Thank you for the opportunity to speak. It's much appreciated.
I'll be quick and straight to the point.
I'm outlining my points in favour of a referendum. In the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that this would be the last one under the first past the post, as you all know. Along with that promise came the promise of a consultation. What better way to consult than a referendum, right?
First past the post has been criticized for being very undemocratic, in the sense you can get 40% of the vote and still be in government and have 100% control type deal. It would be very ironic for the current government to impose change without at least the approval of the majority of Canadians.
Another point to keep in mind is that this change would be huge because it would shake up how the House is made up. That obviously has an effect on all the other law-making that goes on. It is also a change of constitutional proportion. I believe it's best left up to the people under the Constitution to decide.
Of course, there is precedent for a referendum, as you were saying before, Mr. Reid. In New Zealand, they had two referendums before they chose to actually reform their system, and they've also had a referendum in Britain. Even though the New Zealand one had multi-stage voting, it still produced reform.
That leads into my next point, which is that beneath every objection to a referendum is the fear that voters will not vote for change and for reform, but that is what happened in New Zealand, and they did end up getting reform.
Therefore, yes, if you have a clear question in a referendum and provide the appropriate amount of information to Canadians, Canadians should be trusted to make this important call.
Thank you.