Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the bill and the motion currently before the House.
I am not surprised to see a number of the opposition rising and joining what has been called around here from time to time the ranks of the perpetually indignant. I know of what they speak because it was not but a few months ago I sat in opposition myself.
They are upset or feign being upset because of the use of time allocation. I understand that too because I sat over there. There is a reason the government believes that the time should be allocated. I ask the members opposite, as we have debated this throughout today would the result be any different in the ultimate vote if we had extended the time for debate? Under all the circumstances I think not.
I want to explain why I support the bill. Notwithstanding that I have a riding with over 150,000 people, I could sure use a smaller riding, as could my staff. So could many other members whose ridings exceed the norm of 90,000 or 100,000 people. That is one reason I might want to see this redistribution process go ahead immediately.
I come from the province of Ontario which would get another four seats in the process. Therefore my Ontario colleagues and I would probably want to see the bill go ahead and we would have another four seats. Why do I not want that to happen?
The reason is that the process as currently constructed will increase the membership in the House of Commons to 301. That is a very significant item because a close look at the statutes indicates that growth continues. It goes on and on over the years. MPs have realized it is time to put a stop to that.
I want to correct one item. One of the members who spoke within the last half hour said the last time there had been a change in the electoral boundaries was in 1980. That is not accurate. The last electoral boundary change took place for the 1988 election. I know because I was elected in 1988 on the new boundaries. The process took place in 1986-87. It is not long ago that redistribution took place. I have nothing against redistribution, in fact I am in favour of it.
Getting back to what I was speaking on a few moments ago, I sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. About a month ago the Chief Electoral Officer was before us describing the process.
At that time I and other members spoke on the issue of the increase in the number of members. For every new member we add to this House, it costs the taxpayer roughly half a million
dollars. Add six members and that is $3 million per year. That is an annual cost of $3 million forever. That is the financial issue.
I have not even mentioned the cost of renovating the House of Commons. Every time a piece of carpet, a wire or a pipe is installed it seems to cost us $10,000. There just is not any more room in this House. There would have to be a significant renovation.
In any event, 301 members is not what Canadians want. They want a Parliament that works. They want to see it work with 295 members and not 301 or 310 or 320 as time goes on. In my view the position the opposition parties are taking seems to be a desire to show blind submission to a process that was put in place about 30 years ago and keeps on growing, keeps on causing the numbers of members of Parliament to grow and the costs to grow.
A number of the interventions today were from members of the Reform Party. I would have thought there would be some element of reform in the way they are addressing this.
I accept that the redistribution process is calculated to be fair and that it is there for a reason. But lying behind that is the growth in the numbers of MPs and I want to put a stop to that.
Yes, $5 million has been spent on the current process. But how much more money would continue to be spend on the existing process if we did not stop it right now? If we do not stop it this month or next month we will continue to spend the rest of the $8 million and I suspect, as per usual, it would not be a surprise to see them go away beyond budget. The process simply has to be completed.
I will tell the House why I support this bill. It is because I want to cap the growth in the number of MPs in the House. The only way to do it is to grab hold of this process and stop it dead right now. Put it on ice because the changes to cap the growth in the number of members in the House involves a change in the Constitution. We do not make those overnight in this place. I do not think any country makes constitutional changes overnight.
This is the way to do it. The matter is to be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee, an all-party committee, not a Liberal mechanism as was alluded to earlier by one of the Reform Party members. It is an all-party committee and it will study the issue and report back to the House where the issue will be debated. I cannot imagine that the government would want to put closure on that debate when it comes back. However, at the moment we have to do this piece of business to stop the growth and the procedure. If we do not do this, within a year or two it is going to give us 301 MPs running in the next federal election.
I will end there. I hope the message is clear. I hope some of my colleagues opposite will understand it. We will redistribute the boundaries at some point. We have to. We certainly have to in my riding. However, let us get a handle on the number of MPs that are needed to serve the country as a whole, refashion that process, refashion that mechanism first.