Scott Simms

[Democratic Reform, February 14th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let us recap the changes to the Elections Act. First of all, it is not an exercise in the independence of the commissioner; the Conservatives are isolating the commissioner.

The Conservatives approved over half a million dollars for committee travel, yet they call it a complete “circus” show on every level.

Regarding Elections Canada, the Conservatives say they want to reframe what Elections Canada is doing, but in fact, it is doing great work, by international standards, with publications encouraging voting. Yet they want to cancel that.

Instead of trying to improve our elections process, why does the minister insist on attacking Elections Canada just because the Conservatives cannot get what they want?

[Public Service of Canada, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take a long time in this debate. Suffice it to say that during the last round of debates, before the bill hit committee, I was one of those members who voted against it. However, the amendments brought forward by my friend go a long way toward establishing the intent of the bill with respect to transparency.

I find it ironic that the government that touts itself as being a champion of accountability does not want to expose salaries above the $160,000 mark. It moved it to $444,000. Imagine: if someone makes anything more than $160,000 up to almost a half a million dollars, the government does not want the public to know about it.

The public should know. This is the government of accountability, or so it claims to be, which is why I am astonished that it would not allow this to go through. We just heard all about this. How can it be a Conservative government of accountability when anyone who makes below $444,000 including bonuses it does not want? It is incredible.

The Conservatives want everything out there. They want to protect taxpayer money, yet they do not want taxpayers to see how they spend their money within their own offices, such as the PMO and others, including bonuses.

That is the part that really gets to me. It is not so much about the CBC as it is about that. That is what this is all about. I am astonished that a government that claims accountability would go to this measure. It goes against the grain of Conservative principles, such that we have an honest member of Parliament here who became an independent as a result of it.

[The Environment, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Manolis L, the sunken boat off the northeast coast of Newfoundland, has been leaking oil for over a year now. The Coast Guard is doing its best to patch it up. However, that is not enough. We need a long-term solution. The Coast Guard just said, “Sorry, there is no long-term solution”.

However, last spring, the former minister of the environment stood in the House and talked about a long-term solution. From the current Minister of the Environment there has been absolutely nothing. Can she rise in the House and offer a long-term solution for a major potential disaster in Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on the vouching issue, I am assuming that some component of the member's riding is rural. She is nodding, so I guess that is the case.

I have a very rural riding. There are a lot of people, including seniors, first nations, and students, who travel to other parts of the country and who rely on the vouching system.

I understand where she and the minister are coming from about the abuse in the system. I am not naive to the fact that abuse exists within the vouching system. However, we do not throw this entire system out because of that. There are ways around this. We could converse with the officials of Elections Canada to ensure that some system of vouching exists for all of the disenfranchised people in her riding.

Does she not think this is a bit too drastic a way to fix a system? Is this not a big hammer to squash a bug?

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is a valid point. I just want to get to some of the points he is talking about: compelling the witness testimony, in particular. In many cases, the reason why they expressed interest and why they wanted to do this is that, before the charges are laid, it gives them the tools to do that. I know the minister said earlier that the police do not have this power. However, how do they figure that, when they are talking about wiretapping and listening in on conversations and this sort of thing? These are exceptions that are made in order for investigators to get the evidence they need.

In this particular situation, if we go to section 11 in the Competition Act, we will find the prototype by which this amendment can be made and they can get the tools. In other words, it is one thing to order the referee off the ice, but before they did that they took the whistle from him. That is the problem.

Does my colleague, my friend here, not feel that this is a small but great measure to have an amendment to this particular bill?

[41st General Election, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Federal Court, three years ago someone used a Conservative database to tell voters their polling stations had moved to fictitious locations, but only one charge has been laid as a result. Elections Canada has not been able to compel witness testimony. Elections Canada says that the investigation has been hampered because the Conservatives will not give it the tools it needs to get witness co-operation.

Why do the Conservatives not want to know who used their own database to commit electoral fraud?

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think what was alluded to earlier about putting it to committee quickly is a rather disingenuous argument, because what they are saying is to put it to committee before we have a vote at second reading and before we accept it in principle. I am sure the member knows this.

I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman, and he has been here a very long time. I think he knows that what was proposed as a way of broadening the debate of this bill would have allowed all sorts of amendments that would not be allowed if we voted at second reading.

I really do not think I have to repeat this for anybody who has been here in the House longer than I, and I have been here for close to ten years.

The member talked about the member for Selkirk—Interlake, who has the ability to prove himself. I appreciate that, but Helena Guergis, the member for Peterborough, and another member over here were each levied judgment to leave caucus before they had the chance to defend themselves. It is a little disingenuous.

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think a very pointed question is required here.

The member alluded earlier to the singling out of the Conservative Party of Canada by Elections Canada. My first question for her needs a simple answer, a yes or no. Are the Conservatives targeted by Elections Canada unfairly?

Second, the member is talking about trying to achieve neutrality for Elections Canada. I am not sure “neutral”, or perhaps even “neutered”, is the right word in this particular situation, because the Chief Electoral Officer was in the media this weekend talking about how this is a step back for democracy.

First, yes or no, are the Conservatives targeted unfairly? Second, why is the Chief Electoral Officer so wrong?

[Democratic Reform, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today the Chief Electoral Officer did confirm this is indeed an attack on Elections Canada. We already heard the analogy he used about the referee now being taken off the ice altogether, despite whatever jersey they want to talk about him wearing. The commissioner, as he spoke about it earlier, is being removed from Elections Canada, being deprived of the powers he needs, which he has already stated.

I want to ask a very direct question about an amendment that I hope the government will accept, to give the commissioner the power to apply to a judge to compel information from witnesses during an investigation. Yes or no?

[Fair Elections Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I know our time is running short, so I will make this very quick. First of all, for the record, we are disappointed to see this time allocation measure coming in following the third speech.

We were talking back and forth in the debate last night about the fact that we go through the process of debate, second reading, and then committee. I just want a straight up answer, yes or no, as to whether the minister is willing to entertain reasoned amendments to this bill. We think that we have one.

I wonder if he is willing to look at this sincerely, as a way of improving this bill.