Overall Approach

Population shifts, the effects of municipal amalgamations, and the requirement to establish three new electoral districts in the province required substantial adjustment to the boundaries of existing electoral districts. The Commission did not wish to change electoral districts simply for the sake of doing so. Where boundaries could be retained, the Commission tried to do so. In fact, 11 of the electoral districts outlined in this report remain unchanged from the 1996 Representation Order.

The Commission has tried as much as is reasonably possible to respect the boundaries of those municipalities whose populations are consistent with the provincial quotient. This is not always possible. No one electoral district can be considered in isolation. Any change to one boundary has an inherent effect on at least one adjoining electoral district, and often more.

The primary trends in population patterns in the past decade have been an increase in southern Ontario, especially in the Greater Toronto Area outside the City of Toronto, and an absolute decrease in Northern Ontario. Currently, 20 electoral districts exceed the allowable 25 per cent variance from the quotient. Ten electoral districts have populations that are smaller than the allowable variance from the quotient and 10 electoral districts have populations in excess of the maximum allowable variance from the quotient. These electoral districts vary in size from 69,901 inhabitants (Timiskaming–Cochrane) to 189,934 inhabitants (Brampton West–Mississauga).

Northern Ontario

The population of Northern Ontario is 838,812 inhabitants according to the 2001 census and the region currently has 11 electoral districts. Northern Ontario’s electoral districts were already significantly below the provincial quotient after the previous electoral readjustment. The average population for each electoral district in this region is 76,256. Thus, to retain 11 electoral districts would result in significant overrepresentation in this area.

The Commission considered several alternative approaches and decided that the best approach reduces the region’s number of electoral districts to 10. The Commission heard strong opposition at the public hearings to its proposal to remove one electoral district from Northern Ontario. Representations made during the four public hearings held in the north, and in written submissions, suggested that the electoral districts in Northern Ontario should be treated differently from other Ontario electoral districts. Many argued that the Northern Ontario electoral districts have more in common with electoral districts in lower-populated Prairie provinces than with larger, and often more urban, southern Ontario electoral districts. Emphasized was the idea that electoral boundaries in the north should take into account serviceability of large geographical electoral districts, particularly where communities are remote and where transportation between these and other areas in an electoral district requires air travel, which often does not link the constituent communities, or requires many hours of driving made more difficult because of inclement winter weather and road closures.

The Commission heard repeated suggestions that it should maintain the current electoral boundaries for Northern Ontario to ensure that the number of electoral districts remains unchanged at 11. Alternatively, the Commission heard that if the Commission must change electoral districts, the Commission should ensure that no electoral district is removed, regardless of how many electoral districts would fall outside the allowable 25 per cent variance from the quotient, thus requiring that they be deemed extraordinary circumstances. The Commission believes that any decision to grant Northern Ontario a guaranteed minimum level of electoral districts, even when population levels do not warrant this treatment, should be made by Parliament. Moreover, a problem with the second suggestion is that it presumes that electoral districts based in urban centres like Greater Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie (which have populations well below the allowable variance from the quotient) should be significantly overrepresented. The Commission does not accept that urban centres warrant extraordinary circumstances. In any event, the Commission received no comprehensive alternative proposal to maintain 11 electoral districts in this region.

The Commission is willing to recognize that individual northern electoral districts should have smaller populations than other Ontario electoral districts. Otherwise, if the electoral districts for Northern Ontario were based solely on the principle of representation by population, this region would be allocated only eight electoral districts – a decrease of three. This decision is consistent with the legislation’s emphasis on a manageable geographical size for sparsely populated, rural or northern regions. Thus, these electoral districts are uniformly well below the provincial quotient and have the lowest populations of any electoral district in the province.

While the Commission does not accept that multiple Northern Ontario electoral districts warrant deviating from the allowable variance from the quotient, particularly in urban northern areas, it does accept that one electoral district warrants this treatment. The existing electoral district of Kenora–Rainy River is 26.83 per cent below the provincial quotient. To add sufficient population to this electoral district would have made an already geographically large electoral district even larger, making it more difficult for the elected member to service the various communities throughout the electoral district, many of which are not connected by road networks. By recognizing extraordinary circumstances in the treatment of this electoral district, this decision has the added benefit of giving the Commission more flexibility to change other boundaries in northern electoral districts to address concerns raised in the public hearings. The proposals for Northern Ontario, which initially did not have any boundary that deviated beyond 25 per cent from the quotient, allowed little margin to respond to objections that the Commission’s initial boundary decisions would seriously divide communities of interest. The Commission has removed all of the Territorial District of Rainy River from the current electoral district of Kenora–Rainy River, leaving this electoral district, now named KENORA, with a population of 60,572, which is 43.73 per cent below the provincial quotient.

The current electoral districts of Thunder Bay–Atikokan and Thunder Bay–Superior North are both well below the allowable variance from the quotient (29.39 per cent and 30.10 per cent respectively) and therefore have required substantial adjustments. The Commission heard numerous objections to its proposed Thunder Bay–Superior North electoral district. The most notable objection was that servicing the proposed electoral district would be unmanageable, particularly because of the required length of travel time between communities along the long Highway No. 17 corridor, which is made more difficult by the challenges that winter weather and road closures present. In response to these concerns, and to create two electoral districts with appropriate levels of population, the Commission has altered the boundaries within the City of Thunder Bay. The electoral districts of THUNDER BAY–RAINY RIVER and THUNDER BAY–SUPERIOR NORTH have respective populations of 85,775 and 83,657.

The current electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie is 30.73 per cent below the provincial quotient. In public hearings, the proposed electoral district was criticized because it would isolate communities in the Sault North Planning District by placing them in the proposed Thunder Bay–Superior North electoral district. In response to these concerns, the Commission is increasing the geographical size of this electoral district beyond what it earlier had proposed. The electoral district of SAULT STE. MARIE now includes the City of Sault Ste. Marie, several surrounding municipalities, from Prince in the west to Plummer Additional to the east, as well as the area to the north as far as the Montreal River.

The Commission heard substantial opposition to its proposed boundaries for the electoral district of Parry Sound–Muskoka. One concern was that proposed changes to the eastern boundary, made to increase the population of the electoral district of Nipissing, divided the communities of interest for the Village of Burk’s Falls and other communities along Highway No. 11. In response to these concerns, the Commission has generally reverted back to the current electoral boundaries of Parry Sound–Muskoka. One exception is the placement of the Town of Killarney in the electoral district of NICKEL BELT, because municipal restructuring significantly increased the size of this town. A second exception is the removal of the Township of Algonquin Highlands and its placement in the electoral district of HALIBURTON–KAWARTHA LAKES–BROCK, in accordance with the wishes of local municipal officials and residents. The population of PARRY SOUND–MUSKOKA is 84,789, which is 21.23 per cent below the provincial quotient.

The electoral district of Nipissing has a population of 74,915, which is 30.40 per cent below the provincial quotient. Significant adjustments were required to increase the population of this electoral district to an appropriate level. The electoral district retains its southern, western and eastern boundaries. To increase the population of the electoral district, the Commission significantly shifted the northern boundary, which now follows the Highway No. 11 corridor, including the tri-towns of Haileybury, Cobalt and New Liskeard, and as far north as the Township of Dymond. The Commission has renamed this electoral district NIPISSING–TIMISKAMING, which has a population of 89,961 and is 16.43 per cent below the provincial quotient.

The electoral district of Timmins–James Bay has a population of 71,648, which is 33.44 per cent below the provincial quotient. To increase its population, the electoral boundaries of this electoral district have been adjusted to the south to include the Town of Kirkland Lake, which is consistent with the wishes of municipal officials who advised the Commission that Kirkland Lake has a strong community of interest with the Timmins area. To adjust for the population increase of this southern boundary change and because of the need to add population to the NIPISSING–TIMISKAMING electoral district, the Commission is removing from the electoral district the communities around Highway No. 11, from the Town of Smooth Rock Falls to the westernmost part of the Territorial District of Cochrane. With these changes, the electoral district of TIMMINS–JAMES BAY has a population of 84,001, which is 21.96 per cent below the provincial quotient.

Adjustments to the electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie decreased the population of the electoral district of Algoma–Manitoulin, which was already 31.81 per cent below the provincial quotient. Concerns expressed at the hearings by rural communities about being overwhelmed by larger urban centres, led the Commission to establish a rural-based electoral district, ALGOMA–MANITOULIN–KAPUSKASING. The communities along the Highway No. 11 corridor in the Territorial District of Cochrane were added to provide sufficient population.

The Commission heard substantial opposition to its proposed treatment of the Greater Sudbury area. Complaints arose that our proposed boundaries isolated francophone communities in the City of Greater Sudbury. In response to these concerns, the Commission is maintaining a Nickel Belt-based electoral district that includes the francophone communities of French River, St.-Charles and Markstay-Warren, with the addition of the rest of the Territorial District of Sudbury and the municipalities of West Nipissing and Killarney. The electoral district of NICKEL BELT has a population of 89,314, which is 17.03 per cent below the provincial quotient. To ensure that the electoral district of SUDBURY has sufficient population, its boundaries have been readjusted to include the area west of the current electoral district, corresponding to the former municipality of Walden within the City of Greater Sudbury.

Eastern Ontario

The electoral district of RENFREW–NIPISSING–PEMBROKE remains unchanged, with a population that is 10.42 per cent below the provincial quotient. The Commission believes that this variance is appropriate for a large geographical electoral district that adjoins Northern Ontario.

Ottawa

Initially, the Commission proposed to respect the municipal boundaries of the City of Ottawa following the 2001 amalgamation, which merged all of the municipalities within the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. The Commission heard numerous objections to its proposals for Ottawa-area electoral districts, both from residents of these electoral districts and from residents living in other Eastern Ontario electoral districts who were critical that the Commission’s decision to respect Ottawa municipal boundaries would have a ripple effect on the boundaries of their electoral districts. In response to these concerns, and to suggestions to retain historical names, the Commission has made significant readjustments to what it had proposed for the Ottawa electoral districts.

The Commission accepts the argument made in numerous submissions during the hearings to keep rural communities together. This requires crossing the Ottawa municipal boundary and removing most of the former Township of Cumberland from the proposed electoral district of Ottawa–Orléans, and including it in the electoral district of GLENGARRY–PRESCOTT–RUSSELL. The boundaries of the electoral district of OTTAWA–ORLÉANS are being adjusted to keep the Orléans community together. The electoral district of OTTAWA–VANIER remains the same except for a minor adjustment in response to suggestions heard during the hearings that the Queensway and Highway No. 417 provide more sensible boundaries.

The electoral district of OTTAWA CENTRE remains unchanged. The electoral district of OTTAWA SOUTH is largely the same as proposed, except for an eastern adjustment and the minor change discussed above with respect to OTTAWA–VANIER.

The Commission heard substantial criticisms that its proposed electoral district of Ottawa–Nepean divides communities of interest and inappropriately links communities around Britannia Beach with less urbanized areas associated with the former City of Kanata. In response to these criticisms, the Commission has reverted to the current boundaries and name of the electoral district of OTTAWA WEST–NEPEAN, with the exception of an addition north of West Hunt Club Road (for details, see Map 11).

The Commission has significantly restructured the boundaries for the current electoral district of Lanark–Carleton, due in large part to the increase in population of this electoral district, which at 138,398 significantly surpasses the provincial quotient. At the public hearings, the mayor of the Town of Mississippi Mills indicated a desire to be united with an Ottawa-based electoral district, a position that is inconsistent with the Commission’s proposals that Ottawa-area electoral districts respect the city’s municipal boundaries. In response to this suggestion, and to address concerns with its initial proposal to locate communities around Britannia Beach within a Kanata-area electoral district, the Commission is establishing the electoral district of CARLETON–LANARK, which comprises the areas formerly known as the Township of West Carleton, the City of Kanata, the Township of Goulbourn and the current Town of Mississippi Mills.

The Commission was asked at many of the hearings to retain historical names. Therefore, the Commission is changing the proposed name of the electoral district of Ottawa–Rideau to NEPEAN–CARLETON. The boundaries of NEPEAN–CARLETON remain similar to their current state, with the exception of an eastern adjustment that includes the rest of the former City of Gloucester that is not in the electoral district of OTTAWA–ORLÉANS, and a western adjustment that removes the former Township of Goulbourn.

Eastern Ontario Outside Ottawa

The Commission’s proposed treatment of the rest of Eastern Ontario was greatly influenced by two factors: a substantial increase in population in the existing electoral district of Lanark–Carleton, which required substantial readjustments to this electoral district, and the Commission’s initial decision to respect the municipal boundaries of the City of Ottawa.

The cumulative effects of these factors reverberated in the Commission’s proposed treatment of a number of Eastern Ontario electoral districts. The Commission heard abundant criticisms that communities of interest had been severed, counties had been divided more often than necessary, and differing counties had been united in electoral districts despite their lack of common interests. The decision in eastern Ottawa, to deviate from the municipal boundary, allowed the Commission to redress many of the criticisms of its proposals.

One of the most significant proposed changes to an existing electoral district occurred in the current electoral district of Lanark–Carleton. The removal of Kanata from the Lanark–Carleton electoral district meant that the electoral district no longer had a sufficient population. The rural nature of this area necessitated a large geographical area to ensure sufficient population and resulted in a proposal that drew people from four counties. This proposed electoral district, which the Commission named Lanark and the Lakes, drew substantial criticism – that the existing road network would make it difficult to service, that it divided existing communities of interest, and that it grouped together centres with few discernable common interests. By revisiting the decision to cross the city boundary in eastern Ottawa, the Commission was able to substantially revise its treatment of this and other Eastern Ontario electoral districts. Another important factor that influenced the Commission’s final approach to this electoral district was the suggestion, discussed previously, that the Town of Mississippi Mills has more affinity with the City of Ottawa than with the more rural western parts of the proposed electoral district, and therefore should be united in an electoral district that includes Ottawa. With the above-mentioned placement of the Town of Mississippi Mills, the Commission has changed the boundaries of this electoral district, which it is naming LANARK–FRONTENAC–LENNOX AND ADDINGTON. This electoral district includes all of Lanark County (except for the Town of Mississippi Mills), all of Frontenac County (except for the City of Kingston and the Township of Frontenac Islands), and all of the County of Lennox and Addington.

As was mentioned earlier, the Commission restored most of the area of the former Township of Cumberland to the electoral district of GLENGARRY–PRESCOTT–RUSSELL. This decision allowed the Commission to address a concern raised in the hearings – that the proposed readjustment to the southwestern part of the electoral district would have separated francophone populations from relevant spheres of influence in and around the City of Cornwall. The Commission has included the Township of South Glengarry in the electoral district of STORMONT–DUNDAS–SOUTH GLENGARRY.

The electoral district of LEEDS–GRENVILLE remains unchanged. This is a significant departure from the Commission’s proposal, which was to unite the communities of Leeds and Grenville United Counties and Frontenac County.

The electoral district of KINGSTON AND THE ISLANDS is the same as the current electoral district except for the addition of that part of the city that is north of Highway No. 401.

The Commission’s proposed Lanark and the Lakes electoral district included part of Hastings County. Substantial objections were raised during the public hearings and in written submissions, that the proposed electoral district divided the county and, in so doing, threatened to undermine the pursuit of communities of interest on a range of issues. Concerns were also expressed that the Commission proposed to remove a historic name of importance. The proposed electoral district was also criticized for reflecting an east–west direction rather than the more traditional north–south orientation, which better corresponds to transportation patterns. In response to these concerns, the Commission is establishing a very different electoral district, PRINCE EDWARD–HASTINGS, which includes all of Hastings County, except for the City of Quinte West, and all of the City of Prince Edward.

Similar objections were raised with respect to the Commission’s proposed treatment of Northumberland County, which would have been part of a very different electoral district than what currently exists. The cumulative effects of changing eastern electoral districts allowed for substantial alterations to what was originally proposed. Thus, earlier discussed changes to LANARK–FRONTENAC–LENNOX AND ADDINGTON have allowed for substantial readjustments to the proposed electoral district of Northumberland–Quinte, which address many of the concerns raised at the public hearings. The Commission is renaming the electoral district NORTHUMBERLAND–QUINTE WEST. The boundaries are similar to the current electoral district except for an addition made to respect a municipal amalgamation. The electoral district includes all of Northumberland County and that part of Hastings County that comprises the recently amalgamated City of Quinte West.

The electoral district of PETERBOROUGH remains the same as the current electoral district except for an adjustment to recognize the municipal amalgamation of the Township of Cavan-Millbrook-North Monaghan. This reflects a change from the proposal to respond to concerns arising from the exclusion of the Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen from this electoral district. The Commission heard different opinions on whether to split the Township of Cavan-Millbrook-North Monaghan and include its North Monaghan Ward within the Peterborough electoral district. Although the sitting member of the House of Commons proposed this idea, the Commission was persuaded by the reeve of the Township of Cavan-Millbrook-North Monaghan who, writing on behalf of the council, argued that the township should be kept together in a single electoral district.

The electoral district of HALIBURTON–KAWARTHA LAKES–BROCK is the same as the current electoral district except for the addition of the Township of Algonquin Highlands. In making this decision, the Commission has responded to criticisms on behalf of the Township of Algonquin Highlands and others opposing the exclusion of this municipality from the electoral district. The Commission has also responded to complaints from municipal officials about its proposal to remove the Township of Brock, which is a rural municipality, and place it within a more urban electoral district. Thus, the Township of Brock is remaining in the electoral district of HALIBURTON–KAWARTHA LAKES–BROCK.

Durham Region and City of Toronto

The existing electoral districts in Durham Region have experienced considerable growth. The population of this region, while too large for four electoral districts, is not sufficient for five. Nevertheless, the Commission heard numerous proposals to increase the number of electoral districts in the Durham Region to five. The Commission was not prepared to accept these recommendations as proposed. One problem is that to have five electoral districts solely within Durham Region produces overrepresentation in one or more of these electoral districts. Other problems with these recommendations were that they proposed to split the Town of Clarington and were dependent upon the inclusion of the Township of Brock in the Durham area electoral districts, despite strong opposition from township officials, as indicated above.

In the public hearings held in Toronto, the City of Toronto argued that electoral boundaries should not deviate any more than necessary from the provincial quotient, suggesting a maximum 5 per cent variance from the quotient. The City also argued that Toronto area electoral districts need not be confined to the city’s municipal boundaries. This latter recommendation has important implications for neighbouring electoral districts, such as those in Durham Region. The Commission has acted on this suggestion that the 22 electoral districts in Toronto need not be confined entirely to the city’s municipal boundaries. By extending electoral boundaries beyond the city’s eastern municipal limits, the Commission is able to increase the number of electoral districts in Durham Region in a manner that does not result in the overrepresentation, or the forced inclusion of the rural municipality of Brock in an urban electoral district to which it has little affinity. It also results in significant changes to the proposed electoral districts in Durham Region.

Durham Region

The Commission is establishing the electoral district of CLARINGTON–SCUGOG–UXBRIDGE, which includes the Town of Clarington, the townships of Scugog and Uxbridge, and the Indian reserve named Mississaugas of Scugog Island.

The electoral district of OSHAWA includes the current electoral district of Oshawa and everything south of Rossland Road.

The electoral district of WHITBY–OSHAWA is comprised of all of the Town of Whitby and the remainder of the City of Oshawa.

The electoral district of AJAX–PICKERING is comprised of all of the Town of Ajax and the area in the City of Pickering that is north of Finch Avenue, east of Valley Farm Road, north of Highway No. 401 and east of Brock Road.

City of Toronto

The City of Toronto’s recommendation not to be bound by the city’s municipal boundaries had a significant effect on the Durham and Scarborough area electoral districts. This effect is most pronounced in the electoral district of PICKERING–SCARBOROUGH EAST. This electoral district includes the remaining part of the City of Pickering and that part of the City of Toronto which is south of Finch Avenue East, east of Meadowvale Road, south of Sheppard Avenue East, east of Morningside Avenue and Highland Creek, and west of AJAX–PICKERING.

The above creation of PICKERING–SCARBOROUGH EAST had an impact on other Scarborough electoral districts. The decision not to confine Toronto area electoral districts to municipal limits has allowed the Commission to respond to criticisms that three of its proposed Scarborough electoral districts would be significantly under-represented. The Commission is significantly altering the electoral districts in this area, and is establishing electoral districts that are each less than 8 per cent from the provincial quotient.

The electoral district of SCARBOROUGH–GUILDWOOD consists of the area south of Highway No. 401 that is between Bellamy Road on the west and Morningside Avenue and Highland Creek on the east.

The electoral district of SCARBOROUGH–ROUGE RIVER retains its northern limit, which is the northern limit of the City of Toronto, and is bounded on the west by Midland Avenue as far as Finch Avenue East, and Brimley Road to Highway No. 401, and on the east by PICKERING–SCARBOROUGH EAST.

The electoral district of SCARBOROUGH–AGINCOURT retains its same northern and western boundaries, these being the northern City of Toronto limits and Victoria Park Avenue. The southern and eastern boundaries have changed. They are Highway No. 401 on the south and SCARBOROUGH–ROUGE RIVER on the east.

The electoral district of SCARBOROUGH CENTRE is bounded on the north by Highway No. 401, on the west by Victoria Park Avenue, on the south by the hydroelectric transmission line (situated north of Craigton Drive) to the Canadian National Railway, following this railway south to Eglinton Avenue East, and on the east by SCARBOROUGH–GUILDWOOD.

The electoral district of SCARBOROUGH SOUTHWEST is bounded by Victoria Park Avenue on the west, Lake Ontario on the south, SCARBOROUGH–GUILDWOOD on the east and SCARBOROUGH CENTRE on the north.

The population of the current electoral district of Willowdale is 118,375, requiring substantial adjustments. To reduce the population of this electoral district, the Commission has moved the territory that is north of the hydroelectric transmission line  (north of Finch Avenue West) and west of Yonge Street to YORK CENTRE. The Commission heard concerns about its proposed eastern boundary from Mr. David Caplan, Member of the Provincial Parliament, and the Honourable Mr. David Collenette, Member of the House of Commons, that communities of interest would be divided if the Commission were to remove from the electoral district of Don Valley East the area between Highway No. 404 and Victoria Park Avenue that is north of Finch Avenue East, and move it into the electoral district of Willowdale. In response, the Commission is reverting to the current northern boundary for DON VALLEY EAST. The Commission has also acted upon the suggestion by both representatives that the area between Sheppard Avenue and Finch Avenue East, from the Don River to Leslie Street, be moved from DON VALLEY EAST to WILLOWDALE because the area’s residents have a stronger affinity with WILLOWDALE.

The boundaries of the current electoral districts of York Centre and York West required adjustments because their populations are too low. The Commission has added to York Centre the territory north of the hydroelectric transmission line (north of Finch Avenue West) and west of Yonge Street. It has also extended the western boundary to Keele Street. The boundary between the two electoral districts has been adjusted. It continues to be Jane Street, but it is extended as far north as Sheppard Avenue. It then goes east to Black Creek, north to Grandravine Drive, and east to Keele Street, which serves as the boundary between the two electoral districts right up to the northerly boundary of the City of Toronto. The population of YORK CENTRE is 113,420 and that of YORK WEST is 110,384.

No changes have been made to the electoral district of YORK SOUTH–WESTON other than a minor adjustment on the eastern boundary where Keele Street intersects with the Canadian National Railway line.

The Commission’s proposed boundaries for the electoral district of Davenport were supported by the sitting Member of the House of Commons, Mr. Charles Caccia. These changes would have extended the eastern boundary from Dovercourt Road to Ossington Avenue, between the Canadian Pacific Railway line and Dundas Street West. But the Commission also heard criticism from others that its proposal to move all of the territory south of Dundas Street West into other electoral districts would divide communities of interest. Concerns expressed were that by using Dundas Street West as the southern boundary, a large part of the Portuguese community was excluded from the Davenport electoral district. The Commission has responded to this concern and is reverting to the existing southern boundary. A different concern with the proposed boundaries of Davenport, expressed by the Silverthorne Ratepayers’ Association and their federal Member of the House of Commons, Mr. Alan Tonks, was that the northwest boundary divided the Silverthorne community. To address this problem, the Commission has reverted to the current northern boundary, placing the Silverthorne community in YORK SOUTH–WESTON. The population of DAVENPORT is 111,705, YORK SOUTH–WESTON is 114,539 and TRINITY–SPADINA is 106,094.

The boundaries of PARKDALE–HIGH PARK remain the same as the current electoral district with the exception of the removal of the area at the southeast corner, between Dufferin Street and Atlantic Avenue and north of the Gardiner Expressway. The Commission heard from City Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski who suggested that the Exhibition grounds be included in this electoral district. However, the Commission was not persuaded that this change is warranted. A problem with this suggested change is that the surrounding area has a population too large to be included in PARKDALE–HIGH PARK.

The northern boundary of TRINITY–SPADINA is the same as the current electoral district. The eastern boundary remains the same for the area that is north of College Street. The Commission has added to this electoral district the area south of College Street and west of Yonge Street, including the Toronto Islands. On the west, the electoral district is bounded by DAVENPORT and PARKDALE–HIGH PARK.

The electoral district of Toronto Centre–Rosedale required considerable changes because the population of the current electoral district is 122,882, which the Commission considers unacceptably high. The Commission has redrawn the boundary so that the Toronto Islands and the area bounded by University Avenue (on the west), College Street (on the north) and Yonge Street (on the east) are removed from Toronto Centre–Rosedale and added to TRINITY–SPADINA. On the north, the Commission added the area known as Governor’s Bridge (population 388) to Toronto Centre–Rosedale. This area was part of the former Borough of East York. Now that the municipal boundary in this area no longer exists, the Commission considers that Governor’s Bridge is appropriately joined with Toronto Centre–Rosedale. The Commission also responded to a written submission to include all of the Summerhill community in the existing electoral district of Toronto Centre–Rosedale. This was accomplished by moving that part of the boundary on Woodlawn Avenue East, northwards to Jackes Avenue. Neither of these additions added substantial population to this electoral district but did restore communities of interest. The Commission has also responded to a suggestion made at the hearings that the name of the electoral district should be changed since the community known as Rosedale comprises less than 10 per cent of the population of this electoral district. The electoral district has been renamed TORONTO CENTRE.

The Commission did not propose any changes to the current electoral district of St. Paul’s. During the hearings, the Commission heard from Toronto municipal officials and from a former returning officer that the current boundary between Eglinton–Lawrence and St. Paul’s is no longer rational in light of amalgamation in the city. The Commission is addressing this concern by altering these boundaries and is using Eglinton Avenue, between Yonge and Dufferin streets, to divide the electoral districts of ST. PAUL’S and EGLINTON–LAWRENCE. As a consequence, the area south of Eglinton Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Winona Drive, that is north of Rogers Road and Holland Park Avenue, has been added to the electoral district of ST. PAUL’S. The only other change is the removal of a portion of the Summerhill community as discussed previously.

The Commission has not changed the electoral district of DON VALLEY WEST other than to make an adjustment to the southern boundary to follow the Don River. This decision was made to rationalize the boundary and no longer use the former municipal limits of the Borough of East York. Although the Commission heard representations to keep the community of Don Mills together, the affected population was too great for the Commission to establish boundaries that would keep this area together, yet not unduly disrupt other neighbouring electoral districts.

At the public hearings, the Commission was advised to redesign the boundaries that separate the electoral districts of Beaches–East York from Toronto–Danforth. The argument made was that Coxwell Avenue, which runs north–south, does not represent communities of interest as well as an east–west alignment. In response to a persuasive presentation by Toronto City Councillor Michael Tziretas, the Commission has redrawn the boundaries between these two electoral districts to reflect an east–west division, along Danforth Avenue. No other electoral districts are affected by this change. The only other adjustments are minor and are to use geographical features rather than previous municipal boundaries. The electoral district of EAST YORK is 1.92 per cent below the provincial quotient, while the electoral district of BEACHES–RIVERDALE is 5.03 per cent above the quotient.

The total population of the three electoral districts west of the Humber River (the former City of Etobicoke) is 338,117. Their average population is 112,705, a figure that is appropriate. The existing electoral district of ETOBICOKE–LAKESHORE has a population of 113,914 and does not require any changes.

To reduce the population of the current electoral district of Etobicoke North from 118,583, the Commission has moved the area that is south of Dixon Road to the electoral district of Etobicoke Centre. The effect of this change is to simplify the boundaries between the proposed electoral districts of ETOBICOKE NORTH and ETOBICOKE CENTRE such that, from west to east, it is Highway No. 401 and Dixon Road.

[Previous]   [Next]

 Privacy Statement, Important Notices and Disclaimers