Alexandrine Latendresse

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the remarks made by my colleague from Mississauga East—Cooksville. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which studied this bill. I would like him to comment on the fact that most of the hundreds of amendments the opposition presented could not even be debated in committee, and that even the amendments we were able to debate were systematically rejected, without exception.

However, some of the amendments were absolutely reasonable and would really have improved the bill.

I asked several direct questions because I wanted answers about how some parts of the bill would affect our democracy. The Conservatives provided no justification whatsoever for some of their changes.

I would like him to justify that kind of attitude with respect to such a significant act, the Canada Elections Act, and with respect to changes that will affect our democracy in general.

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laval for his speech.

I would like to ask him a very specific question about the process that took place while this bill was studied. We know that a bill to amend an electoral law usually entails extensive consultation from the very beginning. The opposition parties and electoral agencies should have an opportunity to explain what is required in our Canada Elections Act. In fact, this bill concerns everyone and strikes at the very heart of our democracy.

I would like the member to comment on that. Does he believe that the Conservatives' efforts with respect to changes to the Canada Elections Act were sufficient given the magnitude of the bill?

[Fair Elections Act, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have many questions I would like to ask the minister because this bill is so problematic and contains so many elements that will undermine our democracy.

A little earlier on, the minister mentioned the number of hours we had to examine this bill in committee. The reality is that all of the witnesses who came to talk about Bill C-23 pointed out the various problems with it and spoke about how it would be a real problem for our Canada Elections Act. In their opinion, there are many provisions that will not have the intended effect.

I think it is terrible that the minister is quoting the Chief Electoral Officer to justify the fact that he is now limiting the debate, because the Chief Electoral Officer himself came to committee to talk about just how many problems this bill will cause if it is passed.

As a result, I would like the minister to explain how he plans to continue introducing this type of bill when Bill C-23 does not even make any improvements to the Canada Elections Act. None of the requests made by the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer regarding this bill were granted, and I do not understand why.

[Fair Elections Act, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague who is working very hard on this file.

I had the opportunity to study the bill with him in committee. I would like him to provide a brief overview of everything that is still missing in this bill. For example, we did not have the time in committee to debate clauses and amendments concerning all the different things that will affect the Commissioner of Canada Elections, who investigates electoral fraud. There are a number of things missing with respect to the commissioner's powers.

Could he tell us about that and the different things that are still missing from this bill, which make it unacceptable at present for our Parliament?

[Democratic Reform, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that in committee, the Conservatives rejected any change that would have truly improved their botched bill. They voted against the amendments that would have forced call centres to hand over to the CRTC the telephone numbers contacted and the transcripts of the calls. They voted against the amendments to limit the influence of money on political parties and to give Elections Canada real investigative powers. It is ridiculous.

With Bill C-23, the Elections Act is going to be worse than it is now. Why is the government forcing legislation down our throats that will set us back many years?

[Democratic Reform, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP worked in good faith and proposed amendments to address the concerns of hundreds of experts, including the Chief Electoral Officer. Yesterday, the Conservatives ended the debate when only one-fifth of the bill had been studied by the committee members. Using sheer force of numbers to end the debate on legislation that frames our democracy is simply shameful. Now that the electoral “deform” is back in the House, will the government finally put partisanship aside and agree to debate the bill with the opposition?

[Rotary Club Exchange Program, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate William Rompré, who, beginning in August 2014, will be participating in the Rotary Club ESSEX exchange program. He will spend a year living on the opposite side of the continent, in Chile.

Through this exchange program, high school students can continue their education while learning more about the world. Under the supervision of local club members, young people live with a local family so they can improve their language skills and their ability to adapt to new environments.

What our country needs most is young people who are willing to go and explore other countries. Curiosity is what will help us make the most of globalization, and having a healthy degree of openness towards others will help overcome the geographic isolation that happens to exist in Canada.

I wish him all the best for his year in Chile. I hope it will be filled with great experiences. To be honest, I envy him a little. As the song says, “I want to go to Valparaíso”, but I have to stay and combat electoral reform.

[Member spoke in Spanish]

William, que tengas suerte y que disfrute.

[Democratic Reform, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we do not just want people to identify themselves; we want them to go and vote. For that to happen, the government has to stop muzzling the CEO.

We proposed an amendment that would allow Elections Canada to recruit polling station workers. Surprise, surprise, the Conservatives defeated the amendment. Similarly, the Conservatives insist on imposing unfair rules on independent candidates, who will no longer be able to collect money before the election is called. That will certainly be challenged in court.

Once again, why is the minster rejecting amendments that make so much sense?

[Democratic Reform, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is so much bad faith. The NDP has always said that everyone who votes must identify themselves in advance.

Here is another example of the Conservatives' bad faith. They are insisting that the cabinet have the right of veto when the Chief Electoral Officer communicates with his counterparts around the world. The Conservatives' paranoia is laughable. Despite the minister's promise, the Conservatives are so stubborn as to want to control the Chief Electoral Officer's message.

Why is the government rejecting amendments that make so much sense?

[Democratic Reform, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in committee, the Conservatives are systematically rejecting amendments to their electoral “deform”. They are rejecting out of hand proposals supported by the Chief Electoral Officer, the commissioner of elections, the former auditor general and hundreds of experts.

The minister has said that he does not want to limit the Chief Electoral Officer's freedom to speak. However, the Conservatives have rejected an amendment that would have enshrined that.

Why is the minister going back on his commitment? Why is he betraying Canadians?