Françoise Boivin

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem doing that. It would be nice—and I dream of that day—if the Conservatives, or at least one of them, rose in the House to say that they realize that their bill is flawed and that they realize that a number of people do not entirely agree with what they are proposing. I dream of the day when, instead of being labelled enemies of power, we will be perceived as people who are trying to improve things.

We can all play games and list the number of people who side with us and agree with our way of thinking, but I think it is more productive to try to ensure that no one takes issue with what I am presenting. Some might say that is utopian and naive, but that is not true, not if we actively listen and do not turn a deaf ear to anything that did not come from our side.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as we sense the anticipation in the House moments before a minimalist budget is brought down, I am going to talk about the problem with this government, which I would describe as a serial offender, since it keeps making the same type of mistake.

We will support Bill C-15 because it is definitely in the interest of the people of the Northwest Territories. It is important to understand that the bill will re-write the constitution of the Northwest Territories.

Often people do not realize that the territories' situation is quite different from that of the provinces. In fact, the powers held by the territorial authorities are established through federal legislation. Over the decades, the federal government has transferred more powers to the territories, but they needed others and there were discussions.

Like my colleague from Vancouver East, I cannot say I am an expert on the matter. I am glad we have experts in our caucus because when the time comes to review these bills and study them, we rely heavily on our experts including the hon. member for Western Arctic, who has done tremendous work, and all the members of the committee who heard the various witnesses regarding this Bill C-15, for example, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, the hon. member for Manicouagan and the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

Like the hon. member for Vancouver East, I was particularly impressed to see that one meeting lasted nine hours. This allowed the committee to meet many people who will be affected by this type of bill.

I already rose in the House at second reading to speak to the bill. The thing that struck me at the time and that I still find amazing is that implementing this bill will require changes to 42 statutes including the Northwest Territories Act, the Territorial Lands Act, and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act.

Furthermore, at the November 28, 2013, meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the deputy minister confirmed that the bill would also amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and create an environmental review process for the Northwest Territories, except in the Inuvialuit settlement area. That is significant.

During debate at second reading, we had hoped that the Conservative government would listen and pay attention to the needs of the communities as well as the calls for amendments to the bill. I note that 11 amendments were proposed by the New Democratic Party, none by the Conservatives, five by the Green Party and four by the Liberals. Of these, NDP amendments 1 and 4 were accepted.

I was saying that this is a fairly minimalist government and that the Conservatives are repeat offenders. In fact, every time we go to committee and suggest amendments to improve a bill, more often than not the amendments are rejected. We have committees and meetings, we meet with witnesses, have discussions and listen. Sometimes it feels as though the Conservatives are pretending to listen. In the end, they are not really consulting.

I am always surprised by the Conservatives' use of the term “consultation”, especially when it comes to first nations. We saw the Prime Minister apologize in the House to first nations. That gave hope to many people. I think there is nothing worse than to raise people's hopes or make them think one thing and then, when the time comes to make it count, to hit them over the head again and again.

This morning, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was studying Bill C-10, and we heard the same complaint that was expressed about Bill C-15, which was that the government failed to consult first nations.

I spoke with them about the electoral reform, which is supposedly about integrity, justice and so on. I told the representatives from the great Mohawks of Kahnawake nation that this government believes that consultation simply means talking and sharing thoughts.

However, if we want to pass bills that make sense and will have the desired effect on peoples' lives, we cannot just give people a brief opportunity to share their thoughts. If they have nine hours to voice their concerns, but we do not actually listen to them, nothing positive will come of it.

That does not means that Bill C-15 is bad. We will support it because I presume that it is not entirely bad. However, why is the government always content to create something merely acceptable, instead of trying to create bills that take a stand and that are in line with what most people want?

When consulting Canadians about Bill C-10, the government will be content with a few meetings and with hearing some concerns, but there will not be any real nation to nation negotiation. The same is happening here, according to what we are hearing from some witnesses.

The same is happening with electoral reform: consulting the CEO just means that someone will meet with him and give him the opportunity to share his thoughts. It does not mean that the government told him what it wanted to do and how it wanted to do it, or asked for his opinion. Unfortunately, that is what is at stake here with this type of issue.

I am delighted that the government accepted two of the 11 amendments. I would like to commend my colleagues who are part of the committee, the members for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Manicouagan, Western Arctic and Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. Members of many other committees will be jealous of their success, namely getting two of the 11 proposed amendments adopted.

However, I would really like this government to realize that, just because the official opposition puts forward amendments, that does not always reflect negatively on the government’s proposals. It is more about creating legislation that makes sense. Once again, this agreement is going to result in amendments to 42 acts, including the Northwest Territories Act, the Territorial Lands Act, the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and, the real crux of the issue, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

This government clearly does not give a darn about the environment. Several aspects of this act will have repercussions on the environment and our natural resources. The government would do well to get ahead of the game and prevent problems, so that it does not end up in court for decades again because treaties have not been honoured.

When you do not listen to people or you pretend to listen to them but do not really hear what they are saying, problems arise later. This is what the official opposition, in its great wisdom, often tries to tell this government, which is completely deaf to everything that comes from anywhere else but the little bubble around the Prime Minister.

I know that Bill C-15 is exciting for just about everyone in the House at the moment. It is much more interesting than what we are going to hear for the next 30 minutes, which is not a lot. That will be colourless, odourless and tasteless once more, unfortunately, because this government is a petty government.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech and I have a question.

The regional land and water boards were created by the Conservative government to give the aboriginal peoples of the Northwest Territories a say in land use planning and water use. I am therefore trying to understand how eliminating these provisions will serve the interests of the people affected.

[Fair Elections Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not let my colleague, for whom I have the utmost respect, judge how we vote, especially given that a 46th time allocation motion was moved today. It flies in the face of our democratic rights. I doubt that any of my NDP colleagues would tolerate a lesson in democracy from the government.

[Fair Elections Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House when the debate took place, but I followed it from a distance. Wherever I went in Quebec, I asked that question to the people working the voting rooms at various polling stations. What has always fascinated me about this whole debate is that this is not really a problem at all, because few people come to vote with their faces covered.

According to what the returning officers told me, they go somewhere private so that the person can remove the face covering and show that they really are who they say they are. I can make no assumptions about what could happen if an amendment to this effect were presented. I would point out that all parties supported the Bloc Québécois motion at second reading. However, I just suggest a little caution, somewhat along the lines of what is going on in Quebec with the secular charter. We have to be careful before suggesting that there is a problem, when no actual problem exists.

[Fair Elections Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point. It brings us back to what I was saying at the start. My impression is that by introducing Bill C-23, the Conservative government is basically saying that Canadians are criminals and that they are the ones breaking the law. That is part of the Conservatives' strategy. They will never admit that they made a mistake, that they were in the wrong or that one of their own could have broken the law. They always shift the blame to someone else because diversion works so well.

It is kind of sad. As the member for Vancouver East said, it is like taking a sledgehammer to a fly. Many people are being denied their right to vote. It is unfortunate, it sends a bad signal and it provides no hope at all for seeing an improvement in this country's democracy.

[Fair Elections Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, consultation is always preferable. It seems that this government is at war with every democratic institution. It is also at war with the Supreme Court of Canada. It is jeopardizing the Supreme Court's impartiality and reputation with its stupid stunts. The same can be said for its vision of the courts in general and the Chief Electoral Officer.

It is really not surprising that the Conservatives did not consult anyone. Their idea of consultation is to invite someone to their office to say what they have to say. They believe that is what consultation is all about.

I consult with my election workers, my people and my team to find out what problems they saw and what happened. Then we give the information to our returning officer, who forwards it to the Chief Electoral Officer. The latter can speak to the Minister of State for Democratic Reform. Listening to the people would result in much more intelligent legislation. We might get good suggestions.

This work is ongoing, but I am not very optimistic that this government is serious about it.

[Fair Elections Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the fine member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I would have liked to see the minister who just spoke answer the following question, which is perhaps more appropriate: How can a government become a majority government with barely 39% of the votes of the 61% of Canadians who voted? Clearly, there is a serious problem with the way we do things.

I agree with the minister that members of Parliament should not be the only ones wondering what is really happening with the elections process and democracy in our great and beautiful country. That also concerns me.

Furthermore, I am proud to say that, with 62% of the votes in my riding, I felt I was in the driver's seat. I felt I was representing my people. However, I am not proud that only 63% of the people of Gatineau exercised their right to vote. That means that 37% of the population chose to stay home rather than to exercise a fundamental right.

In some countries, people kill each other for the right to vote. They make huge sacrifices for this fundamental right.

We have a rather worrisome problem on our hands and it is not improving. With a bill like this, it is quite cynical to say that we are debating it. As my colleague from Vancouver East said, the title of the bill is the Fair Elections Act fair elections act. In French, it is theloi sur l'intégrité des élections. The intent is to make people believe that it will solve a lot of voter participation problems.

I think the message that the government is sending to Canadians and voters is a message of sheer mistrust.

In their speeches, the Conservatives make much of the fact that people cheat at election time. We heard that a few minutes ago right from the mouth of the minister of state. People are fraudulently vouching for people who have no identification. That fact alone is justification for disenfranchising masses of people who may have no easy access to pieces of identification, with due respect to the minister and all her lists.

It is already complicated enough for Canadians to understand the system and to find out where they have to go to vote. Some people have voted in the same place all their lives and then, suddenly, the polling station is not there any more.

Everyone who has been part of an election day knows what I am talking about. They know just how many questions they are asked that day. It does not matter that people have received their voter card or that they have seen newspaper ads about the date of the election and where they have to go to vote. Our volunteers get a lot of calls. We have a problem getting information to people.

What is the government's solution? It is to take away one of the ways people had to become informed and that was working very well. The Chief Electoral Officer and the institution we call Elections Canada are neutral and non-partisan, with all respect to our friends opposite. The institution is all about exercising democracy.

I remember sitting on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 2004 and meeting Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the chief electoral officer at the time. Members of Parliament were very proud to see the respect given to the chief electoral officer and the institution we call Elections Canada. For several years, there has been a kind of incredible tug-of-war going on under the noses of all Canadians concerning actions and investigations linked to the Conservative government.

Suddenly Elections Canada is biased. The chief electoral officer the Conservatives appointed is wearing a uniform, but not in their team's colours. Therefore, the Conservatives are responding with this bill.

We cannot help but be cynical when once again we are up against time allocation. We keep being told to read the bill and that it is not complicated, but it is 244 pages long. I started reading it carefully and realized that some parts of it are very technical. There is no logic to it; it is a mishmash. It is not entirely clear. Given the motion of the House Leader of the Official Opposition, not only did I look at the French, but I also checked whether the English said the same thing because I now have some doubts about that.

I see there is a discrepancy between the two titles: Loi sur l'intégrité des élections in French, and fair election act in English. Perhaps my English is not the best, but in my mind “fair” in English would be “juste” in French. Next, the French word “intégrité” would be “integrity”, which relates to honesty. There are also mistakes in the summary. It is a bit worrisome, just as it is to impose time allocation to debate a bill that affects a fundamental right to vote, namely, how to get it and how to access it. Many of my colleagues have asked questions, which the government members have done an incredible job of evading.

I am old enough to remember the good old days when people knocked on your door to find out how many voters lived in your house. The people asked you questions and wrote down the answers on the voters list. Next, they did the enumeration and revision of the lists in order to make sure that all the names were written down correctly. That method was eliminated, as though democracy had a price and the government wanted to show how good it is at managing public funds. It is particularly shameful to cut things that affect democracy.

This creates huge problems. I understand my colleagues who are from large rural ridings, especially my friends from Beauce and other areas in the interior of Quebec and Canada's far north. They have to cover huge territories over which small pockets of people are spread. Their situation is certainly different than that of a large city like Gatineau, the fourth largest city in Quebec. In Gatineau, the problems have more to do with the number of new developments. There are people who are not on our voters lists at all and are difficult to track down.

I will refrain from characterizing the comments made by the minister of state, who said to just do the work. I would love to take my scooter or my car and drive through all the streets, which I do anyway in an election campaign, but it is a bit much to suggest that we go and knock on all the doors and count everyone.

I am not saying that we should not do so; on the contrary. I think everyone in the House would do well to encourage their constituents to vote. Besides, no one is more active than I am on Facebook. While I was debating, I was communicating with the people of Gatineau on Facebook to hear what they think of the bill. The Conservatives might not be so happy to hear some of the comments I am receiving. However, that is normal, because they are probably from party supporters.

Am I the right person to encourage all voters in my riding and to do the work of the Chief Electoral Officer? I really like myself and I am confident that I can be impartial, up to a point. However, I have to admit that I do not know who I would encourage to vote if I had to choose between someone who would vote for me and someone who would not vote for me. I do not think that a Conservative would encourage an NDP supporter to go and vote.

The major fault of this bill is the lack of balance. For those listening, I repeat that this bill is 244 pages long. It is not simple. We have to really digest it. It is in the Conservatives' interest to broaden the debate as much as possible.

[Fair Elections Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the minister responds by accusing those who dare ask him a question on the time allocation motion now before the House. He says we do not want to talk about the substance of the bill while we are debating time allocation.

At some point, he will have to realize that the purpose of those 30 minutes is to understand why the government wants to end a debate on a substantive bill that is 242 pages long. Perhaps the minister should be reminded of the purpose of those 30 minutes and be told to stop saying we do not want to have a debate. That is precisely what we want. We want the 308 members of this House to have the opportunity to express their views in this substantive debate. After these 30 minutes, we do not want them to be stuck with some time allocation to debate this bill.

[Fair Elections Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am really confused. Often, when the Conservatives moved their time allocation motions, they said it was because the bills had already been debated at length and there had already been numerous studies.

This bill is 242 pages long, and it touches on basic rights such as free expression and the right of constituents in every one of our ridings to vote, yet the government has moved a time allocation motion to limit debate.

The minister has been feeding us all kinds of lines about how great this bill is, but I would like him to explain why he wants to limit debate even though not all members of the House have had a chance to speak. Having the opportunity to express ourselves and share the perspectives of our constituencies is part of the democratic process.

What is the real reason for this time allocation motion to limit debate?