Derek Lee

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have three questions to deal with today. Question No. 19 will be answered today. .[Text]

Question No. 19—

[Government Response To Petitions, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

[Summit Of The Americas, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians prepare to be good hosts at the upcoming summit of the Americas in Quebec City, let us be focused on the work to be accomplished there: strengthening democracy, creating prosperity and realizing human potential.

However, at the same time, it appears from previous such meetings in Seattle and Europe that some people would provoke a clash between demonstrations of free expression and the need to avoid disruption and provide the high level of security needed for the hundreds of internationally protected delegates.

If the demonstrations do not penetrate the security zone and do not resort to the use of violence, we could have a great looking summit. However, if some of these things do happen, I hope we will accept that officials and police have a job to do in hosting the summit, that life and politics are not perfect sciences and are sometimes messy, and that as Canadians we are doing our best to deliver a most successful summit in Quebec City.

The television images we will watch, even if they are a little rough and tumble, will show Canada as one of the world's leading democracies proudly playing our international role. Good luck to us all.

[Committees Of The House, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations in connection with amendments to the report of the justice committee tabled in the House earlier this week.

I understand there would be unanimous consent to deem the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to be changed so that the reference to “line 16 on page 26” is altered to “line 9 on page 25” and the reference to “line 2 on page 41” is altered to “line 9 on page 40” in English and to “line 6 on page 40 in French”.

In advance of receiving consent I thank the members of each opposition party.

[Committees Of The House, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Ongoing consultations allow me to seek unanimous consent to put the following motion dealing with committee travel. I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment be authorized to undertake a study of Canada's economic relations with Europe, and further that the committee approve a proposed budget for eight members of the subcommittee, along with the necessary subcommittee staff to travel to Paris, Geneva, Berlin, and Brussels during the period of April 22 to May 5, 2001.

[Committees Of The House, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I think you would find unanimous consent to deal with the following committee travel authorization. It is a single committee authorization. I move:

That the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal from April 29 to May 4, 2001 in relation to Bill C-11 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee and that the Committee be authorized to televise its hearings.

[House Of Commons, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday this week we debated an opposition motion calling for a public inquiry. That motion was defeated, but during the debate a most regrettable comparison was drawn between Slobodan Milosevic and the Prime Minister of Canada.

Many times in this House the passion of some members for the subject of debate causes them to personalize their remarks and say things they should not. This is an occupational hazard for people such as us, who spend a lot of our time in politics working with our mouths. Occasionally we make mistakes. The appropriate resolution of a verbal mistake, no matter why it has occurred, is a verbal apology, and our House accepts them.

Comparisons between our Prime Minister and Slobodan Milosevic should be seen as odious to all of us in the House and hopefully to Canadians at large. I ask the member to reconsider her remarks and to put this matter right in the way we all have to do here from time to time in this great place: with an apology.

[Canada Elections Act, April 5th, 2001]

Is this Cross Country Checkup ?

[Canada Elections Act, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to see how we grapple in the House with issues involving the other place. I want to put on record my position and what I believe to be the position of the government in relation to the amendment.

The current legislation governing elections allows the chief electoral officer to undertake studies and test or pilot projects involving the use of electronic voting in elections. That was an innovation put into the Canada Elections Act adopted by parliament last year.

Most Canadians would agree it is a useful device. It allows the chief electoral officer to alter the way Canadians might vote in a test or pilot project without having to change the legislation first. It is forward looking and a little bold. Parliament decided that if we were to allow this test or pilot project to occur, we would want the House to approve it first. I am sure Canadians would agree with that as well.

When the bill was passing through the other place senators made the point that they had been excluded from the process which in part pre-empts the existing law on how elections are held. The government through the minister gave an undertaking to the Senate that when the bill was passed there the government would introduce an amendment to address that issue.

In the current bill before the House there is an amendment which provides that before such a test or process takes place approval would be obtained from both the committee of the House and the committee of the Senate that normally deal with those issues.

The amendment before the House now would alter that approval process in the bill. It would call for the House to give its approval but for the Senate only to be consulted. That is the proposed change to the bill, but I also point out that a plain reading of the motion before us suggests that the House must consult the Senate before it gives its approval to electronic voting.

I am not entirely sure that is what the mover intended. I am not sure it was intended that the House be restricted when it gives its approval; perhaps only that the Senate be consulted. In any event the amendment as it is now drafted is unclear on that point because of the apparent absence of the conjunctive word and. I will not inquire further into that except to say that as I read it the proposed amendment may not accomplish precisely what the mover wanted.

The Senate wanted the amendment to ensure that its approval was obtained before the test or pilot project was adopted. As all members know, the Senate, the other place, wishes to deliver on its role as an equivalent house of parliament. It would not in the ordinary course want to be excluded from legislative matters. I suspect it would never even permit itself to be excluded from the legislative process, but it certainly did notice when the bill was passed that it had been excluded from the approval process which would allow the pilot project to pre-empt the otherwise prevailing laws governing elections.

It is in good faith that the Senate requested the amendment. The Senate continues to have a strong interest in how elections in Canada are run. It wants to be involved in any change.

If we ask average Canadians on the street whether the House should have an exclusive right of approval and the Senate should not have any role in making changes to the Canada Elections Act, not all but many would say that the Senate could probably make some good, objective commentary in the process. The Senate would not be involved in elections. At present senators are definitely not involved in elections.

Members of the House might take umbrage at any suggestion that they have a role in elections. but the Senate has a role to play when it comes to the framework legislation that governs elections and delivers on the charter based rights of Canadians to vote to ensure their constitutional democratic system is operating properly. Many experienced senators in the other place understand how elections are run and can participate constructively in that type of approval process.

In delivering on its commitment the government at this point is quite certain that the amendment in the bill, not the motion in amendment proposed by the hon. member, reflects the undertaking given at the time of the passage of the bill last year. For the other reasons mentioned in my remarks I cannot support the motion.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.