Debates of Feb. 9th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Commitments Regarding Electoral Reform

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague speaks so fast, he has so many ideas in his head. He is certainly one of the smartest people in the House of Commons. Some would say that is faint praise, but I mean it sincerely. He is a genuinely intelligent person. I enjoy serving on committee with him and hearing his well conserved remarks. It is always nice when we hear someone we know writes his own remarks.

Having said all of that, I want to posit a situation for the member. There has been talk coming from the government of a need to find consensus, broad buy-in is the term it used at one time. In order to actually achieve a change, a government has to take an initiative, and then in the case of something that is too important to leave to the politicians, the government should put it to the people. A model that looked like it stood a reasonable chance of getting support versus the status quo was what the committee proposed. That would allowed the majority to decide whether the new system that was proposed would be superior to the existing system, or the reverse, an argument I could imagine being presented on both sides for any system.

However, the point is that our system is actually based on the majority. In this place, we do not look for consensus. It is 50% of the members, plus one. Likewise, that is how it works in a referendum. Does he agree with me that if we want to move forward on this issue, the politicians will always have self interest if in the end a referendum is not the only way of moving from this system to any other system?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, in 2007, I was very involved in the referendum in Ontario. I have seen the electoral reform debate up close and personal. Referendums do serve a purpose. I do not object to them philosophically. They have a role, but here is the thing.

On an electoral reform referendum, if 55% of the population votes for a change and 45% does not, on the basis that 45% of the people's votes did not count, what have we really accomplished? Are we not being extraordinarily ironic in saying a little over half the country agrees with this change, therefore the ones who do not agree, whom we are trying to protect in the first place, do not matter yet again? It seems a great contradiction to me.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who have taken part in this debate, which is a very important one.

I also thank the hon. member of the opposition for having raised this question. I well know that his dedication to the issue of electoral reform is sincere. I congratulate him for his dedication to the vitality of our democracy. I must say that all of the parties share that dedication.

First of all I would like to acknowledge the fact that, in my riding of Hull—Aylmer, some of my fellow citizens are going to be disappointed by the lack of consensus in Parliament. I would like to take formal note of their disappointment.

I must also say that the issue of electoral reform is not confined to changing the voting system. There are many other important steps we could take.

We need only think back to a few years ago when the previous government tabled Bill C-23, or the Fair Elections Act. We all know that there were numerous measures in that bill. We know there was a fairly big consensus in our Parliament on making certain changes. I would like to raise a few of those changes, and also to congratulate the Minister of Democratic Institutions for having proposed them in her speech.

I shall start by setting forth a few principles.

Canadian democracy, at its core, requires and relies upon our ability to set aside partisan interests and if we disagree to disagree honestly, but to have an honest debate, a respectful debate, especially on matters that affect us all.

As I said, I had a town hall in my riding of Hull—Aylmer. I would like to thank the 35 residents who showed up at this town hall, who joined me at the Université du Québec en Outaouais to discuss this issue. It was a great discussion and it was a valuable one. As I reported to the special committee on electoral reform, “the participants at the consultation held a diverse set of views” and that my constituents wanted to continue to improve and evolve our democracy.

That is a fair discussion of what we had. That is a fair summary of what we had that night. That is why I am so grateful to my constituents for participating. This why I feel there are so many other elements that we can pursue to improve the electoral system.

Let us talk about some of those issues.

As I said, Bill C-33 contains amendments that are intended to make the views of young Canadians heard and to indicate what we want to change in the regulations.

I would like to focus first on one of those measures, which consists of establishing a register of future electors, in which Canadian citizens 14 to 17 years of age may consent to be included. That measure will reflect the recommendation made by the Chief Electoral Officer after the last election, and goes even further.

The Chief Electoral Officer had asked that he be authorized to retain information about persons 16 and 17 years of age so that they could later be added to the national register of electors.

I would note that this measure also reflects one of the recommendations made by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. If it receives the support of the House, this legislation will be a formidable tool for young Canadians and for Elections Canada.

Elections Canada could then communicate with young people in order to register them in the national register of electors. In addition, students could be registered in advance, in anticipation of their turning 18.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind individuals that there are people making speeches in the House. If members are having conversations, they should take them out of the House to provide the member with the respect he deserves.

The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a good thing if my speech generates comments from members in the House. I think that speaks to the interest in what I have to say. I know that the member from the Quebec City region agrees with me entirely.

I think it is very important for us to understand that there are certain measures we can take to encourage more voting by young people. It is certainly important for us to have this registry of future electors, so that we can bring them on and allow them that opportunity to register so that they can get to vote. We know that once one starts voting and getting involved, chances are that becomes a habit that continues throughout one's life. We all have to work to encourage more people to participate in the democratic process.

A democracy is a very fragile thing, and we have seen expressions of it in previous elections where there has been a declining voter participation.

It is said that this will undermine the legitimacy of the results. It is crucial that we take all possible measures to ensure that these people are able to participate in the democratic process.

I would like to set aside the comments I had prepared and talk about something else. I see that there is a philosophical difference. Some opposition members have said that democracy is 50 per cent plus one, and that is entirely acceptable. It may be because I am a Quebecker, but I feel the need to make enough room for visible minorities, and I think it is very important to try, as much as possible, to find a consensus before making amendments to basic laws.

We are well aware that we have formed a majority government and we could have imposed our will on the House, particularly when it came to the composition of the electoral reform committee created in May 2016. However, we surrendered our majority so that a consensus could be found among all the parties and so that the intention of the House could thus be reflected. I think that is a good reflection of our Liberal values. In a democracy, there can be no tyranny of the majority.

However, we need to make sure that on fundamental changes, as much as possible, we respect the majority, but we also have to make sure that we respect the minority points of view. As my colleague said previously, if a significant number of people do not approve of it, then we should not go forward. It is something we should not do, although we could.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Hull—Aylmer for his speech.

I know that he is a reasonable MP. I must say I am a little disappointed that he is unable to recognize the successes as well as the failures. I recall that we were talking last evening in the House about successes and failures. We were wondering if we would be capable of recognizing them. I thought he might have taken the opportunity to apologize for having said something during the campaign and for a year and a half before, and then changing his mind. I shall therefore give him another opportunity to apologize in a moment.

That being said, I would like to know why the Liberals did not make clear right from the outset the consensus they were seeking. What is their definition of “consensus”, since that is their current excuse?

There are plenty of examples to choose from in other files, the finest being the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Is there a consensus on that? The member would not be able to convince me that there is a consensus on that in the House today. The Liberals, however, are moving ahead all the same. Today they are using the excuse of the consensus. I wonder if the member can define what a consensus is. If his government intends to lead by consensus, it would be good to know the level of consensus it is seeking before moving ahead on its policies.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke. I am most happy to answer his question.

As I have said, there are two important variables in all of this. The first is to know if it is something irreversible with huge consequences. The envisioned initiative would be far-reaching, because we do not change our voting system every day or from one election to the next. It is an important move. My feeling is that we have to reach a consensus, so far as possible, on the decision to be made. That is why a change of electoral system requires a consensus among all the political parties, so far as that is possible.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, salutations to my hon. colleague from Hull—Aylmer. Without telling my life story, he is my federal MP when I am in Ottawa, since I of course reside in Gatineau. As a good Quebecker, I have a residence in Gatineau. I receive his literature regularly. I thank him and send him my regards.

The member speaks at length about the consensus that we have to have and that we try to reach as often as possible in politics. That consensus existed on the electoral committee. I know he has a great deal of respect for all of his colleagues, especially those in his party, including the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis who chaired that committee so brilliantly. Such respect was not evident in particular among the other members of the government party. Consensus on a referendum was reached among all the opposition parties, that is, the Green Party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and us, the Conservatives. In a democracy, the best way of knowing what the people are thinking is to ask them directly and allow all Canadians to express themselves. Why is the Liberal Party refusing to consult Canadians and to join in the consensus reached by all the other parties?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe the question by my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent is a clever question.

Unfortunately, that is the only way I can think of to describe it. What I mean is that it’s such a nuanced question that it means something to a few people, but nothing to others. The hon. member said there was a consensus to hold a referendum. I challenge him to say whether the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party completely agree on what voting system should be used.

In fact, in the 14 months since the beginning of this Parliament, I have heard many MPs from those parties say that there was no consensus. They were not talking about the same thing, in relation to the voting system. Some wanted the current system, while others wanted another system. There was no consensus. I challenge him to find this consensus on a specific voting system.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

Like the 92,000 citizens who signed an online petition on the Parliament of Canada website, urging the Liberal government to live up to its promise of electoral reform, I am deeply disappointed and hurt by this Liberal flip-flop.

The Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to change the outdated electoral system in order to improve our democracy. He reiterated this promise more than 1,800 times, including in his Speech from the Throne. In the end, the Liberals changed tack 1,800 times. Canadians feel that they have been deceived, and rightly so.

Many of my fellow citizens in Salaberry—Suroît have also expressed their disappointment. Here is the question they want to ask the Prime Minister: does he no longer want every vote to count as he has repeated so many times?

In an attempt to explain why such a key promise had been broken, two successive ministers of democratic institutions hammered home that there was no consensus, and the Liberals continue to use this pretext without being able to define the word “consensus”, like my colleague from Sherbrooke asked them to. What are the Liberals’ criteria for consensus? They are still unable to answer this question to this day. The Liberals have not been able to define the consensus which they needed to move forward with electoral reform, either within the Special Committee on Electoral Reform or among the citizenry.

Consultations were held, however, including by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform and in my riding. I have the numbers here for my riding because I found them pretty surprising. It would seem that 78% of the residents of Salaberry—Suroît who participated in the survey that I conducted declared that the number of seats that a party has should reflect the number of votes it received. If 78% is not a consensus, I do not know what kind of numbers it would take for the Liberals to see that a majority of the people agree that we need to move forward with electoral reform.

Furthermore, 70% of those surveyed said they would like to see Parliamentary work be undertaken in collaboration with all the parties and be supported by all of them. Under any proportional system, the current government would be a minority one. It would have been forced to collaborate with the other parties to implement its policies.

Our electoral system has serious deficiencies. Political scientists have been pointing them out as far back as 1960. The first is the number of non-represented voters. Over 9 million of voters in the 2015 federal election were not represented. The second is the distortion between the results and the ballot itself. In the last election, the Liberal Party received 39% of the votes, 55% of the seats and 100% of the power. If that is not a distortion caused by our outdated electoral system, I would like to know how the Liberals would qualify this system.

This does allow the Liberals to implement their policies as they see fit and to block initiatives by other parties when they do not fit their ideology or benefit their friends. The people, however, voted by a margin of 63% for parties in favour of electoral reform.

Lastly, a review would not be as divisive as the government would have us believe. A consensus already exists: 90% of the experts and 80% of the members of the public who appeared before the Special Committee on Electoral Reform requested that the government adopt an electoral system with a proportional component.

In other words, the majority of experts and people across Canada agree. Therefore, there is a consensus about having every vote count. We repeated this many times. The Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party also recognized this. Clearly, the Liberal members of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform are aware of these figures. How can the Liberals say that there is no consensus? That is really frustrating.

Would the results have been different with a proportional voting system? The Canadian political landscape would be much more representative if a more proportional system were put in place. For example, the Bloc Québécois would be a party recognized by the House and the Green Party would have 11 members on the Hill. Canada is a country that is proud of its diversity; however, the House of Commons is not representative of this diversity.

Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have not sought to improve the voting system. Why change a system that works to their advantage? The government's decision to break its promise only fuels cynicism and undermines confidence in politics, especially in those under 30.

Even though the participation rate of millennials, my generation, was higher in the 2015 election, it was well below the participation rate for all other age categories. I had the opportunity to talk about this with some of them and they told me that they had high hopes for electoral reform.

Although they wanted to give politicians a chance, they did not have a high opinion of our work. They described politicians as being individualistic, cynical, and constantly looking to the next election. These young people felt that the parties did not take into consideration their issues because they were always looking after their personal interests.

To understand the loss of confidence caused by the government, consider what my Liberal colleague for Mississauga—Streetsville said:

When our party announced that 2015 would be the last election under the first past the post voting system, it was an announcement that our government is going to be one that listens to the concerns of citizens, has progressive views, and is truly about real change.

Congratulations. They are not listening, not progressive, and not changing anything. All they have done is to make many young Canadians even more cynical, and those young people are not dumb. Unfortunately, research shows that young people who do not vote when they first become eligible to do so will likely never vote. It will be extremely difficult to restore their motivation and desire to take part in Canadian democracy once they have completely checked out after the first opportunity has passed.

The Liberals have shattered the hopes of people in their own base. Young Liberals in Quebec emphasized the importance of reforming the electoral system, and I quote, “which forms the foundation of our democracy”. Those are their own words. They reiterated their desire to change the electoral system.

The Prime Minister even appointed himself minister of youth so that he could better listen to them. As it turns out, he has done the opposite, and he is not assuming responsibility for his broken promise. Even worse, he sent a newly appointed young woman to cover for him. What a great example of courage and political accountability.

Does the government not see that its decision to back away from electoral reform will serve only to enhance young people's sense of distrust in politics? It would have been difficult to stoop any lower, but the Liberals somehow managed it.

When the Liberals held 11% of the seats despite getting 18% of the votes, they lambasted our outdated electoral system. Strangely enough, now that they hold nearly 55% of the seats without having received half the votes, they are no longer in such a hurry to change things. The questions on the MyDemocracy.ca survey are the best example of this.

That survey was a tremendous opportunity to once again consult with Canadians after the Special Committee on Electoral Reform released its report. The government sabotaged this opportunity by asking empty and leading questions. At no time did the government ask participants what kind of voting system they would like to have for the country. Is this not a bit ironic and cynical? Canadians did not answer the survey to tell the government whether they are pragmatists or guardians. They wanted to give their opinion on a major reform that would give Canada a more representative electoral system.

Lastly, I would like to respond to the Prime Minister’s argument that extremist voices could make their way to Ottawa if we were to change the voting system. This is another case of reigning through fear, as if we needed more of that.

I would respond to this argument by quoting a sentence from a letter published by Katelynn Northam from Leadnow: “A Trump-style candidate could never win over a majority of Canadian voters — but in our broken first-past-the-post system, a hateful candidate could win with as little as 35% of the vote”.

By breaking this promise that it repeatedly made to Canadians, the government is not honouring its office. It raised hopes only to extinguish them a year and a half later. The Liberals have drawn the ire of all those who voted to see a change in the electoral system, including some of their own members. This can only lead to an increased sense of distrust.

I call on the young people sitting on the Prime Minister’s youth council to remind him of the desire to change the voting system, ask him why he broke one of his main promises, and ask him to apologize to Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the member's last point, I want to assure her that I will bring it up. We also have a youth commission and I look forward to the dialogue that we will have there.

Since the election I have had the opportunity to have a great deal of dialogue on this particular issue. Even though I appreciate and I value all of the work of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, and even though I appreciate and value all of the good work that the former minister did on the file with respect to reaching out and trying to get a better idea, and even though I appreciate the thousands of Canadians who participated, let there be no doubt that there was no consensus. Given the lack of consensus, it would have been wrong for the Prime Minister to move forward on this issue.

I would ask the member to be very clear on this. Does she believe that a majority of her constituents have a position on what type of electoral reform they would like to see, not her party—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that there is only five minutes for questions and answers, so if members could keep them short enough to allow other people to ask questions, that would be great, because people are eating into that time quite widely, and I hate to cut the questions short.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that, even though the Prime Minister has taken on the title of youth minister, he has never been able to respond to a single one of my questions in the House.

On the question of whether my fellow citizens want a proportional voting system, if the member had taken the trouble to listen to my speech, he would know that I said that 78% of my fellow citizens whom I consulted on the issue of the electoral system said that they wanted to change the voting system for one that is proportional.

The Liberals say there is no consensus, even though their mandate never made any mention of consensus. The report’s figures state that 90% of the experts and 80% of the population who were consulted by the committee over several months said they wanted a proportional voting system.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît. I am in total agreement with her speech.

I have just one question to ask. In her opinion, why has the government decided to break its clear promise?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am totally disconcerted, disappointed and frustrated, like thousands if not millions of Canadians who, like my colleague from the Green Party, do not understand it.

What we do in fact understand is that the Liberals were greatly advantaged by the first-past-the-post system. They nonetheless repeated their promise during the campaign, many times in the House of Commons, and even in the throne speech.

Last December 2, and again recently, the Prime Minister was saying : “I make promises because I believe in them. I’ve heard loudly and clearly that Canadians want a better system of governance, a better system of choosing our governments, and I’m working very hard so that 2015 is indeed the last election under first-past-the-post.”

It is shameful for a prime minister to promote another system and not even be able to keep his promise on the pretext that there is no consensus, when 90% of the experts agree that the system should be reformed.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know how the hon. member can say that the government misled Canadians when we presented that platform in good faith.

All of the Liberal members discussed it. The Prime Minister and the former leader of our party presented this in our platform in good faith.

Why is this being called misleading? It was in good faith—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

As time is short, I will now give the floor to the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

I cannot believe that the Liberals are so blinded by their own power that they are incapable of realizing that they have reneged on their promise. They repeated more than 1,800 times that they would reform the voting system. They said they needed a consensus, something that was not mentioned in any mandate. They are unable to define the word “consensus”. Ninety per cent of experts and 80% of the population agree that a proportional voting system is needed.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Salaberry—Suroît, spoke very powerfully to the motion we are discussing here today. This is an NDP motion that we are all very proud of, which is receiving tremendous support across the country. It is certainly a position that is receiving tremendous support across the country. I just want to repeat it for the sake of those who are tuned in or are tuning in.

The motion we put forward today states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government misled Canadians on its platform and Throne Speech commitment “that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system”, and that the House call on the government to apologize to Canadians for breaking its promise.

I have heard the consternation from Liberals across, questioning why we are using such strong language, like “misleading”. It is because that is exactly what the Liberals have done. Let us go back into recent history to get a sense of that.

On June 16, 2015, the Prime Minister promised that the 2015 election would be the last federal election conducted under the first past the post system, and that he would present a bill in the House of Commons within 18 months of his election.

On December 4, 2015, the Prime Minister repeated this commitment in his throne speech where he said:

To make sure that every vote counts, the Government will undertake consultations on electoral reform, and will take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

On December 17, 2015, in an interview, the Prime Minister said:

It would be easier to do nothing and sit back and just say, 'Okay, you know what, this worked for us, I think we can make this current system work for a few more mandates' ... But that's not the kind of leadership that Canadians expected.

That was the story on February 4, 2016, March 11, 2016, May 11, 2016, October 19, 2016, November 6, 2016, December 1, 2, 5, and 7, 2016, and January 10, 2017, but on January 12 is when the story starts to change. The new Minister of Democratic Institutions twice refused to repeat the Prime Minister's election promise on electoral reform, and avoided the question by saying that she was committed to getting briefed on the file.

What we have seen transpire over the last three weeks is a full, complete turnaround for all of these other statements, and in fact a very clear statement from the government that it is willing to break its promise to Canadians on electoral reform. The Liberals are willing to go that far, and they are using all sorts of excuses in the House which outside of this chamber we would call “lame” to describe what has transpired here. I have never heard such pathetic excuses from any government when it comes to a situation where it has so blatantly broken its promise to Canadians.

I read a quote where the Prime Minister himself mocked the notion that the Liberals would possibly pull away from this commitment, because it was so important to them. This is the height of cynicism in politics. It is why so many Canadians are so frustrated and angry about the way in which the government has broken its promise. The excuses that we are hearing from the government are simply not going to cut it, nor is the reference to no consensus and that 45% only wanted this or that.

We are talking about a government that was elected by 39% of Canadians. It was fine for that percentage to be recognized as a legitimate win, and nobody here is saying that it is not a legitimate government, yet when the Liberals are throwing numbers around like this, it is as though they cannot move forward on this, and they fill in the blank and keep referring to a lack of consensus.

The point here is that the Liberals made a commitment to Canadians. Canadians believed them. Many Canadians voted for them, because they feel deeply about this issue. Now the Liberals have turned around, and like many politicians of the past, they have broken their promise.

I want to share a few thoughts about an article that came out today. The title of that article is “Millennials finally fall out of love with [the Prime Minister] after he abandons electoral reform”. Obviously, it is a provocative title. However, once one reads the article, there is a logical argument made that for many young people, electoral reform was identified as an important issue. Democratic reform is something young people feel strongly about. It is a system whereby their voices, their issues, are respected and heard in real terms. It is something they feel very strongly about, and they attached these values to a Prime Minister who spoke to many young people and who ultimately made a very clear commitment to young Canadians, and all Canadians, that if he were to be elected, he would make a difference.

Young people, for generations, have had promises to them by governments broken. Once again we are seeing that happen, but this time by a Prime Minister who truly claims to care about young people and the issues that matter to them.

There is a long list of things the Prime Minister alluded to that are not being acted on: the creation of good jobs for young people, and I have spoken many times in this House about the rise of precarious work for the millennial generation; the promise to do things differently when it came to pipelines, and obviously we know that young people are extremely concerned about climate change; and the need to respect the rights of indigenous people.

We know the rhetoric that was thrown around on the commitment by the government to legalize marijuana that was used to get votes from young people. Now we are seeing a very different tone from the government on that issue.

Last week the gallery was full of young people who were here in the hope that the government would live up to the tweet the Prime Minister sent in response to Donald Trump's racist immigration ban. Yet even there they did not see the government act on the kinds of values they and many of us as young Canadians hold so dear.

We are seeing a pattern whereby the government is pulling away from things it promised and issues it said it would stand up for young people on. However, nothing has been more blatant than this particular broken promise, this very obvious walking back from a commitment it made, repeatedly made, in black letters on white paper. I have mentioned the dates. We have all been in the House when the Prime Minister has said it. We heard it from his minister.

I want to acknowledge the thousands of Canadians who engaged in the consultation process the NDP held and those who came to the parliamentary committee meetings across the country. These are people who took time out of their lives, away from their families, and travelled to different communities. They took that time because they felt strongly about this issue. They believed that the current government, as it promised, was actually willing to make a difference.

Not only are we asking the government to apologize, the New Democrats are joining with many Canadians to say that what the government has done is unacceptable. Broken promises are unacceptable. A broken promise on electoral reform, something that is so fundamental to building a healthy democracy that truly represents us, is unacceptable.

Canadians deserve better, young Canadians deserve better, than a Prime Minister and a government that is willing to mislead us, as we have seen here today.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments and her commitment to bettering democracy. However, although a lot of consultations were done, there was not a clear consensus among Canadians. Would it not have been irresponsible to move forward, with insufficient time to get things in place for the next election, to quickly try to change the system and guess at whether to go this way or that way, when there was not a clear consensus? Would it not have been irresponsible for the government to move in that direction rather than say that for now, we are not moving forward, because there is no consensus, but let us continue to look at how we can make democracy better while we continue to look at electoral reform in the future?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I realize that members across the aisle are speaking from the same playbook on this. I can only imagine how difficult a debate like this would be for them.

The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister repeatedly indicated, and I quote, “Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that 2015 will be the last election held under first past the post”.

The Liberals' slogan in the last election was “Real Change”. Breaking this promise, a fundamental promise, on electoral reform is the opposite of real change. People expected bold leadership from the Prime Minister. They expected him to stand up for his promises. What we are discussing here is a fundamental broken promise. The Liberals should apologize.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski for a very impressive presentation.

There is only one part of the NDP resolution with which I might differ. Would it not be better if, instead of an apology, we had a rewritten letter to the Minister of Democratic Institutions to keep this promise on track?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I also want to acknowledge my colleague's commitment to the issue of electoral reform.

Many of us in the House, despite the party we come from, have expressed real opposition to what the government has been doing on this front. As we in the NDP have indicated, we are committed to democratic reform. Proportional representation is something we heard from thousands of Canadians as a model to be followed, and we are certainly keen to push that vision forward.

Obviously here today we want the Liberals to take ownership of breaking the promise they made to Canadians, and we certainly hope they will see the light and their wrong ways and change course as we go forward.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech, but particularly for her passion and her knowledge of the subject.

The Liberal slogan of the day is that there is no consensus.

However, it seems to me that, in the last election, the majority of Canadian electors voted for one or another of the parties that were proposing electoral reform. We in the NDP never concealed the fact that we were in favour not only of reform, but also of the introduction of a mixed-member proportional voting system.

If that does not constitute a consensus that can allow work to begin, what does it take for the Liberals to have a consensus?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is very important. What indeed will it take? That is what we want to know.

The first step is really for the Liberals to acknowledge that they broke the promise they made to Canadians. The consensus excuse is truly unacceptable.

Canadians are angry and frustrated. They believed the Prime Minister’s promise. That is why we have tabled this motion. We are asking the Liberals to recognize that they broke this promise and that they obviously need to change course and respect Canadians’ demands for electoral reform.