Ève Péclet

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there is a certain definition of a word that I am not going to repeat in the House, but it says that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is not the best thing to do.

We adopted an anti-terrorism act in 2001 that lapsed in 2007, which was reconstructed by the Conservatives in 2013, that included most of these measures, but we never used them once, from 2001 to 2007.

What more does this bill bring than what we already have under the Combating Terrorism Act? We have not used it, not even once.

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague.

There is one thing I do not understand, and I hope he will be able to clarify it for me. We have already discussed anti-terrorism measures. I gave a speech on that topic shortly after I was elected, when we were reviewing the provisions of part II.1 of the Criminal Code, which deals with preventive arrests and all of the measures concerning the Combating Terrorism Act.

At the time, if the government thought that the measures it had passed were not working, why did it not, in 2013, give the agencies the resources necessary to do their job?

There are existing laws in place, and the government is giving them more powers when it has not promised any funding. How can the organizations on the ground and the law enforcement agencies use the powers that already exist without resources? What good will it do them?

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

Under this bill, CSIS will now decide whether one of its planned operations could violate the law or the charter, which would oblige it to request a warrant from a judge.

However, the Federal Court has previously accused CSIS of not providing all the information required when requesting a warrant.

I would like to know what exact measures will be included in the bill to ensure that CSIS co-operates and provides all of the information so that this does not happen again.

[Official Languages, February 18th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville likes to lecture the Conservatives about using both official languages on Twitter.

In my opinion, he should have a look in his own backyard. As someone who claims to care about bilingualism, can he explain why his own party treats French as a second-rate language here in the House?

In 2014, barely 22% of the questions asked in the House by the Liberals were in French. Clearly the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville is better at lecturing than getting results. He is all talk and no action, just like the Conservatives, who appointed a unilingual Minister of Foreign Affairs, a unilingual Auditor General, and unilingual judges in just about every court.

Only the NDP takes the official languages seriously. Even though we are in opposition, we have advanced bilingualism, for example with our bill on officers of Parliament.

Imagine everything we will be able to accomplish when we form the government in 2015.

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, February 17th, 2015]

Yes, the Conservatives' one-size-fits-all solutions.

Would she like to comment on this kind of customized solution, rather than the one-size-fits-all solutions that are supposedly going to solve all the problems in our penitentiaries? That kind of solution does not work.

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, February 17th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague. I know she works very hard and is doing great work on the public safety file, so I commend her. She has my full confidence, when it comes to public safety studies.

The Conservatives often present us with nice, shiny solutions that apply to all kinds of situations. However, the situation in the correctional setting is extremely complex. Everyone knows this.

In fact, the Correctional Investigator has said in numerous reports that a simplistic solution would never work, because the problem is so complex.

Some of the reports my colleague mentioned indicate that the best system would have nothing to do with parole—since parole has nothing to do with the inmate population, and my colleague mentioned that—but rather an intake assessment system that would help ensure that programs were adapted to the needs of the people incarcerated in federal institutions.

Could my colleague talk about those kinds of customized solutions, rather than the Conservative solutions—

[Opposition Motion—Job Creation, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was coming to the House of Commons today, but I seem to have entered another dimension.

On the one hand, the Liberals, who reduced corporate taxes when they were in power, are now saying that that is a bad idea. On the other hand, the Conservatives are saying they will vote against our motion because the NDP voted against theirs.

Apart from the NDP, which is talking about concrete solutions, is any party really ready to stimulate the economy and help Canadians find work?

[Opposition Motion—Job Creation, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member tells a great story, and we can always find quotes going both ways. However, will the Liberals support our motion, yes or no? If not, what are their plans? Going to southern Ontario and telling manufacturers that it is long past due and that they should move on? What are their plans and will they support our motion?

[Rail Transportation, February 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, all the reports and experts are saying the same thing: the Conservative government needs to do more to prevent another rail disaster.

La Pointe-de-l'Île is a hub for the transport of dangerous goods, and my constituents are not at all reassured, given how the government is dragging its feet.

Can the minister assure us that Transport Canada has enough inspectors to enforce compliance by the rail companies that go through La Pointe-de-l'Île?

[Citizen Voting Act, February 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually quite surprised to hear that today. It seems obvious to me that the government should actually be encouraging all Canadian citizens to vote, not making their lives more difficult. It should not make voting even more complicated than it already is.

However, I think we need to know what would happen after an election. Say everything goes smoothly: a citizen registers to vote in the next federal election, which will take place in October 2015. That person has to go through the whole process all over again for subsequent elections, which are supposed to take place every four years.

How can the government say that it is complying with the court's ruling to give all Canadians living abroad the right to vote when it is actually making their lives difficult, not just once but two or three times over? These people might have to move to another country where there might not be a Canadian embassy nearby.

What kind of government makes Canadians' lives even more complicated and prevents them from voting instead of encouraging them to vote?