Mr. Speaker, I follow on the heels of the Minister of National Revenue who pointed out that there were some advantages in the proposals made by members of our party. I appreciate his candour, his openness and his willingness to enter into a spirit of non-partisanship on something as important as this matter.
There is no question the cost of government is ever increasing. The only way we can put a halt to it is through attrition. We should not increase the size of the House. The committee should be given direction. All we are asking in our amendment is for the committee to be given enough direction or encouragement to consider the possible downsizing of the House of Commons and to consider the possible freezing or setting of the cap at 295 for the House of Commons, as we are presently designed now.
All we are asking in our amendment is that these points be made to the committee for its consideration. If after due deliberation the committee comes back and says in the spirit and principle of rep by pop or in the spirit and principle of the act of Confederation that it must continue its present course, so be it.
We happen to believe the committee should be given the opportunity, the authority and the right to come back to the House with a report reflecting and including representation by population and the fact, as the member for Calgary North pointed out, that increasing the size of the House does not necessarily mean it will perform any better.
We have a government, a cabinet and what we call backbenchers. Backbenchers are usually assigned to various committees. They select the various chairmen of committees. Sometimes cabinet gives good leadership and cabinet ministers give those corresponding committees direction, responsibility and duties. However that is in the minority.
In the majority of cases cabinet ministers give no direction to their subcommittees or their committees, give no follow up to those committees and give token appearances to the committees. Sooner or later during the course of the Parliament they lose interest and know they are there to vote on a partisan basis.
In return for the support of the Minister of National Revenue on this issue I would commend about four or five cabinet ministers of the government who have given their various committees direction, who have given them some authority to report back and get the feel and the will of the people. I believe
the chairmen of these committees and the members of government on those committees feel like they are making a contribution.
If that continues we can do some good for Canada and Canadians. However, if they do not do it, that is where I say increasing the size is just a waste of time and money. We have to reduce the cost of doing business in Parliament. We have to reduce the cost of doing business for government. We have to set the example.
When the Minister of National Revenue proposed Bill C-2 he indicated that he wanted to amalgamate two deputy ministers into one. It was an effort to streamline and lower the cost of doing business yet increase the efficiency and the effectiveness of government. We will be watching to see if the new super deputy minister of national revenue, taxation, customs and excise lowers the cost of the department, improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the services within the department and achieves the aims and objectives of the bill. We will be watching. Hopefully that will come about.
I would like to get back to representation by population. There are two ways to continue the principle of equal representation. We are not really on representation by population. We know that on the principle of what was guaranteed to Prince Edward Island in joining Confederation. It was guaranteed a minimum of four seats no matter what its population became.
Therefore what we are trying to do is come as close to representation by population as possible and emulate that principle in theory. Right now there are two options available to us.
The first option is to continue on the present course. Every eight years when there is a redistribution calculation we would look at the population shift and then increase the number of seats. That is representation by population and we would be giving everybody what they want. Consequently that is what increases the cost and size of government and we wish to diminish and reduce that.
The second option is to stray away from that philosophy, that principle and that theory which is flawed. Let us try to improve and accept a new theory that would look at redistribution and the formula for both urban and rural areas.
Whether the size of the House of Commons is the current 295 or it goes back to 260 or in the range the Minister of National Revenue recommended of between 220 and 260, whatever that number becomes, the size would be capped. Then future redistributions and future principles of following equal representation or representation by population could be accommodated in both rural and urban areas by simply reallocating the ministers in those areas and changing the boundaries to reflect the shift in population rather than adding the number of people.
Let me repeat for the purposes of the committee and for the purposes of my contribution to this debate. I am suggesting if the size of the House of Commons were set at a fixed number we could still be a democratic institution and still respect redistribution on the basis of shifting the boundaries but not increasing the number of people. That is something I hope the committee looks at.
The other point is the problem with the Senate which has to be addressed. We have to some day very soon look at this institution which can be elected, equal and effective. We can work together rather than always degrading that other House.