I hear a cry for more. That is the way the hon. member was talking about closure then, referring to another comment. He sits here deadly silent now. He does not dare discuss this issue now because he knows what he said then was right. This is talking about someone else from the other side who had crossed and had the same problem with closure.
I want to make it very plain, the use of time allocation and closure is wrong. It is draconian. They both limit the debate on issues to a time period convenient to the government. They are like a calm and beautiful sea: very appealing to the senses, but a rocky reef lies just beneath the surface. I wonder what it is about crossing from this side to that side of the House. Suddenly the issue seems to be very different.
I also have a great deal of difficulty listening to some of the arguments from members opposite saying that we should swallow the soup of this bill because in it the bill allows us to limit the number of parliamentarians. That one part of the proposal I wholeheartedly endorse. I do not think Canada needs more than 295 parliamentarians. I promise if my colleagues brought a bill to us which said that one thing, they would have wholehearted concurrence from this group of Reformers.
However when it is brought with a soup full of other things, one does not get concurrence. Referring to that one issue in this bill does not make the soup palatable because the soup contains the strychnine of closure. That is not correct. I repeat: Bring to us a bill that says Parliament will not need to grow. Bring to us a bill that says Parliament can shrink and support will be immediate and forthcoming.
This brand new Parliament gives us the opportunity to change the way Parliament functions. We have the opportunity in this Parliament to say no to things like time allocation. We have an opportunity in this Parliament to say no to party meddling in boundary changes. We have an opportunity in this Parliament to say no to wasting $5 million of taxpayers' money on an exercise that need not be stopped completely. It could be modified. We have an opportunity with new parliamentarians to say no to this type of politics.
In my riding there are problems with the boundary adjustments which are fairly major. However I would rather lose the next election because of boundary changes that were not proper. I would rather lose that election than be saddled with a parliamentary process like this one.
I take this opportunity to express these things in the strongest way I can. If the issue of closure and time allocation was right when they were on this side of the House then it is right when they are on that side. You cannot change the colour of your underwear when you cross the floor. You have to have some basic principles. You cannot change the colour of your hat because you have gone from this side to that side. You have to have basic principles. It is not good enough to just espouse vocally from this side of the House to that side of the House. There must be some principle. We cannot have it both ways.
I speak against this bill, this closure and this process and I do it as strongly as I can.