House of Commons Hansard #58 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was opposition.
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has set up a special committee without consulting the opposition; he is using his artificial majority of seats that he, himself, says is illegitimate in order to ram through a system that only benefits Liberals; and he refuses to consult Canadians in a referendum. Canadians should have the final say on this matter.
Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and agree to hold a referendum?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, democracy is more than just about voting. It is about working together to ensure that every voice and every perspective is engaged and included in governance.
In the past, the Progressive Conservative Party extended the right to vote to women and indigenous persons. The party did not hold a referendum. It came to Parliament and collectively worked together to do the right thing.
Let us do the right thing. Let us work together and modernize our electoral system.
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of Canadians would like us to have a referendum with regard to this issue. The minister of democratic reform does not understand that the voice of millions of Canadians in a referendum is far better than the hundreds that a committee might be able to hear.
She has claimed countless times that she would like to “put the interests of Canadians ahead of party interests”. I would encourage her, then, to live up to her words of commitment and to put Canadians first.
Why will the Liberals not let Canadians have the final say by holding a national referendum?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, democratic reform requires leadership, leadership to engage and to consult Canadians, but also leadership to act and do the right thing.
When this right was extended to women and to indigenous persons, without restrictions, this House did so by demonstrating true leadership.
Let us do that again. Let us work together to ensure that the voices of those who do not traditionally get an opportunity to be included in this process are included this time.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is rare to have the opportunity to have a real discussion on our electoral system. We have an historic opportunity to put an end to an archaic system that creates false majorities, like the one the Liberal Party got in the last election.
With the parliamentary straitjacket the Liberals presented yesterday, I find it hard to believe that they are not going to use their false majority to impose their views.
Can the Liberals assure the House today that they will do the only honourable thing to improve our democratic life and get the support of at least one opposition party?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, I have been seeking the support of the opposition since I began my mandate. We need to do this work together.
However, if the members opposite have already made up their minds and are not coming to the table with progressive and constructive options, then they cannot criticize us for not doing the work that we promised we would do to the Canadians who elected.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, we have a historic opportunity to finally get rid of first past the post, but Canadians are growing increasingly worried and disappointed with the government.
The minister claims that she wants to work together with opposition, then Liberals shoot down exactly every idea we give them. She claims she wants to be non-partisan, then Liberals stack the deck on the committee choosing the new system.
Let us have a clear answer to a clear question. Will the minister respect the millions of Canadians represented by the opposition and agree not to pass any changes to our electoral act without the support of one of those parties, yes or no?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, if working with other parties was not important to us, we would not have demonstrated the leadership that we did when we ensured that the two unrecognized parties in the House, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party, would be included in this important conversation.
I am looking forward to my meetings with all my critics, and I hope that this is an issue on which we can work together and ensure that Canada displays and continues to display the leadership it needs to on this agenda of democratic reform.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, the bizarre spectacle yesterday of the minister arguing that referendums are non-inclusive shows that she has no idea how they work.
A referendum will not and does not replace the minister's ultra-inclusive, super-de-duper consultation process, which has been received with such accolades in the media over the last few days. Rather, a referendum is a final step. It is the one in which Canadians get to say yes or no to what came before, including finding out whether or not the government will pay any attention at all to what took place in their consultation process.
Why, therefore, would she not hold a referendum?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, while I would appreciate a different tone from the member opposite, I do not expect it.
That said, the people of this country, those in the pockets, who do not normally get engaged in this conversation, those who face barriers above and beyond what members opposite can even comprehend, they deserve to be included in this conversation.
I urge the member opposite to come to the table with constructive feedback on how we can work together to ensure that those voices are heard.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about inclusiveness.
We have a parliamentary committee that meets with, say, 1,000 people over the next six months, which would be quite an accomplishment: inclusive. Then as the minister said, it goes off to the cabinet for a final decision: not inclusive. Then, if she takes the advice we are giving here, it goes to 35 million Canadians for ratification or rejection. That is inclusive.
Why is the minister opposed to inclusiveness? Why does she think that only her cabinet colleagues get to decide whether or not we get—
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, allow me to take this opportunity to remind all members of the House that the final decision on what reforms we bring forward will be the decision of all 338 members of the House, and to believe otherwise is undemocratic.
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that the electoral reform stacked process she is recommending is designed to serve the best interests of Canadians and not political parties.
Let us be clear. The government wants the Liberal majority controlling the committee to opt for the preferred Liberal system to be approved by the Liberal cabinet, to be adopted by the Liberal majority in the House, notwithstanding any dissent, including from 35 million Canadians.
Nothing could be clearer. The Liberals are trying to rig the system by and for the Liberal Party. Why not allow Canadians to protect the legitimacy of our elections through a referendum?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, while taking advantage of their majority may have been the norm within the former government, that is not the culture within our government.
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Mr. Speaker, so it is not the Liberal culture to respect the majority of Canadians on the precise question of how they elect their representatives to their Parliament. This place does not belong to the Liberal Party, and the very question of legitimacy is at stake here.
It is absolutely clear if the Liberals thought they could get a majority of Canadians to endorse their rigged system, they would hold a referendum. Is it not true? The only reason they refuse to do so is because Canadians would veto the Liberal rigged electoral system.
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, this time last week, we took the first step. We delivered on a promise that we made to Canadians to bring together an all-party committee to review various options to study electoral reform and consider the possibility of online voting and mandatory voting.
That was a first step. That step and every other step from here on requires the collective will and leadership of every member of the House. We need to display that leadership, because the people who put us here are counting on it.
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention that RCMP officers spied on journalists without authorization. There needs to be an investigation into this.
In the meantime, the Liberals still have not made good on their promise to revisit Bill C-51, which they voted for.
Bill C-51 is an affront to liberty and gives unprecedented powers to our intelligence services without any accountability.
When will the minister keep his promise and take action to respect our civil liberties?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, freedom of the press is a fundamental Canadian value that is enshrined in the charter.
The unauthorized surveillance was entirely unacceptable. It was contrary to a ministerial directive. It was contrary to RCMP policy. It was stopped when RCMP headquarters became aware of it, and the investigators have been reprimanded.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Speaker, after voting in favour of Bill C-51, the Conservatives' dangerous and ineffective spy bill, the Liberals changed their tune during the election, when they promised to repeal problematic elements of the draconian bill “without delay”.
Seven months later, the minister has accomplished nothing. Meanwhile, we have reports of unauthorized spying on journalists by the RCMP, and Canadians are increasingly worried about their civil liberties.
Why are the Liberals breaking their promise on Bill C-51 and leaving Canadians' civil liberties at risk?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, the plan with respect to Bill C-51 was laid out very clearly in our election platform.
Step one, in respect of that, will be taken, hopefully, before this Parliament rises for the summer. That is the presentation of legislation having to do with a new overview mechanism, involving a committee of parliamentarians. Step two was in the budget. That was the creation of a new office on counter-radicalization. We will be conducting major national consultations with Canadians to determine what further they want to see to happen.
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, many of our commitments were focused to better help Canadian families. Measures such as the Canada child benefit and added flexibility for parental leave will help improve the situation of many Canadian families.
However, another popular commitment was in regard to flexible work. Can the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour update the House on the government's commitment to flexible work?
MaryAnn Mihychuk LiberalMinister of Employment
Mr. Speaker, flex work is good for families, workers, and businesses. We know, from other countries that have implemented a modern flextime system, like the U.K., that it results in greater employee loyalty, innovation, satisfaction, and higher sales.
At the same time, it also improves the work-life balance for working Canadians. I encourage everyone to participate in sharing their views on a modern flextime work system for—
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, now the cat is out of the bag. The Minister of Foreign Affairs caved in to the Putin regime in exchange for a seat at the International Syria Support Group table this week.
It is clear that the minister broke a Liberal campaign promise to implement the Magnitsky Act in order to secure an invite from his new friend, Putin. However, members of the Liberal caucus support the Magnitsky Act. Our allies support the act.
Why is the minister turning his back on his colleagues and allies, and instead embracing Putin and his thugs?
