Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member who just spoke were very sensible and well thought out. Her predecessor in the debate suggested that it might be worthwhile to say a word or two in support of the concept of reducing the number of politicians in the Canadian political system.
We have 295 members of Parliament in the House. Some years ago we had a total of 181. When I was last a member there were 265. With due respect to everybody in the House, I do not believe the efficiency of a political body increases with increases in numbers of members.
The member quite correctly, and with some precision, pointed out that we were overpoliticized compared to some other jurisdictions and that we had more politicians per capita than many others. As I heard her words I made a quick calculation on the back of an envelope and would like to suggest that the United States senate would need 1,500 members to have the same representation proportionate to population that we have in Canada with the House of Commons. I suggest the hon. lady is quite correct in saying that an attempt to increase the size of the House depending on a formula in relation to numbers of voters and representatives would ultimately destroy the efficiency and effectiveness of the political body.
I suggest the United States senate with its 100 members is a body that works quite effectively. To have 1,500 members would create a body which would not work effectively. Therefore within those two parameters we can all determine where the appropriate level should be. The comments made are well worthy of careful thought.
Canadians have legislatures with large numbers of people. Over 15 years the legislature of British Columbia increased from 55 seats to 75 seats. If we continue that rate of increase in the legislatures of the provinces, if we continue the rate of increase in the Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons of Canada, we will wind up with quite ineffective chambers in terms of rational, logical debate. That is one point.
These chambers are designed for one person speaking at one time. The more people we squeeze into them, the more limits we need on what they can say and the more rules about time limits or their opportunity to represent their constituents. Those points must be taken into account as well.
For example, with no disrespect, we are not many here today. It was possible with an uncrowded House for us to listen to each of the speakers. That happens when we are in smaller groups. We listen to one another. We tend to go through the logic and say: "Gee, that makes sense" or "Boy, that is dead wrong". We tend to listen. How many people in the House today have not risen, made a speech and sat down afterward just a little irritated that everybody was doing something else, that it was simply a speech for Hansard , or that it was not part of the vital process of democracy?
We must remember that as we constantly increase the size of the House the effectiveness of the body is less and less, and more and more we are simply speaking for the record, speaking for the newspapers or speaking for some other purpose than a true debate among members of the House.
Again with no disrespect to this body I believe, looking at my experience in politics at both levels of government, that with 55 members in the British Columbia legislature we spent a lot more time in debate thinking about what the other person was saying, listening to what the other person was saying, and adjusting our ideas in accordance with what the other person was saying. Without suggesting that the House of Commons should have 55 seats, I simply say that smaller bodies tend to be more effective political organizations from that point of view. I was most struck by the words of the hon. member and the previous speaker from another party. I am quite willing to say that I am in complete agreement with much of what she said. The House is too big. My personal belief is that it would be more effective in the range between 220 and 260 seats rather than over 300. It will be over 300 if we do not adopt the process of cutting it back.
I supported the process of putting the whole business of the number of seats to a committee because I believed that the 300-member point was a tripwire. If we cannot keep the House below 300 members we can kiss goodbye any real effort to cut the costs of government in Canada at the political level. If we cannot do something to cut back on the cost of government and at the same time to increase efficiency, why bother asking other elements of government such as the civil service to try it? We as politicians should think very closely about the importance of cutbacks on numbers.
As we know this process is to send the whole issue of redistribution to a committee. That was proposed by the minister. That was spoken to very eloquently by the hon. parliamentary secretary and spoken to, I might add, in general terms very eloquently by members of the opposition.
I am not a believer in curbing the committee with caps, restraints or limitations. I believe we should let the committee decide what is appropriate after it has heard from people on the issues involved. I trust the hon. member who has just spoken will be a member of the committee. Her views on the issue are very attractive to me. It may be that considerations will come forward that will modify her views or mine as the case may be. I do not believe we should be setting limits on the committee and attempting to determine the outcome of its deliberations before it actually meets to consider the issue of redistribution.
I do not wish to take any more time, except to say that the concept of cutting back on the number of seats in the House of Commons or the concept of cutting back on the number of elected representatives in the provincial legislatures is extremely attractive. Only if we start making these bodies more effective can we make individual members more effective parliamentarians and representatives of their constituencies.
Therefore I applaud the thrust of the argument of the previous two speakers. I am attracted to it. I am quite willing to say that while they may be on the other side of the House they have met a very responsive chord on the government benches, as indeed they know full well frequently happens. We wish to incorporate their views on the issue of redistribution and on the issue of how many seats there should be.
My final point, again in agreement with the hon. member, is that when she stated there should be proper representation across the country based upon population she was dead right. We can make the odd exception. We have always made an exception for P.E.I., but that is the exception that should prove the rule. The rule is rep by pop. The general rule, given the limitations of large areas of the country with very few people and making allowances here and there for special circumstances, is rep by pop.
Therefore I do not see the approach of turning over the boundary commission proposals to a committee of the House to be anything in the nature of taking something away from a province. For instance, my hon. colleague from Ontario is listening to me at the moment. I do not think our proposal is to take four seats away from Ontario which would otherwise occur. I do not think our proposal is to take two seats away from British Columbia. It is a question of saying that we have reached the point where the House will have over 300 seats and it is now time to do something about it.
Mr. Pearson was probably right in the sixties, some 30 years ago, to set up this type of system. However it has ground on remorselessly giving the House more and more members and it is now time for us to call a halt to automatic mechanisms that simply churn out more expense for the public and perhaps reduce the efficiency of the House. That is why I am happy to support the government's approach in this regard and to commend hon. members on their speeches.
