Ève Péclet

[Senate Reform Act, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that the will of the people will rule.

[Senate Reform Act, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-7.

It is important to state that this bill does not make senators accountable. Regardless of whether they are elected or not, they will not have to keep any of their election promises, knowing that their term is not renewable. That is one of the major problems with the Senate. Under the Constitution, the role of the Senate is to represent people, as we are doing today in the House of Commons. I am representing the people in my riding, La Pointe-de-l'Île. I must admit, I have never attended a debate or consideration of a bill in the Senate, but I am certain that no senator ever rises to go against the will of his or her political party and vote against something in order to defend the interests of the people in the Maritimes, for example, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North was saying. Senators have never represented the people they are meant to represent.

This bill does not resolve the biggest problem, which is that the Senate has become a political battleground to which the elected government appoints its cronies, its financial contributors or anyone else who has accomplished some obscure task. Senators will not be any more accountable.

What is more, the bill was supposed to correct those things that people and the Prime Minister himself have often complained about when it comes to the Senate, namely that senators should be elected. The Prime Minister has said himself that he would never again appoint an unelected senator. After the May 2, 2011, election he appointed three defeated Conservative candidates. I, personally, do not trust him. I do not think that Canadians are going to trust a Prime Minister who says one thing but does the complete opposite after the election because he won a majority in the House of Commons.

Then the bill gives the impression that senators will be elected. But as my colleague pointed out earlier, it may be that an individual will be elected, and that individual may also be appointed by the Prime Minister, but we cannot be certain. This means the provinces will spend money to hold elections and submit names to the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister will keep the arbitrary power of appointing his own personal choice. I think we all agree that the bill, which seeks to have senators elected, does not really achieve its objective. That power remains with the Prime Minister. It is still an arbitrary and undemocratic power. The Prime Minister is under no obligation to respect the will of Canadians. We are well aware that, for this government, respecting the will of Canadians remains a rather vague and fuzzy principle that has yet to be defined.

All this to say that, personally, I think the government has failed miserably with this bill. It gets a 0 out of 10. I realize the Conservatives must keep certain tools at their disposal, but my party is in favour of abolishing the Senate.

As for the Senate itself, its mandate under the Constitution, which is to generally represent the population of a region, has never been respected. Instead, it is a political battleground to which the government appoints its friends to reward them.

We are talking about Senate reform, but there is currently no system allowing the House of Commons and the Senate to work in harmony. For example, in the United States, the institutions that fill the role of the Senate and of the House of Commons work in harmony. There is a system which determines how these institutions work together. For example, if senators were elected, who would have more power? Would it be the House of Commons or the Senate? How are we going to determine the way bills will be passed, and who is going to review them? What about amendments? Things will be exactly like in the United States. Bills will be blocked and it is going to take months before they can be passed. Even if we were to reform the Senate, it would be impossible to have harmony—and a system that works—between the House of Commons and the Senate.

Even if we reform the Senate, the House of Commons and the Senate cannot work in harmony. We do not have a system. It is not in Canada's parliamentary tradition. Therefore, abolishing the Senate is the solution. It would be impossible, especially with this bill, to solve all the problems of the Senate. Even if the government came up with a new proposal for reforming the Senate, it would not work. It would completely skew Canada's democracy. People are elected to the House of Commons. We, here, represent the people.

Bill C-7 does not make the Senate democratic, not in the least. Senators would purportedly be elected by the provinces, which will spend money on these elections, and then the government would retain the arbitrary power to appoint whomever it wants. None the problems with the Senate the Prime Minister has identified will be solved by this bill. It is wrong to say that passing Bill C-7 will make the Senate democratic.

How would we decide which house has the most power to pass legislation? A bill passed by the majority, or even unanimously, in the House of Commons could be rejected by the Senate. Voters in my riding could ask me to vote for a bill, which would be passed by the House of Commons and then rejected by the Senate. It will not work. It is undemocratic. The solution is to abolish the Senate. That is how we can solve the problems.

[Senate Reform Act, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, under the Canadian Constitution, Canadians gave the Senate a role of regional representation in order to increase representation of the Atlantic provinces, given that they are in the minority in the House of Commons. The problem is that that objective has never been met. In fact, there is no regional representation. What we have instead is a political game where the government appoints its friends.

What does this bill propose to ensure that the role of the Senate is respected? Does this bill really resolve all the problems with the Senate?

[Air Canada, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the City of Montreal decided to fight to keep Air Canada's headquarters by unanimously passing a motion calling for direct action. We are talking about 140 jobs that are very important to Montreal's economy, particularly since the city just lost hundreds of jobs with the closure of the Mabe and AstraZeneca plants. The fact that the headquarters is located in Montreal also plays a vital role in ensuring that Air Canada provides services in French.

Will the government and this minister decide to take action in order to help Montreal keep good jobs and protect bilingualism at Air Canada?

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, in fact, I heard the hon. member say in his speech that our communities are in constant danger because of the resurgence of firearms and street gangs. I am sorry, but what the member is telling us is that the weapons owned by members of street gangs are not registered weapons. So that is not relevant. It is really just an argument to try to justify an extreme right-wing Conservative policy.

Second, the hon. member was talking about the crime rate among street gangs. We know full well that the crime rate in Canada has been on the downturn for several years. Once again, this argument does not hold water.

Third, I would agree with the hon. member and say that we do have rules in our society, but we should not have to get rid of the ones that the Conservatives' little friends are unhappy with and do not want to follow. This is yet another argument that does not hold water.

Fourth—

[Government Priorities, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he does not want to reopen the abortion debate, but that is exactly what the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt is doing. The Prime Minister has also said that he does not want to reopen the debate on the death penalty but, just yesterday, a Conservative senator did exactly the opposite. If the Prime Minister really wants to reopen debates, here are a few suggestions: seniors living in poverty; large corporations that accept indiscriminate tax cuts, lock out their employees and do not even create jobs in Canada; and old age pensions. There is no shortage of topics on which the government could reopen debate, debates that Canadians really want to hear in this House.

Unlike this government, whose policies are completely unrealistic and out of touch, the NDP has Canadians' interests at heart.

[Air Canada, November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on November 7 Air Canada decided to move its head office to Brampton, Ontario. This move will force over 140 employees to choose between moving their families and losing their jobs. There is a good chance most of them will choose to remain in Montreal, which could make it very difficult for Air Canada employees to obtain services in French.

Will the minister enforce the law stipulating that Air Canada's head office must be located in Montreal, and will he protect bilingualism within Air Canada?

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that, to add insult to injury, we have heard the members complaining loudly about opposition members. They are telling us that we lack respect for Canadians when, in fact, they are not even taking the current debate seriously.

What happened in Australia when the Australian wheat board was dismantled? The price of wheat dropped and farmers, who previously received $99 a tonne for their wheat, were getting only $27 a tonne. We are thus well aware that small-scale farmers cannot compete against big business, so—

[Campaign Financing, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party pleaded guilty to election fraud in the amount of $1.3 million. The party had to pay a $52,000 fine. And yet the Conservatives referred to this as a victory. Really? A victory? Certainly, the fine is not that big a deal for a party that kept $187,000 in illegal rebates from Canadian taxpayers.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands' campaign received $1,900 in illegal rebates. The hon. member still owes Canadians this money. The hon. member for Beauce's campaign owes Canadian taxpayers $3,000. The campaign of the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière and that of the Minister of Veterans Affairs each owe Canadian taxpayers $14,000.

Taxpayers should never have to foot the bill for politics. The Prime Minister must ensure that every penny that was taken from taxpayers is given back to them immediately.

[Natural Resources, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are in Washington to tell Americans that the majority of Canadians want natural resources to be developed in a sustainable manner.

Both the environment and thousands of jobs are at risk. Several refineries have already closed their doors in Montreal East resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs, especially in my riding. The facts are there and speak for themselves. Now the government wants to export thousands of jobs outside the country. That is exactly what will happen with the Keystone project.

When will this government prepare a plan for the sustainable development of Canadian resources and the accompanying jobs?