Thanks again for the support- I am working on my submissions to the Commission
The Commission is redrawing the boundaries of ridings, or Electoral districts, defined in the Canada Elections Act as follows: "electoral district" means a place or territorial area that is represented by a member in the House of Commons. ("circonscription") Canada Elections Act S.C. 2000, c. 9, s. 2
This redrawing of the boundaries of the Electoral Districts is a difficult balancing act between equalizing the number of voters and making sure various differing communities have a chance to be heard and are not drowned out by other or larger groups. Nobody doubts that the Commission takes the task assigned to it very seriously and no doubt the commission recognizes that:
28 The Supreme Court of Canada has attributed to this right (to vote) much more than simply the right to mark a ballot in an election or to run for office. In Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 (S.C.C.) — a decision that casts a long shadow over the disposition of this case — the Supreme Court of Canada (at para. 19) adopted the statement of McLachlin C.J.B.C.S.C. (as she then was) that "[m]ore is intended [in the right to vote] than the bare right to place a ballot in a box": Dixon v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1989] 4 W.W.R. 393 (B.C. S.C.), at 403. The purpose of s. 3 is "effective representation", but the right includes more than simply the right to be represented effectively in Parliament and the Legislatures; it encompasses as well the very broad right to play a "meaningful role", and to participate meaningfully, in the electoral process.
Longley v. Canada (Attorney General) 2007 CarswellOnt 7823, 2007 ONCA 852, [2007] O.J. No. 4758, 163 A.C.W.S. (3d) 402, 165 C.R.R. (2d) 190, 231 O.A.C. 244, 288 D.L.R. (4th) 599, 88 O.R. (3d) 408
It is respectfully submitted that this “meaningful role” must at least to some extent, contemplate s.15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
15(1) Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Constitution Act, 1982R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 44, Sched. B, Pt. I, s. 15
The significance is this: Each distinct community on either bank of the Humber river- a natural boundary- needs to have a meaningful voice, and one that is not discriminated against by the other, so that each bank of the Humber gets equal protection and equal benefit of the electoral process without discrimination. The proposed forced marriage, with all due respect, it is submitted, may unwittingly and unintentional result in an unequal bank of the Humber, perhaps with the wealthier Etobicoke Centre side trumping the York South Weston side. This, of course, would not be the intended outcome of the commission, but it is a foreseeable one, and it is a foreseeable mistake that can be avoided by keeping the Humber River the boundary between two distinct communities entitled to distinct representation.
The key goal is not to equalize population variance between electoral districts, but to achieve ‘effective representation’ and to have that representation “without discrimination” and, as the Supreme Court found:
26 It is my conclusion that the purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se, but the right to "effective representation." Ours is a representative democracy. Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government as well as the idea of the right to bring one's grievances and concerns to the attention of one's government representative; as noted in Dixon v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1989] 4 W.W.R. 393 at 413, 35 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273, 59 D.L.R. (4th) 247 (S.C.), elected representatives function in two roles — legislative and what has been termed the "ombudsman role."
Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries, [1991] 5 W.W.R. 1, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, 127 N.R. 1, (sub nom. Reference re Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, ss. 14, 20 (Saskatchewan)) 81 D.L.R. (4th) 16, (sub nom. Carter v. Saskatchewan (Attorney General)) 5 C.R.R. (2d) 1, (sub nom. Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Saskatchewan)) 94 Sask. R. 161, 1991 CarswellSask 188, 1991 CarswellSask 403 (S.C.C.)
It is submitted that in order for these two distinct roles to be carried through, the legislative role, relating to policy and legislation, and the ombudsman role, relating to stickhandling a constituents’ concerns or problems through the bureaucratic channels to get the best possible result of a possible supporter, to be properly carried out, requires separate and distinct representations on either side of the Humber River. The demographics are completely different, and each differing demographic group is entitled to effective – and not drowned out- legislative input and, perhaps, more importantly, each community needs a representative that the community can relate to and to have one of their own be their champion in the House of Commons.
It is respectfully submitted that the Commission may be too focused on population issues. Although no doubt, population issues are of great significance, as the Supreme Court decided:
…
28 But parity of voting power, (a population matter) though of prime importance, is not the only factor to be taken into account in ensuring effective representation. Sir John A. Macdonald, in introducing the Act to re-adjust the Representation in the House of Commons, S.C. 1872, c. 13, recognized this fundamental fact:
... it will be found that ... while the principle of population was considered to a very great extent, other considerations were also held to have weight; so that different interests, classes and localities should be fairly represented, that the principle of number (population) should not be the only one.
… Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries, [1991] 5 W.W.R. 1, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, 127 N.R. 1, (sub nom. Reference re Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, ss. 14, 20 (Saskatchewan) (supra)
31 …. Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic. These are but examples of considerations which may justify departure from absolute voter parity in the pursuit of more effective representation; the list is not closed.
32 It emerges therefore that deviations from absolute voter parity may be justified on the grounds of practical impossibility or the provision of more effective representation. Beyond this, dilution of one citizen's vote as compared with another's should not be countenanced. I adhere to the proposition asserted in Dixon, at p. 414, that "only those deviations should be admitted which can be justified on the ground that they contribute to better government of the populace as a whole, giving due weight to regional issues within the populace and geographic factors within the territory governed."
Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries, [1991] 5 W.W.R. 1, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, 127 N.R. 1, (sub nom. Reference re Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, ss. 14, 20 (Saskatchewan) (supra)
It is respectfully submitted that each demographically distinct bank of the Humber River needs distinct representation, as previously stated “so that different interests, classes and localities should be fairly represented,” and that: …
31 …. Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic. (Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries, [1991] 5 W.W.R. 1, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, 127 N.R. 1, (sub nom. Reference re Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, ss. 14, 20 (Saskatchewan))
And so, it is submitted that the above listed factors – an incomplete list- upon examining the differing demographics between Etobicoke Centre and York South Weston constitute, regardless of population numbers, as previously referenced, deviations (that) should be admitted (as they can) be justified on the ground that they contribute to better government of the populace as a whole,’ and therefore ought to remain distinct electoral districts on either side of the Humber.
It is submitted that the framers of s. 3 of the Charter of Rights relating to electoral rights were not fixated on maintaining equal populations between ridings. Instead:
34 ….. The framers of the Charter had two distinct electoral models before them — the "one person — one vote" model espoused by the United States Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663, 82 S. Ct. 691 (1962), Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 77 L. Ed. 2d 133, 103 S. Ct. 2653 (1983), and Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 22 L. Ed. 2d 519, 89 S. Ct. 1225 (1969), and the less radical, more pragmatic approach which had developed in England and in this country through the centuries and which was actually in place. In the absence of any supportive evidence to the contrary (as may be found in the United States in the speeches of the founding fathers), it would be wrong to infer that in enshrining the right to vote in our written constitution the intention was to adopt the American model. On the contrary, we should assume that the goal was to recognize the right affirmed in this country since the time of our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, to effective representation in a system which gives due weight to voter parity but admits other considerations where necessary.
35 I turn next to the history of our right to vote. As already noted, the history of our right to vote and the context in which it existed at the time the Charter was adopted support the conclusion that the purpose of the guarantee of the right to vote is not to effect perfect voter equality, insofar as that can be done, but the broader goal of guaranteeing effective representation. …..
I went on to describe the Canadian tradition …
It was a tradition of evolutionary democracy, of increasing widening of representation through the centuries. But it was also a tradition which, even in its more modern phases, accommodates significant deviation from the ideals of equal representation. Pragmatism, rather than conformity to a philosophical ideal, has been its watchword.
…..
It is respectfully submitted that the most effective representation for all of the communities on either bank of the Humber River, and the most pragmatic solution, is to keep the physicial barrier- the Humber River- the dividing line and the esstern doundry of Etobiocke Centre, and for York South Weston to consitue to exist, and fo its’ western boundry to be the Humber River.
In conclusion:
37 To return to the metaphor of the living tree, our system is rooted in the tradition of effective representation and not in the tradition of absolute or near absolute voter parity. It is this tradition that defines the general ambit of the right to vote. This is not to suggest, however, that inequities in our voting system are to be accepted merely because they have historical precedent. History is important insofar as it suggests that the philosophy underlying the development of the right to vote in this country is the broad goal of effective representation. It has nothing to do with the specious argument that historical anomalies and abuses can be used to justify continued anomalies and abuses, or to suggest that the right to vote should not be interpreted broadly and remedially as befits Charter rights. Departures from the Canadian ideal of effective representation may exist. Where they do, they will be found to violate s. 3 of the Charter.
38 I turn finally to the admonition that courts must be sensitive to practical considerations in interpreting Charter rights. The "practical living fact," to borrow Frankfurter J.'s phrase, is that effective representation and good government in this country compel those charged with setting electoral boundaries sometimes to take into account factors other than voter parity, such as geography and community interests. The problems of representing vast, sparsely populated territories, for example, may dictate somewhat lower voter populations in these districts; to insist on voter parity might deprive citizens with distinct interests of an effective voice in the legislative process as well as of effective assistance from their representatives in their "ombudsman" role. This is only one of a number of factors which may necessitate deviation from the "one person — one vote" rule in the interests of effective representation.
39 In the final analysis, the values and principles animating a free and democratic society are arguably best served by a definition that places effective representation at the heart of the right to vote. The concerns which Dickson C.J.C. in Oakes associated with a free and democratic society — respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals in society — are better met by an electoral system that focuses on effective representation than by one that focuses on mathematical parity. Respect for individual dignity and social equality mandate that citizens' votes not be unduly debased or diluted. But the need to recognize cultural and group identity and to enhance the participation of individuals in the electoral process and society requires that other concerns also be accommodated.
Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries, [1991] 5 W.W.R. 1, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, 127 N.R. 1, (sub nom. Reference re Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, ss. 14, 20 (Saskatchewan)) Supra.
It is acknowledged that the task of the Commission is a difficult and unenviable one and that the Commission takes its task seriously and understands the importance of the work that it does. However, it is respectfully submitted that the Commission failed to consider the greatly differing demographics between York South Weston and Etobicoke Centre. There is more to the task than double-checking population numbers. Upon examining the demographics of the two different communities on either bank of the Humber and upon reading the case law, it is, it is respectfully submitted, clear the Humber River ought to remain the boundary between two different ridings.