Alexandrine Latendresse

[Democratic Reform, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the so-called minister of so-called democratic reform claimed that the experts who are against his electoral reform are so-called experts.

The only problem is that the current and former Chief Electoral Officers, the current and former Commissioners of Canada Elections, and provincial elections officials are against this reform. Today, it was Sheila Fraser who talked about Bill C-23 as an attack on our democracy.

Is Sheila Fraser going to be treated like all the other officers of Parliament and experts who have criticized this reform?

[Democratic Reform, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Sheila Fraser, Canada's former auditor general, who exposed the Liberals' schemes in the sponsorship scandal, says that Bill C-23 is an attack on Canada's democracy.

Ms. Fraser, who currently co-chairs an advisory board on the electoral system, laments the fact that Bill C-23 would disenfranchise thousands of voters, undercut the independence of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and impede investigations into wrongdoing.

Will the government listen to Sheila Fraser, withdraw its bill and go back to the drawing board?

[Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23, April 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for moving this motion today, because this is now an extremely difficult situation.

This government has introduced a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act without consulting anyone. It introduced this bill without talking to Elections Canada, the commissioner or anyone, other than Conservative colleagues. All the experts agree that this bill will simply help the Conservatives take in more votes in 2015.

As for the commissioner's power to compel, I was there yesterday with my colleague when the current and former commissioners explained how they think this change is a step in the wrong direction.

I would like to hear more from my colleague about how our colleagues reacted to this claim that the commissioner himself made yesterday. He said that this was a very bad idea and that it will undermine his independence. The Conservatives simply keep saying that, on the contrary, it will make him more independent, as we heard the minister claim again today.

I would like to try to understand how we are living in a kind of Orwellian world, in which someone says something and the Conservatives seem to completely ignore the comments and do the exact opposite.

[Democratic Reform, April 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should tell that to the experts in the United States and throughout the world who are opposed to his reform.

Another American elections expert, Élisabeth Vallet, says that the Conservative movement likes to focus on cases of fraud and is feeding conspiracy theories in order to disenfranchise society's most vulnerable people and thereby serve its own partisan interests. Bill C-23 follows squarely in the Conservative's pattern of prejudice and partisan interests.

Will the minister withdraw his bill and agree to reopen discussions and start over?

[Democratic Reform, April 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is all alone in his corner telling us that he is right. I am sorry, but no one, including the commissioner, believes him.

An American election studies expert believes that the Conservatives stole the Republican playbook when developing their reform.

According to Richard Hassen, the Conservatives are trying to make it more difficult for vulnerable members of society to vote because those individuals are more hostile toward Conservative values.

Why does the minister not simply admit that he is using the electoral “deform” to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people who are the victims of Conservative policies?

[Democratic Reform, April 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Canada Elections believes that the Conservatives' electoral “deform” is not going in the right direction. Without the power to compel witnesses, his investigations will get bogged down and continue to fail as a result of a lack of co-operation from witnesses.

The commissioner indicated that the Competition Bureau and elections investigators in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba have the authority to compel witnesses.

Why are the Conservatives content with an arbitrator whose hands are tied? When will they stop protecting the interests of those who are trying to circumvent the Canada Elections Act?

[Democratic Reform, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it would be good for the minister to start listening to the experts.

Twenty years ago, Canada was a major player on the international stage in terms of sharing best practices in order to strengthen institutions in countries in democratic transition.

Today, our own institutions are threatened. When we have reached the point at which international experts begin expressing concern about the Conservatives' electoral deform bill, we can see how far we have fallen. If we add to that the fact that the government is giving itself almost unlimited spending power when it comes to contacting some former contributors, we can see that our democratic system really is in danger.

Why are the Conservatives trying to get around the upper limit on spending?

[Democratic Reform, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know which world the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is living in, but it is clearly not the same one as most Canadians.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to hear professor Paul Thomas express his views on Bill C-23. He emphasized the fact that other countries that conduct free elections recognize that election laws must not be changed unilaterally, without consultation. As well as being dangerous for our democracy, the Conservatives' electoral deform bill will undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process. It will not help the Conservative government earn the trust of voters.

Will the minister listen to the experts at last?

[Democratic Reform, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the minister, when it comes to credibility, he is not in the same class as Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Mayrand and Mr. Kingsley. I would even go so far as to say that he is a featherweight.

Experts and commentators everywhere are against this reform: academics, editorialists, the current and former chief electoral officers, and international experts. That explains why the minister resorted to basing his arguments on little snippets of the Neufeld report, twisting the facts and misrepresenting the report. His reform could disenfranchise 520,000 voters.

Why is the minister so determined to deny the facts?

[Democratic Reform, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Minister of State for Democratic Reform trying to defend the indefensible, one would think that hordes of fraudsters are getting ready to rig the next election.

Basically, the minister is relying on a report by elections expert Harry Neufeld, who believes that the minister has misinterpreted his report and is reading selectively from it and, in fact, that the Conservatives are simply trying to stack the deck in their favour.

Why did the minister resort to inventing support and twisting Harry Neufeld's words to try to sell his electoral reform?