Quebec wants Supremes to stop map adjustment
It’s time for a redistribution of Quebec’s provincial ridings, a fundamental principle updating riding boundaries to adjust to demographic shifts over time. But Quebec’s going to the Supreme Court to try to stop it, because two ridings are set to disappear.
The news item isn’t specific but the Elections Quebec site has a section on redistribution, with a map in which you can see that the eastern tip of Montreal island, currently divided into LaFontaine and Pointe‑aux‑Trembles, is meant to be rolled into one riding called Pointe‑aux‑Trembles.
It’s probably not a coincidence that the CAQ is ruffled because, while Pointe‑aux‑Trembles is represented by the CAQ, LaFontaine is currently represented by the PLQ’s interim leader, Marc Tanguay. Combining the two might give the advantage to the PLQ, depending how things develop throughout 2026.
Details in this Le Soleil piece about the other Quebec riding set to disappear, in the Gaspé.
We had some discussion about this here a few weeks ago.
Nicholas 12:54 on 2025-12-25 Permalink
The CAQ actually doesn’t benefit politically from this appeal. Each of the two areas to lose seats (Gaspésie, East End Montreal) are mixed (partially CAQ, PLQ, PQ), while the areas to gain seats (Couronne) are CAQ heartland. But all parties need to show they’ll defend “traditional Quebec” (Gaspésie, not Montreal) so they all supported this antidemocratic bill, regardless of the political outcomes.
Kate 13:04 on 2025-12-25 Permalink
It’s interesting that all parties backed the attempt to block the changes, yet the appeals court ruled it would be unconstitutional. I don’t see how the Supreme Court can do otherwise.
Nicholas, do you know whether the proposed Quebec constitution has anything in it meant to change Canada’s rules about riding populations?
jeather 17:06 on 2025-12-25 Permalink
You can give MNAs in large areas more staff and a bigger travel budget, more money for satellite offices, etc instead of making them population imbalanced.
Nicholas 20:48 on 2025-12-25 Permalink
Kate, I don’t, but Canada’s rules are already so undemocratic you wouldn’t have to change anything. The Court of Appeals said Quebec could have made the Gaspé seat a special situation, like they do with other seats like the Magdalen Islands and Ungava. Quebec just didn’t, instead they delayed redistricting for the whole province, which was unconstitutional. And they already allow deviations of ±25%, which means if the average is 40,000 you could have 32,000 and 50,000. Canada’s Supreme Court has already rejected One Person, One Vote, so no reason Quebec would have to do any heavy lifting to reject it too.
H. John 18:02 on 2025-12-26 Permalink
CAQ just can’t get its act together.
Bill 39 was introduced in September 2019 with the goal of reforming Quebec’s electoral system from first-past-the-post to a mixed member proportional representation system.
That Bill’s implementation was contingent on approval in a referendum that was supposed to be held concurrently with the October 3, 2022 general election. But in April 2021, the Quebec government withdrew planning for that referendum, citing disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and inability to meet the necessary timeline. Without committing to a new referendum schedule, the reform stalled. It stalled because the government failed to meet legislative timelines, backed away from holding the required referendum (largely due to the pandemic), and dropped electoral reform as a priority, leaving the bill in limbo.
Legault justified this change by saying that electoral reform “was not a priority for Quebecers” and that other issues, especially pandemic-related concerns, were more pressing. He also said that most Quebecers weren’t interested in the reform. In a debate, Legault stated that the electoral reform “doesn’t interest the population, except for a few intellectuals,…”
The new map, currently under consideration, was first published for consideration in 2023. CAQ and the other parties said they needed extra time to deal with a problem that has been evident since before 2010 when the PLQ under Charest failed to get a Bill passed to add three seats to the Assembly to help with the balance.
It’s worth remembering that this case was brought by the ridings who think they’re under-represented. As the judge in the original case wrote:
“Le groupe des demandeurs est formé de citoyens, électeurs, maire, élus, d’un
regroupement d’élus ainsi que d’une municipalité se trouvant dans l’une des sept
circonscriptions électorales en situation d’écart positif du fait que leur nombre d’électeurs
dépasse le seuil de 25 % par rapport à la moyenne québécoise.