David Sweet

[Energy Safety and Security Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can tell us today what the actual cost to a nuclear power plant operator would be when the liability limit increases to $1 billion. Could he also give us an idea of what the phase-in period is for that?

[Farm Family of the Year Award, March 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, March is nutrition month in Canada, so it is fitting that I rise today and talk about apples. We know the old saying about an apple a day.

What brings this to mind are the award-winning apples that have been grown for 103 years by generations of the Bennett family on Garner Road in Ancaster. The Bennetts were recognized at a banquet last Saturday, receiving the Osborne L. Sager Farm Family of the Year award from the Hamilton-Wentworth Federation of Agriculture. My congratulations to Todd, Carrie, Richard, and Andrea Bennett, the current partners in the popular local apple store and farm.

Not only are the Bennetts innovative farmers and entrepreneurs, they are also big contributors to the community, their church, and the history of the village of Ancaster.

My congratulations to everyone involved in carrying forward the very best of this Ancaster institution and doing the legacy of their forefathers so very proud.

[Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, March 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister clarify why this legislation is needed, what process led to the legislation, and why it is important to send the bill to committee and on to royal assent as expeditiously as possible?

[Committees of the House, March 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in relation to supplementary estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

[Canadian Heritage, February 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in 1968, Lincoln Alexander became Canada's first black member of Parliament. He would go on to serve as a cabinet minister, as chancellor of the University of Guelph, and as Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. He was named to the Order of Ontario and named Companion of the Order of Canada.

His legacy of fighting against racism and for diversity and equality is one that my constituents, and all Canadians, cherish.

February is Black History Month. What better time is there to recognize his contributions to Canada? Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell the House about our government's plans to further honour Lincoln Alexander?

[Election of the Speaker, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in today's discussion on Motion No. 489 on the process for electing the Speaker of the House of Commons.

My colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, has a keen interest in the functioning of this chamber and the rules and processes that govern the House of Commons. I believe he has brought forward the motion with the objective of strengthening one of the key processes in which we participate as members of the House of Commons; that is, the election of our Speaker.

For nearly all of us, voting for the Speaker at the beginning of a Parliament is the very first task we perform as parliamentarians. I thank the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for bringing forward this motion for debate. While my colleague's motion is quite detailed, I think it is worth summarizing some of the key elements of the motion.

First, for the benefit of those who may be following the debate, it is worth reiterating the present secret ballot system that is used to elect the Speaker as it is currently set out in Standing Order 4. Essentially the process starts with a list of candidates, which includes all members except ministers, party leaders, and those members who have withdrawn their names from consideration.

When it comes time to vote, members of the House write the name of the candidate of their choice on the ballot. After the first round of voting, if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes and all candidates who receive less than 5% of the vote are removed from the ballot, and a second round of voting takes place. The rounds of voting continue until one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote.

Motion No. 489 would instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study and, within six months of the adoption of this motion, table a report regarding the advisability of implementing a preferential ballot for the election of the Speaker.

I should probably also acknowledge my support as far as the preferential ballot is concerned, because I was elected in my own nomination through a preferential ballot.

To give the committee something to study and work from, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington has kindly set out in his motion a very specific and comprehensive proposal to replace Standing Order 4 with a new process for electing the Speaker. Being an independent entity, the procedure and House affairs committee would be free to recommend any changes to the proposal, I am sure.

It is worth noting that my colleague's proposal does not do away with every aspect of the current system. The ability of MPs to not put their names forward for consideration to be Speaker and the rule that no debate or questions of privilege are allowed during the election of Speaker would be retained.

The key elements of the proposed preferential ballot system are as follows. Members would be provided with a ballot paper that contains the full list, in alphabetical order, of the names of those members who are to be considered for the position of Speaker. Rather than voting for a single candidate, members would be able to rank their preferred candidate, their second preferred candidate, and so on.

After the single round of voting, the Clerk would count the number of first preferences recorded in the ballots, and if a candidate had received a majority of first preference votes, then that person would be declared elected. If, after the first count, no candidate had received a majority of first preference votes, the Clerk would eliminate the candidate who received the least number of first preference votes from further counts. For these ballots, the Clerk would treat each second or lower preference as if it were a first preference for the next highest candidate in the order of preference who is not eliminated. This process would be continued until a candidate had obtained a majority of the votes.

The motion sets out further details, but what I have just highlighted is the crux of the proposal of the new system. It would allow for a single ballot to be cast by each member, and eliminate the need for multiple rounds of voting. I believe the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington made it quite clear about the amount of time in history that many of these votes have taken and the exhaustive process.

While I would not want to speak for the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, I see a simple question in the motion. Is there a benefit to be gained by eliminating the potential for multiple rounds of voting and possible jockeying for the position of Speaker? Quite frankly, as I mentioned just a moment ago, historically there has been quite a bit of time consumed by that very action.

I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to address the importance of the motion that we are debating today.

As we all know, the role of the Speaker is key to the proper functioning of this place; therefore, the election of the Speaker should not be taken lightly in any way, shape, or form.

With regard to the importance of the Speaker, it is worth quoting from a source that the Speaker would know all too well, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which states on page 307:

It is in this spirit that the Speaker, as the chief servant of the House, applies the rules. The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and serves the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices.

Bearing the significance of this quote in mind and the key question at the heart of the motion, we must decide whether the current system for electing the Speaker needs replacing, and specifically whether it should be replaced by the proposed preferential ballot system.

Again, the key question is whether this is a study that procedure and House affairs committee should undertake.

It is worth noting that already in this session members have decided to adopt two motions that would require the procedure and House affairs committee to study potential changes to the Standing Orders. Motion No. 431, regarding the election of committee chairs, was passed by the House on February 5, 2014. Similarly, Motion No. 428, which calls on the procedure and House affairs committee to recommend changes to the Standing Orders to permit electronic petitions, was passed by the House on January 29, 2014.

On top of those studies, the procedure and House affairs committee is also undertaking a general review of the Standing Orders, both under its own initiative as well as under a motion passed by the House in October 2013.

If Motion No. 489 were to join these other motions at the procedure and House affairs committee for study and the committee ultimately recommended changes to the Standing Orders, I feel it is worth reiterating a key message that came up during the previous debates on Motions Nos. 431 and 428.

The rules of the House are carefully balanced, based on parliamentary principles and traditions, and reflect the interests of all members. Changing these rules should not be a trivial matter. Rather, prudence, due diligence, and wide support among members are needed before making any significant changes to the Standing Orders.

Today's discussion is an important part of the consideration of the motion. I know that all members will take any proposed changes to the Standing Orders seriously. No doubt we will hear members from all sides bring forward their own questions and comments that will eventually shape the debate on Motion No. 489.

In closing, I go back one last time to what I see as the key question that arises when I compare the current secret ballot system for electing the Speaker and the proposed single preferential ballot system set out in Motion No. 489: is there a benefit to be gained by eliminating multiple rounds of voting? I believe that a preferential ballot would greatly increase efficiency over the present exhaustive ballot process we now use.

The next question, though, is whether the system would be strengthened by members' casting a single ballot that contains a clear ranking of their preferred candidates. Although I am clearly in support of Motion No. 489, I am not sure I can stand here today and give a definitive answer to that question. However, if today's motion were to be adopted, then the procedure and House affairs committee could undertake a closer examination of the proposed preferential ballot system and other related considerations and make that determination as a committee that is the master of its own destiny.

[The Budget, February 14th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, we announced economic action plan 2014, which demonstrates our government's commitment to growing the economy, creating jobs, and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

However, out of all of the comments made by the leader of the Liberal Party, there was one very interesting and telling exchange. During an interview, the leader of the Liberal Party refused to answer a question as to whether or not he would run budget deficits. His answer was, “The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself”.

I am sorry. Canadians know that a budget just does not balance itself. Although this economic assessment is interesting, they need to expect more from the leader of a G7 country.

Would the leader of the Liberal Party admit that his party would raise taxes to balance the budget?

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it was great to hear my colleague's speech. He is one of the most esteemed chairs of standing committees in this House.

I wonder if he might tell the House, if he had a witness who made multiple recommendations and over 30 of them were adopted in a piece of legislation, would he would call that a good step forward in consultation?

[Fair Elections Act, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have to understand is that we have an obligation not only to make it easy for people to vote but make it secure for people to vote as well, in the sense that someone does not cast a vote that is not eligible and thereby cancels out somebody else's vote that is eligible.

In this case, vouching is one of the areas for which we have very serious empirical evidence. In vouching, errors happened 25% of the time, and even when there was extra effort put toward that situation, errors happened 21% of the time.

There are 39 different items that can be used for identification when people go to the polls and capitalize on their franchise to vote. The bill would also implement measures that would make it easier for people to vote, such as an extra day of advance polling, and would have Elections Canada focus on outreach to disabled people so that they know how they can vote and can go to places where it will be easy for them to do that.

[Fair Elections Act, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in the two minutes that I have left, I will make two points.

Something unique and seriously consequential to our electoral system and democracy was articulated yesterday by my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre-North. She was the singular voice so far in informing the members of the House of our responsibility to be always reaching out to Canadian citizens to participate in our democracy. We should be allowing Elections Canada to focus on those things that will assist all Canadians to vote and we should be reaching out to our constituents to give the a good reason to vote. I thought she articulated that very well yesterday.

Finally, I want to reaffirm the fact that this bill implements 38 of the recommendations that the Chief Electoral Officer made in his report on the 40th general election, which he tabled in June 2010. I would encourage all hon. members to join me in supporting this bill and in working toward its swift passage in the House.