Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I do that with some mixed feelings.
My own riding is disappearing in this change which is going to take place across Canada and very significantly in the province of Ontario. There has been only one call into my office regarding this change and perhaps that is because they were anticipating going to the hearings, as I was. However I anticipate receiving many calls when the people in my riding discover what is taking place in this House.
In no way was this a burning issue with the people in this country. There are far more important issues we should be dealing with. While I say I had mixed feelings about what was happening in the riding I represent, I was looking forward to making a representation at the hearings. We would have an opportunity to make representations again when the reports came back into this House.
In looking at the changes I realized there were some winners and some losers. There are going to be winners and losers no matter where this comes out. We will not come up with a plan that will please everyone. That just is not possible. There is no evidence in this bill that will approach anything near that.
There is the suggestion that politicians will be able to do a better job than Elections Canada. That is a leap of faith most Canadians would have a difficult time making. Our track record in the past has not been one of doing a better job.
The decision was made 30 years ago to take this process out of the political arena. That was a good decision that was made back then. I think it is even more appropriate today, given the mood of the Canadian voter.
We just have to reflect back to October 1992 at which time politics in the country took a dramatic turn for the better. The Canadian people said back then that they were no longer going to be led by the political parties. They were going to have a say in what was going on in the country. They sent out that very clear message.
That message can be ignored in the House at our peril. The former government ignored the message that was given to it by Meech Lake. The former government ignored the message that was relayed to it through the Spicer commission at a cost of some $27 million in taxpayers' dollars. The government was told what the priorities of the Canadian people were and that the Constitution was not number one. In spite of that the government ignored it, went on with its own agenda and suffered its fate in the last election.
The mood of the Canadian people that was evident in 1992 and 1993 is still there. They want to be heard. They want to have their say. The process we are about to embark on will be a denial of that.
We are not talking about process today. We are talking about product. We knew this was coming down the pike some time ago, but nothing happened until the proposed boundary changes hit our desks and hit the public. All of a sudden it became an issue. There was no secret about what was happening. It is not about the process. It is about the product and it is about self-interest: my fiefdom and what is going to happen to me. I think that is wrong.
The issue is not new. It has been there but it is in the forefront now because some people's ridings will be affected by it. The government is going to circumvent the public hearings that were to take place so that the public could have input into the process.
How do we justify wasting the $5 million in taxpayers' dollars that have been spent to this point? The suggestion has been made that the $3 million we might spend in hearing from the public would be a further waste of taxpayers' dollars. I do not find spending $3 million to hear from the taxpayers a waste of money. Again I go back to the mood of the voters. They want to be heard and $3 million to allow them to have input will be money well spent.
Time and time again I have heard from members on the other side about the number of seats. They are shocked that Reform would support anything that would increase the number of seats in the House. There is nothing in the bill that restricts the number of seats. Had that been in there, the Reform Party would have supported the bill. It is not there. I would ask members on the other side: Why is it not there? There is no intent. It is left out purposely so that avenue would still be there.
Hearings were due to start in days and the process is being cut off. People were preparing to come to these hearings to state their case. Again it is an example of government knows best: "We will decide what should happen here and we will let you know". That is not going to fly with the Canadian people.
I was shocked at what was taking place. Really I should not have been because the government has a track record of no faith in the Canadian people. When we think back, this is the government that did not have faith in some Canadian people to select its candidates. The government had to go in because it did not trust Canadian people to pick the right candidates. This is the government that does not believe in recall. It does not trust Canadian people to have recall at their disposal.
This party is led by a leader who finds referendum revolting. The thought of listening to the Canadian people on major issues is revolting. Those words will come back to haunt the government in years to come. The government can act when it wants to. When it has a self-interest it can get moving. There was something the Canadian people wanted it to get moving on. We wanted it to get moving on it and we were prepared to support it. I am referring to the gold-plated pension plans. This is something that we could have taken action on and should have taken action on, but nothing is happening. The words we hear are: "What is the hurry? We are here for four years". The government may not be in a hurry about that but the Canadian people are. The Canadian people want action. The government brought us action on this but not on the pension plan.
The question of the legality of the process was raised in the House yesterday. The answer given to that question bore no relationship to the question. I suspect because a legal opinion has not been sought the government does not have an answer as to whether the whole process is legal.
I see some similarities here between the cancelled Pearson airport deal and what we are about to do today. The Pearson airport deal was cancelled, not because the project was not a good project but because of the process.