Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague speaks so fast because 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-considered remarks. It is always nice to hear someone who we know wrote his own remarks.
Having said all of that, I want to posit a situation to the member. There has been talk coming from the government about the need to find consensus, and 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 have allowed the majority to decide whether the new system that was proposed would be superior to the existing system, or the reverse, and I imagine arguments could be 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 not agree with me that if we want to move forward on this particular issue, where the politicians will always have self-interest, in the end a referendum is the only way of moving from this system to any other system?