Thank you, Madam Chair.
The redistribution proposal for northern Ontario represents a massive disruption in political representation. It arbitrarily breaks apart communities of interest and is predicated on the fundamentally flawed proposition that even though northern Ontario's population has grown since the last boundary changes, it isn't growing as fast as the explosive population growth in suburban-urban southern Ontario. From this flows the second false promise: that rural Ontario is now somehow overrepresented in Parliament and must give up a seat to accommodate the suburban-urban south.
The impacts on the right of rural residents to representation will be immense. Our ridings are already massive in area. My riding is bigger than France. These immense ridings have populations that are comparable or larger than many rural regions in Canada. My riding is the same size as or is larger than 44 other ridings in the country, yet I am told that I don't have enough people in my riding to deserve representation.
The issue we're concerned about is that removing the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is going to have a domino effect on already untenably large ridings that are difficult to represent. Our region of northeastern Ontario, with a population that is rural, indigenous and Franco-Ontarian, will never be able to keep up with the huge population growth expected in the coming years in southern Ontario. If we accept the premise of this change, it means that in future years our regions will have to give up more seats in order to accommodate the expected growth.
In the first round, the boundaries commission stated its intention to create the riding of Kiiwetinoong—Mushkegowuk. An arbitrary line on the map created a riding so massive that you could fit 100 other Ontario seats into it. This was obviously a ridiculous proposition.
It was fair to expect that in the second round the commission would come up with minor changes and respond to feedback. The problem was that they ignored consensus from across the region and presented, in the second round, equally dramatic and arbitrary new boundary lines, which are now threatening to break apart many of the regions and communities that have been together culturally, economically and socially for decades.
In my riding, for example, the commission ignored suggestions on how to increase population, and in the second round, arbitrarily moved the line 130 kilometres north of where it is now. That cuts the francophone region of Temiskaming in half and moves numerous communities out of their traditional centre. There was no consultation, and now there is no ability for those communities to speak, because this was done in the second round.
The commissioners ignored their obligation as laid out in paragraph 15(1)(b), which states that several factors must be considered:
(i) the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, and
(ii) a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province.
They also have, under subsection 15(2), the right to depart from population parity “in order to maintain a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province”.
We already suffer from a high level of political alienation in northern Ontario. We are in a very fragile time for democracy. We must do our best to reassure citizens that their voice counts and that they are being heard.
This is why I recommend, along with my colleagues, the status quo for the communities and electors in northern Ontario.