Debates of May 31st, 2016

Physician-Assisted Dying

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that this is a big step in our society. It is one that must be taken responsibly and with full awareness of both the concerns around vulnerability and the need to defend Canadians' rights, freedoms, and choices. That is exactly what we put forward.

We understand that this is the beginning of a conversation that will go on for the coming years, as court cases, evidence, concerns, and doctors evolve in their thinking as we approach this.

However, this is a big step. It needs to be taken right, and that is exactly what Bill C-14 does.

Marijuana

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the beginning of a conversation. This is going right back to the Supreme Court. It is a waste of time and it is hurting people's lives.

Here is our Liberal government on pot. After promising to legalize it right away, it is continuing to hand out thousands of criminal records. The Liberals named a former police chief to lead the file, who encourages police to crack down on personal use. The Toronto Board of Health has just joined the many voices begging the Prime Minister for lucidity on the issue.

Why is the Prime Minister playing politics with young people's futures? Why will he not take a clear step and decriminalize right away?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is disheartening to see the member opposite characterize parliamentary process as a waste of time.

Second, on legalizing marijuana, we have always been very clear that it is about protecting young people from the easy access to marijuana that they have right now. It is about preventing criminal organizations, street gangs, and gun runners from getting significant sources of funding through the sale of marijuana. That is what our focus is on, and that is why, until the law is changed, the current system still applies.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems like the Liberals need some help with their math homework. First, the Minister of Democratic Institutions announced eight principles to guide electoral reform, but then, poof, a couple of weeks later, those principles were magically down to five. Now the minister thinks that the broad buying of Canadians on electoral reform equals stacking six Liberals MPs on a committee.

Will the Liberals finally cut the charade and give 30 million Canadians a direct say through a referendum?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put forward the following.

The conversation we are having about a possible end game, that of a referendum, is taking away from the important conversation we need to have here and now about ways to engage Canadians in the process so we can arrive at an outcome that is appealing and responsive to their needs.

If the members opposite are truly interested in conversing with Canadians, then let them come forward with their ideas on how they will engage their constituents on this important conversation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give the minister an idea on how to engage Canadians. Have a referendum.

In 1992, a referendum was held on the Charlottetown accord, and nearly three-quarters of eligible Canadians voted; that is 13,736,634 Canadians. To reach the same number of people, 40,000 Canadians would have to show up for a town hall meeting in every riding in the country.

Will the Liberals finally actually listen to Canadians and hold a referendum, yes or no?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, why is the member opposite trying to mislead Canadians? The Charlottetown accord referendum—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. We know that no member will deliberately mislead Canadians or the House. We will not say that here. However, keep in mind also, that most people here are able to hear things they do not like without reacting. Let us try to do that.

The hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions has the floor.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that the Charlottetown accord referendum was not about the way we vote. It was about how the country as a whole would move forward.

The member opposite knows that past referenda on electoral reform have disengaged half of the population.

Let us use the tools available to us in the 21st century to gain the interests and the opinions of as many Canadians as possible. He is not up to the challenge, but we are.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberal government likes to hold consultations and lots of them. However, consultation is about listening. On the issue of electoral reform, it seems that the minister is not listening. Even though 73% of Canadians support a referendum, the minister has categorically ruled out this option.

Can the minister tell us why she is not listening to Canadians and is refusing to hold a referendum after her so-called consultations?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I have said, and will continue to say, this is an important opportunity for all of us to engage in an inclusive listening exercise with our constituents.

I understand the members opposite have a hard time with the concept of listening, but my job as minister is to listen and to reflect on the voices of those I have heard. I will continue to listen to Canadians. I will continue—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I would point out to the member for Lac-Saint-Jean and others that when one is accused of not listening, it is time to listen to one another.

It seems that the minister has finished with her answer and therefore the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very intelligent. That is why the vast majority are asking for a referendum. We also know that there is little information about how the committee will consult Canadians. However, what we do know is that the Liberals will have complete control.

Why will the minister not acknowledge that consultation is legitimate by confirming that all Canadians will have a say in a referendum, after her so-called consultations?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, the debate about the motion to strike the all-party committee, which we committed to during the election, has yet to take place in the House.

The makeup, the mandate, and the ways that the committee will engage in the conversations are up to every member in the House, to shape that conversation. I hope the members opposite will engage in a respectful, productive, and constructive conversation about how the committee could act as a productive forum for Canadians to be part of this conversation.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding its pretended openness to all potential new voting systems, the government has already hired a communications consultant who is an advocate for the preferential model the Prime Minister has favoured all along. It sure looks like the fix is in. There is no way Canadians would vote for a system designed for the sole purpose of rigging the next election in favour of the Liberal Party. Is this the reason why the Liberals refuse to hold a referendum?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to correct the record. This individual was hired by the Privy Council Office to work as a communications adviser. As a member of Canada's non-partisan public service, I trust the public service and its decision. I hope the opposition will as well.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surrounded by former cabinet ministers, so I will ask one of them if there has ever been a hiring that took place that was not based on something other than non-partisan considerations. It seems to me there is a—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. What was I saying a moment ago about listening? The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston has the floor.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today's National Post observed, “the ranked ballot system would produce Liberal majorities until [the prime minister] qualifies for a seniors' bus pass.” The National Post is right. With ranked ballots, the Liberals could get 50% of the seats in this place with less than 35% of the vote. Is this the reason why the Liberals do not want to have a referendum on their—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, after that Freudian slip, let us take a moment to reflect on how we got here. Our commitment to increase the trust and confidence that Canadians have in our democratic institutions began as a result of 10 years of trampling on our democratic institutions by the party opposite. Canadians asked us to review the options available to us, not just the way we vote, not just online voting and mandatory voting, but to take partisanship and patronage out of our Canadian democratic institutions. That is what we are doing. It is time for the other side to come on board and help us.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government said that the Prime Minister's trip to Washington with his entourage cost $25,000.

However, today, we learned that it cost $257,000, which is 10 times that amount. The Prime Minister may be an expert in quantum computing, but he is not nearly as good at math. If he likes, we can lend him a calculator.

My question is simple. Why did the Liberal government not tell taxpayers the whole truth?