Ève Péclet

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague concluded his speech by saying that he is looking for support from all political parties. It is important to note that, during the previous Parliament, all political parties reached an agreement after the Conservatives made a number of amendments to the bill to ensure unanimous support. Because the Conservatives had a minority at the time, refusing to negotiate was not really an option. Now they know that they have a majority, so the first thing they did with the bill before us today was take out all of the changes and amendments that the other parties asked for. And now they want our support.

If the government wants support from all parties, can the member tell us why it is refusing to include the amendments we proposed, which it included before? Why did the government decide to use its majority to get a bill passed without negotiating with the parties?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on two things. First, in her riding, has she met any people who have talked to her about this bill? Has she had any feedback on it? Does anybody in her riding have something to say about this issue?

I would like her to give examples of this. I know that my hon. colleague works on a lot of issues for the NDP, and I would like to congratulate her on the good work that she does.

Second, I would like her to talk about the fact that the minister can determine whether a country is considered dangerous or not. Under this bill, the minister will be able to determine which countries’ inhabitants can truly be considered refugees.

[Air Service Operations Legislation, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about investing in families and broadening our perspective, or looking at the big picture. I will ask the member opposite these questions. What about future generations? What about working conditions and pensions? Is this really the best approach? Does the government have the right to say to workers that they will no longer be entitled to better working conditions, and to tell young people my age—I am 23 years old—that they will not have the right later on to work and have stability with a good pension? Is that the broader perspective the government is talking about? Is the government trying to give us a lesson on the economy and economic recovery?

Last week, the Minister of Finance said that Canada is number one in the world for investment. Did the government invent an economic crisis in order to do what it has wanted to do for a long time, that is, cut Air Canada services? We know full well that it has wanted to cut pensions and working conditions for a long time. The government has no lessons to give to anyone today—

[Air Service Operations Legislation, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a few words to the hon. member.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: …

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly;

(d) freedom of association.

We know very well that paragraphs 2 (c) and 2 (d), and even 2 (b), refer to union rights.

Under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, rights can sometimes be subject to limits that can be justified in a free and democratic society.

Could the hon. member tell us how the government is blithely violating the rights of workers and unions, and whether it has any right to do so in our free and democratic society?

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to all my constituents for the comments made by the parliamentary secretary. It is up to them, and not the hon. parliamentary secretary, to decide whether or not I am doing a good job. They voted for me, and it will be up to them to decide in four years.

I am sorry, but the Conservative Party has already been found guilty of electoral fraud. It already has to pay back $230,000 of taxpayers' money to Elections Canada. When it comes to electoral fraud, the Conservative Party is in no position to preach to the other parties and other members in the House.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my speech by saying that if some Conservative members were insulted, that was not at all my intention and I apologize. I did not insult anyone. I insulted the government as a whole.

I would simply like to say that if the government really wants to maintain any credibility with Canadians, all it has to do is give Elections Canada the power to conduct investigations. Then we will see what happens next.

I now leave the floor to my colleagues, if they wish to ask me any questions.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

I am sorry, but I have the right to speak. I will speak as I wish in the House and no Conservative will tell me how to speak and what to say. It is the last straw, to tell me how to speak. I speak here on behalf of Canadians, of the people from my riding. If I want to shout at injustice and at this government’s failure to act, I will do it today, in this House. I am sorry, but if I want to shout and tell the government members that they are completely incoherent, that they have committed election fraud, that they have broken our electoral system...

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take the floor today, and I want to say to the people here present, and those watching on CPAC, how totally absurd the Conservatives' discourse has been for several days now. Unfortunately, I greatly appreciate many of them outside this chamber. They are very nice individuals. However, when it comes time to defend the errors and wild imaginings that go on here, they put the blame on the Liberals.

One hon. member asked a question and said that the Liberals had done the same thing. I have the real impression of being back in the high school recreation yard, with “Same to you!” going back and forth. It is completely absurd. The Conservatives’ rhetoric is completely incoherent. They are ridiculing so important a situation as this, which in daily life affects the fundamental human rights contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Day after day, they are laughing in the face of Canadians and those members who are doing their job here. It is truly intolerable.

It is important today to point out the deep roots of the word “democracy”. Its etymology is derived from the word “demos”, which means people, and “kratos”, which means sovereignty. So in fact, democracy is a political system founded on the principle that sovereignty belongs to all the citizens, who can express themselves through universal suffrage. All western societies are familiar with this basic principle, whatever electoral system they have. It is part of the very foundations of our society.

When the right to vote, fundamental rights, elections and the political system of a country are violated, what can work in that country? As a law student, I always admired democratic institutions. I have always fought for people’s fundamental rights. Today we hear the government’s watchdog barking in question period that the Liberals should provide evidence that they are not the ones who made calls. Why would they have made calls so that their own members would not be elected? Frankly, this is totally incoherent.

The NDP made calls in Quebec to tell people not to go and vote for the NDP? Frankly, this is totally incoherent. It is clear here that the Conservatives are running in circles, chasing their own tails, as my colleague was saying, and no longer know what to say to justify the scandal that is now blowing up in their faces.

Canadians expect the electoral process to be honest and reliable. An honest process means respect for the law. It is important that full light be shed on this scandal. If the Conservatives had nothing to do with it and are absolutely sure that there was no election fraud, why do they continue to hide behind responses that are totally absurd and accusations that have no foundation whatsoever?

They say the Liberals are making unfounded accusations, but they are doing exactly the same thing. They should stop running in circles, answer the questions and do the job for which they were elected by Canadians, instead of doing what they think they ought to do. It is very clear: Canadians have the right to know. Every day the Conservatives say they want to protect future generations, and that is exactly what the NDP motion does. It protects the democratic system for future generations; it protects the electoral system for future elections.

They come every day to this chamber claiming they want to protect old age security for future generations, but that would surprise me. What is more, they say they want to protect future generations and the economy, but then when we try to change the laws so that things as fundamental as the electoral system are respected, they want nothing to do with it. This is completely intolerable.

Then when they come back to us in question period talking about future generations, about protecting young people, I do not believe them, Canadians do not believe them anymore, it is all false. I hope that the government will take our motion into consideration and vote in favour of it. Then, they will perhaps be able to say that they really do want to protect our electoral system, our democracy and our future generations. We will see what happens next Monday, when members vote on our motion. Will the government vote for it? And more importantly, will they take it into account and implement it?

When they talk about a higher voter turnout, I would like to draw attention to the fact that, comparatively speaking, voter turnout in Canada is lower than it is in many other countries. We have heard a number of Conservative MPs say that the rate of participation has increased. However, we are one of the western countries with the lowest voter turnout rate, particularly among young people. It is a fact. I do not want to compare Canada with other countries, but I would just like to say that the mere fact that there has been a slight increase in voter turnout does not justify the Conservatives' refusal to give more power to the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada. In any case, this argument has no significance here. We are one of the countries with the lowest voter turnout rate, especially among young people.

It is important today to make a decision for future generations, to protect our democratic system and especially to stop people from losing confidence in this House. We are all here for the same reason; we are all here to represent Canadians. It does not matter whether you are in the government or in the official opposition. That does not change the reason why we are here, which is to defend the interests of Canadians, to protect our Constitution and our democracy. I am completely outraged today to see the Conservatives trying to make the Liberals and the NDP take the blame, when they should be here for the same reason: to protect our democracy and our electoral system.

It is obvious that if they vote against the motion, it shows that they are not here to do that. I am really looking forward to finding out what questions they will ask me. We will find out what their position is. I invite them to ask me questions and to tell me whether they are going to support our motion, whether they are going to support our democracy and our electoral system. We will see when I have finished my speech.

We also know, according to the government, that we are either with them or against them. We know that, for this government, a good idea is an American idea. We know just how perfect the Americans are, and that Canada should try and imitate them because their country is so wonderful. The Conservatives completely neglect everything that Canadians have accomplished in our country and that makes us the most wonderful country in the world. I am so proud to say this, and to say that I come from the most beautiful province in the country, Quebec.

We know that several Conservatives are enrolling in Karl Rove's summer school. Everybody knows who Karl Rove is. He is one of George W. Bush's greatest American strategists, known for his master strokes. So, let us all go to class and learn how to rig the election in Canada! It is time to let go of the ideological “Rovian” vote that brought the Canadian Pierre Poutine into the world, leave behind underhand political tactics, and take a stand against election fraud.

If there has been no election fraud, why did the Conservatives refuse to participate in any investigations? Why did they try and blame the opposition parties? Why not simply hand over powers to the Chief Electoral Officer? He will conduct his investigation and discover that there was no fraud. That would be fine. So why refuse that? It is especially hilarious that, every day, this government comes and beats us over the head with its tough on crime ideology: follow the law, put criminals in prison, do this, do that, spend money to build prisons. Yet, when it comes to something as fundamental as our democratic system, they say no, that is not possible, and that Elections Canada has the powers it needs. They do not want to give Elections Canada any more power.

Why? I do not know. We will probably never know unless the Conservatives decide to give this power to the Chief Electoral Officer, so that he can conduct his investigation. It is at that point that the government will be able to truly say that it is transparent, open, and tough on crime.

I would like to talk about a week in the life of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister ; it is hugely exciting. The parliamentary secretary has stated on several occasions that there is no evidence that fraudulent calls were made to voters in the last election. Yet, in addition to the evidence sent by the NDP to Elections Canada, 31,000 people contacted Elections Canada. Is the parliamentary secretary denying the participation of these 31,000 people? Is he saying that these 31,000 people lied and that the opposition parties concocted the whole scandal? Is that really what he is telling us? Throughout the week, all of my colleagues and I have been accused of conducting a smear campaign. Can the parliamentary secretary rise and say to these 31,000 Canadians and to many others in a dozen ridings that they are liars and that they never received these calls?

Is he prepared to rise and tell the House now that Canadians are liars and they have made this up? That is truly absurd. He is not going to do it because he knows very well that there has been election fraud and there has to be an investigation. But when will Elections Canada be able to get the powers it needs? That is the question the government is being asked. A motion has been brought forward today to do that and I sincerely hope the government is going to wake up.

The Prime Minister has said several times, elsewhere in the world, how democratic and just a society Canada is. That is true. I am genuinely proud to be part of this society, but I am going to be even prouder when the government passes our motion today and gives Elections Canada the justice it is calling for. Canadians are also entitled to have justice done.

The government is blaming Elections Canada. The member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin said he suspects that ultimately, if Elections Canada has the resources to carry out an adequate investigation, it will realize that it is itself largely responsible. The government is putting the blame on Elections Canada, on the opposition parties, on Canadians, but it is refusing to put the blame on itself.

I feel like I am in a schoolyard here. We are hearing things like “I know you are, but what am I?”, that we have no proof and so we cannot say anything. That is not how it works. We are adults and we are in the House of Commons. We represent Canadians. Can we not act accordingly and live up to our responsibilities?

You are the government. You have to enact laws. You have to make sure that justice is done. You have to make sure that Canadians have confidence in our Parliament, in our system of justice. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to you.

[Manufacturing Sector, March 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are repeat offenders. Once again, they are doing business with a Chinese company instead of giving contracts to Canadian businesses. The first contract was for maple leaf pins; this one is for Diamond Jubilee pins. Made in China. Really?

They had a golden opportunity to help a troubled economic sector, but they did not. Last year, 10,000 jobs were eliminated in Quebec's manufacturing sector. In the past 10 years, 150,000 jobs have been lost. Why not give a contract to a—

[Democratic Representation Act, March 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am in fact very pleased to rise today in this House and to tell all my colleagues, particularly those from Quebec, just how proud I am that we are able to stand up for Quebec's level of representation in our democratic system and champion the Quebec culture and what it brings to Canada from an historical standpoint.

Allow me to put things into context. As everybody knows, Bill C-20 was passed before Christmas. This brought Quebec's representation in this House from 24.35% to about 23%. In fact, the bill provided for the addition of seats in several provinces of Canada, which is quite legitimate, while reducing Quebec's political weight within the House of Commons.

For the Conservatives, who love to talk about laws and law enforcement, I would like to present an argument that has never been successfully challenged and that is still contemporary. It is very important to understand that the Supreme Court stated that, according to the Constitution, representation by population is a constitutional principle. However, this is not called into question at all by this bill. The governments, parliamentarians and legislators must also take into consideration historical and cultural criteria when it comes to the representation of members in this House.

For example, there was a debate on Bill C-7 regarding the selection of senators. I made a number of remarks when I rose to speak about that bill. I stated that the role that the Constitution conferred upon the Senate is one of regional representation. In fact, the Senate was created to enable the regions that had less weight in the House of Commons to be better represented in another chamber. But that was never achieved; it was never honoured. The idea, of course, was to ensure that rights are conferred upon our country's minorities, to some of its cultures and its peoples, in order that they may have a voice in our democratic system.

We have had to fight. The NDP had to fight to get the government to give Quebec more seats. We reminded the government that in 2006 it had passed a motion recognizing Quebec as an integral part of Canada while maintaining its nationhood status, in other words, that it is a distinct nation within a united Canada. The government was very clear about this. Yet, today, the government once again refuses to give Quebec the place it deserves within the House of Commons. The NDP and my colleague from Compton—Stanstead want to fight so that Quebeckers maintain the voice to which they are entitled in this House.

This bill does not render invalid the addition of other seats in other provinces: on the contrary. What does this do? It tells Quebeckers—in line with everything this government has claimed since it was elected in 2006—that Quebec has a place here, that it has the right to a percentage of representation. And we want it to keep that same percentage of representation, since the Government of Canada has itself recognized Quebec as a nation within Canada. That percentage is 24.35%. Bill C-20 reduces this percentage by a little more than one percentage point. But what are they thinking, on the government side? They are being asked for a little more than one percentage point. It is not as if we were asking for an increase from 24.35% to 50%. We are simply asking them to keep their word.

It is quite simple: let them keep the promise they made to all Quebeckers in 2006 when they recognized that Quebec is a nation. And the Supreme Court said in 1991 that consideration must be given to historical and cultural criteria when talking about democratic representation within Canada. So this is clear. I fail to understand why the government wants to flout these principles. It is clear, plain and specific. Quebec is a nation. The Conservatives recognized this in 2006. In 1991, the Supreme Court recognized that account must be taken of cultural and historical criteria. It is clear and specific, it is in our democracy and in our history, it is right there in front of them.

Once again, I hope that my colleagues in the government will vote in favour of this bill. If they do not, it will show that they are once again going to flout not only Quebeckers' and Canadians' desire to have democratic representation in the House, but also a Supreme Court ruling and principles that have been established for years.

The government is inconsistent in its actions. In 2006, it claimed that Quebec is a nation. Everyone was happy; we had been asking for this for a long time. Thank you very much. But right after that, we saw that respect for the French language in this Parliament completely collapsed. I am truly outraged today, for I am ashamed to see the government’s scorn of language rights. We saw this yesterday, when they refused to vote for a bill that would allow Quebeckers to work in certain federal institutions in their own province in compliance with their language rights.

The government is not even prepared to recognize this or to take action to help Quebeckers and ensure that the French language is respected. It claims that French is part of our country and our history, but that is where it ends. There is no action, no funding. The government claims that there will be a commission to examine the French language, but it has never been created, and no funds have been invested for that purpose. It will probably be created in 2014 or 2025, or who knows when. Perhaps it will never be created at all. Empty words.

Emptiness is what the government gives us. I hope that the Conservatives will wake up, give themselves a slap in the face and realize that it is time they recognize that Quebec is part of Canada. Even though Quebeckers refused to vote for the Conservatives, the Government of Canada is supposed to represent all Canadians. Whether in British Columbia, the Yukon or Quebec, it is supposed to respect the rights of all Canadians.