Maryam Monsef

[Democratic Reform, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Conservatives cannot move beyond their narrow political interests in protecting the status quo and allow Canadians to have a say in this process.

The concept of asking a committee to reach out to Canadians may be a strange one to the members opposite, but it makes most sense to Canadians and most of us on this side of the aisle—

[Democratic Reform, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to do three things. First, we are going to engage Canadians on their electoral reform. That is what the committee, on which we no longer have a majority, is going to do. Second, based on the committee's feedback and the input we receive from all Canadians, we are going to bring recommendations to this place. It will be up to all members to debate that. Third, we will not move forward on changes without the consent of Canadians.

[Democratic Reform, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, our approach from the very beginning has been to bring together a committee made up of all elected parliamentarians to act as a forum for the people of this country, to have their voices, their needs, and their hopes and aspirations known.

Today, we did something a bit different, according to the members opposite. We were elected on a promise to do politics differently. That means co-operating, that means recognizing that good ideas can come from all parties. I thank all members for their contributions to this healthy debate and look forward to hearing from Canadians.

[Democratic Reform, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, our approach today has been about working collaboratively with all parties in the House. Our approach today has been about moving the conversation around process to getting down to the work of hearing from Canadians what their needs and aspirations are for their electoral system. I thank the hon. members in the House for the healthy debate on this topic and look forward to getting down to the work.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the contribution of the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to the committee will be invaluable, as will all members of the committee.

The hope is that today we engage in a constructive and respectful dialogue about this motion and that we take the opportunity to think constructively, contribute meaningfully, and vote on the motion. We are hoping for unanimous consent on this.

As for when the committee can begin its work, as soon as the respective parties have put forward names for the members they wish to see on the committee, the committee can begin the exciting and important work of reaching out to Canadians and hearing their ideas about what electoral reform the House could introduce.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today is about beginning the process of bringing the parliamentary committee together and having it review the options available. The next step will be to review the proposal, based on what we have heard from Canadians while the committee has been doing its work. The third step will be finding the appropriate way to engage Canadians' buy-in for the process. That aspect is now included in the motion so the committee may determine the best way to gauge the support of Canadians.

I look forward to working with the party opposite to ensure that all Canadians have an opportunity to be part of this important dialogue.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work. We were elected by Canadians to listen to their needs and to co-operate in this place. This is how we govern. He is right. Up until now the conversation of process has taken away from the substance of electoral reform. It is time for us to combine our partisan interests with the needs of Canadians and work together to ensure their ideas, their aspirations, and their needs are reflected in the reforms we eventually introduce in this place.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. parliamentary secretary. I am pleased to rise on debate in the House on the opposition motion put forward by my hon. NDP colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I have been speaking in the House on this traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples for some time now about the importance of listening to Canadians and working across party lines to find solutions to the challenges that we face. Despite the skepticism expressed by some, I do believe that it is possible to be both partisan and to find common ground. I do believe that respectful co-operation is possible.

It is in this vein that I wish to congratulate my hon. colleague on the motion. I believe it can allow us to move beyond a discussion about process and begin a debate on the substance of electoral reform. The motion before the House contains the key elements of the motion the government previously placed on the Order Paper. It confirms that the most appropriate way to consult Canadians is through the establishment of a special all-party committee with representation from all parties in the House. As elected representatives, it is our responsibility to give a voice to our constituents in general and more specifically to those who have been unwilling or unable to participate in the past.

The NDP motion is also consistent with a number of the fundamental components of the motion I placed on the Order Paper on May 10. There are consistencies in terms of mandates, the nature and the scope of national consultations, an engaging of the entire House, which means all members regardless of political stripes, and an emphasis on inclusivity, especially to under-represented groups, by reaching out across our diverse society. I welcome so much common ground on these issues.

The NDP motion, however, suggests that the membership of the committee deviate from the Standing Orders in two fundamental ways. First, it seeks to provide a vote on the committee for both unrecognized parties in the House, the Green and the Bloc. It has always been the government's intention that both parties be included in this national consultation and this was outlined in our motion on May 10. I believe that members of these parties have a great deal to contribute to the debate and I have been persuaded that an additional way to demonstrate our commitment to inclusivity is to break with tradition and have both the Bloc and the Green as full voting members. Such an approach means that the government will not have a majority on the committee and hopefully this will assure members that the government comes to this process with an open mind.

Second, the NDP motion seeks to shift the committee from having a majority of government members to having a majority of opposition members. Some may argue that replacing a government majority with an opposition majority puts us no further ahead. The fact is that such an argument misses the point. The issue is that every member, regardless of party, must combine their partisan perspective with meeting the important need that Canadians have to improve the electoral process.

As I have said many times, we need to do politics differently. Who has the committee majority has never been my key priority; ensuring that Canadians have the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the electoral reform process is. The proposal before us will take us beyond a debate on process and begin a discussion of the substance of electoral reform. In that spirit, the government will support the motion's provisions for the party distribution on the committee.

There are two items, however, that are missing from the motion which I believe must be included.

The first is the set of principles outlined in the motion I placed on the Order Paper on May 10. I believe our discussion of electoral reform must be guided by fundamental principles and they need to be part of shaping the final proposal.

The second is the importance of dealing with the issue of ensuring that the proposal put forward is seen to be legitimate by Canadians. This is consistent with my view that the government will not proceed without the broad support of Canadians. In that respect, the mandate of the committee needs to include recommending to the government the best method of ensuring that any proposal has the full or broad support of Canadians.

With all of this being said, I would like to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by:

(a) adding after the words “online voting”, the following:

“, and to assess the extent to which the options identified could advance the following principles for electoral reform:

1) Effectiveness and legitimacy: that the proposed measure would increase public confidence among Canadians that their democratic will, as expressed by their votes, will be fairly translated and that the proposed measure reduces distortion and strengthens the link between voter intention and the election of representatives;

2) Engagement: that the proposed measure would encourage voting and participation in the democratic process, foster greater civility and collaboration in politics, enhance social cohesion and offer opportunities for inclusion of under-represented groups in the political process;

3) Accessibility and inclusiveness: that the proposed measure would avoid undue complexity in the voting process, while respecting the other principles, and that it would support access by all eligible voters regardless of physical or social condition;

4) Integrity: that the proposed measure can be implemented while safeguarding public trust in the election process, by ensuring reliable and verifiable results obtained through an effective and objective process that is secure and preserves vote secrecy for individual Canadians;

5) Local representation: that the proposed measure would ensure accountability and recognize the value that Canadians attach to community, to Members of Parliament understanding local conditions and advancing local needs at the national level, and to having access to Members of Parliament to facilitate resolution of their concerns and participation in the democratic process;”

(b) replacing the words “November 1, 2016” with the words “October 14, 2016”;

(c) adding after the words “engagement tools” the following:

“that the Committee be directed to study and advise on additional methods for obtaining the views of Canadians;” and

(d) replacing the words “, notwithstanding Standing Order 106(3), all candidates for the position of Chair or Vice-Chair from the Official Opposition“ with the words “all candidates for the position of Chair or Vice-Chair”.

I urge all members to support this amendment and I look forward to the debate in the House moving forward.

[Democratic Reform, June 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on this file and for proposing the motion for us to talk about tomorrow.

I welcome all members of this House to engage in this conversation. I know there is a lot of passion in this House. I know there are a lot of good ideas in this House. I look forward to receiving all of them beginning tomorrow.

[Democratic Reform, June 1st, 2016]

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—