House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 28% of the vote.
First Nations Financial Transparency Act November 20th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives often play populist politics. They react to specific incidents and then introduce legislation. This is no way to manage a country and create laws.
What does the hon. member think about the approach the Conservatives are taking by reacting to incidents reported in the newspapers and then creating legislation that applies to all aboriginal communities in Canada? Does he think this is the right way to legislate?
First Nations Financial Transparency Act November 20th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question on a point that has been mentioned several times, specifically, that some businesses with ties to first nations will be forced to share some very sensitive information.
In the business and finance community, certain information cannot be disclosed to the public, because it could prove to be a disadvantage from a competitive standpoint. Does the member think this measure could put those businesses at a disadvantage? Could this measure deprive aboriginal communities of certain sums of money because businesses do not want some information to be shared?
The government is calling for improved conditions for aboriginals, but this measure will do exactly the opposite, since it could scare businesses away. What does the member think of the fact that this could reduce the amount of money available to these communities?
Financial Literacy Leader Act November 8th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask another question on this issue.
I have to say that the committee did a fine job. I was not there, but I heard about it. The NDP proposed six amendments in all, while the Liberals and the Conservatives did not suggest one single amendment.
One of the amendments put forward by the NDP was that the legislation should express explicitly that the incumbent of this position should be bilingual. As we have seen in the case of the Auditor General of Canada, a unilingual anglophone holds this position. However, right now, it seems he is making an effort at least to learn the second official language.
As I did not attend the committee, I would like to know whether the Liberals supported this amendment to ensure that the legislation states explicitly that the position should be filled by someone who is bilingual.
Financial Literacy Leader Act November 8th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.
As a party, the NDP has always worked towards eliminating poverty in Canada. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. If people were better informed of their financial rights and if they had more answers and clearer information on finance in general, would that reduce poverty?
Canada Elections Act November 7th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-424, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (contestation of election and punishment). I want to thank and congratulate the hon. member for Beauséjour, who is the sponsor of this commendable private member's bill.
Bill C-424 has to do with a fundamental pillar of our democracy: the electoral process. As legislators, we have a duty to preserve the integrity of our democratic system. We must cherish and appreciate the good fortune we have of living in a country where fair and free elections are held on a regular basis. Unfortunately, as with everything, some people abuse our system and try to get around the rules that are in place. These malicious people have to be punished in a way that fits their crimes. That is what Bill C-424 tries to do, in part.
Some unfortunate events presumably took place during the last general election on May 2, 2011. I am talking about what is commonly referred to as the robocall scandal. This bill seems to me to have been motivated by this disgraceful incident. This type of fraudulent tactic undermines the public's trust in the electoral system. Something must be done to regain that trust. This bill will help to do that. I would like to talk about the specifics of Bill C-424, so that those watching at home can understand what we are talking about today.
First, Bill C-424 amends paragraphs 500(5)(a) and 500(5)(b) of the Canada Elections Act to multiply the fines for some offences by 10. The fines will thus increase from $2,000 to $20,000 for summary convictions and from $5,000 to $50,000 for indictments.
The type of offences covered by paragraphs 500(5)(a) and 500(5)(b) include delaying or obstructing the electoral process; offering or accepting a bribe; compelling or intimidating a person to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate; acting as an election officer without being one; wilfully making a false declaration; exceeding or evading election advertising expense limits; disclosing the vote of a voter one has helped; intentionally and prematurely spoiling an advance ballot; wilfully failing to declare a candidate elected; and wilfully conducting election advertising using government means of transmission. There are thus a number of offences.
This bill affects individuals, voters, election officers—including returning officers—polling companies, candidates, registered associations, party leaders and political parties in general. The types of offences covered by the harsher penalties generally have to do with wrongdoing that could seriously undermine the legitimacy of the democratic process in Canada.
This bill imposes harsher penalties for intentional offences, when a political party, association, voter, election officer, candidate, party leader or individual intentionally breaks the law. Here, the emphasis is on the word “intentionally”. Anyone who intentionally interferes with the electoral process deserves a harsh sentence.
We are not talking about minor mistakes committed accidentally by a campaign volunteer, for I would not want to dissuade anyone who might want to get involved in volunteer work for a political party, but who might fear getting slapped with a $20,000 fine. That would be unacceptable. Rather, we are talking about premeditated fraud committed by organized individuals using sophisticated means to break the law.
At the same time, these offences seriously undermine not only the legitimacy of the democratic process, but also our own legitimacy as the elected representatives of the Canadian public. It is important to note that Bill C-424 does not create any new offences. It merely increases fines. Admittedly, monetary penalties ranging from $2,000 to $5,000, as they currently stand, are pretty minimal.
As a result of the uncertainty caused by the robocall scandal, it is crucial that individuals who want to violate the Canada Elections Act for partisan purposes be punished severely. The NDP believes that, given the offences targeted by the bill and the importance of maintaining the integrity of our electoral system, it is in the public interest to impose fines that reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed. Fines that are increased tenfold would be a good way to discourage anyone who might consider deliberately breaking the law for partisan purposes.
Second, the bill seeks to increase the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer. The NDP supports this initiative to give the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to contest an election if he or she notes any irregularities. We do believe, however, that this needs to be explored further in committee. As my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth just mentioned, we do have some concerns regarding this measure to increase the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer.
At present, only an elector who is eligible to vote in a given riding or a candidate in that same riding can file a complaint with the Commissioner of Canada Elections if he or she feels there are any irregularities.
When there are reasonable grounds to believe that the law has been broken, the Commissioner of Canada Elections can refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who decides whether or not to prosecute. Generally, a lengthy process ensues and can last several months or several years.
By allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to act alone, we are simplifying the process a bit. Our support for granting the power of contestation to the Chief Electoral Officer complements the motion we moved last winter on enhancing the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada. We believe that this measure is good because such legal processes take a lot of time and money. My two colleagues mentioned this earlier, but just look at Etobicoke Centre, where it took a very lengthy process before a decision could be made. The average person probably would not get involved in such lengthy legal wrangling.
However, the Chief Electoral Officer has the necessary resources for such processes. What is more, it would be easier to contest elections in a greater number of ridings, in the event of widespread electoral fraud, as in the case of the robocalls, which affected several ridings. It would be difficult to have a voter or a candidate from every riding contest the election. Contestation would be easier if only one agency could contest several ridings at a time, in cases of widespread fraud.
Some government members have expressed concern over the Chief Electoral Officer's partiality if he had such contestation powers. That is why we believe that it would be worth asking him the question in committee. That is one of the reasons why we support the bill at second reading. We will have to see how this bill can be improved in committee.
As my colleague mentioned, we also have some concerns. If the Chief Electoral Officer had more powers, then things would have to be regulated a little more. Under specific circumstances, where there is clear evidence of irregularities, contestation could be possible, but only after the implementation of a specific process whereby the Chief Electoral Officer would show that he has tangible evidence related to a fraudulent situation.
My colleague from Beauséjour pointed this out in his opening speech on October 3:
This approach is entirely consistent with other electoral systems in Canada such as in British Columbia, Ontario and Nunavut, where the chief electoral officers are able to contest the election result in a particular electoral district.
Therefore, the precedent for such power has already been set in two provinces and one territory. As I mentioned earlier, we must ask the Chief Electoral Officer this question when the bill is at committee stage. I hope he will attend with the support of the government.
In the interests of thoroughness, Bill C-424, which was introduced by the member for Beauséjour, deserves to be examined in more detail in committee. The bill is a good starting point, but we must continue to improve it.
The NDP supports sending this bill to committee. I hope that the Conservatives will also support it, which would allow for more in-depth study. It speaks to the integrity of our democratic system. I would be shocked if the Conservatives were to vote against the bill.
We anxiously await the committee's findings. This is a matter of public interest. The many allegations of wrongdoing during the last election clearly illustrate that this harms democracy in Canada. In light of the recent election scandals, we must take immediate steps to improve the Canada Elections Act and to regain the trust of Canadian voters. It is our duty, and this bill is a good start.
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 7th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the same question I asked earlier, but I will be more precise. I would appreciate a yes or no answer.
Putting specific countries aside, does the member think that Canada should sign a free trade agreement with a known tax haven? I am not asking for information about Panama specifically. Yes or no?
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 7th, 2012
I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I will ask her what is probably the easiest question she has had to answer in the House: does she approve of trade with a country that is considered to be a tax haven?
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 7th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to ask my colleague a question. Her speech was very interesting and emotional. I always like to hear her speak, especially about a free trade agreement such as this one, and present the NDP's vision, which I believe is the right vision for Canada. What she said is very important.
I would like to hear her talk more about the problem created by a government or a country that has these types of economic relationships with a country that does not comply with certain basic tax rules. What message does this send to the international community?
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to ask a question of my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, who taught tax havens 101 to my Conservative colleagues. I am glad that was done today in the House, because it shows what this is really all about. He did a good job defining what constitutes a tax haven.
As my colleague from Alfred-Pellan said earlier, Canada did not sign an information sharing agreement. In my colleague's view, what message is the government sending when it signs a free trade agreement with a country that is considered a tax haven? What message is the government sending to the international community about the fight against tax havens?
Canada Post Corporation November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, listen to this: Canada Post will soon charge $200 per address in new residential developments, which are obviously located primarily in suburbs and in the regions.
New homebuyers must already pay a municipal tax, a welcome tax, a school tax and a water tax, among others. And now the Conservatives want to impose a postal tax.
As of January 1, for a new neighbourhood with 100 houses, for example, there will be a total of $20,000 in taxes for developers. We can easily imagine that they will pass that on to buyers.
Why do the Conservatives want to impose a new tax on Canadian families?