Alain Rayes

[Democratic Reform, June 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, just imagine. The Prime Minister thinks electoral reform is too complex for Canadians to have a say. Every democratic government in the world uses referendums to make decisions about issues as complex as separating or uniting nations.

Is the Prime Minister saying that Canadians are less intelligent than citizens of other countries?

Will he finally listen to all the analysts, his own Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Canadians and promise to hold a referendum so that all Canadians can have their say?

[Presence in the Gallery, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have here a very interesting, thorough, and relevant document in both official languages. I ask for the consent of the House to table this document from my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and father of the Clarity Act, regarding the importance of holding a referendum on any changes a government makes to the voting system.

[Democratic Reform, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and father of the clarity bill felt that it would be necessary to hold a referendum before any changes could be made to the voting system. He said, “Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.”

Three-quarters of the population share that opinion.

Can the Minister of Democratic Institutions tell us what she told the minister behind closed doors to make him go back on his own words?

[Democratic Reform, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, let us continue playing “who is telling the truth?”

Fourth, the member for Mount Royal said that the referendum is a tool we could use.

Fifth, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons first rejected holding a referendum, then indicated that he was open to it.

Sixth, the Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote in a policy paper that “precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.”

When will the Prime Minister listen to the members of his own caucus and ensure that a referendum is held so that all Canadians can express their views?

[Democratic Reform, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, have you ever played a game called “who is telling the truth”? Let us play it now.

First of all, the Prime Minister said that the 2015 election would be the last one under the current voting system.

Second, his principal secretary said on Twitter, which seems to be the preferred network of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, that a referendum would be one option to consider.

Third, the minister herself said that if she did not have public support, she would not go ahead with the reform.

Who is telling the truth? Three-quarters of Canadians want a referendum. Will the Prime Minister listen to them?

[Democratic Reform, June 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the Prime Minister's stubborn refusal to hold a referendum.

Yesterday, his own minister did not close the door on a referendum. The day before yesterday, the hon. member for Mount Royal said, “I am not against the idea. A referendum is a tool we could use.” Last month, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons initially rejected the idea, but then seemed more open to having a referendum.

The government wants to be open and transparent and to instill trust in Canadians. Then why does the government not tell Canadians that following consultation, it will give them the final say through a referendum?

[Democratic Reform, June 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians were quite surprised to see the birth of this Liberal-NDP coalition.

I cannot believe that the Prime Minister said that referendums are a way of preventing change. This shows a real lack of respect for Canadians, and the NDP is condoning that.

Canadians are smart, and in any self-respecting democracy, they should have a chance to weigh in on such a fundamental issue, by way of a referendum.

Can the minister confirm to the House that a referendum will be held after the consultations?

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question.

I will be pleased to consult my constituents and ask their opinion. I think that everyone will do that. The committee will do it and the members will too. However, ultimately, I will never tell them that it is an elected official, here in the House, who will make a final decision on the voting system, the very foundation of our democracy, without asking for their clear opinion.

I would like to remind everyone that I studied math and computer science and that I also have an MBA. Right now, there are 26 million voters registered in Canada. Even if we look at the worst-case scenario for a referendum, which is about 50% of voters, that would still be 13 million people who voted during the most recent referendums on the voting system in the various provinces in Canada.

Here in the House, the government is saying that, in the next six months, the committee members will decide what is good for Canadians and that they will do so during the summer, when they are busy barbecuing, sitting around their pools, or vacationing in various places across the country or throughout the world. No, thank you. I will not play the game of the members across the way and I hope that the other opposition parties will not play either.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, but I am flabbergasted.

I just cannot get over how the other opposition parties are playing right into the government's hands. The opposition parties that want to get on board with the plan to set up a committee are telling Canadians that they are not smart enough to have an opinion about something as important as the voting system.

The Conservative government made changes, but it never put forward a motion or a bill to change the voting system. Now the government wants a partisan committee composed of elected men and women to come up with a proposal that suits their personal interests.

I am not the only one to say that. I challenge the government to find a single political analyst who supports the government's proposal. The NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the other parties are flirting with the government. I could just about fall off my chair.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I will stick to my quotations, but without using any names. I will continue:

...all this hurried brainstorming will not be preceded or accompanied by an information campaign on the various voting systems, a task that could have been given to an independent organization, such as Elections Canada.

Voting belongs to the people. It is their tool for selecting their representatives. Since time is short...the whole process is being left up to those same elected representatives who know very well which system will work most to their advantage. One only has to look at their past positions to find out...

Holding the 2019 election under a new voting system imposes a tight deadline that does not give Canadians a chance to have a proper debate, like the ones that took place in Quebec...British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, and PEI.

In each case, a referendum was held and the people refused what the government was proposing.

I will continue:

The people will not have the final say, either, because the government has ruled out the idea of a referendum. Yes, time is short, and so is coherence.

Here is another quote:

Electoral reform could require reopening the Constitution. The Liberal government could plunge the country into a constitutional mess against its will.

There are a lot of quotes like those ones. Here is the last one I will share:

Imagine if the reform leads to disinterest and lower voter turnout; that would be a disaster. A referendum would ensure that the public is in agreement.

We are simply saying that it is not up to the elected officials in the House to control the very foundation of our democracy, which gives men and women the opportunity to govern for four years. The public should have this control. Let us put our trust in the public. Let us be sensible with them, and they will be sensible with us. That is how we can change the culture of disinterest.