House of Commons Hansard #66 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vessels.
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, an issue as broad and complex as changing our voting system calls for engaged consultations and for multiple voices to be heard, including those of experts from the different parties and Canadians who are concerned about how we are going to go about improving our electoral system.
This process is more complex than the “yes or no” of a referendum. This is about allowing people to express their opinion on the values behind our electoral system and good governance in Canada.
Rona Ambrose ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote a policy paper on electoral reform in which he said, “Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.”
There is one thing that does have popular support of Canadians right now, and that is if our voting system is changed, Canadians want a say. If the Prime Minister will not listen to Canadians on this, will he at least listen to his minister and give Canadians a referendum?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, the previous government changed our electoral processes as a way of barring, unfortunately, many people from being able to vote, or trying to. Canadians made themselves heard in the general election, rejecting not just the platform the other party put forward, but its entire approach, which is why we favour an approach that is engaged, open, consultative, drawing in multiple voices with different ideas about how to improve our electoral system. We look forward to a strong and robust process.
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, have you ever played a game called “who is telling the truth”? Let us play it now.
First of all, the Prime Minister said that the 2015 election would be the last one under the current voting system.
Second, his principal secretary said on Twitter, which seems to be the preferred network of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, that a referendum would be one option to consider.
Third, the minister herself said that if she did not have public support, she would not go ahead with the reform.
Who is telling the truth? Three-quarters of Canadians want a referendum. Will the Prime Minister listen to them?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that my hon. colleague just demonstrated how engaged we are on this issue and how open we are to perspectives of all kinds in that regard.
Unlike the Conservative way of doing things, where only one person's opinion mattered in any discussion or proposal, many people in our party are involved in examining important issues. We look forward to hearing what Canadians have to say regarding our electoral system.
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, let us continue playing “who is telling the truth?”
Fourth, the member for Mount Royal said that the referendum is a tool we could use.
Fifth, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons first rejected holding a referendum, then indicated that he was open to it.
Sixth, the Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote in a policy paper that “precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.”
When will the Prime Minister listen to the members of his own caucus and ensure that a referendum is held so that all Canadians can express their views?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, apparently the members opposite have not yet understood that we have an engaged caucus and that its members have many views and visions. For too long they have followed only one path and held only one view.
We, the members of the Liberal Party, listen to Canadians, discuss our different perspectives, and, together, build the best approach for Canadians in a consultative and collaborative manner.
I know this is unheard of for them, but that is how we operate.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, Senate Liberal leader James Cowan has now joined the growing number of Canadians saying that Bill C-14 is likely unconstitutional. Cowan said that this government legislation is so flawed that Canadians would be better off with no legislation at all. This bill does not respect the Supreme Court's decision, and it will be tied up in courts for years.
Instead of ramming through Bill C-14, will the government listen to James Cowan and work on getting the bill right the first time?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an example of the reforms that the Liberal Party made to the Senate over the past years removing partisanship and patronage from that place, there is no better example than the NDP highlighting the great work that the Senate is doing weighing in on an important piece of legislation.
I thank the hon. member for her comments about the excellent work done by the independent voices in the Senate, and I look forward to hearing what the Senate has to say about Bill C-14 when it returns to us.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government had the chance to do things differently with Bill C-14, but it decided to ignore experts, not to work with the opposition, and to limit debate.
Warnings were coming in from all over. Quebec's health and social services minister called Bill C-14 unenforceable. He thinks that the notion of reasonably foreseeable death is medically unfeasible and he refuses to include it in Quebec's law.
Will the government finally realize that Bill C-14 must be amended?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, as part of the debates on Bill C-14, we listened to many politicians from all the different parties share their views.
However, we did more than that. We listened to doctors and Canadians. We consulted the public at large, across the country, to ensure that this important and transformative measure regarding medical assistance in dying would be properly designed to uphold Canadians' rights and freedoms while protecting the most vulnerable.
That is the balance we have struck, and we are proud of it.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is not just Quebec that is protesting. Peter Hogg, Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, today testified that Bill C-14 fails to respect the Carter decision and will undoubtedly be struck down as soon as it gets to court. He said that the government cannot turn around and exclude a group of people that the Supreme Court clearly ruled have these charter rights.
It is never too late for the government to do the right thing. Will the Liberals finally respect the charter and announce that they are willing to fix the bill?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that this is a big step in the history of our country, and making sure that we do that in a responsible and thoughtful way, that both upholds Canadians' rights and freedoms while defending the most vulnerable, is exactly what we have done with this piece of legislation.
On top of that, we made sure that we heard from Canadians and experts and we allowed and encouraged a free vote in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, it is disappointing that the NDP did not allow themselves a free vote on this issue.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' stubborn refusal to listen to experts and work with the opposition will mean suffering Canadians spending years in court defending rights that they have already won.
Kay Carter's family is also disillusioned with the current government. They said today that they felt betrayed. Today they called out the Prime Minister for his refusal to listen to Canadians.
If the Liberals really disagree with the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Ontario court, and Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, will they at least now table the government's legal opinion on the bill, so that Canadians can judge for themselves?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians expect of this government is to make sure that we are both defending the rights and freedoms of Canadians while protecting the most vulnerable, and that is exactly the balance that we have struck with Bill C-14.
Throughout we have been open to amendments, including accepting amendments from opposition members. We look forward to hearing the deliberations that the Senate is carrying forward on this same piece of legislation.
We are ensuring that this big step that Canada is taking, despite people who think it goes too far and others who think it does not go far enough, is done the right way.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the minister told the CBC, “if an overwhelming majority of Canadians tell us that they want system X, we will...listen to what they've said”.
One logical implication of the minister's words is that if the Liberal proposal for electoral reform is supported by an underwhelming minority of Canadians, say under 50% in a national referendum, then it ought not to be imposed on the nation for election 2019.
Either the minister's words mean she favours a referendum, or they mean nothing at all and are meant to simply misdirect us. Which of the two is correct?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, we have said from the very beginning that we will not move forward on any reform to our electoral system without the broad support of Canadians.
This means it is vitally important for the special all-party committee to begin its work of hearing from Canadians first-hand what their needs are and what values they would like to see reflected in their electoral system. I look forward to support from all members in this House when this vote is up for discussion tomorrow.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, last week the Toronto Star said, “If the Liberal government truly wants broad buy-in from Canadians on electoral reform, it should hold a referendum and let people vote.” It said that a referendum is “the only way to guarantee that electoral reform has democratic legitimacy”.
Therefore, I ask the minister again, and particularly given her earlier words on Friday, does she support a national referendum, or was she just saying all that stuff as a way of misdirecting us?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said in this place on Thursday and so many other times before, that there is at least a three-step process for us to undertake.
The first step is to establish the committee and have it go out and hear from Canadians. The second step is for us to come up with a plan and debate that plan in this House. The third step is where my hon. colleague is at, which is determining whether or not the recommended reforms have the broad buy-in of Canadians.
Let us get on with the first step.
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, “Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.”
If that minister actually believes his own words, will he try to convince the Prime Minister that Canadians deserve a direct say, through a vote in a referendum, on any changes to how they vote?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, our government is entering electoral reform with an open mind.
As the member opposite well knows, the amended motion that the NDP put on the table late last week allows for the committee to investigate ways of determining how to engage the broad support of Canadians. This is an important addition that we added to the motion to address the hon. colleagues' concerns, and look forward to unanimous support of the House on this matter tomorrow.
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Speaker, much like other times, we keep hearing about the interest of political parties and of politicians.
The discussion on changing our most basic democratic institution is not about political parties nor about the interest of politicians. It is about the Canadian people.
It should be about making sure that each and every Canadian voice has an opportunity to have a direct say through a referendum. Will the Liberals hold one, yes or no?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, it appears that we have found common ground.
The one thing that we can all agree on in this House is that is crucial to the success of us being able to modernize our electoral system is first hearing from Canadians. That is why we committed to bringing forward an all-parliamentary committee to hear from Canadians, to act as a forum to hear their thoughts and aspirations for their electoral reform.
I am really looking forward to this vote tomorrow and unanimous support from all members.
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal approach to electoral reform is a bit strange.
They believe that the current system makes it difficult for people to vote, yet record numbers of Canadians voted in 2015. In the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord, nearly 75% of eligible Canadians voted.
Three-quarters of Canadians are demanding to have their say again. Will the Liberals hold a referendum on fundamental changes to how Canadians vote?
Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, the former government did not consult Canadians or experts or Elections Canada on the changes they brought forward through the Fair Elections Act. I totally understand why bringing a committee forward to hear from Canadians is a strange concept to them.
We have entered this process with an open mind and look forward to getting down to the work of hearing from Canadians and moving away from a hyperpartisan debate on process.