Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her comments. The economic concerns that the country faces are ones that we have to consider when we are taking a look at this package.
I believe that the package does that for a number of reasons. First of all, the process that it has developed is going to be a far more efficient process. It is going to save money. By simply saying that if a change has not occurred in a province, if the population has not changed or there are not the variances that are occurring in individual ridings, we will not go through the process.
That is going to save substantial dollars. That recommendation is in this bill and that is one of the reasons I support it. Second, I support it because I would be very concerned. One of the suggestions in 265. Why not go to 220? Why not go to 210? Why not go to 150?
There is an important concept here. As parliamentarians one of our roles is to represent our constituencies. If we lessen the number of members in this House to a point at which we are not able to do that, this government will become captured by the bureaucracy.
We need government controlled from this House, not from all the office buildings that surround this city. In order for this House to control this government, to control the process of government, we need sufficient members in here to be able to do that.
That is why the balance struck with this bill between keeping very minimal growth but ensuring that there are enough representatives to control government is important and in the long run will save some dollars.
Finally, if we entertain a proposal that is going to require constitutional change, that is going to require unanimous approval from all 10 provinces, that is going to be a cost that we certainly do not want to have to incur.