House of Commons Hansard #54 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tpp.
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals have a problem, their solution is to form a committee. Problems with Canada Post? Form a committee. Problems with defence? Form a committee. Problems with free trade? Form a committee.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Order. The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis has the floor. He is the only one allowed to speak right now.
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I, for one, would like Canadians to be involved in democratic reform.
Is the Minister of Democratic Institutions prepared to consult with Canadians through a referendum on democratic reform?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, listening to Canadians is at the heart of a healthy democracy.
We are committed to ensuring that young people, new Canadians, indigenous persons, those with disabilities and exceptionalities, seniors, and those living in the rural and remote regions of our country, have a meaningful opportunity to engage in this process.
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is the ultimate irony. The Liberals have made a complete mess of this.
We have gone from sunny ways to a democratic black hole. First of all, the Liberals give themselves absolute power by stacking the committee. Then they change the rules of democracy by ignoring and thumbing their noses at Canadians. We have seen a Liberal-style benevolent dictatorship. Now we are faced with a selective “consultocracy”.
Is the minister trying to engage in some sort of political sleight-of-hand in order to lead Canadians astray?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind all members of this House that no changes or reforms have yet been presented to this House.
Yesterday, we announced the first step towards hearing from Canadians about how to bring their democracy into the 21st century. We have begun the first step, and that includes listening to Canadians across 338 ridings and making a thoughtful and evidence-based decision that way.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, this makes absolutely no sense.
The Liberals say they want to make our system more democratic, and yet they give themselves a majority on the committee. They want to include the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois, but they do not give those parties the right to vote.
How can Canadians be sure that the process is not rigged from the start? Clearly, this reform is not off to a good start.
Will the government admit its mistake and give all parties the right to vote in committee?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, we took the leadership to ensure that non-recognized parties would be at the table.
Under our proposal, members of the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party would be able to participate in developing the witness lists, question witnesses, travel with the committee for hearings across the country, and have the opportunity to provide their input into the final report.
The committee cannot do this work alone. It will require collaboration from all members of this House. I look forward to the contributions of every single member and every single party represented in this House.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals were really willing to work with the opposition, they would not be ramming bills through the House and giving themselves false majorities on a committee.
How can they claim that they want to end first past the post, and then strike a committee that models itself on first past the post?
We are talking about a once-in-a-generation voting reform. Will the minister reconsider her decision to give Liberals the power to unilaterally change our voting system?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an historic opportunity for all of us to go out of our way to engage those Canadians who do not traditionally engage in the democratic process.
We are committed to creating a new electoral system that produces a Parliament that Canadians can be confident in, one that ensures their voices are heard and represented in this House. We all share this ideal in this House. I look forward to the contributions of all members towards that end.
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's messaging around selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is really disturbing.
We have a video that clearly shows the kind of armoured vehicle we are going to sell to Saudi Arabia being used as we speak to crush the civilian population. The minister said that we are not selling those particular armoured vehicles and that we have not yet sold any to Saudi Arabia. That is not very convincing. He also said that there was an element of risk in the contract, but that it was a calculated risk.
Can the minister tell us how many dead civilians it will take for him to recalculate? What number would that be?
Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the party that is being consistent on this issue is the Liberal Party.
The NDP promised to uphold the contract to win seats, but now that it has those seats, it wants to tell the families that depend on the contract they will lose their jobs because it will not sign the export permit for these Canadian vehicles. The issue here is the export permit for a made-in-Canada vehicle, and we have no evidence that it has been wrongly used even though Canada has been selling it since 1993.
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he would cancel the export permits of military equipment to Saudi Arabia if there were new revelations of human rights abuses. But yesterday, the Prime Minister basically said there will be no cancellations. This is about human rights. This is about Canada's international commitments. The question is simple: Who should Canadians believe?
Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, they should believe the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister. This is not a party that switches views after the election, after committing to everything before the election.
The Prime Minister asked me to make sure that the power that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has to block the export permits, if equipment is built in Canada but is wrongly used regarding human rights or national interests of Canada and its allies, is used with a lot of rigour and transparency, which is what I will do.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, today's National Post says the government's committee process is no mandate for electoral reform. The Toronto Star's headline is “Let the people vote..”. The media agree that there should be a referendum to approve any change to the voting system, and the people also agree. Polls say that two-thirds believe there should be a referendum. Why does the Prime Minister not agree with Canadians? Why does he refuse to hold a referendum?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, an independent and constructive media is critical to the success and the health of our democracy. However, this particular reform process is about engaging those who do not have a platform to share their thoughts, their needs, and their aspirations, including young people, indigenous persons, women, those with disabilities and exceptionalities, new Canadians, those living in rural and remote regions of our country, and those of more humble socio-economic background. That is the inclusive approach that Canadians expect from us. That is what we will deliver.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, after 16 years on Parliament Hill, I can say there is no place that we are less likely to find a Canadian with exceptionality, a disabled Canadian, a minority, a disenfranchised person than at a parliamentary committee.
The government has articulated two contradictory positions on changing the voting system. The Prime Minister's tiresome oft-repeated line is that the 2015 election will be the last one ever fought on first past the post. That must mean no to a referendum under any circumstances, yet his ministers say that a referendum is a legitimate option. Which of these two positions actually reflect government policy? Will there be a referendum, or will there not?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, I share, I hope with all members of the House, a great deal of respect for the work of committees in this place. This committee will be shaped by an important set of broad-based principles that include pursuing an effective and legitimate voting system which more accurately reflects Canadians' electoral wishes, a system that better engages all Canadians, one that fosters civility, consensus building, cohesion, an accessible system, one with integrity, and one that enhances the connection between representatives and their constituents.
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are once again flip-flopping so much that they cannot even keep the same talking points together for a whole press conference. On the one hand, the Liberal House leader stated that all options are possible when asked if maintaining the current system was on the table. But then, a mere minute later, he stated that 2015 was the last first-past-the-post election. Flip flop. Maybe they can make it clear on one thing. Will the Liberals commit to giving each and every Canadian a direct say through a referendum?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, we have arrived in this place after the longest federal election in modern Canadian history, during which we were rather clear about our intention to reform our electoral system. Allow me to be clear for hon. members: 2015 was the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post system. It is time for a 21st century model of electing individuals to the House. That is what we promised. That is what we will deliver upon.
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is time to remind Canadians that they are in charge. That is what the Minister of Democratic Institutions claimed yesterday, but their actions do not match their words. All decisions about electoral reform will be made by six Liberals who form the majority on the committee, and the minister also stated that the ultimate decision on what system is proposed will be made by cabinet, not by Canadians.
How can the Liberals claim that Canadians are in charge when the Prime Minister will not even trust them with an opportunity for a referendum?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, members' opposite ridicule the idea of listening to Canadians and on the other hand, they criticize us for not listening to Canadians.
Let me make this clear. The first point of contact for all of us will be hearing from those Canadians who do not normally engage in the democratic process, those who have often been marginalized. A healthy democracy is one that includes their voices.
The final decision will be made by members of the House as well as those in the other place.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned about the Liberals' plan to change our democracy.
What was the first move by the Liberals? They are going to set up a committee with a majority of Liberal members. When you want to change the rules of democracy, the only majority that counts is the majority of Canadians.
Why not simply commit to consulting all Canadians through a referendum?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, we are committed to hearing from all Canadians in all 338 ridings across this great nation. We are relying upon a collaborative approach among every single member of the House to ensure that the voices of those constituents in their ridings who do not normally get heard, who do not normally have a platform, are included and recognized in this important dialogue prior to arriving at a final conclusion.