Élaine Michaud

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for that very important question. I also thank him for his energy and for the passion he demonstrates when he speaks in the House.

I am happy to have the opportunity to return to the whole question of cynicism and the significance of a vote. I touched upon this briefly in my speech, but it is something that is tremendously important to us. It speaks to the viability of our political system, of our democracy, which depends on voters’ confidence in our electoral system.

When they express their choice, voters must be certain that they will be respected and that the process will take its course without certain individuals or certain organizations attempting to interfere with the vote and the electoral process.

In that sense, the motion moved by my colleagues is tremendously important, because it provides certain guarantees of verification. We will be certain that a non-partisan body will be able to make the necessary verifications and ensure that the law is respected.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which raises some very important considerations relating to the situation now before us.

In my view, it is absolutely incomprehensible to blame a 23-year-old, working in a member’s office, for an operation of such scope as to affect nearly 60 ridings. We simply cannot blame this person, who in any case has spoken up and said that he was not responsible.

I think that Elections Canada must be able to have access to all the necessary documents from all political parties in the House, including the government. This will enable it to conduct the necessary investigations, ascertain the full extent of the fraud, and determine the organization that was necessary to carry out this operation.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, before anything else, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time today with one of my colleagues.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to the motion brought forward by my colleague from Hamilton Centre and seconded by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. I would like to congratulate them on the work they have done on this very important issue, which is quite crucial for our democracy.

The motion before the House is extremely important, because it sets out various ways of strengthening the integrity of our democracy. The motion seems to me to be necessary, given the way the scandal of the fraudulent calls in the last election campaign has mushroomed. Today, according to all the information that is being collected every day from my colleagues in the NDP, from the Liberals and from individuals affected by this situation in various ridings in the country, nearly 60 ridings may have experienced a problem with fraudulent or harassing calls.

Basically, calls made to voters, whether it is a person at the end of a line or a robocall, are not a problem in themselves. Many parties use them to give people information or to ask them to go out and vote on election day. So far, there is no problem. However, when people are misinformed, when people pretend to be calling on behalf of Elections Canada to redirect voters to a polling station that quite simply does not exist, the situation becomes problematic and has to be dealt with fairly quickly. More and more people are contacting Elections Canada every day to complain about harassing or even fraudulent calls received during the last campaign.

I have to pause here to say that it is my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas with whom I will be sharing my time.

As I said, more and more people are calling Elections Canada every day to express their concerns about the situation that we are speaking out against today. Some people say they received calls at inappropriate times, very late at night or on religious holidays. Other people are saying they were called by blatantly rude people who introduced themselves as supporters of one party in particular and who then asked them for contributions or tried to find out whom they were going to vote for. And people even received calls from individuals claiming to work for Elections Canada who directed them to new polling stations on the pretext of a last-minute change, when no polling stations had been relocated. We can assume that the fraudulent calls we are talking about here were made simply with the goal of preventing some voters from exercising their fundamental right to vote. This situation is completely unacceptable.

The right to vote freely, without any constraints and according to one's conscience, is an essential component of democratic societies. It is a constitutionally protected right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Any attempt to interfere with the election process is a violation of the citizens' basic right to freely express their political choice, and it undermines confidence in our electoral system, which is meant to be democratic.

For a number of years now, corruption, scandals and dirty tricks in politics have generated a great deal of cynicism among the public and have deterred people from voting and expressing their political position. How can we hope to see people regain confidence in Canada's political system and actively participate in elections when unscrupulous individuals organize such election fraud schemes?

Elections Canada claims to have had about 31,000 contacts with citizens who are very worried and concerned about these fraudulent calls across the country. While these contacts are not necessarily all complaints as such, it is clear that Canadians are concerned about this direct attack on Canadian democracy. They want answers and they want to be sure to be represented by people who were elected legitimately. They also want clear rules to ensure that such a situation never occurs again.

The motion introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton Centre seeks precisely to address the concerns and the requests that were clearly expressed by Canadians. It includes three main components. First, that Elections Canada investigation capabilities be strengthened, to include giving the Chief Electoral Officer the power to request certain documents from all political parties. Such a request could be made when needed, if a problematic situation exists, or if there are some concerns.

The motion also asks that all telecommunication companies that deal with political parties and provide voter contact services during a general election be registered with Elections Canada. Lastly, it asks that all clients of telecommunication companies during a general election have their identity registered and verified.

The motion would allow Elections Canada to really be able to fulfill its obligations under the Canada Elections Act. It would provide Elections Canada with the proper tools to investigate when facing anomalous situations or suspecting electoral fraud, as is the case now.

The Chief Electoral Officer intends to use his new investigative powers in the same way as the Auditor General of Canada currently uses his, in other words, to only request documents required for certain specific audits, on an as-needed basis, and not to systematically call on political parties to provide documentation for every election expense. This is not an overly intrusive process. However, it ensures that Elections Canada has the powers required to properly enforce the Elections Act, as per its mandate.

Currently, the Chief Electoral Officer does not have these powers. He is therefore limited in what he can do when it comes time to determine whether certain expenses comply with the Elections Act. No documentation is required to justify election spending. Moreover, any audits carried out by external auditors are solely accounting exercises that are not designed to determine the legality of election spending, as that is the purview of Elections Canada.

Elections Canada must determine whether election expense reports provided by parties comply with the provisions of the act. In fact, it is on the basis of these reports that parties receive public funds to cover a portion of the cost of their campaigns. With this in mind, I believe that it is essential that Elections Canada have adequate investigative powers so that it can determine whether there has been any misappropriation of public funds, which is often the case where electoral fraud is concerned.

Elections Canada is a designated body that ensures transparency in the electoral process and improved accountability when it comes to the disbursement of public funds to Canada's political parties. So that Elections Canada can fulfill this role and effectively carry out its duties, this body must have all the necessary tools, and it is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to see that it does.

After the 40th general election, the Chief Electoral Officer submitted a series of recommendations to the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is on the basis of those recommendations that the motion moved by my colleagues was drafted. The New Democrats and Liberals agreed to these requests at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. However, the Conservatives—who are in the majority on this committee—rejected the recommendations on the pretext that they would prefer external auditors to carry out the tasks that should be the purview of the Chief Electoral Officer. We, in the NDP, believe that a non-partisan body must carry out these audits.

For a party that believes it is blameless and that has been complaining that it has been the victim of a smear campaign, its current attitude, which involves accusing and blaming the opposition, is incomprehensible. When people have nothing to hide, there is no need to scratch around for evidence, as they have no problem providing documentation and co-operating fully with Elections Canada, as the NDP has undertaken to do, is already doing and will continue to do throughout the rest of the investigation, and as other parties have undertaken to do.

The Conservatives ask us to take them at their word, but since they have already been found guilty of electoral fraud, they have lost their right to be taken at their word, and they must now substantiate their allegations.

I hope that they are going to support the amended motion.

[Port of Québec, March 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of rising in the House today to speak in support of motion M-271 on the Port of Québec. This motion was moved by the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, and I would like to commend him on the excellent work he does for his constituents both in the House and in his riding.

Since I am a member of Parliament from the greater Quebec City region, this motion is particularly important to me. We all know the key role that the port plays in my region's economy, and it is very important to officially recognize that role in the House.

The motion asks the government for two main things. First, it asks that the government recognize the Port of Québec as a hub of international trade in opening new markets for Canadian business, creating jobs, generating significant economic benefits, particularly in terms of tourism, and ensuring the vitality of small and medium businesses in Quebec City and the surrounding areas.

Second, we want the government to formally support key projects for the upgrading of port assets and the development of equipment, taking into account, of course, the climatic and environmental challenges of this particular section of the St. Lawrence River.

The motion thus clearly states the key role that the port plays in Quebec City's economy. The people here are well aware of it. The Quebec City region is an important part of the marine and port infrastructure of both Quebec and Canada as a whole. The Port of Québec's facilities are among the largest in the country and it handles a very large amount of traffic.

The Port of Québec is unique in that the deep waters that surround it and its strategic location between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean allow it to accommodate different types of ships and provide a wide variety of services. Generally speaking, it is very competitive in the market. It is also the only deep-water port along the St. Lawrence with a multi-modal transportation system.

On average, the Port of Québec generates $3.6 million a year in profit and provides the region with $786 million in economic spinoffs. It also pays $163 million in taxes a year. The port generates a lot of revenue, and approximately 100,000 direct and indirect jobs are related to its activities.

Unfortunately, the Port of Québec's infrastructure is currently in disrepair and in urgent need of upgrades. The current facilities are exposed to particularly harsh weather conditions, a factor which helps explain the great need for investments in this port's infrastructure.

According to Mario Girard, president and CEO of the Quebec Port Authority, $150 million in investments would be needed to bring the port facilities up to standard. If the port infrastructure is not modernized soon, we run the risk of losing a number of contracts to U.S. ports, which would not benefit anyone here.

The problem is that the Port of Québec does not generate enough revenue to maintain its infrastructure and develop new infrastructure. The port does not have the means to finance the necessary work to remain competitive.

The marine sector is essential to the economy in many Canadian cities, a number of which are in my riding in fact. Despite this importance to our economy, the means for funding the marine sector are relatively limited. There is no real liquidity, businesses have a low borrowing capacity and there are no real subsidy programs specific to the ports.

In that context, it is excessively difficult, if not impossible for ports to proceed with the upgrades needed to maintain their current facilities and develop new infrastructure and modern equipment. Currently, the Port of Québec is operating at almost full capacity, which is far from a bad thing.

However, as I said, it is impossible for the port to invest in its own infrastructure to renew itself, which is going to greatly hinder its ability to seize all the business opportunities that open up on the domestic and international markets. To a government that is so concerned about the economy and that expects our businesses to be competitive, this situation should seem unacceptable to everyone.

To try to generate new revenues, the Port of Québec would like to make several major investments, including the construction of a deep water wharf in Beauport for liquid bulk, a new grain silo to be located in Pointe-à-Carcy, the modernization of solid bulk storage equipment and finally, updating the Louise Basin, a rather large basin in the Quebec City area.

These projects, which are very important to ensuring the long-term viability of the Port of Québec, would cost a total of around $250 million, much of which would be covered by private investments. That is important to emphasize. Entrepreneurs in the Quebec City region are prepared to invest in modernizing the port infrastructure. However, we cannot move forward on it without a clear commitment from this government, as called for by the motion before us here today.

I would like to share the comments of Marc Dulude, executive vice-president of IMTT Québec, a company specializing in liquid bulk. He said recently that the business community of Quebec City is prepared to contribute financially to the modernization of Quebec City's port facilities, but he also urged the government do its share.

This represents equitable cost sharing. I think everyone should contribute to this port facility, which is very important not only to the Province of Quebec, but to the entire country. Without government investments, our crumbling port infrastructure could continue to hinder commercial development, particularly that of the Atlantic gateway. Tourism, which is very important to Quebec, could also be negatively affected.

In 2011, the Port of Québec expected 20,000 fewer tourists than in 2010. In that context, the lack of federal investment in port infrastructure is very troubling, no matter what anyone says in this House. If the government insists on maintaining the status quo, the infrastructure will only continue to deteriorate.

For several months now, the NDP has been calling for more investment in Canada's infrastructure, since much of our aging infrastructure needs to be updated. We believe that investments in infrastructure must be at the heart of any strategy for Canada's economic recovery. Any projects to repair and update our infrastructure would create many new jobs, which could help maintain and develop Canada's economic vitality.

For that reason, the NDP wants to encourage the development and renewal of Quebec City's port facilities. I hope that the government is willing to work with us to that end. The government's support is vital to the completion of the work required to ensure the sustainability of the Port of Québec's infrastructure. However, I have some concerns. In various negotiations with local stakeholders, the government has not been very flexible. I hope that things will soon change. I mention this fact because, in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, the municipality of Portneuf has been involved for more than two years in negotiations with Transport Canada on the future of the Portneuf wharf, the country's longest deep water wharf.

This facility is very important to the region because of its recreation and tourism activities and the revenue that the wharf will generate for Portneuf and the neighbouring municipalities. The town is trying to purchase the wharf to further develop the economy. If unable to gain ownership of the infrastructure, the town would be willing to accept government guarantees that the public would continue to have access to the wharf and that it would be renovated. Negotiations were broken off by Transport Canada because of the need for significant repairs to the wharf.

I hope that this situation will not have an impact on the current activities of the Port of Québec. We must invest more in our infrastructure and improve the economy of the region of Quebec City and all the neighbouring municipalities. I hope the government will support this motion.

[Language of Work in Quebec, March 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday this House failed Quebeckers who count on their elected representatives to protect their fundamental right to work in the language of their choice in their own province. The Conservatives voted against our bill, the purpose of which was to protect the French language in enterprises subject to federal regulation in Quebec. That was to be expected, given how little respect they exhibit for francophones. Yesterday, they once again proved that promoting French is of no importance to them. Their phantom puppet committee on French is just a smokescreen.

The Conservatives were not the only ones who turned their backs on Quebeckers yesterday. The Liberals did the same, and even the Bloc members lost their reason for being here. New Democrats are the only ones working for Quebeckers and taking concrete action to protect French. Quebeckers can count on the NDP to protect their French language and stand up for their interests. They can also count on our team to replace the Conservatives and form the next government, a government for all Canadians.

[Infrastructure, February 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I will ask my question again. The Minister of Transport is unable to provide a clear answer on the future of the Portneuf wharf. At first, he referred the municipality to the port divestiture program. Now the minister is telling us all the funding in the program has been allocated. Clearly, he has no idea any more what strategy to use to get rid of the wharf, which is essential to tourism and business in the region.

Will he finally be straight with people? What does the minister think the future has in store for the Portneuf wharf?

[Infrastructure, February 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Minister Lebel is unable to provide a clear answer on the future of the Portneuf wharf.

[Senate Reform Act, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, that is a hypothetical situation and therefore I do not think I can address it appropriately. The first step is to ask Canadians what they want. Based on the response, we can look at scenarios and establish the steps to be taken. For the time being, I remain in favour of abolishing the Senate.

[Senate Reform Act, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for the question. This problem will not really change the current undemocratic situation in the Senate. Holding provincial senatorial elections and then giving the Prime Minister the final say will not change the current situation. Quite the contrary. I touched on this in my speech. It remains an arbitrary decision. People will still be rewarded for what they have done for the government or for the Prime Minister, and they will have no loyalty toward their fellow Canadians. Furthermore, when we start electing senators, partisanship will taint the work of senators, and that will prevent them from properly representing their regions.

[Senate Reform Act, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I am not at all surprised by this question regarding a clear majority, which is one of his favourite topics. If I were him, I would avoid this topic, since it has sometimes gotten him into hot water in Quebec, but let us not dwell on that.

To answer his question, I suggested that we not open a constitutional debate right away, but that we simply put the question to Canadians. So, before we pass this bill or even think about any reforms, we need to see where Canadians stand on this and hear their opinions on that institution. That is the first step I am proposing.