Jason Kenney

[Democratic Reform, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it might occur to the minister that those three OECD countries are also the oldest and most stable continuing democracies in the world.

The minister has been misleading this place by citing referendum turnouts at the provincial level. The fact is, in 1992, the last time we had a national referendum, 72% of Canadians voted, versus 63% in the last three federal elections. In Ontario and B.C., voter participation in the electoral reform referendum was higher than in the general elections.

Why has the minister been misleading this House?

[Democratic Reform, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to move beyond her repetitive non-answers, beyond her refusal to allow the Canadian people to decide the manner by which they elect their representatives.

The minister stands and pretends that a few hundred witnesses at a committee are more inclusive than a referendum that could involve 17 million or more voters. What does she not understand about this?

This is a simple question of the legitimacy of this place. Does the government really think Canadians will accept a rigged system chosen by and for the Liberal Party of Canada?

[Democratic Reform, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government promised a new era of respect for Parliament. Instead, after just six months, we have the Liberals shutting down debate for the first time in our history on an end-of life conscience matter.

The Liberals tried to rig the rules of this place to the government's total advantage through Motion No. 6. We commend them for withdrawing that, but now they are trying to rig the very system that elects members to this place.

The minister has just said that we need to hear the voices of those Canadians who brought us to this place. Those were 17.5 million voices that will be excluded by her closed, Liberal-controlled parliamentary process.

Why will the government not really demonstrate a commitment to democratic reforms through a referendum?

[Privilege, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as you will know, the convention of this place is not only to be pertinent to the matter on the floor but to avoid unnecessary repetition, and we are getting an endless string of repetition by the member who does not want other members to speak to the motion. I would ask that you bring him to order.

[Criminal Code, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, since our Parliament was founded in 1867, based on the Westminster system, there has traditionally been a free vote and debate on matters of moral conscience, especially with respect to end of life.

Today, for the first time in the history of parliamentary tradition, this government is threatening to not only take away the free vote on its side, but also to curtail free and open debate on such matters of conscience.

This is the first time in the history of this Parliament that the ancient convention of free and open debate on matters of moral conscience, as they relate to end of life ethical matters, is being curtailed. In 1968, the omnibus legislation that dealt with abortion and other end of life matters was open and unlimited. In 1976, the government bill on capital punishment was open and unlimited. In 1988 and 1989, the various bills dealing with abortion were open and unlimited.

That has been the ancient practice of this place and the motion just put by the government House leader is an unprecedented violation on the right, the prerogative, the responsibility of members to speak their conscience, to reflect the sentiment of their constituents on such fundamental matters of moral conscience.

What gives the government the sense that it has the right, for the first time in the history of this place, to violate that ancient convention?

[Democratic Reform, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, so it is not the Liberal culture to respect the majority of Canadians on the precise question of how they elect their representatives to their Parliament. This place does not belong to the Liberal Party, and the very question of legitimacy is at stake here.

It is absolutely clear if the Liberals thought they could get a majority of Canadians to endorse their rigged system, they would hold a referendum. Is it not true? The only reason they refuse to do so is because Canadians would veto the Liberal rigged electoral system.

[Democratic Reform, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that the electoral reform stacked process she is recommending is designed to serve the best interests of Canadians and not political parties.

Let us be clear. The government wants the Liberal majority controlling the committee to opt for the preferred Liberal system to be approved by the Liberal cabinet, to be adopted by the Liberal majority in the House, notwithstanding any dissent, including from 35 million Canadians.

Nothing could be clearer. The Liberals are trying to rig the system by and for the Liberal Party. Why not allow Canadians to protect the legitimacy of our elections through a referendum?

[Democratic Reform, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the two-thirds of Canadians who demand a referendum on how they elected their MPs will not be confused by the smugness of the minister. The last time we had a referendum in this country, which was 1992 under a Conservative government, 14 million Canadians voted. In a typical parliamentary study, fewer than 100 witnesses appear.

How could she possibly think that a process involving dozens or hundreds of people is more inclusive than one involving tens of millions?

[Democratic Reform, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that we need to work together in her warm tones, while at the same time stacking the entire process for a Liberal rigging of the process by which we choose this Parliament that belongs to the Canadian people.

We believe in government of, for, and by the people, not of, for, and by the Liberal Party.

In her litany of our Conservative electoral reforms, she neglected to mention the 2005 P.E.I. referendum, the 2007 Ontario referendum, the 2009 British Columbia referendum.

The problem for the Liberals is that those voters did not give those Liberal governments the answer that they wanted.

Why not let the people decide, rather than the Liberal Party?

[Democratic Reform, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, apparently the minister wants decisions to be made by Twitter. We want decisions to be made by the people.

Parliament does not belong to politicians. Parliament does not belong to the Liberal Party. Parliament belongs to the Canadian people. Why is the government not allowing Canadians to make this decision instead of politicians?