House of Commons Hansard #6 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was allies.
Andrew Leslie Liberal Orléans, ON
Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you and to thank the people of Lévis—Lotbinière for putting their trust in me for the fourth time. I would also like to thank my wife Chantal, my five children, and everyone, near and far, who took part in my re-election.
I am pleased to participate in the first late show of this 42nd Parliament in order to get more information, or so I hope, on a question that I asked in the House on December 7. I would like to remind the House that the Speech from the Throne did not make any mention of agriculture, not a single word or paragraph. Perhaps this government simply made an error that seems very embarrassing for its members who come from rural areas in Canada.
It will now be difficult for them to look farmers in the eye and say that they are defending them in Canada's Parliament. Nevertheless, family farms are the very foundation of the Canada that we hold dear today. The products are evolving, along with the technology, but one thing remains the same: from well before sun-up until well after sundown, Canadian farmers do the back-breaking job of feeding the country.
Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector contributes more than $100 billion per year to Canada's economy and employs more than two million people. We cannot underestimate the importance of agriculture to our national interests. Our party always put farmers first and we will continue to do so from this side of the House.
Farmers in my region are concerned about this government's lack of interest in the agriculture sector. The evasive answers in the House add to the cynicism of this government we are unfortunately stuck with for another four long years.
I would like to know how the Liberal government plans to support Canadians in rural regions, when it did not even acknowledge them in the Speech from the Throne.
Also, will this government help farmers penetrate new markets through free trade agreements such as the trans-Pacific partnership, even though the Minister of International Trade says that it is not her job to promote trade?
In closing, our farmers under the supply management system want to know whether the agreement and compensation in the trans-Pacific partnership will be honoured since the Minister of International Trade says she is not bound by the compensation commitments.
I hope that the minister will be able to clarify or at least explain her position on this issue that is so important for the future of our farmers under supply management. It is this type of decision that determines the economic choices for the future of Canadian agriculture.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the comments, and let me congratulate the member on his election.
He brought up a question on December 7. I know a great number of Canadians are concerned about the agrifood industry. It is nice that the member raised the question.
Individuals watching, and those who are concerned about this evening's debate, should rest assured. There is no doubt that the Government of Canada, the Liberal Party and its members, have great respect for the agricultural community. We recognize its immense value and contributions, whether it is the farmer or the producer who brings the product to market.
The member has raised a few issues in his four minutes. I would like to attempt to address them. Before I do that, as someone from the Prairies who has been in the House over the past four years, I am very sensitive to our agriculture needs. It is one of the reasons why, in working with the Prime Minister, I have taken the initiative to get a better, more comprehensive understanding of certain industries. One industry I often make reference to is the pork industry. It ties into the trade agreements we have had. We recognize the importance of those trade agreements and the implications they have on our farming and agricultural communities.
I would not want the member to give the wrong impression to Canadians. This government actually does care very passionately about our agrifood industry and wants to do what it can to advocate and be there for our farmers, not only for today but also well into the future. That should not surprise people, given our advocacy in the last number of years.
I do not want to go too much off topic. I would just remind the member about the Canadian Wheat Board and how firm the Liberal Party of Canada was in terms of defending our grain farmers.
Nothing has changed. We will continue to be there for the Prairie farmers, in fact farmers across the country, from coast to coast to coast. The agrifood industry does apply to every region of our country.
The member asked about what is in the throne speech and what the government's intentions are. One of the things that is important to recognize is the investment that the government is going to be putting into infrastructure. When we improve roads, what we are doing, if not directly then indirectly in many ways, is supporting our farming communities.
Those rural communities also need investment in infrastructure. That is something that the Government of Canada is committing to providing, in unprecedented numbers. We are talking about billions of extra dollars that would not have been there had we not won on October 19 of this year.
The member made reference to the issue of free trade. The Liberal Party, more than other party inside this chamber, I would argue, understands the importance of free trade, working on deals and protecting our industries. The minister just clearly indicated the support of the government towards supply management.
When we talk about the important agricultural community and the agrifood industry as a whole, people should know, and stakeholders should know, that the Government of Canada will be there for them.
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, farmers know that they can count on the Conservative Party to defend their priorities, from ending the single-desk monopoly in western Canada, to protecting our supply-management system while opening new markets for our farmers. This will not change.
I urge the new government to continue our work by actively seeking new markets for our farmers, protecting supply management, investing in leading-edge agriculture and agri-food technology, putting farmers on a level playing field so that they can better compete with their commercial partners, making regulatory decisions based on science, ensuring that the transportation system is effective and efficient, and by keeping taxes low.
We all know that our farmers and their products can compete with the best in the world. I urge the government to continue the work our party started and to stand up for Canadian farmers.
Will the Liberal government make that commitment?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the government has taken direct action along that path and more. For example, when the Prime Minister announces the tax break for the middle class, a good number of those farmers will receive a direct benefit as a result because a good percentage of them are part of the middle class. The Liberal Party made it a major part of its election platform, so we are fulfilling that. As well, many of the farmers in rural communities will benefit from the Canada child benefit program, which will also enhance their financial resources.
The member made reference indirectly to the Canadian Wheat Board when he talked about the single desk. I should let the member know that it was the Liberal Party that defended the wheat board producers. The Conservatives broke the law by not allowing for the plebiscite that was promised in the legislation itself. Whether back then or today, our producers should feel comfortable knowing that the Government of Canada will be there for them.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to say this, but I want to congratulate you on your position as the Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole. I am very glad that you decided to run for that and are now where you are.
I want to talk a bit about the issue of electoral reform and the government's policy of pushing through electoral reform following consultations that will take the form of a parliamentary committee but without a referendum. To put it mildly, this will result in a very significant change to Canada's way of conducting electoral business and of conducting our elections. It will be by far the most significant change that has taken place not merely since Confederation, but literally since elections have first occurred in this country.
We have been having elections in one form or another in Canada since the 1700s. In the case of what is now Ontario and Quebec, our very first elections would have taken place in 1792 under the Constitutional Act of 1791. In Nova Scotia it goes back even further. However, in all of our provinces we have had elections under the current system since before most countries in the United Nations even existed. That does not make the current system the right system, and I am not trying to justify keeping the current system. I am agnostic on that point. My point is that we should not change from that to some other system without making sure that the people of Canada support the change we are making.
There are a number of alternatives to the status quo, our current first-past-the-post system. There is the multi-member proportional system, which was proposed in Ontario, and there was a referendum on it in 2007. There is the single transferable vote system that is used very successfully in Malta and Ireland, and which was proposed for British Columbia. That system was the subject of two referendums in British Columbia. There is the preferential ballot in a single-member district. That was the subject of a referendum not in this country but the United Kingdom recently. In all of these jurisdictions we have seen the appropriate mechanism used regardless of the proposal that was put forward, which is a referendum to ask the people whether they wanted it or not.
In dealing with the issue of referenda, last June we proposed making changes to the electoral system. The then prime minister said that it would be hard to win what he called a plebiscite on electoral reform, and so we were not doing it. However, it is only hard to win it if the people do not support it. If we have something that the majority of Canadians support, it will get through. There have been referenda that have been successful. If none had been successful, that would still not be an argument against having one; it would be an argument that the status quo was satisfactory. However, the fact is that some have been successful. For example, there was a successful referendum in New Zealand in 1992 on changing from the first-past-the-post system to a different system.
What is wrong is not letting the people speak. I am so upset about this determination to drive this through without consulting the people, as if people do not matter, that I have put forward and signed today an electronic petition numbered e-48. Unfortunately, I cannot read the whole thing because it has some elaborate whereas clauses. However, it boils down to this. It states:
We, the undersigned, citizens of Canada, request (or call upon) the Minister of Democratic Institutions to hold a referendum on any changes to Canada’s federal electoral system so that the citizens of Canada have their direct say on any proposed changes by the government.
That is the position I believe in entirely. I do not think it is appropriate to indicate a personal preference as to what the outcome is. At this point, it is appropriate to say that it is for the people to make that choice. The government can propose and it should propose what it thinks is best in the form of legislation. It should then submit that to the people for their choice. They may say yes; they may say no. If they say no, they may say yes in the future after they have had a chance to make adjustments so it seems right for them and their values. On this, or on anything else, the people should be sovereign.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contribution. He has followed this issue over the last number of years and has taken a very active interest in it. I applaud the member's interest in the topic, but he has failed to mention a couple of what I would suggest are important points.
I will go back to election platforms. The Liberal Party had a strong commitment, which I am sure the member will recall quite well. Prior to the election campaign even getting under way, the Liberal Party of Canada made it clear that the first-past-the-post system is a dated system and needs to be changed. Our party made it clear that 2015 would be the last time we would run under the first-past-the post system. That commitment was given at the time by the leader of the Liberal Party and ultimately became a part of our campaign platform.
It is important to note that even the New Democratic Party and the Green Party have been advocating that we change the system. There is only one party inside this Chamber that does not want to recognize what all other political parties have recognized, and that is the need for change.
I could give examples. I have witnessed elections, as have all members in the House. We could do some research on this. I can recall a provincial election where one party received more votes than the other party but the other party actually formed the government. The need for change is very real, and there are different ways to make that change.
The Conservatives have been raising this issue virtually on a daily basis this week. They have talked about the need for a referendum. They have talked about the need for the system to be opened up. They have talked about consultation.
I was sitting in opposition when the Conservative government brought in its election fairness act. I would remind all members and all Canadians of the government's approach toward changing the electoral law. It was the Conservative Party and only the Conservative Party. That party went against the Chief Electoral Officer. It went against the Liberal Party, the Green Party, and the NDP. Many independent agencies and many different non-profit, apolitical organizations were deeply offended by the way in which the Conservative government at the time was trying to put these changes in place. It did it without any consultation.
Compare that to what our minister is doing today. The government House leader has already indicated our commitment to change the system. We are prepared to look to Canadians in a real and tangible way, and we we will. We will invite all-party participation in the process. We recognize what Canadians want. They want to see a change. We are prepared to work with Canadians and the many different interest groups and stakeholders. We are prepared to be thorough. We are prepared to work with people, consult, and come up with some ideas that could really make a difference.
What I know for sure is that an election platform commitment was made to make that change. All we are seeing today is a Prime Minister who is trying to fulfill that commitment. Through the appointment of his cabinet, we have already begun the necessary work to at least get the ball rolling forward. We should be applauded for taking the initiative to try to improve democracy in Canada.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, it has been a while since I have done this. I actually asked the very first question under these rules when they changed back when Jean Chrétien was the prime minister. I was so proud of myself, but I have since forgotten what was said. However, I only have a minute and I will not use it up.
There were 39% of Canadians who voted for the Liberals in this election. That is not a mandate to move forward unilaterally. That was 39% under a system that the Liberals themselves say gives false mandates: 100% of the power with 39% of the vote.
It is obvious that most people who voted for the Liberal Party did not vote because of this particular plank in the platform. I would add, as well, that while it is true that the Green Party and the NDP support electoral reform and do not want the status quo, some of us in the Conservative Party are not necessarily choosing first past the post as our preferred system either.
However, the point is this. New Democrats and people who voted NDP do not necessarily support the system that the Liberals have come up with. They do not necessarily support the system the Liberals have come up with because there was no specific commitment to a kind of system, merely to not having the current system. It is obvious that is a fundamental flaw in the logic we have been presented with.
If the Liberals would switch and say they want to have a referendum, they would discover that they have a considerable amount of goodwill from the Canadian public. I think they might discover that once again they are riding the wave of popular support that ought to attach itself naturally to change.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, we know for a fact that a majority of people who voted, actually voted for parties that supported changing the electoral system. We need to recognize that.
Whether it is the Prime Minister, the minister, or the parliamentary secretary, we do not want to predetermine or pass judgment on what we expect to be a very robust system of consulting with Canadians, soliciting the necessary feedback so we can actually improve Canada's democratic system.
This is something that we know a clear majority of Canadians want to see. They want to see electoral reform. It is also a part of the Liberal Party's election platform, and we have a Prime Minister who is committed to delivering on the promises he made and on which Canadians voted not that long ago.
It should not be any surprise, and I do not think that the opposition or any other political party should try to limit potential options that might be out there.
I think we need to approach this in an open fashion. Let us see what Canadians actually have to say.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:38 p.m.)
