Gary Goodyear

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a report today to Your Honour to consider Bill C-18, the verification—

[Committees of the House, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The report is in regard to its order of reference of Thursday, November 1, 2007, Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act.

The committee has considered Bill C-16 and reports the bill with amendments.

[Committees of the House, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order No. 91.1(2), this report contains the list of items added to the order of precedence, as a result of the replenishment that took place on Friday, November 23, 2007 under private members' business, that should not be designated non-votable.

[Committees of the House, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I move that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be now concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[Committees of the House, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the fourth report later this day.

[International Aid, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it has been estimated that nearly 10 million children under the age of five die from preventable causes every year. Regrettably, half of all the child and maternal deaths in the world occur in Africa.

Canada has been a world leader in terms of aid delivery in the fight against HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. In fact, our government continues to work toward the eradication of extreme poverty in developing countries.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation tell the House what the government is doing to combat child mortality rates?

[Petitions, November 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to table a petition of well over 1,000 signatures. These petitioners from across Canada, specifically in my riding of Cambridge, in North Dumfries township and in Oxford county, have raised serious concerns about the Canadian Pacific Railway and its lack of civic, social, corporate responsibilities, as well as its refusal to cooperate and respect the communities it steamrolls through.

CP is flaunting the fact that federal laws have little jurisdiction over it and the petitioners say that they will not be railroaded by the railroad.

The petitioners ask that the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Public Safety, as well as the Minister of Health use their collective influence to immediately require the Canadian Pacific Railway to appropriately protect the environment, show some respect for Canadians and start acting like good neighbours should.

[Canada Elections Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member. He has done a lot of work and has been very concerned about this issue, as all of us are, and he quite rightly points out that all parties appear to be cooperating and not playing games to get this through.

The member's comments about folks who travel is a very good one because a lot of folks in my riding too when the weather gets bad, head down to Florida. We want to ensure that wherever Canadians are in the world at the time of an election, that they actually have every availability to them to express their franchise to vote. The member should know that special ballots, mail-in ballots, allow folks that are in another country to go to the Canadian embassy and vote there. Those ballots can be sent home as our troops have done, et cetera. So none of those are affected by this legislation.

The member may not be familiar with the most current piece of legislation whereby the government wants to ensure that every opportunity is provided for Canadians to vote and vote with integrity within the system. We have added an extra couple of days where Canadians can vote. That would help some of the folks in my riding who perhaps might be in Florida on the day of the election. They can mail in their ballots as I have said in a special ballot situation, but it is convenient for Canadians to have these extra voting days.

I wonder if the member would not mind to comment on his intentions to support the other legislation that I am sure would help folks in his riding too by having a couple of extra couple of options. I suspect in the member's riding that having an extra couple of days might be a great idea because I know his riding is very large and that would help folks to have a few extra days. Would he support that legislation?

[Canada Elections Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that not all members can attend all committees, as there are many committees. I know the hon. member has her own committees and is not on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I would request that she check the minutes because at no time did the NDP raise the issue of these riding addresses.

In fact, the NDP brought forward a number of witnesses from a number of organizations who were concerned, as they should have been, with how homeless people would have the right to vote. The committee grappled with the issue at great lengths.

No one, including the folks from Elections Canada, the witnesses, the members of Parliament who were at the committee or the Senate, saw the rural address issue, and here it is. Nobody from the NDP raised this issue. They missed it completely, as did everybody else.

I want the member to be correct on her facts, and perhaps I could lend her some research assistance for her next speech.

The committee grappled with fraud and the integrity of the system. We heard stories from witnesses, and again I can help the member get the research, where people would phone in to radio stations to register their votes. We heard situations where dead people voted. We heard situations where there was a 150% turnout at some of the polls. Therefore, the fact that nobody has been charged by Elections Canada does not, in itself, preclude that there may have been fraud. It is balancing the integrity of the Canadian voting system.

Here we have a rural address problem for which we have come up with a solution. I just want to point out that the NDP provided no solution.

However, we did grapple very hard and very long to ensure homeless people were able to exercise their right to vote, despite the fact that evidence showed that in one area where there were an estimated 600 homeless people, 1,800 votes were cast by those homeless people. Therefore, the suggestion is that they voted three times.

Recently we have had comments from the NDP that to add extra voting days and give Canadians more choice when they vote would ultimately, questionably, cost a little bit of money. It has been suggested that it would increase it moderately. The NDP's comments now are that it would not be worth the expense.

Could the member tell us at what point we balance the integrity of the system, making sure that people who have a right to vote do vote and nobody else, not people who are vacationing in Canada and not my in-laws who perhaps are not citizens of the country? How do we protect that? How does she answer the question that we must do everything for the homeless, and I agree we must, but not anybody else because it is too expensive?

[Canada Elections Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am not even sure I should make a comment because I would not want to imply any impartiality. I am the chairman of the committee that studied the bill and I am absolutely appalled at the member's comments. The member is making this into a race issue.

On that committee, we heard from a number of representatives from the Muslim community, and every single one of those who represented numerous communities across this country were absolutely ashamed of this becoming a race issue. The revealing of faces is not a religious issue; it is a custom. They were appalled at any insinuation that this had anything to do with race.

To have the member stand in this House and suggest that anyone else's comments besides her own are dividing this nation is absolutely rejected. It is shameful. The Muslim community wants this legislation. This legislation was debated. Witnesses were heard. The members opposite were completely in favour of this legislation at the time.

I wish I had counted the words in that speech in order to mention the number of times the member is wrong and how she should be ashamed of making this into a race issue. It is not a race issue. I wish she would apologize to the Muslim communities in this country.