Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Bill C-18. My riding of Kootenay West-Revelstoke is very adversely affected by the proposed boundaries adjustment act. The riding is currently made up of two specific geographic areas which have much in common. Virtually all of my riding is located in a valley setting on or near one of three waterways.
There are some notable exceptions in this for mountainous communities such as Rossland and Warfield. The entire riding is involved in forestry, hydroelectric power generation and tourism. The Columbia River treaty affects all communities on or near the river from Trail in the south of the riding to Revelstoke in the north.
Many people travel between towns for work and recreational purposes. In the interests of economy we have learned how to share. For example, in 1996 Trail and Castlegar are jointly hosting the British Columbia Summer Games. Either community is too small to host this by itself, but by working together the 1996 games should be a spectacular success.
In short, we are a riding consisting of commonality of both geography and concerns. The proposal under the current Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act effectively dismantles this riding that has so much in common.
The West Kootenay portion of the riding is split down the middle with Trail and surrounding communities being placed in a riding that would find its centre in the Okanagan, 200 miles to the west, an area that has nothing in common with its new addition. The rest of the West Kootenays would find itself in a riding with its centre 200 miles to the east, again with little in common with its new addition.
Revelstoke would find itself in a new riding made up of parts of the north Okanagan where it would likely centre. This riding would then proceed east past Revelstoke and the Rogers Pass, all the way to the Alberta border and include the northern portion of the former Kootenay East. Kootenay East would have to give up this portion of its old riding to make up for receiving the chunk that came from Kootenay West which no one asked for. Revels-
toke has little in common with any of these geographic areas and would be poorly served by the change.
With these changes Kootenay West-Revelstoke would cease to exist and, yes, I would be an MP without a riding. Given all these problems for the riding and faced with the loss of my own seat, one might ask why I am not supporting the motion by the government. Indeed many have asked that very question.
The reason is as follows. In the early stages of the drafting of the bill the government was looking for consent from all parties. Aside from the problems created for individual ridings like Kootenay West-Revelstoke, there were two main areas of concern regarding the current boundary readjustment. One of these is the fact that it creates six new ridings in Canada, two of which are in B.C. The B.C. ridings would most likely end up Reform ridings, but we still oppose this because we feel the last thing Canadians want or need is more MPs in Ottawa.
Each MP adds about half a million dollars in direct costs plus untold costs for offices, printing services and supplies, not to mention the cost of refurbishing the House which has no additional capacity at this time. A condition that would have been necessary for us to support the bill would have been an assurance that no new seats would have been added to any future boundary adjustments. We did not get this assurance.
Another condition we would have required is more public input and control. One of the problems with the current system is that it does not consult the public until the plan is complete, the maps are drawn and it is almost a done deal. The government was not prepared to offer any assurances on this concern either.
Given that we believed these requests were reasonable and in the public's best interest, we had to consider that the government had a hidden agenda. The hidden agenda we suspected was a great increase in the number of seats and the removal of public input into the process.
Following the passage of the bill to suspend redistribution and disband existing provincial boundary commissions, it is expected the government will make a motion to assess continual increase in the number of members of Parliament and to review the selection methods of the commission members, public involvement and the commission's powers.
This assessment will be carried out by a committee of MPs on which the Liberal government would have an absolute majority. In actual fact the government by virtue of its majority can operate in a manner of dictatorship for the next five years. The invoking of closure which the Liberals have strongly opposed in the past is the most recent example of business in the usual style of the former government.
While we have heard of one famous name from the past receiving a dollar a year to advise the Liberals, we cannot help but wonder if Brian Mulroney was also in need of a dollar.
The current process has now reached a point at which public input is heard. As devastating as the current proposed changes are for my riding, I would prefer to deal with it through the public hearing process than take a chance on the government accepting or even increasing the number of seats in Parliament or removing the public from the process.