Debates of June 1st, 2016

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, their system was created by the Liberals and is being run by a Liberal-dominated committee to ensure that the Liberal Party is re-elected. We are against it. This is very important. It is about changing the way Canadians choose their representatives to make decisions for Canada.

We must listen to the public and have a referendum on this.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, again, the member is talking about listening to the public when it comes to something as important as voting. I find that a bit odd because it was his party that eliminated and limited the right to vote for many people, all without consultation. That party made it more difficult for minority groups to vote. Despite that, Canadians made themselves heard and chose a party that is going to replace our electoral system.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police illegally spied on two Canadian journalists for nine days.

The commissioner of the RCMP said that he never authorized the illegal surveillance. This is serious. Freedom of the press, one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy, is under attack.

Will the Prime Minister agree to hold a public inquiry into the RCMP's illegal actions, as called for by our party and journalists?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely serious situation and, as I have said many times, it is completely unacceptable for this to happen in Canada.

The RCMP took action. Public safety took action. If the journalists involved or anyone else has questions, the commissioner of the RCMP will be pleased to respond.

It was a mistake, it was fixed, and we learned from the situation.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no, it is not a mistake. It is an illegal act.

The RCMP spied on journalists. That is serious. This requires something other than more rhetoric, clichés, and platitudes.

The RCMP has been caught breaching the rights of Canadians by gathering data on people who simply ask for government information. Worse, it is not even the first time that this has happened. It is a troubling trend when it comes to the government spying on Canadians. As we know, they also spied on journalists at the RCMP.

Bill C-51 was the Conservative attack on our rights and freedoms. Why has the Prime Minister done nothing to get rid of Bill C-51?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we have engaged in significant consultations with stakeholders. We are going to continue those.

We have made clear commitments about improving Bill C-51. We have made commitments to bringing in an oversight committee of parliamentarians in which all parties will be able to participate, to ensure that our national security agencies and security services are behaving both within respect of the law and the charter, and also doing everything they can to protect Canadians. That is what Canadians expect.

Aerospace Industry

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect their rights to be protected by their Prime Minister.

Today the Liberals plan to force through their bill to strip protections for thousands of aerospace workers here in Canada by using closure and shutting down debate at third reading.

The Prime Minister once stood shoulder to shoulder, chanting “solidarity” with the very workers he is now abandoning. While other governments are making investments in our aerospace sector, will the Prime Minister provide one single reason why he is in such a rush to sell out Canadian aerospace jobs?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the first issue that the hon. member brought up, Canadians expect two things. They expect their government to protect their physical security and defend their rights. We are the only party that indicated, time and time again, in the last election and since, that we knew we needed to do both of those things together.

On the question of an aerospace industry and the strong jobs that go with it, this government has been working tirelessly to ensure that Canadians have good jobs in the aerospace industry, and that we have an aerospace industry that is good in the short term, medium term, and long term. That is what we are working on. That is what Canadians expect of us.

Air Canada

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Government of Quebec announced more significant investments in the aerospace industry. Meanwhile, here in Ottawa, the government is asleep at the switch. It has not announced anything for Bombardier and we have heard no word of an aerospace policy. The only thing on the Liberal government's record so far has been the loss of 2,600 jobs at Air Canada.

Why was the Prime Minister in such a rush to hand Air Canada a blank cheque, even though the company never obeyed the law? There were never any consequences. Why is he so naive to believe that Air Canada will keep its word this time?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our government is working tirelessly to create jobs in the aerospace industry in the short term, medium term, and long term.

That is why we are working with partners like Bombardier and Air Canada across the country to secure investments in innovation and good-quality jobs in this valuable industry, and we will continue to support and encourage investments in the aerospace industry across Canada.

It is important for Canadians, important for jobs, and important for our economy.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Democratic Institutions is actually interested in having a conversation on electoral reform, she cannot just keep repeating random verbs and nouns. She actually has to listen. Consultation, conversation, and listening are all great nouns and verbs.

However, I have a noun for the Liberals: referendum. The Canadian people deserve one. Will the Liberals finally commit to one?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to believe that listening to Canadians is our priority as members, but also my priority as Minister of Democratic Institutions. It is our responsibility, as a House, to ensure that the voices of our constituents are heard. I am looking forward to this conversation happening in this House in a meaningful and respectful way beginning tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the minister is confused about how conversations work. Both parties get to participate; the Liberals cannot just dictate the result. The only person who is taking away from the conversation is the minister, by following the Prime Minister's preconceived notion of where he wants the consultations to arrive. If the Liberals truly wanted to listen, they would let each and every Canadian have a say through a referendum. Will the Liberals drop the act already? Referendum, yes or no?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this conversation. We listened to Canadians. Over 60% said that we need to review other options and we need to move beyond the status quo. We committed to bringing forward a committee made up of all parties of this House to review the options available, including online voting, including mandatory voting. I am looking forward to continuing a meaningful and respectful dialogue among all parties.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister told the House that I had a hard time with the concept of listening, so just for the fun of it I spent a few minutes Googling quotes from reputable political analysts across Canada.

Here is what I found: “[The minister] has so far succeeded in burning bridges where she should have been building some.” “It is an unsustainable proposition.” “The Liberals were responsible for reassuring their political opponents. The Prime Minister did exactly the opposite.”

Clearly, I am not the only one who has a listening problem.

I invite the minister to hold a referendum and consult Canadians. We will see which side of the House has a real listening problem.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the media. I believe nothing is more important to democracy than a well-informed electorate. I also believe we need to listen to those whose voices have not been included in this conversation, like those with disabilities and exceptionalities, representatives of which groups we met with earlier. What we are hearing from people with disabilities is that the path to voting is an obstacle course. Let us listen to these voices and improve our electoral system and the way people vote.

[An hon. member]

Shame.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am going to ask the member for Brantford—Brant not to speak when someone else has the floor. He knows better than that, and we all do. Most members are able to hear things they do not like and disagree with them without reacting. That is what we should all do because we are all adults.

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is lecturing us about partisanship in the House; this is the same minister who thinks that her tweets count as consultation and who set up a committee that is under the complete control of the Liberal party, without consultation.

After all that, the minister has the audacity to tell us here in the House that the opposition is being partisan.

Seriously, will the minister finally listen to Canadians? Will she commit to holding a referendum so that all Canadians can express their views?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, we have committed to bringing together a committee made up of all parties to review the various options available to us. The purpose of this committee coming together is to hear from Canadians first-hand, and, yes, using 21st century tools like social media is smart and necessary for us to ensure that all voices, as many voices as possible, are included in this conversation. I am looking forward to a respectful and meaningful dialogue with all parties.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister justified the government's hiring of a communications advisor who is a professional advocate for a ranked ballot system, on the irrelevant basis that he was not hired for being a Liberal. That, of course, is not the issue. He was hired because he is an advocate of the ranked ballot system.

Why, when the different proposals have not even been submitted and the committee has not even been struck, is the Liberal Party already hiring someone who has a position? Why are the Liberals putting in the fix before the process is even started? Why will they not allow a referendum?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows quite well that this individual was hired by the Privy Council to work as a communications advisor as a member of Canada's non-partisan public service. We are proud of the professional, non-partisan public service whose members come to work day in and day out with the sole purpose of serving Canadians. I encourage the member opposite to consider doing the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is mistaken that the role of the Privy Council and the role of the public service is to be non-biased. It is, however, to represent what the government wants. What the government wants, apparently, is to have a single member district preferential ballot system.

I will ask the question again. Why did the Liberals hire an individual to communicate on behalf of ranked ballots? What possible reason could the Liberals have, unless they have already predetermined the outcome of this entire process. Is that why they do not want to allow Canadians to engage in a referendum?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the member's question, and I would like to reassure him that what we committed to, and the only outcome that we have arrived at to this point, is bringing together parliamentarians in this place to review the options available to us. I know this is a difficult concept for the member opposite to grasp. I know there is lingering cynicism from the Conservatives' practices over the last decade. That is not the way we do things, and I am looking forward to us realizing that, all of us together—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I know members do not want to question the intelligence of members here. We have a very intelligent group, all 337, and then there is me, but that is another matter.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.