Ève Péclet

[Fair Elections Act, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, investigations by the Chief Electoral Officer will no longer necessarily be a priority. This is like taking away the RCMP's power to investigate Criminal Code offences.

Not only will the Chief Electoral Officer no longer be transparently and democratically accountable to Parliament, but he also will no longer be able to talk about potential investigations or fraudulent activities. He is being stripped of not only his integrity, but also his freedom of expression.

[Fair Elections Act, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if the government really wanted our opinion and that of the Chief Electoral Officer, it would have consulted us before introducing the bill.

We made some proposals, we had some motions adopted and my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth introduced a bill before Parliament. Unfortunately, the Conservatives will not listen to anyone else. I am sorry, but that is no excuse.

The member asked me a question, so I would like him to listen to my answer. The Chief Electoral Officer himself has even said that he laments the loss of his freedom of expression.

Why is it that he will no longer be allowed to speak to the media or inform the public about an investigation into fraudulent activities? Why is the government no longer allowing the freedom of expression of an impartial, democratic institution?

[Fair Elections Act, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-23.

To begin, I would like to point out that as soon as the minister introduced his bill, all potential for non-partisan debate went out the window. I will explain why.

The minister is trying to justify the relevance and validity of his bill by casting doubt on the impartiality of a democratic institution that is accountable to Parliament and that, by its very existence and creation, must be impartial.

When the minister said that the Chief Electoral Officer should not wear a team jersey, that not only made Canadians question whether there are some flaws in the bill, but it also made them question the impartiality of the electoral system as a whole.

It is unacceptable that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is treating Canadians and our democratic and electoral institutions so condescendingly.That is no way for a minister to act. Despite my respect for him, I want to make my point because a minister must show respect for our institutions, not attack them.

After hearing the minister's comments, the Chief Electoral Officer gave this response:

Listen, the only team jersey that I think I'm wearing—if we have to carry the analogy—I believe is the one with the stripes, white and black. What I know from this bill is that no longer will the referee be on the ice.

This bill should be making the electoral system more democratic and transparent. My speech will demonstrate that, instead, it will completely destroy all of our institutions. I acknowledge that the bill includes some interesting points that we do not object to. I will not talk about those aspects, however, because I believe my colleagues have already done a good job of highlighting them.

Canadians deserve better. The Conservative Party's problem is that it has lost Canadians' trust. The record of its nine years in power goes something like this: in and out scandal, fraudulent calls, Senate scandals. The people of Canada and Quebec no longer trust this government.

This bill once again shows that the Conservatives have absolutely no intention of improving our democratic system or making our institutions more transparent. As the official opposition, it is our duty to highlight the flaws in the Conservatives' bill.

The minister can rhyme off all the statistics he wants. His job was to consult the opposition parties and the Chief Electoral Officer. Statistics Canada does not give him licence to hide or shirk his responsibilities.

Let us not forget that there was a cabinet shuffle. We have been waiting for this bill for two years. It is finally here, but there was no consultation. The minister can try to have us believe that there was. That is true, but I do not think he engaged in the type of consultation that should have been done to make such radical and important changes to such a fundamental aspect of our Canadian democracy as our electoral system. I do not need to tell you how extremely important this is.

In 2015, I know that Canadians and Quebeckers are going to vote for change and kick out this government that is worn down by fraud and scandals. This bill shows that the government cannot even let people decide for themselves anymore. They want to control the Chief Electoral Officer and Canadians. It is atrocious. I am outraged as I stand before the government to tell Canadians that it is time for a change.

Unfortunately, the government is refusing once again to allow Canadians to decide for themselves. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform tells us that young people do not vote, which is true. He shared statistics showing that fewer and fewer young people have been voting in recent years.

Why, then, prevent a democratic institution known by all Canadians from encouraging people to exercise their right to vote?

None of the minister's statistics can justify this measure. This is nothing but nonsense and lies, because the fundamental role of Elections Canada is to encourage people to vote, to exercise their right to vote.

Why are the Conservatives taking away Elections Canada's investigative powers? They are not happy with how Elections Canada's decisions and investigations have affected them. It is as simple as that. They can say that my speech was lacking facts and statistics, but there are no facts or statistics to justify this bill and this reform of the electoral system.

Every time I rise in this House, my colleagues accuse me of being too partisan and not presenting any actual facts in my speech. That is the only thing they can find to fault me for, because there are no facts or statistics that justify taking away the Commissioner of Canada Elections' investigative powers.

No matter what they say, they cannot justify that the Commissioner of Canada Elections will no longer be part of an independent democratic institution, but will instead be under the Attorney General of Canada. The government appoints the Attorney General of Canada. That is fine, but why take an impartial investigative body that was transparent, democratic and accountable to Parliament and have it report to the Attorney General, who is appointed by the government? Is there a reason that is not ideological and completely partisan?

We have known for a long time that the government really likes to emulate the underhanded tactics of the Republican Party in the United States. Several Conservative members are enrolling in Karl Rove's summer school. Karl Rove is George W. Bush's American strategist, known for his master strokes in committing election fraud. Perhaps it is time to let go of the “Rovian” ideology that brought our Pierre Poutine into the world.

I will not talk about the team jersey, as did the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who is trying to make us believe that there are plots everywhere. We must look at the Prime Minister's Office first, because that is where the plots come from.

Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley said that striking at the integrity of the electoral process by attempting to dissuade voters from casting ballots for their preferred candidates is a form of vote suppression. The Conservatives can go ahead and call me names and say that I have no evidence. That is what they are doing.

I would simply like to ask Canadians who are watching today to understand that the sole intent of this partisan piece of legislation is to favour the Conservatives. Regardless of the statistics the Conservatives might get from Statistics Canada, those numbers cannot in any way justify the destruction of a democratic and transparent institution.

[Democratic Reform, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we already know that this bill will pave the way for the return of big money to our electoral system.

One proposal that is a little strange would allow candidates to give more money to themselves, and that amount will be higher than what another Canadian can donate.

How does the minister justify the clause that allows candidates to donate $5,000 to themselves, which is three times the maximum that other people can give?

[Democratic Reform, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, despite what the Minister of State for Democratic Reform would have us believe, the power to compel witnesses to appear does exist in our system. Parliamentary committees and even the Competition Bureau have this right.

Why does the minister not think it is necessary to give the Commissioner of Canada Elections this power?

[Petitions, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition with over 650 signatures. It is important to note that, because over 75% of the extractive sector companies in the world are Canadian, because of the serious violations uncovered over the past few years, and because Canada is a country that promotes respect for human rights, it is our duty to implement better mechanisms to protect all people from these violations.

This petition calls on the government to create a legislated ombudsman mechanism for Canada's mining sector who would have the power to investigate complaints, assess compliance with international corporate accountability standards, make public its findings, and most importantly, recommend remedial actions for companies that violate basic human rights.

[Ethics, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives really need to stop taking Canadians for fools.

David van Hemmen, Nigel Wright's former executive assistant, was defended by the law firm Carroll & Wallace in the Senate expense scandal. He was tossed out of the Prime Minister's Office in August 2013, but is now serving as a policy advisor in the office of the Minister of State for Finance.

Exactly why did the Privy Council Office hire the law firm Carroll & Wallace to defend Mr. van Hemmen between May 13 and August 30, 2013?

[Ethics, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the issue of how the Senate scandal was managed, and more specifically to David van Hemmen.

Can the Prime Minister or his parliamentary secretary confirm that Nigel Wright's former executive assistant had absolutely no knowledge of the agreement to pay back Mike Duffy's illegal expense claims, either through the party or his boss, who was none other than the Prime Minister's chief of staff?

[Election of Committee Chairs, January 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to debate Motion No. 431, which was moved by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

I would like to provide some background. This motion proposes that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs consider the election of committee chairs by means of a preferential ballot system by all the members of the House of Commons.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), committee chairs are currently, and according to tradition, chosen by the committee members.

However, we know that in practice, members do not necessarily have much say in that choice and committee chairs are chosen by the party, the Prime Minister's Office and the whip's office. We need to ensure that the chairs can act impartially and with sound judgment because those are the qualities they must have.

This system has been in place since 2002 and has drawn little criticism. We therefore have never really talked about how electing chairs works.

That is why we are in favour of this motion to consider the system used to elect parliamentary committee chairs.

We support this motion because we think it is a good idea to study new ways to make Parliament's processes more democratic and transparent.

The NDP is strongly in favour of any initiative that would improve transparency. That is supremely important.

As an aside, I would like to say that successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have failed dismally when it comes to upholding transparent and democratic practices.

Later on, I will explain what kind of reform Parliament needs to increase transparency and improve our democracy.

My constituents in La Pointe-de-l'Île expect parliamentarians here in the House to have the highest standards when it comes to transparency and accountability. They expect us to employ the best possible practices when it comes to democracy.

I think this is an issue of vital importance, which is why we support such a study.

However, we have to be careful, because as we know, the devil is often in the details. Some aspects must absolutely be studied. Yes, a general study is being done, but we also need to consider respect for gender equality among committee chairs, as well as the list of committees whose chair positions are reserved for the opposition.

The existing appointment process generally tends to promote the principle of gender equality, which is extremely important. During the study, it will be important to ensure that by removing the influence of the whips and the PMO, the election of committee chairs by all members of the House will not put women at a disadvantage.

I think we all can agree that gender equality within this Parliament is an extremely important issue, and that as parliamentarians, we must ensure that men and women are represented equally on committees and in chair positions.

However, we must also ensure that the opposition retains the major role it plays, under the Standing Orders, in chairing committees.

These two extremely important aspects are part of a fair representation of women, the opposition and the diversity of this Parliament in the chairmanship of committees. This study should cover that.

The study should also consider the voting system, among other things. It should address the methods used for voting. For example, would the vote be by secret ballot? For now, preferential voting is being proposed, but is that the best voting system for our Canadian parliamentary situation, composition, the way we operate, and our traditions?

My colleague already mentioned the study conducted by the British Parliament, following an expenses scandal in 2009 involving British MPs. A committee on House of Commons reform was struck to determine the approach to rebuilding and especially how to restore public confidence. I would like to share with the House the findings of that committee, including those on committee chairs.

The committee recommended that the chairs of government committees and select committees be elected directly by secret ballot by all members by using preferential voting. It suggested that the distribution for each individual chair be established by the parties ahead of time based on a proportional division submitted by the Speaker of the House and presented for leave by the House. It said that committee chair candidates must obtain a minimum of support within their party, just as they must be free to give their support to any candidate.

That is what the committee on reform in Britain's House of Commons concluded. Our Parliament is not the only one that has asked this question. It is important to do so, but we must respect Canadian traditions, gender equality and, most of all, the representation of diversity within this Parliament. We are talking about the opposition, the government, and so on.

The NDP supports this motion. However, as an aside, I want to point out that some other parliamentary reforms could have been examined, in the interests of everyone here, of democracy, of transparency and, therefore, of all Canadians.

For example, we could have considered a more effective question period, with stricter accountability rules for ministers when they answer questions, to ensure that the government cannot simply respond with repetitive talking points.

I have attended question periods in many other parliaments around the world, so I can say that the answers given by our ministers during question period would be considered unparliamentary in many other parliaments. There is work to be done.

We could also limit the overuse of in camera committee meetings to increase transparency, democracy and public access to the work of Parliament. I could also mention the members, especially government members, who use their members' statements to make personal attacks. That is not what is set out in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Furthermore, the use of time allocation motions could also be reviewed.

All of these things could be examined in order to increase transparency, accountability and democracy in the House.

[Ethics, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister inform Nigel Wright of his position on the plausible deniability doctrine before or after Nigel Wright wrote a $90,000 cheque to Mike Duffy?