Mauril Bélanger

[Fair Elections Act, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to a very problematic bill that may put Canada in a very difficult situation down the road.

I will begin by trying to put the bill into context, the way I see it. After the last election, Elections Canada launched investigations into some of the practices that came to light during the election. I am talking about the mechanism one political party had created in order to get around the spending limits for national campaigns. The party would lend money to riding associations or local campaigns, which would then transfer the money to the central party to spend on advertising. This was the famous “in and out” scandal. Naturally, this led to a lawsuit, and the party was found guilty of breaking the law and had to pay a fine. This left a stain on this party, which is now in power.

The other incident began shortly before the last election. In a new approach to running an election campaign, the party would suppress the vote and reduce voter turnout in an effort to get its own candidates elected. The thinking was that it might have the better team or a better machine to get out the vote, so if it succeeded in discouraging others from voting, this would increase the chances of its candidates getting elected. I am referring to the robocalls.

By the way, this is a misnomer because in the riding that I have the pleasure of representing, people did not receive a robocall. They received a call from a person who gave them false information. That happened a number of times. I asked everyone who notified me of this to sign an affidavit. Everything I received I passed on to Elections Canada and the RCMP.

For example, a woman of a certain age had lived in a building for about 60 years. When there is a municipal, provincial or federal election, the polling station is always in the building. On election day, the woman received a call informing her that her polling station had been moved. She laughed at them, called them idiots and told them that she had already voted in her building and that what they were trying to do was wrong. That was one of the women who signed an affidavit in front of a lawyer. This complaint was sent to Elections Canada, and there were others.

This whole affair left a very bad taste in Canadians' mouths and put a black mark on the political party in power. It may have generated interest in amending the law. Canadians and parliamentarians called for amendments. In his reports, the Chief Electoral Officer called for changes to the law and the government promised to make some.

The previous minister had told the House that the bill would be introduced in a few days. We learned that he consulted his caucus and instead of introducing the bill the next day, as he was supposed to, he went back to the drawing board. With the last cabinet shuffle, the appointment of the new Minister of State for Democratic Reform caused quite a stir among Canadians.

As we know, the minister who introduced the bill is another sort of person, someone who is a little more acerbic and a little more partisan.

This resulted in the bill to amend the Elections Act, which was introduced a while ago. Canadians and MPs began to react. I would like to remind members of the reactions to the bill from right across the country.

The Cape Breton Post said:

Conservatives’ Fair Election Act anything but fair

That was in February.

An Edmonton, Alberta, newspaper called Le Franco published an article titled “Election Tension Intensifies”. The article said:

The 242-page fair elections bill was rushed through, even though it will have a significant impact on the democratic process. The bill, introduced on February 4, fundamentally changes the rules.

A headline in The Gazette read:

Bill could end vote drive campaigns

Elections Canada ads failed, minister says

A National Post headline read:

Electoral officer slams reform bill at meeting, vows not to resign

Draws applause

That article was written by Glen McGregor.

The Gazette said:

Anti-vouching provisions unconstitutional: critics

Fair Elections Act measure could affect the young, seniors and aboriginals

In another article in The Gazette, Andrew Coyne wrote:

What election problems do Tories want to solve?

The Winnipeg Free Press said:

Election bill helps Tories exclusively

The Chronicle Herald said:

Former watchdog slams electoral reform bill

Another headline in The Chronicle Herald read:

Some good, some bad

ELECTION CHANGES

There are a few nuances here and there.

Another headline in the same newspaper read:

New Fair Election Act: not exactly as advertised

The National Post said:

Electoral reform based on mistrust

New bill removes chief electoral officer's power

An article in Le Devoir was titled “The Poisoned Ballot Box”.

A headline in La Presse read: “Ottawa wants to remove the CEO's power to investigate”.

Those are the reactions we saw across the country. Well-known and well-respected individuals even made some surprising comments. The first was Preston Manning, who was quoted in The Globe and Mail on March 1, if I am not mistaken:

Conservatives are increasingly not viewed as the party that most champions democratic values....

It was Mr. Manning who said that.

This created a situation in which we were forced to ask ourselves some questions. Some changes made to the law were completely unacceptable.

I was there when the Chief Electoral Officer spoke to the committee on March 6. I listened to his statement and shared it with my constituents. He tore apart the bill as it had been introduced.

Members will recall a situation we had never seen before. One of the country's top newspapers, The Globe and Mail, published scathing criticisms of the bill in five editorials—one a day. The following Monday, another editorial was published, entitled:

Kill this bill

Many people across the country shared the same opinion. They were not satisfied with the bill the government had introduced. There was a public outcry. Many organizations started petitions, as did the opposition parties in the House. As a result, the government realized that there might be a problem. The minister often quoted the Neufeld report in his answers in the House. He used the report to support an argument contrary to what the report was actually saying. It became clear that he was hurting his own party. Earlier, I listened to what the member for Toronto—Danforth said. I agree with him.

Some members likely exerted pressure within the government caucus. Others shared their opinions anonymously. This led the minister to change his position and make some amendments. I believe that 45 amendments were proposed in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

All of these amendments were accepted by the government majority. However, approximately 150 amendments were proposed by members of the committee belonging to the opposition parties. I believe that only one of those amendments was accepted and it was a small amendment regarding a technical error in the bill. All of the other amendments proposed by the opposition parties were rejected. Members of NDP, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party, as well as independent members, consulted their own constituents. Canadians reacted very strongly, so these members tried to amend the bill so that the unacceptable provisions would not be included in the Canada Elections Act.

Of course, amendments were made. I agree with what has been said. The bill has been improved somewhat, but not enough. That is where things stand today. Yesterday evening, we voted for two hours. That whole time, the government majority systematically rejected all the other amendments, even though many of those amendments made a lot of sense. They would have strengthened the Canada Elections Act and Canadian democracy. They would have protected Canadians' rights. Those amendments were not accepted.

Other troubling incidents have occurred throughout the process. Sheila Fraser, the former auditor general of Canada, made a rather strong statement. She said:

“...it really is an attack on our democracy....”

The government's reaction was vicious. The Conservatives accused Ms. Fraser of being a spokesperson for Elections Canada and of being paid to say what she did. However, she earned the respect of all Canadians during her 10 years as auditor general of Canada. She did a remarkable job that affected all of us, as a government. I really must commend the work she did as Canada's auditor general. She has a great reputation, yet the government, or some of its spokespersons, were quick to try to destroy her reputation. It really is unbelievable. There is clearly a problem when something like that happens.

The government may well have realized that resistance was mounting when they saw how the Senate would react, in advance of the study of the bill. They heard fairly strong comments from their own senators, who said that certain amendments would be appropriate. That is how we got to where we are now.

I would also like to point out that it was at that point that the government was quick to introduce a time allocation motion: the guillotine. At that time, we were just beginning to perhaps see, or hope to see, some openness to make this bill acceptable to Canadians and to parliamentarians. However, the government said no, that it was done and that we had to vote. There would be one day of debate at the report stage, which was yesterday, one day for third reading, which is today, and it will be over tonight.

I certainly intend to support the motion of the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, seconded by his colleague from Sudbury, not to go ahead with this bill and pass it because I think that passing it would be a step backward, not forward, as the minister claims.

There is a list of proposed amendments, which are correct, but also a list of shortcomings in the bill that still does not recognize voter cards as a piece of identification. It is only recognized as proof of address. Voters can use it if they have someone there with them, but that is not always the case.

Elections Canada's role is seriously limited. It is unacceptable to separate the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner by sending the commissioner to a government agency where he will lose the independence of being an officer of Parliament.

Increasing the limit for contributions to political parties, just like the $25,000 contribution, I believe, that candidates can make to their own campaigns, is good for the wealthiest people in our country.

That is not a direction the government should be heading in. On the contrary, I do not think anything should be changed, unless the limits are reduced. Yes, that is challenging for political parties, but it forces them to open up to the public and encourage people to get involved in and contribute to their movement. That strengthens democracy and makes people feel like they are living in a country where their voices make a difference. I wish the limits had not been increased, but that is what will happen.

There is another thing that is really bothersome. Elections Canada has, over the years, developed a fabulous international reputation. I have had occasion to travel in a number of countries, Africa in particular, where there are electoral commissions.

These temporary or permanent electoral commissions are rather clumsy, poorly organized and highly controlled by governments.

These bodies are problematic, and the people rely quite a bit, when they have elections, on external bodies, and I have heard about Elections Canada's fabulous reputation in terms of going there to help.

Under the former chief electoral officers, Mr. Kingsley and Mr. Hamel, Elections Canada was able to build a solid reputation over the decades. However, if the bill before us today is passed by the House and the Senate and receives royal assent, it is a step backward. This will weaken Elections Canada and its ability to ensure that the electoral process is sound and transparent. This agency is supposed to be independent and report to the House, not the government. The agency has the ability to enforce legislation and, when that legislation is violated, to conduct investigations and impose penalties. The agency is asking for investigative powers, which it will not have, to maintain its reputation.

If this bill is passed, I think the government is going in the opposite direction and taking a step backward. This will weaken Elections Canada and its national and international reputation. It blows me away to see a government do this.

This was one of my responsibilities when I was a minister. We made a minor change to the criteria for redistributions. To make this change, I consulted with the officers of Parliament and with the opposition parties. That is how we went about amending the Elections Act. We did not go about it in a cavalier fashion as we are seeing today. The minister misinterpreted a report and made claims that were the opposite of what the report said. He made some amendments only because he was forced to do so, but he rejected all the other amendments presented by the opposition.

I hope that some of their members will heed the call to vote against this bill and that it will not become law.

[Kidnapping of Girls in Nigeria, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last month, or two months ago, I think, Nigeria became the biggest economy in Africa, essentially because of its natural resources. The population is in fact 135 million inhabitants, maybe more. It is therefore a large country.

On the first question I was asked, that is right, I was there three years ago and I went back to Abuja, the capital, where things are fine. Once you leave the capital, however, you see the reality, probably not just in Nigeria but in a number of countries in Africa. There is absolutely unbelievable inequality. There are houses that are virtual castles, and if you go barely a half hour down the road, maybe 10 minutes, you find yourself in the middle of a slum, in unsanitary villages.

The distribution of wealth we see in Nigeria is totally unfair and unequal. This is unfortunately one of the realities of Africa. African governments will have to learn to distribute that wealth better; otherwise, the end result will be tension and it may go beyond that to armed conflicts, as we can see in some countries.

When the Canadian delegation goes there, we try to encourage a better distribution of wealth and a degree of transparency. We are not opposed to the use of those resources, but we hope they will be used well and the revenue they generate will also be used well.

[Kidnapping of Girls in Nigeria, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we have certain priorities. I tend to share the concern of my colleague from Ottawa Centre about education. In all countries around the world, if children are deprived of an education, then I wish them good luck, and I am not trying to be facetious with the President of Nigeria. Education is a primary objective. If we are not providing enough help on the educational side, then perhaps we should consider doing so.

I have no idea if anybody around the world right now has offered to replace the school or even if it is necessary to do so. I do not know if there are other schools to accommodate these young girls. If the school is going to be rebuilt there, then it has to be secure. That becomes an added component. Perhaps Canada could play a role there.

Unfortunately, in North America that is one of the realities that we have learned to cope with. We have had a few terrible incidents of people going into schools with guns and killing students. I know because I have grandkids who go to school, and I cannot get in there anymore unless I have a pass. There is greater security now in our school system. Perhaps we could share some of that experience, some of that knowledge, some of the techniques with other countries that need it.

The educational aspect is one that we should certainly not abandon and one that we should reconsider in some cases.

[Kidnapping of Girls in Nigeria, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I thank the member for Ottawa Centre and his colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie for their remarks, and my colleague from Etobicoke North and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights as well. I share all of their views with regard to the event that has been described, the kidnapping of close to 300 young women.

However, I want to go beyond that and say that there are some things that have been happening since then that are encouraging and others that are not encouraging and are troubling.

On the encouraging side, I want to comment on the fact that there are some Muslim organizations that have denounced this event. I think the more we hear from Muslim organizations, both in Canada and around the world, that denounce the actions of Boko Haram, the more encouraging that would be.

Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti, the top religious authority in Saudi Arabia, has condemned the attacks. The Council of American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, has condemned them, and so have the Council of Muslim Organizations and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. These are organizations that did the right thing, and I would invite others to do the same because, as the Minister of the Environment said, there is a religious connotation to this that is very difficult, and the fact that young women would be converting under duress is absolutely insane. Any self-respecting religion would not seek to have people converting to it by such means.

In any event, that is one thing that I find encouraging.

The other thing that I find rather discouraging or troubling is the slowness in reaction, which has been mentioned here tonight, from the Nigerian government. A story published in today's local paper indicates that on April 15, the day after the event occurred, the United Kingdom offered help, and three days later, on April 18, made a formal offer of assistance. The U.S., through its embassy and staff in Nigeria in Abuja, did offer some help from day one, but it was a month later, Tuesday and Wednesday of last week, that the Government of Nigeria actually welcomed and accepted offers of help from, as I mentioned, Great Britain, the United States, Canada, France, and China.

The lateness and the slowness in reacting, I think, is troubling, and I would hope that there would be lessons learned from that.

The fact that Interpol, the international police agency of which Canada is a member, only offered help formally on May 9, almost a month later, is also very troubling because, again, we are not yet at the stage that military actions are deemed necessary; at least, no country has offered military assistance, except perhaps military know-how through communications or investigations. I know we have people from the United States and Great Britain and, I am hearing, from Canada on the ground today, and I expect some of them might be from the military, but it is not a military operation yet. It is an investigation to try to help the Nigerian authorities find these girls and then find a way to free them.

However, the fact that Interpol would take so long in making that offer is, I find, particularly troubling. I thought we could have acted perhaps a bit faster in Canada as well. I gather it was last week that we made an offer of help. If that is so, I would hope that we also would learn from that.

Another aspect has been mentioned to me by a few people I have talked with over the course of the last week. It is an awkward comparison. There was another incident in the world two months ago in which a similar number of people disappeared. I am talking about Malaysian flight 370, with 239 passengers on board including the 12 crew members.

The response was immediate from around the world. A number of countries immediately offered technical help and planes and boats to look for the aircraft. Four countries—Australia, Canada, the U.S., and Vietnam—spent $44 million in the first month alone searching for the plane, and the search continues two months later.

The urgency was the fact that the batteries in the black box would only work for a month. Therefore, it would be hard to find the remains of the people and to be able to bring closure to their families.

In contrast, here we have a situation of 276 young girls who are alive and have disappeared somewhere into the jungle. They are presumably still in Nigeria. They could also be in Chad or Cameroon, but we are not sure. We do not know exactly where they are, but I think there is an even greater urgency here for the world to act.

I also find the unwillingness of governments so far to actually put resources and money at the disposal of the appropriate authorities to help find these girls and rescue them rather troubling.

There is another example that I wanted to bring up. It concerns another kidnapping of a number of young girls, not in Nigeria, but in Uganda. It happened in October 1996, I believe. A total of 139 young girls were kidnapped. Thanks to one of the Italian nuns working in their school, who followed them into the jungle, 109 were returned. The other 30 remained prisoners. They were forced into becoming brides and were forced into doing sexual favours for Joseph Kony, who headed up the Lord’s Resistance Army.

That guy is still around. He has kidnapped hundreds, if not thousands, of youngsters throughout Uganda, South Sudan, Chad, the Central African Republic, and Somalia and turned them into soldiers. He has done so by forcing them to kill their friends or parents to make sure that they would remain at his service. Alternatively, he has turned them into his brides. The world has not yet taken on Joseph Kony properly.

What is the difference here? I am not too sure that I understand it. Maybe it is social media. It may be the ability of social media, which was not as prevalent in 1996 as it is today, to reach out to the world. We have now had thousands upon thousands of people, reaching into the hundreds of thousands, saying “bring back our girls”.

We have had these experiences before, in Africa and elsewhere, in conflicts, whether in Syria, the Central African Republic, or on other continents, when young boys and girls have been kidnapped and turned into soldiers or forced into providing sexual favours for soldiers. Only now are we finally acting, or I hope we are. I am certainly encouraging the government to act, whether we can offer help through direct services or through agencies.

That is one of the questions that this particular incident should force and encourage us to consider. To what extent are we going to help? To what extent will we, Canada and the world, want to help, and how? Do we want to do it directly, with some of our people and boots on the ground, as I have heard, and with our money, or do we want to do it through international organizations such as Interpol, NATO, and the UN? If so, how? Will we do it with our own people? Will we do it with money?

We would be well placed here to engage in Parliament and engage our citizens in determining how serious we are, and to what extent we want to commit to making sure that we will help a country whose children, girls and boys, get kidnapped at a young age to be turned into soldiers and to be sold, as Boko Haram has threatened.

It is absolutely unacceptable. Most Canadians would encourage us as a country to take a much more active role, whether directly or whether indirectly through organizations. I hope what we will learn from our participation will lead us to a greater ability to do what needs to be done to protect these young people.

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this spring, four officials from the ministry of the interior of the Democratic Republic of Congo travelled to Canada at taxpayers’ expense to interview approximately thirty Congolese nationals threatened with deportation by the government. Ironically, one of these nationals was himself an official from Kinshasa and as such, is suspected of being involved in human rights abuses.

The Congolese Canadian community is concerned about this state of affairs and is asking to meet with the minister responsible.

My question is simple: Will the community get that meeting?

[Fair Elections Act, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame that only 10% or 15% of members will have the opportunity to speak to such an important bill, including a whole host of amendments that have been made. What is more, a hundred or more other amendments will have to be considered. We will have just one day to do all that. This behaviour is totally unacceptable.

As for my second comment, those of us on this side of the House who are against the bill have a duty to remind Canadians of what the government has imposed with its majority between now and the next election. Indeed, what this government is doing is undermining our democratic process.

[Fair Elections Act, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have no questions for the minister because I do not believe him. I think his answers are illogical and short on the truth. I do not have a question, but I have two comments.

First, I think it is a shame that the government is once again limiting the number of speakers from each party to 10% or 15%—

[University of Ottawa, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the University of Ottawa's Alumni Day, which my alma mater will be celebrating on Friday, May 9.

On the occasion of the University of Ottawa's Alumni Week 2014, I would like to recognize the some 89,000 graduates of this institution who live and work in the national capital region.

The University of Ottawa, a world-class research and educational institution, is the world's largest bilingual university and makes a significant contribution to our regional economy. Its graduates are at the very heart of our vibrant communities.

On this special day, it is with great pride that I, as one of its graduates, call upon all citizens to celebrate the success of this post-secondary educational institution. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, along with several other of our colleagues from all parties who are also University of Ottawa alumni, to proudly wear our school colours, the garnet and grey, and to attend some of the events planned on campus for the rest of this week.

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the member for Oxford that I was not a member of the government in that particular circumstance. I was a member of the governing party but not of the government.

I would like the member to know, and he could check my voting record, that at times I have voted against my own government on time allocation when I figured it was not appropriate.

I have supported the government when it becomes apparent that a dilatory tactic is being used to prevent our getting to a decision. I do believe that the House, at some point, has to get to a decision within reasonable timeframes—however, not after three speakers and only a few minutes.

That is why the House is now forced to consider the motion that we have before us today. Indeed, we have had time allocation imposed much too rapidly, without any sense that the opposing parties were trying to prevent the House getting to a decision down the road.

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I generally do agree that the House, in order to function, needs to have some time allocation, some time constructs of some sort. However, the one example that our colleague across the way gave, which I am a little surprised he used, is reference to a committee of a bill before second reading. After five hours the bill is then referred to a committee.

I brought this up a number of times, that the government has never referred a bill to committee before second reading. That is a way of showing respect for committees, because doing so allow the committee to address the bill and even expand the scope of the bill, as opposed to having to restrict itself after it has been adopted at second reading.

Why the member would use that as an example is beyond me. The government has never used a reference to committee before second reading of any bill. I wonder why it has not.