Jay Hill

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

(Motion agreed to)

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development be authorized to attend a conference entitled, A Dialogue on Canada's Approach to Democratic Development, in Ottawa on Thursday, February 15, 2007, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party seems so concerned about disenfranchising voters. We want to ensure that everyone possible has the opportunity to vote. I think that is clear. It is not just the NDP that is concerned about that.

As we travel around the world encouraging other countries to become more democratic, we have to ensure that our system is beyond reproach. We have to ensure that our system has the highest possible voter integrity. I believe, and I think most Canadians would believe, that some responsibility rests with the citizen.

I find it a bit ironic when we strongly advocate that other nations ensure their voters are identifiable, that they are citizens of that country when they cast their ballot to ensure there is absolutely no opportunity for voter fraud, yet somehow in Canada we shy away from that. We think that is unacceptable. That would appear to be a discrepancy. I would ask the member to comment on that.

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it has already been well stated by members of Parliament from all four political parties in the House how important is the integrity of our electoral system. I certainly would agree with that.

Even prior to the government bringing forward Bill C-31, I have been a very welcome participant in the debate that has ensued at the procedure and House affairs committee, so I welcome the remarks of my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River, not Kenora—Rainy River, and agree with the thrust of the comments he was making.

I would like to draw attention to the comments of his colleague from Vancouver Quadra who on a number of occasions has made reference to the fact that if we as the nation Canada are going to be a beacon for democracy, and a model, as my colleague just referred to, to the developing nations in the world, then it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians and indeed all Canadians to ensure that our electoral system is of the highest possible standard. That is the concern of all of us. It certainly was expressed by members of Parliament at the procedure and House affairs committee.

I could not agree with my colleague from Vancouver Quadra more about that fundamental point, that it is up to us to ensure that we safeguard the integrity of our system. If there is any possibility of fraud, we must make adjustments to our system to ensure that we can stand up or as he said, when we suggest to other nations how they could model their systems on ours, that we have every confidence that we are holding ours up as the standard to aspire to. I would agree with the member on that.

The NDP has brought up this whole issue of vouching. The difficulty I have with that is if we have multiple vouching where one individual says, “Yes, I know Joe and Sam and Lou”, et cetera, there is an obvious opportunity for fraud, and that is what we are trying to prevent.

I recently had the opportunity to be in South Africa, a nation that has been developing its electoral system. A specific voter ID card is required there. In addition, it is required that the thumb be actually inked on the day of the election. These are the extremes that some countries are going to, to ensure there is absolutely no fraud in their systems and yet we seem to be balking at even having fundamental rules about voter identification.

As the member for Vancouver Quadra indicated, it is very difficult for us to maintain our defence of our system if we cannot ensure when we say this to other countries that ours is an example.

I wonder if my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River would comment on this whole business of vouching specifically and of the importance of ensuring that when a person actually casts his or her ballot that at a minimum the person is a citizen and he or she does at least even temporarily reside in the riding where he or she is marking his or her X.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions between all parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study on the democratic development, twelve (12) members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development be authorized to travel to Washington, DC and New York, N.Y. from February 4 to 8, 2007, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all the parties and I think if you seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, when debate ends on the motion currently being debated, that is, concurrence in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the question be deemed put and the vote deferred to tomorrow, Tuesday, December 12, after oral questions.

[Autism Spectrum Disorder, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize it is unusual, but I wonder, with the consent of the House, whether we could apply the results of the vote just taken to the vote that is currently before the House.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order for one last time tonight. I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on the motion previously before the House to this vote presently before the House, with Conservatives voting yes.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the motion previously before the House to this motion, with Conservative members present voting yes.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to apply the results just taken on the motion previously taken to the motion before the House.