Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It has been a while since I've been afforded the opportunity to actually address the issue before us. There are a number of concerns we have expressed over the days, both formally and informally, in different types of discussions.
I appreciate the fact, Mr. Chair, we do have an agreement that will ultimately see us at least deal with the government's motion. I do believe the government's intent was, if there was no agreement, to force this issue through. I'm glad, in the sense that I'm anticipating now that we'll be able to make some decisions in terms of being able to deal from a steering committee's perspective with the issue of witnesses. We do have witnesses, too, that we would like to come before the committee.
Having said that, there are a number of concerns I would really like to expand upon. The biggest one is just dealing with the process followed by the legislation. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairperson, in many ways we have to concede the fact that we've lost opportunities here.
We've lost opportunities to deliver a better electoral system to Canadians by the manner in which the bill has been introduced, gone into committee, and will ultimately pass. It's going to go that way because there is a Conservative majority government. They are prepared to use that majority even at the cost of what I believe is important to all Canadians, and that's that sense of fairness in our democratic system.
To go over the process, what we're talking about here is our election laws. We have to put it in the perspective, I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairperson, in terms of the lack of confidence Canadians have, and you cannot blame them given what has taken place since 2011. There have been all sorts of media reports, issues, everything from the robocalls to the in-and-out scandal, to campaign over-expenditures, allegations of cheating, and so forth, all of which I believe has undermined the confidence the public has in our election laws. There is a responsibility for the government to address it. The manner in which they have chosen to do that, Mr. Chairperson, I believe is wrong-headed.
Let's go back in terms of what an obligation is, and I say this, Mr. Chairperson, because I have in a different capacity had the opportunity to work with independent election authorities in the past, in particular Elections Manitoba. So I'm very much familiar with the processing, and how we now have a motion before us today that is just a continuation of an attitude the government has in regard to what I would suggest to you is an assault on true democratic process on very critically important legislation, part of the cornerstone or one of those pillars of our democratic foundation.
What would typically happen, Mr. Chair, is that the independent election authority would be treated with respect and afforded the opportunity to be able to work with different political parties and other stakeholders with the idea of improving our election laws.
Now what we'll see is that Elections Canada did go out of its way in terms of being able to accommodate different changes that could be put into the legislation, and there have been tangible suggestions that have come from Elections Canada. For whatever reasons, Mr. Chairperson, the government has chosen to ignore those.
One of the most significant ones was that Elections Canada was requesting, for example, the ability to compel witnesses. This is something that was of critical importance. We all know that. All political parties were very much aware of that fact, and the government has intentionally left that out. In fact, Mr. Chairperson, they have compounded the problem through the division that was caused with the commissioner and Elections Canada.
There should have been a reaching out to the election authority. There should have been a reaching out by the government to the different stakeholders, and I would ultimately argue, to the opposition parties. That never occurred. What we have before us is a bill that was introduced at second reading. I believe there were two, possibly three, individuals who were afforded the opportunity to address the bill. Shortly after that—I think the third speaker might have finished—the government House leader stood up and moved a motion of time allocation, in essence a form of closure, again, Mr. Chairperson, without any sense of obligation to allow opposition parties to convey the thoughts they have in regard to the bill.
Then—and I believe it was maybe not in this particular room but in La Promenade—we actually met the first time with the committee and we had a discussion about having the minister come forward. What I found very strange about that whole discussion was that in previous committees we were supposed to sit down and have some dialogue as to how the committee would like to deal with the legislation. The government, working with the New Democrats—because, if you recall, I did not agree to it—came to a consensus that we would have the minister come and appear before the committee. We had always believed that it was better to try to get the business at hand done before we would actually have the minister come before the committee.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairperson, that from my perspective the steering committee was just not doing its job. It does have a responsibility to the public to ensure that there's some justice in how the legislation is actually being brought into the committee.
I'm hopeful, given the comments both now and prior to the committee getting together, that in fact we will see exceptional goodwill to ensure that all parties will feel content with the number of witnesses that have been called and will be afforded the opportunity to have those witnesses actually appear or at least be offered the opportunity to appear before the committee. We're going to be looking in particular for Mr. Lukiwski's support in regard to that issue.
Mr. Chairperson, where we disagree with the government and the particular motion that has been brought forward is the whole idea of May 1, 2014. Why are we putting this time in place at this point? I don't believe and the Liberal Party does not believe that we should be putting in a date. There is no urgency that says to us that we have to have this legislation passed through here and that the drop-dead date is in fact May 1.
I appreciate that members have made reference to Elections Canada and some of the comments that they have provided, but at the end of the day, this legislation is far too important, and I don't think we should be attempting to limit it in any fashion. If it goes past May 1, we should be open to May 1. I don't believe it's necessary for us to actually have May 1 put into the motion itself. Let's get the committee up and running, but doing that, I do think, would be a mistake.
I would like to believe, in the spirit of goodwill, that we will see a sense of generosity coming from the government in regard to the number of hours that we are going to be able to have as a committee in order to be able to deal with this issue, in terms of the presenters and the clause-by-clause.
We're hopeful. I think it's very important that it gets communicated to the Prime Minister's Office and the minister responsible that there needs to be changes to the legislation. This legislation as it currently stands should not pass, period. We want to see, and believe, that the government has to approach this with an open mind. It's better not to pass this legislation at all, period, then to allow it to continue in its current form and become the law of the land. That would not be appropriate.
We are encouraging in the strongest possible way we can that the minister and the PMO be aware of the fact that there needs to be amendments to the legislation. Some of those amendments could be fairly substantial in their nature. I made reference in terms of the compelling of witnesses. This is something that we've argued for in second reading. This is something that Elections Canada has argued for. This is something that other election authorities in Canada, in my home province, already have the authority to do. There is no real reason for us to deny Elections Canada and the commission the authority to be able to compel a witness. It would be wonderful, the government would be doing a good thing, if in fact it would recognize that particular flaw within the legislation.
The division is an issue. The commissioner is a big issue, in terms of taking it out of Elections Canada. These are the types of presentations that we believe we're going to be hearing a lot about as we go into the committee. That's why it's very important when we see the motion putting a fixed date that everything has to be done by May 1. There are certain aspects, Mr. Chair, that I believe we need to articulate, and articulate well, when the time comes. Whether it's through the presenters who come here or when it comes time for us to talk about the clause-by-clause of the legislation itself, we need to feel that there is not going to be the type of time constraints that are going to continue to demonstrate disrespect for what is absolutely critical legislation, as I pointed out earlier, one of those cornerstones, one of those pillars of our democratic system.
We are not happy with the process to date. We recognize that the government is absolutely 100% determined to get this motion through. Somewhat sympathetic to the frustration that others might feel around the table in terms of why it is that ultimately...and it will pass because they do have that majority, Mr. Chairperson, but it is not the way to go.
As for the issue of going outside of Ottawa, you talk about lost opportunities, Mr. Chairperson, this is something I think is one of the more significant mistakes that PROC as a committee collectively will make because we are not acknowledging the importance of going outside of Ottawa.
I don't want to claim to understand why it is the government is so fearful of going outside of Ottawa. If I was to speculate I suspect that maybe in different locations there might be some people who have fairly hard opinions, in terms of the last few years and the violation of election laws, and might want to come out and participate in some fashion or another, Mr. Chairperson. Sometimes it might not be all positive, but we are a democratic society. We have to allow for individuals in communities across our country to be able to express themselves.
It's not just that we want a presenter to be able to come to the committee so the presenter can express themselves in the city of Winnipeg, or in Calgary, Montreal, or Halifax. That's an important aspect of it, Mr. Chair, but there are other benefits when the committee goes out. If we're going out into those communities, committee members are afforded the opportunity to meet with local individuals who are concerned about the legislation and to have that one-on-one dialogue with people who are concerned about the legislation.
There are people who will present. There are other people who will participate in different ways, maybe just by sitting in on the meetings and listening. They're afforded the opportunity to meet with a number of MPs who have been charged with the responsibility of being able to usher this legislation through. It's a wonderful thing from a public relations point of view for members of Parliament to be able to communicate with Canadians on such a critically important piece of legislation.
In Ottawa.... I hear about the national media, and the national media no doubt does a wonderful job in terms of reporting out of Ottawa, but there's a lot of local media in our communities that would welcome the opportunity to listen in. They might not necessarily have the budget to be able to come to Ottawa, especially if you start talking about things like the ethnic media. Ethnic media is very important. Also, a lot of those rural community newspapers are very important media outlets. They don't have their reporters here.
Why is it important, Mr. Chair, to take the media into consideration? It's primarily because that's the way in which we communicate quite often to the larger masses of individuals. For many Canadians, the opportunity to get a better understanding is through that local media.
Mr. Chairperson, if you could give me a five-minute warning, I would appreciate it.
