Debates of May 16th, 2016

Democratic Reform

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what will happen is that Canadians will miss the boat unless the Liberals give them a referendum.

The minister claimed that she is going to consult. However, back here in reality, it is six Liberal MPs who hold all the power. Those six Liberal MPs are the only voices that seem to matter to the current Liberal government. Does the Prime Minister really think it is fairer to have six Liberal MPs decide the future of our democratic system, rather than holding a referendum where every Canadian gets a vote?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, while that approach may have been the acceptable norm in the previous government, that is not the way forward with our government. This government is committed to bringing all parties to the table to be part of this important dialogue at an all-party committee to act as a conduit between all Canadians and this House. Ultimately, we as a House will decide the best way to move forward on electoral reform.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in any case, if referendums were the norm in the previous government, then I am extremely proud of the people on this side of the House today.

Last week, the Minister of Democratic Institutions referred to Twitter as a way of consulting Canadians. In reality, less than 20% of Canadians use Twitter. Meanwhile, nearly 70% of Canadians exercised their right to vote in the last election.

Can the minister tell us why she thinks that a referendum is not the right way to consult all Canadians?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's view to engage all Canadians in this conversation. It is a view we all share in the House. The question is this. How many Canadians does he want to hear from?

In the last two electoral reform referenda, almost half of the population did not vote. Talking to only half of the population may be good enough for the party opposite, but it is not good enough for us. This is the 21st century. We have modern tools to engage the public, tools capable of reaching those who, historically, have been marginalized, and we will employ these tools.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister always talks about how she wants to consult different segments of the population, such as youth, women, indigenous people, people with disabilities, and people living in remote and rural regions.

To listen to her, one would think that the only people who would vote are men aged 65 and over living in urban areas. Nevertheless, everyone that I spoke to this past weekend was in favour of a referendum.

Could the minister acknowledge that a referendum is the best way to consult all Canadians?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, in the 21st century, we are privileged to have a wide range of tools available to us to engage with Canadians. I appreciate the enthusiasm of members opposite to be part of this discussion. I encourage them to bring forward ideas other than a referendum.

Do they agree that the status quo must end? Do they agree that we need to modernize our democratic institutions? Are they willing to be at the table, to be part of the solution? I hope so. Canadians are counting on us.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister said that he was proud that his government was going to use its majority to reform our electoral system. However, that does not make any sense.

We are talking about a major reform to get rid of an archaic system that creates distortions and false majorities. Let us follow this absolutely amazing logic through: they are going to use their false majority to control the committee. We believe that much more open, transparent, and inclusive rules are needed.

Will the Liberals do the same thing as the Conservatives and reform our electoral system without the support of anyone else in the House?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, our proposed motion includes both the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party members on the committee. This goes beyond the normal practice of not allowing unrecognized parties to be at the table. We have invited them to be part of the process, to contribute to the witness list, to travel, and to question witnesses.

I will add one other thing. If the Bloc Québécois and Green Party do not agree with the majority report of the committee, I will receive, consider, and respond to any alternative report they may wish to present.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My beating heart be still, Mr. Speaker. She is going to receive an alternative report.

We are talking about the very heart and foundation of our democratic system. When Conservatives were in power, they shut down debate and did not seek support from other parties and used their false majority on committee to ram through changes to our electoral system. After promising to be different, Liberals proposed a process that has given themselves the power to change our democratic institutions without the support of any other party and use their false majority to do the exact same thing.

Here is an opportunity for the minister. Will she commit today that her government will not act unilaterally to pass changes to our democracy, yes or no?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, the efforts to modernize our electoral system need the participation of all 338 members in the House. The special all-party committee is one essential tool that acts as a conduit between the House and the people of this country. If we are going to modernize our electoral system, if we are going to further connect constituents to this place, then we need to work together, set aside partisan interests, and deliver on the commitments that two-thirds of us made to Canadians this past election.

International Trade

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Cabinet is going to do whatever it wants to do, anyway, Mr. Speaker.

Canada's largest lumber companies are moving more and more of their operations south of the border at the expense of high-quality, well-paying jobs in this country, all because of uncertainty over the Liberals handling of the softwood lumber agreement. These same companies are now backed by powerful U.S. lobby groups that are advocating for a deal that will put our small producers at a disadvantage.

When will the Liberals stop playing both sides of the border and stand up for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians employed by the forestry sector here at home?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware of the intricacies of this file. It remains a priority for our government.

We are within the negotiation period in which we will come out with a framework for this agreement.

We understand the nature of the industry across this country and the particularities of the industry in each province, and we will come back with the right agreement.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the small producers are on the outside looking in.

From that response, it is clear that Liberals do not care about protecting Canadian forestry jobs that are the backbone of this country.

They have pitted Canada's small producers against our large producers, the very same large Canadian forestry companies that are increasingly growing their U.S. operations and moving jobs out of this country.

The government has left our small producers again on the outside looking in. How can the Liberals sit idle while Canadian jobs are moving to the United States because of softwood lumber uncertainty?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is far from the truth that we are sitting idle. We have consulted with every single part of the industry, including small producers. We understand the nature of what we have to do in the negotiation process.

It is completely misleading to say that we are not aware of what is happening in the industry. It is a priority for us, and we will get the right deal done.

Natural Resources

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just forestry; it is Canadian pipelines that are leaving Canada. In fact, in the last six months there have been no new pipeline projects proposed.

Instead, Canadian pipelines are being built in other countries. TransCanada's pipeline building in Mexico is just the latest example.

Why are the Liberals driving oil investment and jobs out of Canada with their high taxes and bad policy?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times in the House, we as a government support our natural resource sector.

This is a terrible time as a result of low commodity prices, and we have Canadians around this country suffering.

The government has put in a transparent process with the National Energy Board that needs to run its course, so we ensure we have environmental protection for our country and the confidence of Canadians moving forward.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is developing a bad investment reputation because of the uncertainty the Liberals have created.

At the same time, countries like Mexico are welcoming Canadian oil companies. Canada has one of the best reputations when it comes to our regulatory system, responsible natural resources development, and our standard of living.

The only reason investment is leaving and not coming here is because of the Liberals. When will the Liberals realize that they are killing investment and jobs in Canada and in the pipeline industry?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would like to say, which we have repeated numerous times in this country, is that we are so proud of our oil and gas sector. They are some of the best innovators, and the companies are helping create jobs in our country and helping to grow our economy.

We recognize that in order for our economy to grow and the oil and gas sector to be part of that, we need to ensure that the economy and the environment go hand and hand.

We are working very hard with our partners to make sure that happens.

Employment Insurance

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when the NDP asked about regions left out of extended employment insurance benefits, the government's response was “stay tuned”.

On Friday the Prime Minister tuned out Regina. Our city is now the only part of Saskatchewan and Alberta excluded from extended employment insurance, even though Regina has been hit by recent layoffs, and families are in urgent need of help.

Why is the Liberal government continuing to ignore Regina?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, any increase in the number of unemployed workers in this country is of great concern to all Canadians and to this government in particular.

Recent results have shown that three additional regions have met the existing definition of a sharp and sustained economic downturn.

Therefore, just one short week after that new data was released, our Prime Minister announced extended EI benefits to three further regions, and we are proud of this.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not only the people of Regina that the Liberals have left out in the cold.

In their campaign, the Liberals promised to restore the extra five weeks to workers in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, but now in government, the Liberals have left these workers behind.

Liberals also promised to fix EI so that precarious workers can access the fund; yet again in government there is still no help, and 800,000 unemployed Canadians are unable to access EI, and the Liberals are breaking their promises one after the other.

The question is, when will the Liberals step up for Canadians who are unemployed?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, that important question is part of our mandate, part of my colleague's mandate to reform both the EI system and to promote the EI services.

We have engaged in the budget with very important measures to do precisely that. Just a few days ago, we announced that three further regions would be eligible for important enhancements in the EI system.

Physician-Assisted Death

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous government, we believe in the importance of parliamentary debate, all the while keeping in mind issues such as Supreme Court deadlines.

I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that all members of Parliament who want to participate in debate on legislation such as Bill C-14 should be able to do so.

Could the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons inform the House as to the intention of the government in regard to the debate on Bill C-14 at report stage and third reading?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the importance of respecting the Supreme Court's June deadline, but this should not stop members of Parliament from participating in this important debate.

On Friday, as members know, we attempted to extend the sitting hours of the House to ensure that as many MPs as possible were able to speak. Unfortunately, the opposition blocked that attempt.

I hope the opposition will reconsider and allow the House to extend its hours so all members can be heard on this very important legislation.

Justice

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the six months that the Minister of Justice has been in office, she has yet to make a single judicial appointment.

Last week, Chief Justice Wittmann of Alberta said that due to judicial vacancies, cases were being thrown out of court, including one serious fraud case.

How many cases is the Minister of Justice prepared to see thrown out of court due to her own inaction?