Alain Giguère

[Fair Elections Act, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech of my distinguished colleague with whom it is always a joy to work.

The problem is that the bill was introduced without consensus of Parliament. That is a problem. This is the first time in the history of Canada that a political party is introducing a bill that tips the scales in favour of its re-election. Generally speaking, for electoral law to be credible in the public's eyes, it not only has to be independent, but it also has to have the appearance of being independent. In that sense, Bill C-23 has completely missed the mark.

Every stakeholder, every editorial writer, every representative from the Barreau du Québec and every stakeholder on the electoral front have said that this is a bad bill. Thankfully some amendments were proposed. Indeed, we went from an unacceptable and anti-democratic bill to just a bad bill. It is still bad because no one approves of it except for the Conservatives.

Is it okay for legislation as important as the Canada Elections Act to be introduced without consensus?

[Fair Elections Act, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, this electoral law is unprecedented. Traditionally in Canada, electoral laws were more or less consensual in that all of the political parties supported them, with the consent of the vast majority of civil society actors. For the first time in this country's history, an electoral law will be enacted in defiance of the majority of stakeholders.

My question for my distinguished colleague, who has clearly understood and defended the democratic perspective, is as follows. What fate awaits such a bill, which will immediately come under attack by first nations representatives? This electoral reform, this unfair elections act, will make it harder for aboriginal people to exercise their right to vote. It will also come under attack by students at schools and universities, who will no longer be encouraged to vote or motivated by this kind of electoral participation, which is the very essence of democracy. They, too, will have the power to mount a legal challenge. All other stakeholders who find their powers diluted, especially their legal powers, such as the bars of Quebec, Canada and Ontario, will intervene.

Can my distinguished colleague tell me what fate awaits such a bill, which will probably soon be passed thanks to the government's majority, a bill that offers so many grounds for legal challenge? What legal fate awaits this bad bill?

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister pointing out that 72 witnesses made submissions. It is all very well to listen to them, but it would have been better, if not critically important, to try to understand them. Clearly, the Conservatives listened to what these 72 witnesses had to say, but failed to understand that they wanted the government not to proceed with this harmful electoral reform initiative.

I find the minister’s comments, and in particular her view that political parties have a duty to encourage people to vote, especially dangerous. The right to vote is not a partisan exercise, but rather a fundamental right. It should not be left to partisan organizations. Rather, the voting process should be overseen by an independent non-partisan agency responsible for ensuring the people can exercise their right to vote. Even Preston Manning stated that these initiatives were ill-advised.

How does the minister intend to encourage people, specifically first nations, which have a different political culture, to embrace that of the Conservatives because it suits their purposes from an electoral standpoint?

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the statements by my distinguished colleague, I noticed that he has demonstrated the truth of Einstein’s words. Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Once again, we have an ill-advised bill that will immediately be challenged if it is passed. It will be challenged by the first nations, who will be asking by what right the act is being amended to give them less access to the vote. Student associations will be saying the same thing.

The Chief Electoral Officer must have the power and the resources to promote voting among young people and to tell them not only to go out and vote, but where to go to vote. Why is the government stubbornly insisting on enacting a law that has been rejected by all the experts, including the ones it appointed?

I would therefore like to know why we are going to vote on a bill that will immediately be challenged in the courts.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a new problem we are discussing. The policy allowing transport companies to regulate themselves in terms of safety was introduced 20 years ago, and after 20 years we have learned that this work was never done. This is not just about the government opposite. There has been a lack of governance for 20 years.

It gets worse. We are discussing transport companies, but first and foremost they are public services. I would like to remind everyone that at one time Air Canada and Canadian National were crown corporations. They were privatized later by the Liberal government. This government neither took the care nor had the vision to ensure that these companies would continue to safely provide public services. How is it going to fix this 20-year-old mess that the Liberals created? At some point, you have to stop criticizing others and take a hard look at yourself.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General recently presented a report on rail safety. We learned that the self-regulation system has led to some unthinkable situations.

My colleague can confirm and make a case for this statement: only 23% of inspections are done. Verifications of these analyses indicate that everything was done incorrectly. Only 23% of the job is being done and it is done poorly. What is more, apparently Transport Canada did not do any follow-up. When it detected an incident or an irregularity, it contacted the company and did not verify whether corrective action was taken. Nothing is done.

My question is simple: after 20 years of using a system that produces such poor results, can we really talk about rail safety?

[Public Works and Government Services, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals, SNC-Lavalin managed to get a $6 billion contract over 10 years to manage federal buildings.

This led to expenses that included $2,000 for two plants, $5,000 to change six light bulbs, $1,000 for a doorbell and $36,000 to clean the Minister of International Development's office. It was essentially an open bar.

However, we learned in the Auditor General's report that was released yesterday that the next contract for federal buildings will be worth double the amount.

What does the minister plan to do to prevent this kind of abuse?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the hon. member's speech does not reflect the economic reality of all Canadians.

Canadians have been experiencing growing financial instability for a long time now. It is getting worse, not better. She is all sunshine and lollipops, but she needs a reality check. Every day, all Canadians are facing poverty.

They talk about cutting taxes. I am sorry, but when Canada Post doubles postage rates, that is a tax. Implementing P3 programs that people have to pay for is a tax too. Worse still, the Conservatives treat pension funds like a tax, not a savings.

What will happen when people are retired and have to live in poverty? The government will have to raise taxes to pay for the savings that people are not making now.

[Elections Act, April 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for electoral “deform” insists on misinterpreting quotes from the Neufeld report, even though Neufeld himself has tried to correct him.

The minister turned a deaf ear to the concerns of the Chief Electoral Officer. He fought tooth and nail to defend the tall tales told by his colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville, even when it became clear that the so-called fraud he was talking about was a product of his overactive imagination. Most of all, he did nothing as everyone pointed out that the new law would do nothing to stop the Conservatives' fraudulent calls or to help the criminal investigation into these calls. He proved, once again, that a criminal can get out of anything if he pulls out a Conservative Party card.

It is no surprise that a bill based on a satirical TV show has become a running gag. The minister needs to stop joking around and start taking this seriously.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, he is stating the very opposite of what I said. The answer must reflect the question. I was speaking about high credit card interest rates—