Debates of Feb. 9th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Commitments Regarding Electoral Reform

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I start, I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the hon. member from the Green Party, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. The member has been a strong proponent on this issue. She was a member of the special committee, and I think her voice deserves to be heard in the House today on this important issue, and I look forward to hearing her comments later in today's debate.

This is an important issue before us today, and this is an important motion that has been brought forward. The issue at hand is not necessarily about electoral reform in itself, though that is certainly important. The real issue is the broken promise of the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. The Prime Minister said one thing to get elected, and then once he was elected, he did all he could to muddle the issue, to change the issue, and to eventually drop the issue altogether.

It is a matter of respect, respect for Canadians, certainly respect for Canadian taxpayers, with the $4.1 million that was spent on this process, respect for Parliament and for us as parliamentarians, and indeed respect for his own caucus and his caucus members who did so much work on this important issue.

This is a broken promise, plain and simple. It is one of the classic examples of the Liberal Party promising something and then the Liberal government breaking that promise, whether it is the small business tax rate promise it broke; whether it is deficit spending, promising $10-billion deficits and then seeing deficits two or three times that size; whether it is promising that their middle-class tax cut would be revenue neutral and then finding that it is nowhere near revenue neutral; or whether it is this example right now on the important issue of electoral reform, another promise broken.

I had the great honour and privilege of serving as an associate member of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. I had the honour to sub in a few times for different parts of the committee's travels. I was able to attend a number of meetings in Atlantic Canada and in Montreal. Finally, I had the great honour of joining the committee in Iqaluit, Nunavut to hear the important perspective of the north on electoral reform.

It was always interesting at these meetings to hear from experts, from academics, and from partisans and non-partisans alike on electoral reform. A number of important issues were raised by individuals in our time in Iqaluit. One witness in particular, a young Inuk leader, made a very heartfelt presentation to our committee, and his words stuck with me at the time. In the last eight days, since the minister's announcement that the Liberals were breaking their promise on electoral reform, his words seem even more powerful. I want to read them into the record. It is from October 17, 2016, at the special committee's meeting in Iqaluit. He said:

The reason I bring up things like overcrowded housing, poverty, and abuse is that if you're not sure where you're sleeping, or if you're sleeping in shifts, and if you're not sure what your next meal is going to be or when it's going to be, and if you're not sure when the next time you're going to be sexually abused or physically abused will be, who really cares when the next election is?

He went on to say:

I hate to leave you on such a sad note, but that's the reality of the territory.

This individual brought up some great points about governance in the north and some of the challenges of governance. He also raised a number of these unfortunate issues that are all too prevalent in society. I am not saying that this is an excuse for the Liberal Party breaking its promise, because it is not. It is actually a betrayal of people such as this individual, who despite all the challenges that he and his community are facing, the Liberal Party lured him in to the promise that it was going to do something and then broke that promise. This individual gave up his Monday afternoon, on a workday, to speak to the committee, yet the Liberal Party broke its promise and its commitment.

The Conservative Party has been clear on the issue of electoral reform from the very start. Our position has not wavered. We were very clear that when we change the rules of democracy, when we change the rules of the game, every single Canadian should have a say. That was our commitment from day one, and that commitment did not change. In fact, in the final report from the special committee, with consensus, I might add, from parties such as the New Democrats, the Green Party, and the Conservatives, that commitment to a referendum on a proposed change to the electoral system was in there.

We went into this process with an open mind, with the ability, with our three permanent members of the committee, to interact with the witnesses and with other members to come forward with a consensus opinion.

I would also like to talk a bit about the consultation process. At the beginning of last summer, the then minister of democratic institutions encouraged us as members of Parliament to consult with our constituents through town hall meetings. I might add that it is somewhat patronizing to tell other members of Parliament how they ought to consult with their constituents. It is something we do on a daily basis. We do not need to be told to consult with our constituents, but nonetheless we do consult. I was very pleased to undertake a number of consultation methods in my riding. I sent out a survey in a householder to every single individual household in my riding. I hosted a town hall meeting. I had individual meetings with constituents, and I received emails, social media, phone calls, and a variety of input from different people in my constituency.

A couple of key issues came out of that consultation. The first was certainly that there was a demand. About 80% of respondents felt that there should be a referendum on any proposed changes, and frankly I think that most Canadians would agree with that. Public opinion polling on that matter has been fairly clear: that if we change the way we elect our parliamentarians, a referendum is absolutely necessary. The other important thing that came out of those consultations was that individuals feel there is an important link that must be had between MPs and the electorate.

When the final report did come out from the special committee, that important linkage was highlighted. It showed that the committee took the feedback of Canadians. Recommendation two said very clearly that a system that does not have a link to MPs should not be considered by the government, as such systems sever the connection between voters and their MP. The report that the special committee came up with is indeed a substantial report that is based on strong consultations with individuals in their ridings and individuals who came to the open-microphone sessions and really gave their input.

However, this comprehensive undertaking did not seem to be enough for the Liberal Party, so what did it do? It came out with a website, MyDemocracy.ca. I went to MyDemocracy.ca and I had a good laugh, actually. Unfortunately, it is not a laughing matter; it is an important matter.

Just before Christmas, I submitted an Order Paper question, Question No. 645, asking a number of questions on MyDemocracy.ca, and it got some interesting responses back from the government. First, the cost of this website was $369,058. That includes HST, in case anyone is wondering. That is over $350,000 spent on this website. More interesting was the response to part b of the question. It said that this website would provide an educational experience. It was an educational experience, though I am sure not in the way that the Liberal Party thought. It goes on to say that it would help “Canadians understand their own preferences in relation to the characteristics of different electoral systems”.

It would help Canadians understand their own preferences. How condescending, how arrogant that the Liberals think that they need to help Canadians understand their own preferences on electoral reform. This is simply wrong. Canadians are well aware of where they stand on these important issues. We found out from touring the country and from hearing input from Canadians in our communities across the country that they do not need help understanding their preferences. They know what their preferences are, and unfortunately the Liberal government has failed to understand the consensus that was garnered from this comprehensive report.

Before I wrap up, I do want to highlight this. It has been said often by the members opposite that there was no consensus on this report. In fact there was. If the members in this House read recommendation 12, which had the consensus or the majority of this important all-party committee, there was consensus on a referendum on a proposed system that the government would bring forward with a Gallagher Index of five or less, and that this design be done before a referendum on this issue. It is very clear. That was the consensus by the majority of this all-party committee.

I am very proud to speak today. This is a broken promise, plain and simple. The Liberal Party said one thing; the Liberal government did another.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the conversation today is ultimately the most simple kind of debate a parliament can have. It is basic accountability. When a government makes a promise and the government goes and breaks that promise, what ought it to do?

In most normal Canadians' mindsets, the sequence of events is quite logical and basic common morality. As my friend from Vancouver Island said earlier today, his three-year-old twin daughters have learned that if we make a promise and then break the promise, we apologize. We admit it; that is good.

I have watched Liberals get up today, some who have even actually apologized to their constituents and now say that they are proud that they broke this promise. They are proud of their government's decision to betray a black-and-white promise, one of 29 and counting.

My question is this. The Prime Minister has argued that not only are Canadians too entrenched on the different sides of this issue, but they are also too disengaged from this issue. This logic is so twisted as to just confound any right-thinking observer. What would my friend say is the real reason why the Liberals decided to break this promise to Canadians, such a sacred and clear one?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are probably a number of reasons why the Liberal government broke this promise, not the least of which I would say is that they did not get what they wanted. From day one, the Liberal Party has had a preference for a ranked ballot. The Prime Minister has admitted it.

If there was one consensus the committee heard, and many of us heard in our town halls and discussions, it was that Canadians did not support a ranked ballot system. However, the Liberal government certainly had a preference for that system, because it was one that would help them govern in perpetuity almost. That was not a system that Canadians wanted to see. Canadians wanted to see a robust democracy in our country, the ability to have debates, and not see one party dominate the process and rig the system in a way in which it would be the beneficiary.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the Canadians who took part in this conversation over the last year. I had the honour of serving on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform with my colleague across the way.

My memory may be wrong, but I do believe that on our visit to Iqaluit there was a clear consensus against a proportional representation system from that part of the country. It was also telling, in my friend's opening comments, that he said the issue is not really electoral reform. As a first question, I ask him to clarify for the House. Was it not the Conservatives' intent all along just to submarine this process by pushing a referendum with no clear idea of what they might want?

The second question is about the responsible path to achieve electoral reform. We heard a lot of contradictory evidence about the use of a referendum. We heard the NDP argue publicly for months against it, then argue for it, then in its supplementary report argue against it. How is that responsible, and how do we properly find a path to engage Canadians and ensure their validation of a new electoral system, given the complexity of the issue?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Fredericton, and congratulate him on his promotion to parliamentary secretary. It is well deserved.

He asked two questions. The first was on the referendum issue. Our party has not changed our position on a referendum. We said from day one that we thought the only way we could make a substantial change to the way we elect our parliamentarians was through a referendum. That position was not new. We held that from day one. The fact that we were able to make a recommendation through this report, which included a referendum on an alternative system that was more proportional, was indeed a testament to the hard-working members of the committee, including the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, who was very engaged on this issue from day one and did exceptional work.

The second question was about the responsible path forward. The responsible path forward goes together with the referendum. Only with the support of our Canadian public can we go forward with this. We have done the consultations. We have done a comprehensive study. It is now the responsibility of the government to bring forward legislation and its responsibility to ensure that Canadians have their say on it. That is only done through a referendum on the matter.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Democratic Reform; the hon. member for Bow River, Agriculture; the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Foreign Affairs.

We now resume debate.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today and want to begin by acknowledging that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin of Golden Lake. We say meegwetch.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Perth—Wellington. I am delighted that he decided to share his speaking time with me. I would also like to thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who was a member of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. We have been working together for several months, and we are working very hard.

Today's debate is on the following motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government misled Canadians on its platform and Throne Speech commitment “that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system”, and that the House call on the government to apologize to Canadians for breaking its promise.

The promise was clearer than that. The Liberals also said they would introduce a bill on electoral reform. However, according to information provided to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, their promise is no more.

As I look at this, I want to take this House, my colleagues who are here today, through what we heard in the electoral reform committee, and then put that up against the question that is before us today. Do I vote for a resolution that says, “That, in the opinion of the House, the government misled Canadians...”?

Let me start with what I specifically heard in my own riding. I sent out a questionnaire to every household in the riding, and the households of Saanich—Gulf Islands filled out forms and sent them back to me by the hundreds, overwhelmingly favouring proportional representation as a new system of voting.

I also held town halls within my riding, and 400 people showed up in Sidney, British Columbia, where I live. In Saturna, a tiny island, we had 80 people and the honour of the former minister of democratic institutions participating. We had about 150 people out on Salt Spring Island. Those were the town halls within my riding.

I also conducted town halls with the Green Party in many communities across Canada. Overwhelmingly, what we heard in those town halls was that people liked this promise. It influenced them to vote. Many people said they had voted Liberal because of that promise. For me, as an individual, I have to say it influenced my vote. I know I am the only member of the opposition who voted for the Speech from the Throne, because that promise meant so much to me, and it was clear, black and white, that 2015 would be the last election held under first past the post.

As well, I was honoured to be named and voted by this House as a member of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. I want to say that we had great leadership, as my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent mentioned just moments ago, from the chair, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

We worked together as a team. We worked very hard. We heard from thousands and thousands of Canadians and virtually every expert on electoral reform from within Canada and from around the world.

We discovered, when we dug deep into this issue, that we were not the first parliamentary committee to study whether first past the post was a good voting system for Canada. The first committee was actually in 1921, and it concluded that it did not serve Canada well, that in any democracy that had more than two parties, first past the post would distort the results and result in elections of parties that were not supported by the majority of Canadians but that would enjoy majority power.

Some of the evidence was very compelling, and I could go on at length but I will not have time now. However, I will just say that the evidence was overwhelming that proportional representation would serve Canada better.

We heard from one of the preeminent global experts by video conference from the University of California, Professor Arend Lijphart, who has a seminal work Patterns of Democracy. He studied every single election in 36 democracies from 1945 to virtually now to see if there was a difference between what he described as the majoritarian systems using first past the post or ranked ballots within first past the post. He also studied consensual democracies, which are those with proportional representation. He found on average 7% higher voter turnout in those countries that have proportional representation, a much higher representation of women, marginalized groups, and ethnic minorities in countries with PR, but perhaps surprisingly, stronger environmental regulations and better macroeconomic performance.

The bugaboos about proportional representation that will lead to extremists getting into Parliament and so on have been disproved over and over again, including in the text of our report. We recognize it is a risk but with either a mixed member proportional system with a threshold or with using single transferable vote, the electorate is not going to give a seat to an extremist party. If the government looked at the recommendations of our committee it would see that we clearly said we would specifically not advise using the system used in Israel or any system where people vote purely on a party. We want to make sure that our democracy always has that link between a local MP and ensures proportionality.

With the time I have left I will now turn to the specifics of this resolution, that the government misled Canadians in its platform and in the Speech from the Throne. Every speaker on behalf of the government has today denied that there was any intent to mislead nor that the government actually misled anyone. The words “good faith” have been used. It states it made this promise in good faith.

The only way we are going to get fair voting in Canada is if we can somehow get past partisanship, which we nearly did in our committee. If we would have had more time, if we would have had a consensus-based process within our committee instead of falling to default at the end to voting and so on, we could have arrived at a conclusion with which we could all agree. I cannot reveal what happened in camera.

To suspend partisanship and to suspend disbelief, as a member of Parliament I have two choices here. I can either accept there was a deliberate attempt to mislead Canadians by making a promise with no intention of keeping it, or I can accept the words of all my Liberal colleagues that there was good faith, that there was no intent to mislead. That leaves only one conclusion, and that conclusion is that the Liberals still want to keep this promise but they just cannot figure out how. Those are the two choices we have. We are either facing a government that misled us as Canadian voters and as members of Parliament, or we are dealing with a Prime Minister and ministers and a cabinet who cannot figure out where we go from here.

We heard from the former parliamentary secretary today, the member for Ajax. I am not paraphrasing. I took notes as he was speaking. He said the government did not see a clear path forward. The Prime Minister himself in this place has never once said he was wrong. He never once said that first past the post is a good system, and thank goodness for that. That means we can still infer that the Prime Minister would rather keep his promise than break it.

What can we do now? Can we help the government by putting this promise back in the front window so it will not break faith with the Canadians who believed in the Liberals and believed that promise?

How do we do that? Fortunately, there are numerous ways forward. If the Prime Minister was rash in promising he would get rid of first past the post by 2019, what if we did a path over a period of elections? By 2019 there will be, if we were to take it incrementally, some additional seats under mixed member proportional or if we were to take it under single transferable vote, we would cluster most of the ridings in urban Canada and areas where they would be clusterable for those who understand the system. In other words, there are places for a landing ground where we can make the promise work.

We must not leave the future of Canada's democracy with a system so perverse that a minority of the voters can give majority power to an extremist, future demagogue/false populist, alt-right, whatever we can imagine, or for my friends in the Conservative Party, extremist left-wing. We need the kind of Parliament that reflects how Canadians actually voted. That is the heart of democracy. That is the heart of the promise, and it must be kept.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands not only for her comments today but for her tireless work on the electoral reform committee.

She is right when she describes the mood and atmosphere, and the collegiality, I would add to her description, between members from different political parties from all corners of the country. It was so inspiring to hear from Canadians, who came out at all of our town halls and events, sometimes in incredibly large numbers, wrote to the committee with briefs and their opinions, and expressed that faith, because they, too, heard the words of the Prime Minister when he talked about this promise.

I will quote something he said just recently. He stated, “I will not make a cynical promise to enact reforms that everyone knows are impossible.”

Canadians think that all politicians are the same, he told the crowd, “But I know it's not true.... We need to show Canadians that real change is possible.”

That message resonated with Canadians, particularly young Canadians.

My question to my friend is this. As parliamentarians go back out to Canadians and young Canadians to encourage them to come into the democratic conversation about the health of our country, which, as the Prime Minister says, is still important, what do we tell those who had faith in the Liberal Party and in the Liberal Prime Minister, after they have so callously thrown aside a promise and refuse to this moment to at least have the decency to apologize for having broken that commitment and betraying the faith of Canadians?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley spoke of working tirelessly. We worked very hard across party lines, and I mean all party lines: Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Green, and Bloc. However, certainly no one worked harder than the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

It is heartbreaking. I know how I felt, because I believed the promise. I would not have worked so hard and felt that it mattered so much had I thought it was remotely possible that the Prime Minister would say that the government did not mean to keep that promise anymore because it was too hard. I do not understand why this promise is different from other platform promises.

The Liberals promised to bring in carbon pricing, and I know there is no consensus on that. I support bringing in carbon pricing. Personally, I have a different favourite form of carbon pricing. The debates are very similar between carbon pricing and electoral reform. There are a lot of different factions that want carbon fee and dividend or cap and trade, but one does not break a promise without paying a price in breaking people's hearts.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate all of the hard work of the committee to arrive at some consensus, so let us dispense with the first part of her proposition, that it was always the government's intention to break the promise and move on from there, because that is kind of a fruitless exercise.

In order to go to the second part of her proposition that has been argued here today, that there is no clear path forward, the Conservative Party, the Green Party, and the New Democratic Party have argued for a referendum and, as we well know, a referendum has to have a clear question so that it yields a clear response.

In order for this to go forward, out of the lack of consensus of her report and the literally thousands and thousands of people who have been consulted, could she tell us in a very simple way what she thinks a clear question would be to put to the Canadian people, were we to go forward with a referendum?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do not agree that the report that was tabled lacked consensus. It was a majority report. I do wish it had had all five parties around the table in agreement.

The clear question was the one that we put in the report. People would have a choice in a referendum between the current system and moving to proportional representation. However, if we were to take my suggestion from today for how we fix this now and take it out over a couple of elections, the government could actually postpone the referendum until people are actually very familiar with a system and a government, in its capacity as governing, the executive, and bringing legislation forward. We could have a system where we have an experience of putting our toes in the water, so to speak, in 2019, a bit more in 2023, and we could pair up a referendum.

A stand-alone referendum would cost $300 million. We could put a referendum on the same day as a general election. Then we would have a confirmatory vote and no one would ever say the government had pushed something down anyone's throat.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Victoria.

Today's debate reminds me of a quote from a famous television show. It makes me think of George Costanza from Seinfeld, who was known for his loosey-goosey relationship with the truth. He said:

It's not misleading if you believe it.

I will let the House figure out which words I had to change to make sure I was using parliamentary language. This is a bit like what we are seeing with the Liberals today. They seem to believe that they did not break this promise. They would have us believe that they did not fuel cynicism with their actions, when they neutralized every human and financial effort made over the past year. The consultations that were held cost $4 million. All of that has gone out the window.

Last summer, I had the opportunity to fill in for some of my NDP colleagues on the committee and hear the expert testimony. I can say that those experts, even those who did not necessarily agree with the mixed member proportional option, did not hesitate to say that the arguments against the system coming from across the aisle were nonsense. The members opposite argued that this system was not stable and that it favoured extremist parties, including those on the far right and those that promote identity politics. Even though this was not the system that these experts would have chosen, they did not hesitate to say that those arguments were patently false.

What I find troubling is that a situation was created that fuelled hope. We worked for one year consulting people and creating a consensus, as they always say on the other side. After all, everyone in politics knows very well that we will never have 100% support from Canadians for any policy we want to implement. If we waited until we had the support of 100% of the population to implement a policy, we would do nothing. We have to accept that there will always be some who disagree.

In view of the fact that a committee with the proportional representation of the parties in the House of Commons managed to produce a report that represented the will of the majority of the parties sitting on the committee, I think that we can say that we achieved a consensus. Let us be honest, that is a rare occurrence in the House of Commons. In fact, there was a greater consensus about what was in the committee's report than there is for most government policies.

Now the government is justifying its decision to maintain the status quo on the grounds that there is a lack of consensus. That is interesting because the government has no problem going ahead with all of its other policies despite the fact that there is far less consensus about the other components of its election platform.

The motion before us today is very important because when members and candidates go door to door in our ridings to meet voters, we all experience the same thing. Inevitably and unfortunately, every time we knock on a door, the people answering say they appreciate our work, our party, or our leader, then they say that they do not want to waste any more time on broken promises and politicians who say whatever it takes to get themselves elected. They say, “Sorry, I'll pass”, and shut the door. Some of us are more persistent; we try to regain people's trust and talk about why they feel cynical.

Sometimes we manage to restore their trust in politicians, but unfortunately, people all too often want nothing to do with us. They are cynical because of situations like the one we are discussing today.

It was a Prime Minister, leader of his party, who repeated thousands of times that he was going to keep this commitment and that it was so important for him to keep his word. He said it was at the core of his work, not only as an MP, but also as the Prime Minister and as a person, all with his hand over his heart, of course. This is what is feeding people's cynicism, especially the segment of the population that is supposedly so important to the Prime Minister, who is also Minister of Youth: young people.

This week my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley hit the nail right on the head in question period. He said that what was most disappointing was not hearing people say that they would never vote for the Liberal Party again. It was hearing people say that they would never vote again, period. Earning voters' trust is extremely difficult; not only so that voters will go and vote for a certain candidate, but so that voters will vote at all. We want people to take an interest in politics and to have confidence in all elected officials.

We can agree that 100% or 99.9% of the people who are here in the House are here for the right reasons. It is possible that some are not. In general, however, everyone is here for the right reasons. When the Prime Minister keeps telling Canadians he is committed to keeping his promise, then turns around and breaks his promise, that hurts us all. In fact, I have that wrong: it is not that he told Canadians, it is that he wrote it in a mandate letter and asked his minister to defend this to Canadians.

Every political party feels the heat from a move like that. When we go back to our ridings, regardless which party we represent or which file we are working on in the House of Commons, we are forced to justify something that undermines Canadians' trust in politicians of every stripe. This is tremendously disappointing to me, but above all, it is disappointing to the people I represent.

That is why we are calling on the Prime Minister to take the time to apologize to Canadians. A broken promise is not just an unmade policy. It also represents lost political capital for every elected member, which slows down all of the projects we may have for our society. It represents a drop in the public's confidence in us.

The government is trying to justify its position by debating the different systems proposed, but that is not what it is all about. The Liberals lacked courage. We even made some concessions. We worked with our Liberal colleagues and were prepared to hold a referendum if necessary. However, the government wanted nothing to do with it.

All the work that was done over the beautiful summer by members who remained at their desks working hard to get a consensus was tossed aside without even a word from the Prime Minister. This undermines all Canadians' confidence in politicians. For that reason, the Prime Minister should apologize to everyone we represent.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his speech.

I have heard a lot today about this issue of consensus that was allegedly found in the electoral reform committee's report. I read the report carefully. First of all, the Liberals did not agree with the report, so right away, one of the parties did not agree.

Then we have the Conservatives, the NDP, the Greens, and the Bloc that allegedly agreed there should be a referendum on proportional representation. By the way, I agree with the Conservatives that there has to be a referendum to change the way we elect people. I absolutely agree with that.

However, in the case of the NDP and the Greens, they actually provided a second report which said:

While it remains an option, we have serious concerns about holding a referendum on electoral reform. The evidence for the necessity of change is overwhelming; the evidence for the necessity of holding a referendum is not.

If the government decides it must hold a referendum—

Let me ask, where is the consensus if the Conservatives do not actually agree with proportional representation and the NDP does not agree with a referendum?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to my colleague the difference between a dissenting report and a supplementary report. A supplementary report can be submitted to explain a point of view on an issue. However, in the end, the main report is the one that is accepted, along with its recommendations.

The fact remains that Liberal members are wondering why they did not propose at least a referendum or something else. I have been an MP for almost six years and I can say that all committees do excellent work. However, it is always very difficult and arduous to come up with a report that reflects the will of the majority on the committee. I am not talking about the will of the party in power, but of the will of the majority of the committee members. My colleague did not make this distinction in his question.

We reached a point where every party was willing to compromise except for the Liberal Party. That was most of the parties on the committee. Having worked on other issues as tough as this one, I can say if that is not consensus, I do not know where the government will find consensus for all of its other policies, because that was the broadest consensus it has had since coming to power.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and also for what he has just said. He said that sometimes a consensus cannot be found. This is the question. The government has acted on things like pipelines where NDP members were not in consensus. It made a decision on those pipelines. That is part of governing. That is part of being accountable.

Does the member feel that government members are hiding behind the sense that they need to have a consensus, that a consensus needs to magically form for them to do anything, or does he believe that this is just a distraction to avoid political damage?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Consensus is a rare thing in politics, so rare as to be practically non-existent, but the fact is we put together a committee that represented all of the parties in the House of Commons proportionally. Most of the parties that made up the committee managed to contribute to the report even though there were supplementary reports.

That is not the issue though. The issue is whether, as my colleague so aptly said, the government is trying to hide behind the lack of consensus. I am really looking forward to its next unpopular decision. I hope the government will roll back every other decision that raised the ire of the opposition and the people on the grounds that there was no consensus. When there are demonstrations outside MPs' offices on certain issues, I hope they will apologize and reverse their decisions because of a lack of consensus. I would be surprised if they did. The government is obviously two-faced and just wants to throw all of our work in the trash. It is so disheartening. I hope they will apologize.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate with the hon. member for Victoria, I will let him know that there are only about four minutes left in the time remaining for the business of supply for this afternoon, but we will get started.

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion, although I deeply regret that I have only four minutes to do so.

The announcement made last week that the government would break its promise on electoral reform is deeply disappointing to me as a parliamentarian. I know that it was equally disappointing and frustrating to my constituents, the people of Victoria, a community of engaged citizens with one of the highest voter turnout rates in the country.

In the last election, 63% of Canadians voted for parties committed to electoral reform. In Victoria, that figure was nearly 90%. Therefore, when I hear members from the other side of the House talk about what they term as a “lack of consensus” or “declining interest from Canadians”, I cannot for the life of me figure out what they are talking about.

I come from a community that cares deeply about political engagement and progress. Electoral reform is a familiar and important issue to my constituents. Three years ago, I held a town hall where hundreds and hundreds came out to hear from experts on how we might fix our electoral system. I have met with advocates and experts on dozens of occasions in my community, at the University of Victoria and elsewhere. Therefore, to hear government members assert with no discernible evidence that Canadians are not interested anymore in fixing the voting system is deeply frustrating. I have had people come and petition, and work with organizations for years to find a better, fairer, more proportional electoral system.

What really troubles me the most is what I hear from young Canadians. For many young voters, the Harper government was all they knew. They grew up frustrated with a government that did not match their values. They volunteered for environmental causes, but saw the government impede climate action. They studied science and politics at school, but watched their government muzzle scientists and make it harder for them to vote. Therefore, in 2015, they seized an opportunity to make a lasting change. Turnout rose among the 18- to 24-year-old demographic more than any other.

Last week, two writers in Maclean's magazine summed it up, one of whom, Scott Baker, is a young man in my community whom I have known for his entire life. Here is what they said:

By killing electoral reform, [the] Prime Minister...has cut down the democratic aspirations of hundreds of thousands of young Canadians, tacitly teaching them to expect less from government and dream smaller political dreams.

Citizens do not start out disengaged but rather become so through their repeated efforts to work within a stubbornly unresponsive system.

Some of us in this chamber have grown cynical about the many promises we have heard from Liberal and Conservative governments, but it is not age that makes us cynical, it is experience. The government had a chance to change that. The Liberals had an opportunity to make good on the promises that they made to young Canadians to earn their votes, and in doing so, not only make progress on many issues, but also reaffirm the faith of young voters that their votes truly matter.

It is not an immutable law of governing that promises are made to be broken. It is a choice that too many governments have made when they start putting their own interests before the interests of the millions of Canadians who voted for change.

In light of the short amount of time that I have for debate, I would like to conclude by calling on every member opposite to consider what they can do to demonstrate to their constituents by joining us in supporting this motion. Some colleagues opposite have already apologized to Canadians, and I commend them for their courage and their integrity. All members can show that our politics are bound by that most basic code of everyday life: that one makes good on one's word, that promises matter, and that when one falls short, one apologizes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 14, 2017, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

I see the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find consent to call it 5:30 at this point so that we can start private members' business.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Federal Framework on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

moved that Bill C-211, an act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-211. However, before I get into my speech, I want to first acknowledge and thank the first responders, the veterans, and the active military members who have emailed, called, and with whom I have met in person. Many of them are on the Hill with us today. I want to acknowledge their courage in coming forward, and their fight to break the stigma and the silence. These are brave men and women who have been ridiculed, shamed, told to “suck it up and move on”, told that they are making it up, that they are faking it, and, worse yet, that they are weak. I want to thank them for trusting me enough to share their stories with me.

I also want to thank the family and friends of those who could no longer fight for their strength, and their commitment to ensure their loved ones are remembered and that their fight was not in vain.

Moreover, I want to apologize to all for it taking so long to get to this point. I have had this speech prepared for a while now, and as I wrote it, I took time to reflect on the hundreds of individuals whom I had the privilege of meeting with over the last year, those who helped get this bill off the ground, and the thousands more who continue to live in silence.

Mr. Speaker, today is not about you or I, or our colleagues. This is not a Conservative, a Liberal or an NDP issue. Today is about the brave men and women who serve our communities and our country without hesitation and without fail.

I would like to read an email that I received about two weeks ago. It states:

“Our paramedics and other first responders in Canada are amazing. We demand they show up for anything, at any house [at any time] in any weather. They fix our injuries, treat our sickness, restart our hearts. Then they wash their hands, head for home, and rise again to answer the call of duty. They do this job...without thanks, because they want to heal and ease pain. They do this job without fanfare or pursual of fame, and then feel like they get tossed to the curb when the stress builds up too much. Our first responders across Canada need to be treated like the heros and humans they are. This Bill needs to pass.”

There is no rescue for the rescuers. This is just one email, one story, but there are thousands more like it across our country.

One week after being elected, on October 19, 2015, I arrived in Ottawa as a newly-elected MP for the riding of Cariboo—Prince George. I had with me two documents and a head filled with big ideas. The first document was an analysis of challenges and opportunities that existed in my riding. The second was the background for Bill C-211.

Over the course of the two years I spent campaigning, both to win the Conservative nomination and the general election, I met with people from all walks of life. I heard deeply personal and intimate stories of hardship and pain. Many of these individuals were struggling with PTSD themselves, or they knew a colleague, a friend, or a family member who had contemplated suicide or had taken his or her life. They experienced the pain and suffering that was a result of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Bill C-211 was born out of these stories, because it was through these stories that I realized there was no standard of diagnosis, care, treatment, or even terminology for PTSD that was consistent from one end of our nation to another.

The outpouring of letters and phone calls that my office has received since the bill was first introduced last year has been overwhelming. The stories are overwhelming. I have worked hard to meet with individuals and organizations across the country. They are only asking for proper care to be made accessible to our front-line warriors, those who have dealt with the sights, sounds, and smells that average Canadians would find horrifying and heartbreaking.

Our brave men and women put their uniforms on every day, knowing full well that they may have to take the life of another person during the course of their service to our communities and our country, or that in their service and their dedication to our country, they may indeed make the ultimate sacrifice themselves.

Bill C-211 seeks to establish a cohesive and coherent national framework to ensure our military, first responders, paramedics, police personnel, firefighters, emergency dispatchers, veterans, and correctional officers get timely access to the resources they need to deal with PTSD.

The bill sends a message to our silent sentinels that this is not a battle they have to fight themselves, that someone is fighting for them. It is up to all of us, federal, provincial, and territorial legislators, to come up with a plan to ensure that no one is left behind; that our terminology and laws are consistent across the country, from the east coast to the west coast, so an RCMP member serving in Nova Scotia has consistent care with his or her colleagues across our nation; so a firefighter who is not well has the courage to come forward and say “I am not well”; that our veterans or current military know that just as they stood tall for our families, someone is fighting for them, that they know they are not alone, that they can get the care and attention they need when they need it, wherever they need it.

Bill C-211 is about being human. It is about taking a stand. It is not about assigning blame, not passing the buck, not turning a blind eye and saying that it is not our problem. Bill C-211 is about breaking the stigma of mental health injuries. It is about helping them build the courage to come forward and tell their story and seek help.

I have been told over the course of the last year that PTSD is a provincial matter, that this is an issue for the industry to solve. I have also been told that people should know what they are getting themselves into when they sign their job contracts and go into service. I want to reiterate that it is up to all of us to come up with solutions, because lives are being lost.

We are inundated in the media of stories of another veteran or another first responder who have taken their lives and lost the fight due to PTSD. This is unacceptable. Since I tabled my bill over a year ago, countless lives have been lost. This is shameful. We must do better. This begins with education and a willingness to listen without judgment, because less known to the general public are the mental demands that these occupations face. This includes working in a profession that regularly exposes them to graphic scenes and images that anyone would find disturbing and difficult to see.

My bill focuses on first responders, veterans, and military. Even in these three groups, we have differing terms, references, and sector inclusion. Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with a gentleman by the name of Mark Farrant. He shared with me that jurors, who in accepting their civic duty swear an oath to the crown, in fulfilling their duty to the crown were subject to the horrific crimes committed. They bear witness to graphic details and images over the course of their duty, whether it is nine days, nine months, or 19 months. Then, just as they are sworn to secrecy, they are turned out in anonymity to somehow reconnect in our communities, void of the experience and human tragedy that they have witnessed. They are tossed aside.

While not part of this legislation, it is my hope that bringing this forward and speaking to it tonight, the Minister of Justice can perhaps review this issue, and it can be part of our national discussion regarding mental health. We can talk about those who are impacted by this.

The reality is that experiencing human tragedy affects us all differently. Just as one story is not the same, there is not a one-size-fits-all treatment. These incidents and experiences cannot be erased from our memory. One cannot just hit reset. Instead, the images, sights, sounds, and smells keep playing on a continual loop. Simple things can trigger anxiety attacks or severe depression.

Staff Sergeant Kent MacNeill of the Prince George RCMP told me recently that for over 16 years he has served as an RCMP in his community. Over eight of those years he has led serious crime investigations. Just in his daily commute, he passes by two sites of horrific crimes. A simple action of dropping his daughter off at school can trigger his PTSD.

Triggers can come at any time and any place, without warning. A noise, a sight, a sound, or a smell can trigger the debilitating effects of PTSD. Most of us can never imagine what our warriors go through on a daily basis. I know there are practical questions that members across the way may be asking. Will there be a cost for implementing a national framework for PTSD? The simple answer to this is yes, it will cost money, but I counter with this. What is the alternative? What is the cost of inaction? How many more lives are we willing to lose before the government, before we, step up to the plate?

If members on all sides choose to vote down Bill C-211, what then are we proposing as a substitute? What is the message we are sending to those who we trust to be there when we are in need, those who without hesitation answer when the world calls? The question we need to ask ourselves today is what value do we place on these brave men and women?

Right now, we have a piecemeal system of scattered provincial legislation. Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have all taken steps to rightfully adopt legislation to deal with PTSD. While we are making progress on this front and we have come a long way in recognizing PTSD, leadership is needed at the federal level. The standard of care varies from one province to the next, and we have people falling through the cracks. Individuals suffering from PTSD have an 80% higher risk of suffering from depression, anxiety, alcoholism, drug abuse, and suicidal thoughts. As a society and as legislators, we have failed to come up with solutions to help our heroes, our warriors, the families, and the survivors, because a hero in the east should be treated the same as a hero in the west. Let us get this bill to committee so that we can discuss it, and amend it if necessary. Even with this, we have studied this enough to recognize that much more needs to be done and action is required.

Last October, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security tabled the report, “Healthy Minds, Safe Communities: Supporting our Public Safety Officers through a National Strategy for Operational Stress Injuries”. Bill C-211 was tabled before this committee, and I had the opportunity to participate in that study also. The report echoes much of what I am saying today, and indeed the minister's own response to the committee report said:

...the Government acknowledges the needs articulated by Canada's public safety officers and agrees that, in recognition of the daily challenges that are unique to public safety officers in the community, national leadership and alignment are necessary in order to effectively address this multidisciplinary issue.

Bill C-211 is a perfect place to start and is in line with the government's own commitments. Therefore, it is my hope that we can move swiftly, because we will save lives. Every minute wasted, every hour wasted, and every day wasted, we are losing lives. Action is needed. We are at a crisis level.

As I near the end of what I know is a very long speech, I would like to acknowledge that I am the first one to admit when I stand up in this House that it is usually to act as a voice of opposition to the issue of the day, but Bill C-211 transcends party lines and partisan squabbles. It is an opportunity for all parliamentarians to stand together and acknowledge the very real impact that PTSD has had on the lives of our warriors. If members would bear with me, I just want to read an excerpt from another website:

I get up all hours of the night and check the house over and over. I don't even know what I am looking for. I was asleep about a month ago, and I just knew that someone had fired a gun in my living room. I hear people pound on my door in the middle of the night, when in fact there was never anyone there to my knowledge. One night I got up out of the bed.... I don't know what I was looking for, but on my way through the house, I cocked my weapon. On the way through the house, the .357 discharged and shot a hole through my floor.... I need help, but I have dealt with it for the past two years. It is getting harder to deal with.

By nature, our first responders are part of a culture that frowns upon weakness. The job comes first, and feelings, wellness, and family come second. When lives are affected by PTSD, families are left behind to pick up the pieces on their own. Families are forgotten. Only through bipartisan support and co-operation can we hope to achieve effective and viable strategies, terminology, and education to help deal with PTSD.

Through Bill C-211, we have the opportunity to recognize the sacrifices that our brave men and women have made so we can be here today. Our warriors are our silent sentinels protecting our Canadian values and our way of life. They ensure our maple leaf stands tall, that Canada remains the true north strong and free.

As parliamentarians, let us stand in solidarity in support for those who are willing to give their lives to protect ours. I am asking for the assistance of members today so that we can begin to work on a national framework, and I ask that all members in this House help in achieving this goal by voting for Bill C-211 at second reading, because lives are at stake.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important that we do recognize that this is a very serious issue. I appreciate the many words the member has put on the record in introducing the bill. Whether it is members of our Canadian Forces, our first responders, the police, or many public safety officers, there are so many horrific acts that do occur that have had a significant impact on the individual in question.

There is no doubt that as a government we need to do more. We can always do better, as the Prime Minister has said. It is one of the reasons that, even when I was in opposition, I talked so passionately about the importance of a health care accord. It is one of the reasons why I think it is so important that we recognize how many hundreds of millions of dollars we are committing now, going into mental health services.

We need to start to take action where we can. I appreciate what the member is bringing forward for us today. My question is to maybe just ask him to emphasize how important it is that there is a holistic approach that does include multiple departments, different levels of government, and so forth. I think that is quite admirable and—