Peter MacKay

[The Budget, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and his colleagues have selectively leaked the contents of this afternoon's budget to the media over the past number of weeks.

We know of the ongoing fight between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry over broadband. We also know about the Prime Minister's intervention to keep the leadership candidates in check and happy. The government has abandoned the long held practices of prebudget secrecy. It routinely makes announcements to the press gallery and at Liberal fundraisers.

Why is parliament always the last to learn about the government's initiatives, including this year's budget?

[Canada Elections Act, December 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will delve immediately into the relevant part of my remarks. I was milliseconds away from doing so before I was pre-empted.

Having said that, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Davenport and the valuable work he has done for many years both in the Chamber and in his previous incarnation in the provincial legislature. However I regret to inform him and the House that I am not able to support the bill before us.

The bill is quite accurately described as a none of the above addition to ballots in the Canadian electoral process. It would for all intents and purposes entrench into our system a non-choice. It would codify much of the cynicism of our current system by allowing individuals to go into a ballot booth and check off none of the above. As has been referred to by previous speakers, Canadians already have that ability. They can write it on their ballot. They can spoil their ballot.

What additional exercise of democracy would result from Bill C-319? Ballots must contain the names of candidates arranged alphabetically. The information is calculated from nominating papers. Having a choice on the ballot of declining to vote for any candidate would essentially encourage people not to participate. It would be an act of apathy.

As in regular voting, the names of individuals who wish to vote in this manner would not be disclosed so the statistic would be of little use. Bill C-319 would allow us to calculate the number of people who come out to vote to say they do not want to vote. I do not know what this would give us in terms of information or instruction.

Voting by special ballot allows electors to vote in writing in the designated area on a ballot. Voters may fill in the name of the candidate of their choice. They might spoil the ballot as a protest to signify they are not pleased with the candidates or as an expression of dismay at the overall system. Bill C-319 is not necessary. It would create a more complicated ballot and encourage complacency.

In discussing the bill with other members I thought of an anomaly. What if the none of the above choice won? What if the none of the above candidate received the most support? This would presumably necessitate a byelection or some form of recount that would add cost and cumbersome recounts to a system that is in some ways already too convoluted.

We should be encouraging Canadian citizens to participate. I know the hon. member for Davenport shares that view. Perhaps the intent behind his private member's bill is to somehow generate discussion and debate on the issue.

Bringing more people into the democratic process to exercise their democratic right to vote is a good thing and something we all want to embrace. However encouraging them to come out and signify on a ballot that they do not want to vote is a bit of an oxymoron.

The 2000 federal election saw the lowest voter turnout in 100 years. Perhaps this is some indication of the crisis. We can fairly deem it to be a crisis when such low turnout occurs that it directly impacts on Canadians. I am not in any way attaching motives to the hon. member in tabling his bill, but bolstering statistics by showing that individuals came out and voted even if they did not support any of the candidates would be somewhat misleading and counterproductive.

The old saying is that if we do not vote we do not have a right to complain. I do not completely ascribe to that. However younger people must be instilled with the importance of participating in the democratic process.

They must be encouraged to come out and make an informed decision. It is a cop out to say that one can go into a ballot box and simply not make a decision by checking the none of the above option.

I have listened to the remarks and I have done a little background work on the bill before us. Whatever is directly behind the initiative, I simply do not see that it would strengthen our process in any way. Lengthening the ballot which forces electoral officers to generate more activity and more effort to calculate statistics that really indicate nothing is counterproductive to the process. It would increase costs and confusion and give this outlet to individuals who simply are choosing not to participate.

I do not feel this is necessary as a public expression of disinterest because there are other ways to do so. Simply to stay home is sadly the option that most Canadians chose to exercise in the last general election.

Although I would not promote the right for Canadians to simply abstain from voting in an election, such action would be preferable to complicating this ballot with the choice of none of the above or declining any preference for the candidate.

I regret to say that I cannot support this proposal, but I thank the hon. member for Davenport for bringing the matter forward. Airing the issue in a public way is always a positive initiative. I simply would state that I wish the government would share his enthusiasm and honesty for debate, public commentary and discourse in the Chamber. It is very much a useful exercise to embark on the discussion of a process such as this one.

Regrettably I will not be supporting the motion, but I thank the hon. member again for bringing forward Bill C-319.

[Canada Elections Act, December 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I commend the previous speaker who has for many years championed the cause of electoral reform. He has taken the occasion quite rightly to delve into some important discussions that touch on the very cornerstones of democracy.

He referred specifically to the need to discuss this matter in a more open way in the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada, where people should parle and be encouraged to talk.

This debate should take place through the formation of a committee both to specifically get information from various countries the member referred to in his remarks and, more important, to allow Canadians to engage through their members of parliament in a process that could perhaps reinvigorate and revitalize a parliament that is sadly fading. I will take a moment to--

[Points of Order, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the content of the appropriations bill that would enact the contents of Supplementary Estimates (A)

I draw the attention of the House to Vote 36a under Foreign Affairs and International Trade in the amount of $2 million. The explanation in the estimates is: “Payments to compensate for the transferred liabilities to the corporation from the government in respect of export development employees who have contributed to the public service death benefits account”.

At the moment there is no statutory basis for this transfer. The transfer would be authorized by what now exists as Bill C-31, which passed the House on October 30. Alas, Bill C-31 has not yet completed its metamorphosis from a bill into the full majesty of statute.

The bill was sent to the Senate, but it would appear the Senate has not yet passed the bill. It would be inappropriate for the House to include vote 36a in the appropriations bill since at the moment there is no other legislative authority to transfer the funds to the EDC. Nor can the House assume that Bill C-31 will be passed by both houses in the form in which it was passed by the House of Commons. Presumably there is still an opportunity for amendments to occur in the other place.

You will be more familiar than most, Mr. Speaker, with the statement of Speaker Jerome on March 22, 1977, when he stated that a supply item ought not be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation.

The House has already indicated through its passage of Bill C-31 that the transfer is in its view the proper subject of legislation, but the draft legislation has not yet been passed by both houses of Parliament. I therefore reluctantly invite the Speaker to strike this item from the appropriations bill.

[Anti-Terrorism Act, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to this very same issue. The breach that has occurred here with respect to all parties in this House having an opportunity to speak to this very important bill leads me to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion that:

Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities, in order to combat terrorism, be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice with instructions to hear from the Information Commissioner and to make further amendments to the bill as the committee considers appropriate.

[Public Safety Act, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government continually increases the concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister and selected ministers. The Emergencies Act provides detailed examination by parliament of any order issued against it. It includes the right to debate, the right to vote and the right to revoke an order.

But the last eight years of increased executive rule have shown the Prime Minister's autocratic style and increased contempt for parliament. Bill C-42 is just the latest example of executive order to bypass parliament. For a member who has served in the House for over 40 years, and his deputy as well, why has the Prime Minister exhibited such contempt for parliament?

[Public Safety Act, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-42 the government has decided to introduce the ability for ministers to pass interim orders declaring emergencies, just as in Bill C-36 the government will grab more executive power. There is no provision for these orders to come to parliament for debate. The orders appear to have no set criteria, do not have to be publicized in the Canada Gazette for 23 days, nor pass through parliament.

Why has the government brought in these measures when the Emergencies Act, with comprehensive powers and specific limitations, already exists?

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

[Impaired Driving, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the latest Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada initiative entitled “Taking Back Our Roads” includes a checklist of legislative changes needed to combat the dangerous criminal problem of drunk driving.

The checklist includes lowering the BAC limit to .05, enhancing police enforcement powers such as the use of passive alcohol sensors, demanding breath and blood samples from any driver involved in a crash causing personal injury or death and taking blood samples when an impaired driver is injured in a crash.

MADD also is calling for the elimination of conditional sentences for impaired driving causing bodily harm, the expansion of the use of ignition interlock programs for all offenders, the creation of a victim's policy office and a mandatory parliamentary review of impaired driving legislation every five years.

Impaired driving in Canada kills almost five people every day. The PC/DR Coalition supports Louise Knox and MADD Canada in their efforts to eliminate the scourge and carnage on Canadian highways caused by drunk driving. We join with MADD Canada in calling on the government to act decisively to eliminate drunk driving in Canada.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Yes, we all want to move forward on matters of security and yet we know that there is the real possibility of sacrificing Canadian civil rights in this process, particularly when it comes to access to information.

I know the minister came directly from the classroom to cabinet and perhaps bypassed the courtroom, but does she understand the implications of issuing a certificate in which information can be denied to Canadians?

The parliamentary secretary went to great lengths to tell us there was a process and that one could always go to the federal court. The privacy commissioner or information commissioner could commence an action in the federal court. The issuance of the certificate can come after the fact, then the person can launch another suit in the Federal Court of Appeal.

Does the Minister of Justice fully comprehend the expense and time involved in an individual citizen of the country launching two simultaneous lawsuits against the federal government and does she really think that it will satisfy Canadians who want to get information about why they have been placed on a list of terrorists if a mistake has been made? Does she really think that justice will be done if that process is undertaken?