Debates of May 20th, 2016

Democratic Reform

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

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 6 was the most anti-democratic proposal that this Parliament has ever seen. It removed all power from the opposition to hold the government to account. The motion would have given control of the House to the cabinet, and it gave us a glimpse of what the Liberals are prepared to do when they do not get their own way. They have shown Canadians that they cannot be trusted with the power that has been given to them.

When it comes to changing the way we vote, now more than ever, Canadians need to have the final say. Will they commit to holding a referendum before they make any changes to our electoral system?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see you in the chair on this wonderful Friday.

I would like to remind the House that any changes we make to the electoral system will only proceed if Canadians deem it legitimate and if we have their consent. We will work with all members of the House to ensure that the voices of those Canadians with disabilities and exceptionalities, new Canadians, indigenous persons, and those who are often marginalized are included in this important conversation.

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

Madam Speaker, they just cannot bring themselves to say the word “referendum”.

The right to have the final say on how we vote belongs to Canadians, not to the Liberal elite. They do not get to unilaterally choose what system of democracy we operate under.

They have already rigged the deck on the electoral reform committee, giving themselves a majority, when a majority of Canadians do not even support them. They do not have a legitimate mandate to change Canada's electoral system. Will they drop all these heavy-handed, anti-democratic tactics and assure us that Canadians will have the final say through a referendum?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, be assured that we will go out of our way to ensure that Canadians have the first and the final say in how we go about our electoral reform priority.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government is once again showing its arrogance by proposing that a committee stacked with Liberals analyze the electoral reform.

Why does the government want to control our democracy when a referendum on this topic is the most transparent approach?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, during the last election, we committed to bringing our democratic institutions into the 21st century. We did not intend to predetermine the outcome, as some of my hon. colleagues have. We committed to bringing together a group of elected parliamentarians from all party lines to study the options available and to make a recommendation to the House. We intend to do that. We will deliver on that promise, and I look forward to working with all members of the House to that end.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are welcome to sing, take selfies, and make public appearances, but they need to respect Canadians' interests.

Why is a committee stacked with Liberals going to destroy democracy when a referendum on electoral reform is the way to go?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, I do not accept the premise of that statement.

In the 21st century, we have many tools available to us that are more inclusive, and are more relevant to the realities of the people who live in this diverse nation of ours. We intend to employ those tools. We intend to reach out to those Canadians who do not normally engage in this process.

This may not be okay with the members opposite, but that is our way of ensuring that Canadians in 21st century Canada are included in this important conversation.

The Environment

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NEB's report on Kinder Morgan is the direct result of a broken environmental review system. The public was shut out, cross-examinations were banned, and first nations were not consulted. Even the NEB admits that there will be significant impact from oil tankers on killer whales and indigenous rights; no kidding. Yet the Liberals are relying on the Conservatives' system with a thin coat of new paint for this process.

How is a four-month road trip supposed to make up for Conservative dismantling of environmental reviews? Why are the Liberals validating the Conservative approach?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, we need to rebuild trust in our environmental assessment process, and that is what we have been doing. We have introduced interim principles where we are consulting and engaging with indigenous peoples, where we are making decisions based on facts and science, and where we are considering the impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Minister of Natural Resources announced a separate process to review this project, and we will be going forward in this manner.

Access to Information

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

On access to information too, Madam Speaker, the Liberals are the same as the old government. The Liberal government routinely blocks requests on issues like the KPMG tax havens, and the Liberals are actually looking to give their ministers the power to block any request. That is even worse than the Conservatives. The Information Commissioner is calling the Liberal approach “a mirage”.

The Liberal government has shut down debate and moved to strip the rights of MPs. It seems it has taken question period lessons from Paul Callandra.

Why are Liberals' now trying to make government secrecy even worse?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, for the very first time since 1983, we are modernizing and updating access to information to ensure openness, transparency, and accountability in government. We are seeking ways to make sure information is more accessible to Canadians while balancing that with our responsibility to protect certain information in the public interest.

The committee is studying just this as part of our extensive consultations with the public on access to information, and we look forward to its report.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals promised major reforms to access to information. They promised to give the commissioner order-making power, namely the power to force the government to make information public.

However, the Liberals also want to give the minister veto power to say no to the commissioner's decisions. In short, nothing is going to change. The government says that it wants to be transparent. It needs to stop pretending.

Will the government give up this nonsensical idea?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, we are consulting Canadians and parliamentarians on the renewal of the access to information system. The government has already eliminated the fees associated with access to information requests, except for the initial $5 fee.

We also asked the departments to provide their answers to requests in an easy-to-use format. We look forward to continuing to work with all stakeholders and parliamentarians.

Physician-Assisted Dying

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is starting to look like another broken promise.

Let us now talk about another mismanaged file: medical assistance in dying. The government keeps talking about the Supreme Court's June 6 deadline as justification for limiting debate and refusing to work with the opposition. That is funny, because the government does not seem to be too concerned with abiding by the ruling itself. It is irresponsible to introduce a bill that a number of experts, and now the Alberta Court of Appeal, have deemed unconstitutional.

How can the government defend Bill C-14, when the bill does not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that the Alberta Court of Appeal did not rule on Bill C-14.

In the Carter decision, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that Parliament was in the best position to design a framework for medical assistance in dying, including a series of stringent safeguards. That is what we have done.

The decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal highlighted the need to have a law in place by June 6.

Democratic Reform

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, this government does not respect what Canadians have to say.

When a government wants to change a the basic rules of democracy, everyone should have a say. All options should be on the table, and Canadians should not be denied an opportunity to say yes or no. However, the minister is refusing to listen to reason, and her answers insult the intelligence of Canadians.

Will the Minister of Democratic Institutions step out of her bubble and hold a national referendum—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

The hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, when the former government decided to make significant changes to the Fair Elections Act, did it consult with Canadians? Did it consult with parliamentarians? Did it include the voices of those Canadians who would be most affected by those changes? It did not.

We will not take any lessons from the former government. We will ensure that we learn from its mistakes and bring our electoral system into the 21st century in a responsible and inclusive manner.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, our electoral system and the right to vote do not belong to this government or this Prime Minister.

No government in Canada has tried to impose a new electoral system without a referendum since the 1950s. The last time a government tried to do that, politicians manipulated the system. They paid for it, because Canadians punished them.

Will this government seek the consent of all Canadians before changing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

The hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, it appears that the member opposite may need a reminder of historical events. In 1872, Canada adopted the secret ballot. In 1918, women began to be extended the franchise. In 1920, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer was established. In 1960, voting rights were extended to indigenous persons. In 1970, the franchise was extended to those under the age of 21.

All of these changes occurred without a referendum. It took leadership. It took a willingness of all members to work together. Let us repeat history and do this right.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, every other time that Canadian governments have made changes, not just adding in little changes, they have tried to use the referendum, and it did not work at the ballot box. They used a ballot box question. Ontario, B.C. and P.E.I. have all tried it.

This is fundamentally changing the system. The people of Bow River riding, and right across Canada, deserve a say in making such a crucial change to the democratic process. Can the Liberals explain why they will be making these changes unilaterally without first taking it to a referendum?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, if the members opposite believe that extending the right to vote to women is a little change, it appears we are on completely different pages. If the members opposite believe that extending the right to indigenous persons is a little change, we need to have a different—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!