Mr. Speaker, the riding of Halton-Peel was originally created by a gentleman many of us know: Gerrymander.
One would think with the proposed boundary changes the member would be quite thrilled that a new riding would be created. I believe the new dividing line was created by his brother for it splits a community right in two in a line that is anything but straight. Some of it does not even follow road allowances but travels through the middle of farmers' fields.
It is so ridiculous. Part of the farm on which I live is in the new proposed riding and the other part is in the other. There was immediate response from a returning officer, from a Chamber of Commerce and from a municipality exhorting an appeal of that line.
As a bit of an aside, it is also interesting to note the borders printed on the map in the book the commission released. You will see that the new boundaries are printed upside down on the map. It puts part of the land mass in the southern part of the proposed riding in Lake Ontario. It was cause for some concern. We will have to enroll fish I suppose.
Having said that I was prepared to launch an appeal trying to point out to the commission where changes could be made that might at least improve the situation.
I was very disturbed with the proposal to create new ridings at a time when we consider ourselves to be in a period of extreme restraint. When we want less and less government spending it seems this process is creating more and more.
In my region and others nearby school boards are considering reducing the number of trustees in an effort to save money. The last report I saw was that the region of Durham is proposing to cut five trustees saving $200,000 through that process. It does not really show a great deal of leadership to advance the cause of increasing the numbers in this House.
Other countries operate reasonably successfully with much higher populations per member than Canada. Australia is one of them with actually double the population per member in its House.
We have a lot of things to consider. If we are going to review legislation which is 30 years old, at least it is appropriate that we do it now if it has not been done in the past. As has been mentioned, it may be that it has outlived its usefulness and we have to reconsider what will be done in the future.
In terms of the argument my friends in the Reform Party put forward about time allocation, I would like to point out the reality to them. I do not think it is the intention of any government to impose time allocation for frivolous reasons.
Hearings were scheduled to begin in April on this proposal by the commission. We are now going into a recess for two weeks. I am not sure what the Reform Party would have preferred to do, whether it would have preferred to stay and debate this for another couple of weeks. We could have filibustered. However there is plenty of time in the time allocated to put the points of view across and make sure all of the arguments are on the table.
I am sure the Reform Party is as interested in the reform of this process as the rest of us. I do not think any hon. members would disagree with the fact that it is time for a change. We cannot go on filling up the House especially if we have a few guys my size. If we went on without any changes we would be forced to knock out the back walls, or put another row in the front, or only elect lean people.
I enthusiastically support this thrust. The time has come for change. The time has come to reconsider how the people of Canada are represented. The time has come to listen to those people and give them time to bring their views forward so we can truly represent the people of this country.