park.

The Standing Committee referred the objection to the Commission.

It is clear that the Rouge River and Rouge Park are prominent landmarks in the electoral district.

The Commission therefore accepts the objection. The electoral district of Scarborough East is renamed SCARBOROUGH—ROUGE PARK.

Eastern Ontario

Ottawa—Orléans and Rideau—Carleton

Mr. Royal Galipeau, Member of Parliament for Ottawa—Orléans, objected to a part of the boundary between the electoral districts of Ottawa—Orléans and Rideau—Carleton. He advocated a boundary change that would reassign 431 people from Rideau—Carleton to Ottawa—Orléans. His proposed boundary would be an extension of Devine Road to Ramsayville Road.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

In response to submissions made at the public hearings in Ottawa, the Commission endeavoured to include the village of Carlsbad Springs wholly within the electoral district of Ottawa—Orléans. That decision was based on the desire to include the community within that largely Francophone electoral district. Carlsbad Springs is not an incorporated municipality with defined boundaries. The boundaries in the Report correspond to the advice received at the public hearings.

The Commission notes that Mr. Galipeau's proposed boundary is not a natural boundary, street or highway. In addition, it would divide concession lots.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of Ottawa—Orléans and Rideau—Carleton as set out in its Report.

Change of Name: Ottawa—Orléans

Mr. Royal Galipeau, Member of Parliament for Ottawa—Orléans, objected to the name of the electoral district of Ottawa—Orléans. He proposed the name Orléans.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

Mr. Galipeau gave no reasons for the proposed change of name.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection.

Change of Name: Renfrew—Pembroke

Ms. Cheryl Gallant, Member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, objected to the name of the electoral district of Renfrew—Pembroke. She argued that the boundaries of the electoral district had not been changed, and therefore the name should remain Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission finds the objection persuasive. The electoral district of Renfrew—Pembroke is renamed RENFREW—NIPISSING—PEMBROKE.

Change of Name: Rideau—Carleton

Mr. Pierre Poilievre, Member of Parliament for Nepean—Carleton, objected to the name of the electoral district of Rideau—Carleton. He proposed the name Carleton.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission is not persuaded. The Rideau River is a prominent natural feature of the electoral district, and forms part of its eastern boundary.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection.

Change of Name: Leeds—Grenville

Mr. Gordon Brown, Member of Parliament for Leeds—Grenville, objected to the name of the electoral district of Leeds—Grenville. He proposed the name Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. His objection was based on the historical importance of the Thousand Islands and the Rideau Canal.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission is not persuaded. The boundaries of the electoral district were not changed in the Report.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection.

Kingston and the Islands, and Lanark—Frontenac

Mr. Scott Reid, Member of Parliament for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, objected to the boundary between the electoral districts of Lanark—Frontenac and Kingston and the Islands. Mr. Ted Hsu, Member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands, objected to the boundaries of the electoral district of Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Reid proposed that the part of the City of Kingston lying south of Highway 401 and east of the Cataraqui River be transferred from the electoral district of Kingston and the Islands to the electoral district of Lanark—Frontenac. His proposal would reassign 12,881 people, and keep the former Township of Pittsburgh within one electoral district.

The Standing Committee made no recommendation.

The Commission is not persuaded. The Township of Pittsburgh was amalgamated with the City of Kingston in 1998. The Commission is of the view that the community of interest of the urban development along the east shore of the Cataraqui River and the north shore of the St. Lawrence River aligns with the City of Kingston, and not with a primarily rural electoral district.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of Lanark—Frontenac and Kingston and the Islands as set out in its Report.

Mr. Hsu proposed that the current boundaries of the electoral district of Kingston and the Islands be retained. He argued that the City of Kingston has been represented within a single electoral district since Confederation, and should continue to be represented in that fashion to maintain its community of interest.

The Standing Committee made no recommendation.

The Commission is not persuaded. Mr. Hsu's objection would have the effect of increasing the population of the electoral district of Kingston and the Islands to 125,227 (17.9% above the provincial quota) and decreasing the population of the electoral district of Lanark—Frontenac to 90,178 (15.1% below the provincial quota).

The population variance between the two electoral districts he proposes is unacceptable. The Commission is of the view that the boundaries set out in the Report more fairly balance population.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral district of Kingston and the Islands as set out in its Report.

Bay of Quinte, and Hastings—Lennox and Addington

Mr. Daryl Kramp, Member of Parliament for Prince Edward—Hastings, objected to the boundary between the electoral districts of Hastings—Lennox and Addington and Bay of Quinte.

First, he proposed that the part of the City of Belleville lying north of Highway 401 be reassigned from the electoral district of Hastings—Lennox and Addington to the electoral district of Bay of Quinte.

Second, he proposed to reassign the area south of Stirling, and east of Highway 14 and Wallbridge Loyalist Road to Highway 401, from the electoral district of Bay of Quinte to the electoral district of Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

The Standing Committee did not support the objection.

The Commission notes that Mr. Kramp acknowledged to the Standing Committee that both proposals presented challenges and would not be readily acceptable to either electoral district.

Mr. Kramp's first proposal would increase the population of the electoral district of Bay of Quinte to 117,798 (10.91% above the provincial quota) and decrease the population of the electoral district of Hastings—Lennox and Addington to 84,218 (20.71% below the provincial quota). The Commission is of the view that this population variance between these two electoral districts is unacceptable.

His second proposal would divide the City of Quinte West. The Commission is not persuaded that there is any justification for interfering with the municipal boundaries of the City.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of Hastings—Lennox and Addington and Bay of Quinte as set out in its Report.

Haliburton, Peterborough, Northumberland and Durham

Five Members of Parliament objected to electoral boundaries in this region: Mr. Erin O'Toole (Durham); Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock); Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West); Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa); and Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough).

The Standing Committee noted that, while the five Members of Parliament made separate proposals, as a group they agreed with each other's proposals.

The Municipality of Clarington is currently located within the electoral district of Durham. The Commission's Report reassigned part of it to the electoral district of Northumberland—Pine Ridge. Mr. O'Toole's proposal would keep it entirely within one electoral district.

Mr. O'Toole also supported Mr. Carrie's request to keep as much as possible of the City of Oshawa and the campuses of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology within the electoral district of Oshawa.

Mr. Norlock proposed two changes to the boundaries of the electoral district of Northumberland—Pine Ridge. First, like Mr. O'Toole, he argued that the Municipality of Clarington should be kept entirely within the electoral district of Durham—Oshawa. Second, he argued that the Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen, which the Report assigns to the electoral district of Peterborough, should be reassigned to the electoral district of Northumberland—Pine Ridge.

Mr. Devolin proposed two adjustments related to the electoral districts of Peterborough and Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. First, he advocated the reassignment of the Township of Cavan-Monaghan from the electoral district of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock to the electoral district of Peterborough. Second, he advocated the reassignment of the Townships of North Kawartha and of Galway-Cavendish and Harvey from the electoral district of Peterborough to the electoral district of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

Mr. Del Mastro objected to the boundaries of the electoral district of Peterborough. First, he agreed with Mr. Norlock that the Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen should be reassigned from the electoral district of Peterborough to the electoral district of Northumberland—Pine Ridge. Second, he agreed with Mr. Devolin's proposed boundary changes between the electoral districts of Peterborough and Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

The combined effect of these objections would result in the following population changes to the electoral districts of Oshawa, Oshawa—Durham, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, Peterborough, and Northumberland—Pine Ridge:

  • the population of the electoral district of Oshawa would rise from 125,771 (18.41% above the provincial quota) to 132,330 (24.59% above the provincial quota);
  • the population of the electoral district of Oshawa—Durham would rise from 115,395 (8.64% above the provincial quota) to 123,698 (16.46% above the provincial quota);
  • the population of the electoral district of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock would drop from 110,182 (3.74% above the provincial quota) to 108,975 (2.60% above the provincial quota);
  • the population of the electoral district of Peterborough would drop from 115,269 (8.53% above the provincial quota) to 111,953 (5.40% above the provincial quota); and
  • the population of the electoral district of Northumberland—Pine Ridge would drop from 107,840 (1.53% above the provincial quota) to 97,501 (8.20% below the provincial quota).

The Standing Committee supported the objections made by Mr. O'Toole, Mr. Devolin, Mr. Norlock, Mr. Carrie and Mr. Del Mastro. It noted that the resulting deviation in population for the electoral district of Oshawa would be high (24.59% above the provincial quota), but felt that the community of interest sufficiently justified it in the circumstances. The Standing Committee also stated that this was in line with the approach the Commission took for other regions and electoral districts in the province.

The central focus of the objections was to keep the whole of the Municipality of Clarington within a single electoral district. While the Commission endeavoured throughout its Report to respect and maintain the integrity of municipal boundaries, it was not feasible to do so in the case of the Municipality of Clarington. The Commission is of the view that several of the population deviations that result from the proposals for this region are unnecessary and unacceptable.

The Commission does not agree that the boundaries of the electoral district of Oshawa proposed in the objections are in line with the approach it took throughout the province.

The Commission therefore rejects all five objections, and retains the boundaries of the electoral districts of Oshawa, Oshawa—Durham, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, Peterborough, and Northumberland—Pine Ridge as set out in its Report.

Change of Name: Peterborough

Mr. Dean Del Mastro, Member of Parliament for Peterborough, objected to the name of the electoral district of Peterborough. He proposed the name Peterborough—Kawartha Lakes. He argued that both the City of Peterborough and the City of Kawartha Lakes are located in the electoral district.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

This objection was based on Mr. Del Mastro's proposed boundary changes, which the Commission rejected.

The Commission therefore rejects the objection to the name.

Change of Name: Oshawa—Durham

Mr. Erin O'Toole, Member of Parliament for Durham, objected to the name of the electoral district of Oshawa—Durham. He proposed the name Durham. He argued that naming one community in the electoral district and not others would exclude other important historical communities. He stated that the name Durham is inclusive of all communities in the riding. Mr. Colin Carrie, Member of Parliament for Oshawa, supported the name change.

The Standing Committee supported the objection.

The Commission finds the objection persuasive. The electoral district of Oshawa—Durham is renamed DURHAM.



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.