Alain Rayes

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I got excited and completely forgot that rule.

What I meant to say was that it is not up to the Prime Minister of Canada and his majority government to decide what kind of voting system we should have. He can go ahead and consult everyone. Everyone is okay with that; nobody is against doing the right thing. Nevertheless, he needs to send a clear signal to the House that he will let Canadians have their say about whether they want to change the voting system or not. He should not be arrogant.

Since 1950, any provincial government that wanted to change the voting system went to the people to find out if they agreed with the proposal. That is all we are asking. It is not complicated. We are asking the government to rise above its position, set partisanship aside, stop treating us like we do not matter, and agree to let the people decide in the end.

Today, the government would have Canadians believe that changing the voting system will get more people engaged in politics. That is not true. In every country in the world, where there are different governments and different voting systems, the number of people who vote from one election to the next keeps going down. It is no different here in Canada. The problem we have is a cultural one. We have to change the culture and put an end to excessive partisanship, which we are currently seeing from the Liberal Party. We are asking the government to trust the people.

New Zealand held public consultations on changing the voting system for 10 years. They asked experts and the public for their opinion. They changed the first-past-the-post system to a mixed member proportional voting system. The voter turnout during the last election declined by 10%.

Leading the public to believe that changing the voting system will automatically improve voter turnout is completely false.

We have been asking the government questions from the beginning. However, all we hear is that the opposition, the Conservative Party, is being partisan and does not want to contribute or listen to what is being proposed.

I took the time to compile what political analysts had to say about the minister's proposal. Across all media platforms, whether written, televised, or broadcast, here is what was being said about the government's electoral reform:

Emmanuelle Latraverse, a CBC journalist, wrote an article entitled “Réforme électorale de Justin Trudeau : un premier rendez-vous manqué”, or “Justin Trudeau's electoral reform: a missed opportunity”.

In Le Devoir, Manon Cornellier—

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this very important issue, namely, the electoral reform that the Liberal government wants to bring in. I really wanted to speak to this because it is fundamental to our entire voting system and our entire electoral system. It forms the very foundation of our structure in Canada.

First, let me give some background. How did we get where we are today? The election that took place at the end of last year, in October 2015, resulted in a Liberal government with 39.6% of the universal suffrage. That is very close to the percentage the Conservatives had in the previous election. In other words, it was more or less the same percentage that gave the Liberals a majority of seats in Parliament. This majority of seats, which gives them 100% of the power, does not, however, give them 100% of the truth in the House.

Since the beginning of their term, the Liberals have not stopped telling us that with this majority, Canadians gave them the right to implement their entire election platform. They talk in the House as though Canadians read the 219 proposals in their 97-page election platform, and as though the 39% of the public that voted for them gave them the mandate to carry out these 219 proposals unilaterally, without approval from Parliament as a whole and, in the case of this electoral reform, without the public's approval.

This Liberal government, which was elected by 39% of the population and has the majority of seats and therefore all the power, is saying that it wants to change the rules of voting, the very foundation of our democracy. The Prime Minister himself, in his Speech from the Throne, simply announced that the current voting system could no longer be used and that last fall's election was the last one to use it. Then, he also announced in various conversations and at various press conferences that he already had a preferred voting system in mind, a preferential voting system, which is clearly advantageous to the Liberal Party across the way.

When you consider all of those things and also consider the government's plan to create a partisan committee, right here in the House, the outcome is already clear. The committee will make a recommendation to the government and ministers, who, together, will propose a change to our electoral system. They already have a majority.

What the Conservative Party is asking for today is simple. We are not against consultations, nor do we think we should not figure out how to reach as many people as possible. We are saying that, ultimately, the Canadian public, all Canadians, must say whether they want to change the voting system. This decision should not fall to the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, who was elected with 39% of the vote.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I should not have named—

[Democratic Reform, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to see through the Liberals' little game.

Canadians must be extremely worried about what they are seeing today. We have been saying from the start that it does not make any sense to change the voting system, the very basis of our democracy, through a committee. The fact that two parties have agreed to call the shots together does not make the situation any better. The only way to make an electoral reform legitimate is to seek Canadians' approval.

Will the Liberals finally agree to hold a referendum to ask Canadians directly, yes or no? Will they set partisanship aside?

[Democratic Reform, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we already know that the government has shown no interest in really consulting Canadians and is refusing to hold a referendum. Now, today, it has the audacity to ally itself with the NDP.

What the government is trying to sell as co-operation is actually a secret agreement between two parties that do not care about what Canadians want.

The real question is this: will the Liberals try to change the rules of democracy to their advantage or are they trying out an agreement with the NDP rather than consulting Canadians directly through a referendum?

[Democratic Reform, June 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is lecturing us about partisanship in the House; this is the same minister who thinks that her tweets count as consultation and who set up a committee that is under the complete control of the Liberal Party, without consultation.

After all that, the minister has the audacity to tell us here in the House that the opposition is being partisan.

Seriously, will the minister finally listen to Canadians? Will she commit to holding a referendum so that all Canadians can express their views?

[Democratic Reform, June 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister told the House that I had a hard time with the concept of listening, so just for the fun of it I spent a few minutes Googling quotes from reputable political analysts across Canada.

Here is what I found: “[The minister] has so far succeeded in burning bridges where she should have been building some.” “It is an unsustainable proposition.” “The Liberals were responsible for reassuring their political opponents. The Prime Minister did exactly the opposite.”

Clearly, I am not the only one who has a listening problem.

I invite the minister to hold a referendum and consult Canadians. We will see which side of the House has a real listening problem.

[Democratic Reform, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very intelligent. That is why the vast majority are asking for a referendum. We also know that there is little information about how the committee will consult Canadians. However, what we do know is that the Liberals will have complete control.

Why will the minister not acknowledge that consultation is legitimate by confirming that all Canadians will have a say in a referendum, after her so-called consultations?

[Democratic Reform, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberal government likes to hold consultations and lots of them. However, consultation is about listening. On the issue of electoral reform, it seems that the minister is not listening. Even though 73% of Canadians support a referendum, the minister has categorically ruled out this option.

Can the minister tell us why she is not listening to Canadians and is refusing to hold a referendum after her so-called consultations?

[Democratic Reform, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that the 2015 election would be the last to employ the first-past-the-post system and that the status quo is not an option. However, during the Liberal convention this weekend, the Minister of Democratic Institutions indicated that the government would not proceed with changes without the support of the people.

Will the minister commit to holding a referendum on a subject as important as the electoral system to find out whether there is public support?

[Democratic Reform, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary that his government was elected by 39% of voters, not 60% as he has been saying.

For the past few weeks, the Minister of Democratic Institutions has repeatedly stated that the referendum option is not on the table. This despite the fact that 73% of Canadians are in favour of a referendum.

Will the Minister of Democratic Institutions and her government finally listen to Canadians and hold a referendum on the electoral system; #referendum?