Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to state my views on electoral boundary change.
I will start with the premise that the system is fundamentally flawed and fundamentally unfair. We get into a situation where we have four ridings in P.E.I. with an average of about 35,000 or 37,000 people. At that rate, in northern Ontario we would have some 22 members of Parliament, and now we will be down to 10.
The system and the process are even more flawed in this case. When the commission came to northern Ontario, they had only three hearings, which meant people had to travel 400 to 500 kilometres to attend one of those hearings.
They came up with some proposals. They stated at the upstart they would not derogate from the 25% provincial quotient and they would take into consideration the community of interest. They did exactly the opposite. We have a situation where, in Bob Nault's riding--I don't know if you've heard from him yet--it would be 42% of the provincial quotient, which is very high.
Basically, most members of Parliament in Ontario are very displeased with the process and the results. The commission then turned around and made some drastic changes, and I mean drastic. The original proposal was for the elimination of the riding of Nickel Belt. The last recommendation is for the elimination of Timiskaming--Cochrane. At that time, not too many people in Timiskaming--Cochrane filed objections. Of course, the riding was not disappearing, and it was very far from where they had the hearings, which was North Bay, Sudbury, and Timmins.
Since the last proposal came out, Madam Chair.... I have this file here. I don't know if it's possible for the committee clerk to photocopy it for the committee. I have every single municipality in the riding passing resolutions opposing the changes. I have every group you can think of, from farmers groups to co-ops to churches to ACFO, French groups, etc. The opposition to the changes is almost unanimous.
The last proposed change would basically cut everybody from the traditional community of interest. I'll give you some examples.
There are about 70 communities in my riding, all rural, the biggest being Kirkland Lake, at 8,000. I have the highest population of francophones in northern Ontario and the second-largest in Ontario, at 42%. My riding right now borders Quebec and we have a strong community of interest with the Quebec people. As a matter of fact, we started a group called Entre amis, Between Friends, which does cultural, economic, and social exchanges.
The proposed boundary would cut all of what they call the Clay Belt, which is Timiskaming proper. The riding right now goes to Cochrane and to West Nipissing and Sudbury East. I touch basically all the big centres in northern Ontario. So it would cut the Clay Belt in two, which means the Timiskaming traditional culture would be cut in half and they would be cut off from West Nipissing, which is one of the only other farming centres in Ontario.
As a matter of fact, in Timiskaming--Cochrane, if you add up those parts of Sudbury and Nipissing that are in my riding, I have 63% of all farmland in northern Ontario. They would cut that group into three different groups. They would cut ACFO, the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, in half. You would find yourself with people in the same francophone church separated, with people in the only French high school in the area separated. It would be a total division of every single community of interest or economic tie you can imagine. I think it would be the worst scenario we could see.
I have a proposition for the committee. The commission stated it would not go under the 25% quotient, and then they did exactly that at 42%. I don't know if he can bring us the numbers, but I believe if you retain the 11 existing Ontario ridings--you would redivide a little bit, with Sudbury and Nipissing--you could keep 11 ridings at about 72%, 73%, which is a little bit more than the 25% allowed, but still within the prerogative of the commission to do that.
Why would northern Ontario be required to have 90,000 people in a riding when Saskatchewan has only 63,000? And as mentioned by the previous speaker, Mr. Jackson, rural Canada is losing representation.
I'd like you to understand, those of you who come from bigger centres, that when you have 70 communities, about 35 of which are organized, you have 35 town councils to deal with; you have 28 legions; you have about 500 service clubs. On any given weekend, you have about 50 events that require you to be there. If the commission takes another riding out of northern Ontario, it's just plain impossible to do a good job as a member of Parliament.
I don't know what the power of the committee is. I don't know what the power of Parliament is, and whether it requires an act of Parliament that is recommended by the committee, but I think the system is basically flawed and unfair.
That's what I want the committee to recommend to the commission. If at the end of the day the commission finds it's totally impossible and they still want to eliminate a riding, which is opposed by every citizen of northern Ontario, at least have the commission do some further hearings in northern Ontario. The changes they are proposing now are totally different from what they proposed earlier. If you take the first proposal and then the second, you'll see they're like night and day.