Thank you, Madam Chair. We had an extensive debate about this in November. We had the bill brought forward that reflected the outcome of that debate. As we now look at the bill, the issue that we have avoided – and I’ve said this at every Boundaries Commission that I’ve talked to and every time we’ve debated this in the House – is how much government do we need? How many MLAs do we need for 42,000 people? I know some people will say there should be no price on democracy, we should keep adding MLAs. We have the smallest constituencies, next to Nunavut and the Yukon, in the free world.
We are at a time in the next 18 months or a year that we’re going to be cutting $30 million out of the budget, which is going to affect programs and services. At the same time, we’re suggesting through this amendment that we add more MLAs into this House.
Like we tend to do in government, rather than look at cuts, it’s easier to look at adding on, and we consistently grow the size of the Assembly. It started out with 15, now we’re up to 19. In my mind, this 19, this bill that’s before this House, is not perfect but it gets us to the next requirement for a
Boundaries Commission where maybe at that time we’ll in fact address that fundamental issue. We talk about it with everything else. We talk about it with how much growth do we need, how much development do we need, and we keep getting pressured to deal with those issues, yet when it comes to minding our business in this House, it’s one that we studiously avoid because it’s easier to spend money and add seats to the point where it’s hard to reconcile the size of these constituencies with any other area.
In all my travels, I have yet to hear people say, give me more MLAs. Don’t pave my streets, let’s not do the nursing station or let’s not add money for a house, first we need more MLAs. I have yet to hear that and I’ve been here 19 years.
To me the issue is going to be go with the compromise, 19, and maybe next time we’ll have the hard discussion. There is going to come a day when we have to look, that we can’t avoid it. I’m going to vote for the bill that’s before the House based on the debate last November, in the hopes that next time we’ll reach that point where we have that tough discussion, the same way as we’re going to have the tough discussion with how do we adjust and take $30 million out of government. We can’t avoid it much longer, but this will get us to that next time, so I won’t be supporting the amendment. Thank you.