Debates of May 18th, 2016

Democratic Reform

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I believe that the Canadians who are watching at home are confused because they know that we are giving opposition members more opportunities to share their opinions and give speeches so that parliamentarians from all parties have a chance to express their views in the House.

Canadians expect us to keep the ambitious promises that we made. That is exactly what they expect us to do.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement was that the most recent election would be the last one that was conducted in that way.

The Liberals say they want to consult Canadians, but they are already making decisions. Consulting Canadians means listening to what they have to say and taking their opinions into account. The decisions that the Prime Minister is currently making show a lack of respect for members of the House.

Will he at least show some respect for Canadians and give them the right to vote in a referendum about their future?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, 60% of Canadians voted in favour of parties that promised to change the current voting system. Canadians clearly indicated that they wanted the most recent election to be the last one conducted under the existing system. We promised to consult Canadians, listen to them, and talk about what type of democracy and process they want in order to give them a better government. That is exactly what we are going to do.

Physician-Assisted Dying

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even the Conservatives on their worst days never tried to stifle democracy the way the Liberals are doing it today.

On the very important issue of physician-assisted dying, after Liberals shut down debate, the Alberta Court of Appeal has now declared that the government is contradicting the Supreme Court's ruling. This is exactly as most experts had predicted.

With this new court ruling, will the Prime Minister either refer the bill to the Supreme Court or make the necessary changes to make it constitutional?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first, it amazes me that the member opposite could think that offering more opportunities for the members opposite to weigh in and give speeches in the House would somehow count as limiting democracy.

Second, on the issue of medical assistance in dying, we understand that this is a big step for Canada. We are creating a responsible regime that will allow us to move forward in a thoughtful way that defends Canadians' rights and freedoms while protecting the most vulnerable. That is what Canadians expect us to do. That is exactly what we are doing.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what arrogance. They are breaking their promise. They are attacking the very foundation of democracy in Canada.

After promising a real discussion on medical assistance in dying, this government is shutting down debate at every stage. The Alberta Court of Appeal just warned us that the government's proposal is unconstitutional.

How will the Prime Minister explain that he has broken his promise to the people who need this law?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal indicated that we need a legislative framework to ensure that Canadians who are seeking medical assistance in dying can do so, knowing that the physician will not face legal repercussions as a result.

We need a legislative framework. This bill represents a big step forward for our society, and we must be responsible about it. That is exactly what we are doing.

Canada Post

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that he does not have a clue about that issue.

We have lost track of how many promises the people on the other side of the House have broken. Together with Mr. Jackhammer himself, Denis Coderre, the Prime Minister promised to restore home mail delivery. Now that he is in power, he is setting up a committee.

Quebeckers and Canadians said what they wanted during the election campaign. They want home mail delivery back, as the Liberals promised.

Why is the Prime Minister breaking this promise too?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of transparency, our complete election platform is still available at www.liberal.ca. If he checks the website, he will see that we promised to make sure Canadians are getting the services they need at a reasonable price. That is why we pledged to do what the former government did not: consult Canadians, talk to mayors, and work on figuring out how to provide Canadians with the quality postal service they expect.

Veterans Affairs

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the video of him promising to restore door-to-door mail delivery, September 3, is online as well.

After campaigning on a black and white promise to end the Conservative court case against veterans, the Liberals are now taking veterans back to court with the same lawyers and the same arguments to try to block them from getting the benefits they deserve and the Liberals promised. It is disgusting.

The reaction from veterans is “It's a betrayal” and “They have turned the Liberal election campaign into a lie”. Will the Prime Minister show a shred of decency and stop taking our veterans to court?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, veterans who have served this country extraordinarily well deserve more than people trying to play politics on their backs.

Veterans across this country know that, in budget 2016, we put forward historic measures that would fix the 10 years of neglect—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. There are going to be strong statements on both sides, and most members are able to listen to those strong statements without reacting. Let us all please do so.

The hon. Prime Minister has a few seconds left.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the 10 years of neglect by the government opposite left us an awful lot to do to make things right for veterans. This is why I am so proud of our Minister of Veterans Affairs who has been working with them, listening, and putting forward concrete measures to reopen closed offices and offer them more support.

We, of course, are looking forward to continuing to work with veterans and advocacy groups across this country, to deliver.

House of Commons

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

On that issue, Mr. Speaker, it is not about delivering something more. It is about not doing something: not taking veterans to court.

The Prime Minister was a little embarrassed on Monday, because 25% of his caucus was caught taking the day off.

He promised to make Parliament more independent by empowering individual MPs and opposition parties. Now his pride has got the best of him, and he is planning on suppressing every rule that he does not like. Everything the Prime Minister ever said about respecting Parliament was obviously a sham. This is simply a vindictive act of spiteful retribution.

By suppressing the rules of our House of Commons, is the Prime Minister not showing a clear disdain for Parliament and contradicting everything he said during the campaign?

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the aisle knows very well that what we are seeking to do, in fact, is to allow more members of Parliament to speak to ensure that important government legislation can have a full and complete debate in this House. That is why we were disappointed when, yesterday, I proposed exactly the same wording that my friend in front had proposed to extend the hours of debate on government legislation. What a surprise when it was turned down.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, the Prime Minister said he wanted Parliament to hold the government to account. Well, we did, and his response is nothing short of tyrannical. Now that the opposition has become an inconvenience to the Prime Minister, he has lost his temper. This is not about giving members of Parliament more time to debate. This is about taking away the tools that exist for the opposition to hold the government to account.

If this is how the Prime Minister reacts when the House of Commons holds him to account, how can we trust him to manage the changes to the democratic electoral system this summer?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, it is a bit ironic that a Conservative member would talk about government being accountable to Parliament.

One of the tools that my friend may be upset that we will temporarily suspend would be his ability to get up in the middle of the day and try to adjourn the House of Commons.

We are here to work, and in no other workplace—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. It is no surprise that members are having trouble hearing the answer.

We have to hear the answers, whether we like them or not, and we have to hear the questions, whether we like them or not.

The hon. government House leader has a few more seconds.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in no other workplace is it acceptable to arrive at work, pull the fire alarm, and make all of one's colleagues cancel their meetings in committees.

Today alone, more than 20 witnesses will be disrupted at committees.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for electoral reform keeps repeating that six months will be enough to study the various models for reform thanks to the new methods of communication we have in the 21st century. Apart from a reference to Twitter, she has not provided any other information on the methods that will be used.

The minister is accusing us of focusing too much on a referendum, so I want to give her a chance to explain how she plans to consult Canadians, and above all, how the methods she is proposing would be better than a referendum.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging what a great honour it is to be in this House, today especially.

I recognize that electoral reform, democratic reform overall, will not be easy. It has never been easy. It requires the collective will of every single member of this House to come to the table and work together to ensure that the voices of those in their communities, who are often unheard and ignored, are included in this conversation.

My challenge to the member opposite is to come to the table with constructive and effective conversations that can allow us to meet our mutual goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, the minister did not answer my question.

The minister says that a referendum is not the right way to consult Canadians. She repeated that yet again. Let us do a little math together.

Let us take the number of registered voters in Canada, which is 26 million. Let us assume that only 50% of those individuals would vote in the referendum in question. That is still 13 million.

Can the minister explain how she thinks a parliamentary committee would be able to consult over 13 million Canadians in less than six months?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned on numerous occasions over the past week in this House, it is not just up to the committee to do this work. It is up to all of us in this House to do this work.

My parliamentary secretary and I will be announcing further methods of outreach in the days and weeks to come. However, if there is no collective will by all members of this House, we will not do this process the justice it deserves. Let us work together to serve the best interests of Canadians and not our political parties.