Good stuff. I just want to be sure.
First off, I appreciate the understanding that we were able to come to at the beginning today. That's good. It would be nice if that kind of goodwill would continue and we could actually get somewhere.
Chair, if I may, I think it would be appropriate to restate the motion that's in front of us so that we could provide some context for my remarks.
I move:
That the Committee, upon receiving an Order of Reference from the House concerning C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, initiate a study on this legislation, which will include the following: That the Committee hear witnesses from, but not limited to, Elections Canada, Political parties as defined under the Canada Elections Act, the Minister of State who introduced the bill,
—which we've just done—
representatives of First Nations, anti-poverty groups, groups representing persons with disabilities, groups representing youth advocates and students, as well as specific groups which have been active in society on elections rules, including Fair Vote Canada, SAMARA, Democracy Watch and the BC Civil Liberties Association; That the Committee request to travel to all regions of Canada, (Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Northern Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia and the North), as well as downtown urban settings (such as the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver) and rural and remote settings, and that the Committee request that this travel take place in March and April 2014; and That the Committee shall only proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill after these hearings have been completed, with a goal to commence clause-by-clause consideration for Thursday, May 1, 2014.
That, Chair, is the motion.
On the components of the motion, let me jump to the last point first, because I think it's important.
Normally an official opposition wouldn't box themselves in by putting an actual completion date, but we did that for that very reason, to show how serious we are about this proposal. We're not looking to hijack the process or to be obstructionist per se, or to lull the government into some process where we don't get a bill passed in time for the next election. None of that is our objective at all. That's why we took the unusual step of saying that if we can travel in March and April, which we believe there is plenty of time to do, then we would be quite comfortable committing ourselves to starting the clause-by-clause study on May 1.
Once we get into that process, for those who are watching, the government majority control then takes over. Once we start getting into clause-by-clause study, the ability of the opposition to do anything from a procedural point of view is very limited, notwithstanding extraordinary measures. By and large the government's majority at that stage in the process pretty much assures them that they can control all the way through to completion. We know, because we can do math, that in a majority government the government's going to win votes 10 times out of 10. We get that. We're not trying to take away the government's ability to govern. We are trying to minimize their ability to reign. Governing is one thing; reigning is another.
I have to say, Chair, that watching the government in the House bringing in the hammer of closure within a day or two—a day or two—of the bill being introduced did not suggest to us that the government was interested in allowing real democracy to take place, as you would under a governance structure, but rather they just want to ram through whatever they think the rules should be for all of our elections. There's not much democratic about that.
Let me also say, Chair, that I've been in politics a long, long time. People who know me know that not only will I not avoid a political fight, like my friend from Winnipeg Centre, but from time to time, I enjoy a good political battle. I see my colleagues laughing. It's my understated point. Mr. Reid is questioning it, of course, tongue in cheek, and I knew that would be the reaction. Fair enough.
The fact remains that we'd much rather be fighting over the content of the bill given its importance. I appreciate that nobody is heckling that point because we have gone out of our way to try to keep the focus on what matters. What matters is, ultimately, the election laws that we have in this country. As I said in my opening remarks to the minister, it's not just the content of the bill that defines a democracy, but the process around which you bring that bill into law and give it the force of law in the land. That's important in any case.
Chair, we would submit that it means even more when it's our election rules, our election laws. In the past, this is how far we've gone away from what parliamentary democracy is supposed to be. It used to be back in the day that a government, majority or otherwise, wouldn't dream of, would never dream of, introducing wholesale massive changes to our election laws without consulting with the opposition. Yes, as shocking as that sounds, back in the day, our democracy used to be so healthy that when it came to deciding the rules of the game, it was understood that we can't have a fair game if we don't all agree on the rules.
I mean, we're watching the Olympics which are happening right now. The first thing that happens before anybody puts on one piece of equipment is they agree on what the rules are going to be. The people who host the Olympics didn't get to set all the rules. It wasn't the Russian Federation that came in and said “here are the rules of the Olympics”. It was done through a process. I'm not an expert on the committee, but the International Olympic Committee, I believe, ultimately has the say, but lo and behold, that's made up of component parts of the countries that participate in the Olympics. They would no more allow one country or the host country to ram through rules than they would consider cancelling the Olympics.
Of course we have to agree. Yet here's the Conservative Minister of State for Democratic Reform defying democratic gravity by saying that he's going to have a fair elections act with an unfair process. That's why there's resistance from us, Chair. It really isn't because we want a fight around process. Quite frankly, it doesn't take too long before the public's eyes just kind of glaze over and they say, “Here they go. Inside baseball.”
I see my colleague, Mr. Butt, agreeing that when it comes to process people aren't that engaged. However, I do think it's fair to say, and I hope Mr. Butt would agree with this, Chair, that Canadians like to think there's fairness happening in this process. Because we have representative government, they aren't sitting around this table to express their concern. That's our job. That's our job as the opposition, to make sure the system is as fair as possible, the process. I say right now, Chair, at any time in this process until we have some kind of an agreement, if the House leader wants to talk publicly, offline, send a text or smoke signals, anyway he wants to convey that they're prepared to compromise, then I'm signalling we are receptive to that, because this is not the fight that's important. It's not the primary fight as we see it.
The primary fight, as we do see it, are the issues that we're raising and the concerns that we have about the damage that will be done to our democracy.
However, we can't have that kind of fair discussion or fair fight, if you will, if we don't have rules and a process. What kind of extraordinary, unbelievable, horrible demand are the official opposition and the other opposition representatives making? All we want is the opportunity for Canadians to have their say.
The government has said no. They marched into the first meeting and said no. They marched out of that meeting saying maybe. Three hours later we were back to no. We sit here again receptive and willing to negotiate. Somewhere between no and our motion there should be the ability to come to an agreement. We are flexible. I said that and I'm not going to breach confidentiality in terms of discussions I had with the deputy House leader, but I do think it's fair to say that what we were outlining was a willingness to engage in a discussion. I knew that we were going to have to stand down from where we are a little bit, put a little bit of water into our wine, but in order for that to work, the government has to do the same thing.
That's kind of where we are right now, Chair. As yet, the government is not being fair. Let's remember, the minister consulted with nobody. I didn't have a lot of time to go back after the minister on his answer, but you can only puff up a one hour “Hi, how are you” meeting and call it a consultation so far before it starts to look utterly ridiculous. That's how the minister looked, absolutely ridiculous.
I used to be a minister provincially. I remember what you do in the early days and you do a touch base and a “Hi, how are you” with all the various components that make up the portfolio that you have responsibility for. I'll tell you that the first time I met with the OPP commissioner and had our little “Hi, how are you” I didn't consider that to be a strategic goal-setting meeting to decide where the future of the OPP was going. It was “Hi, how are you” and getting to know each other. That's all that happened with the Chief Electoral Officer.
Think about it. In one of the most progressive, modern, mature democracies on the planet, a country that's held up as a model by many others in terms of what they want to evolve to, we have a complete, 244-page—help me, professor. I mean look at this bill. It's massive. It's 244 pages of changes about our election laws. I think it's reasonable that most Canadians would look at that and say that they're not in politics, and they're certainly not a minister and have never made bills, but it does make sense that if you're going to change the election laws, the foundation of our democracy—it's hard to find something that's more important than the foundation of our democracy—the first step for a new minister in particular would be to have a serious, comprehensive consultation process with the Chief Electoral Officer.
That's what we did here at this committee. I want to remind members, Chair, and you were there through thick and thin, at every meeting. We spent two or three Parliaments, I don't know, three or four years, going through recommendations—wait for it—from the Chief Electoral Officer. It was a huge document, very detailed, very comprehensive. We looked at that. That was in a minority situation, and that's the stark lesson here. In a minority situation the Conservatives had no choice but to cooperate; otherwise, they couldn't do anything because the rest of the parties held the balance of power.
What did a real, comprehensive review...? By the way, there's a report of the Chief Electoral Officer coming out of the 41st general election. I'd be shocked if that was even referenced in the “Hi, how are you” meeting.
My point is that at that time when we were looking at changes, the first place we started.... In fact, Chair, correct me if I'm wrong, but the document we used as our reference point, and if you remember, we had a lot of documents because there was so much detail.... This stuff is complex. You need legal opinions. You need experts in the field. The document that was the centrepiece of our work was the report and recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. It took us multiple Parliaments and multiple years of goodwill, negotiation, and discussion to conclude that report. I think we did finally conclude it. Yes, we did, but it literally—I'm not exaggerating—was two or three Parliaments and then almost as many years. That's the report. That was the starting document.
This is from the Chief Electoral Officer. What does it say at the top? it says, “Mapping of the Chief Electoral Officer Recommendations”, and then it goes on. There's the value, and it talks about the subject, the current status, the recommendations, and the desired outcome. It's page after page after page, and we spent hundreds of hours. There were goodwill discussions that were some of the most interesting, challenging, and enjoyable debates that I've had since I've been here. Why? I would say in large part because we didn't have one party with a majority that considered it to be a nuisance to listen to the other members of Parliament from the other parties. That's the way it seems right now.
But back in the day, when we were doing real work and really working together, we went through this piece by piece, and this is the beginning document. I can show you files this thick, multiple files of documents. We would have the Chief Electoral Officer come in. We would have legal experts come in. They would go away, we would talk back and forth, get to some stuff, then get to a finer point, and we'd bring them back in to get into the detail of all that. We did really good work. Hansard is full of my compliments to my colleagues in terms of the approach, the maturity, and the really good political parliamentary work that was being done.
So what happened? Well, what happened was that the government got a majority, and it turns out that a lot of their talk about wanting to clean up politics coming off the heels of the sponsorship scandal that the Liberals were embroiled in.... This government ran on a platform of “We're going to be clean. We're going to be accountable. We're going to be transparent. We're going to have all kinds of accountability, and Canada will never have had it so good under a Conservative government in terms of the strength of our democracy”. They got elected on that platform. Since then, all they've done is insult and degrade our democratic process, step by step by step by step, until now we have a bill that in our view allows serial cheaters to pre-cheat the next election.
Now, the government is saying that's not the case at all. That's not an unusual dynamic. That's when the issue of a fair process kicks in, when the opposition members have very strong feelings and concerns about what is in a bill.
The government is responding to the opposition by saying, "No, no, no. You're fearmongering. You're exaggerating” or “You're just simply wrong. Your arguments don't hold at all." Well, you know, there are some countries in the world where that really is the end of the debate, where there is no further discussion. Should you start expressing your disagreement, you find, after a knock at the door at three o'clock in the morning, that suddenly you are no longer around.
Now, one might say, “Come on, we're so far from that”. Yes, we are. We are so far from that, but why? Not just because we're Canada, not just because we say so, but because we pass laws and conduct ourselves in a way such that our citizens believe they are part of a democracy, and not just any old democracy, but one of the best in the world.
Remember, if democracy were easy, everybody would have it. A parliamentary system, unlike a presidential congressional system, let alone any autocratic system, is not a governance structure of reigning and ruling over people, which is the sense we have had ever since this government got a majority.
It's like they're saying, “We got a majority government and that means we can do whatever we want, any way we want. We're the government and anybody who gets in our way is clearly the problem, and whatever we do to get them out of the way is okay because we're doing all the right things.” That is not the attitude of a democracy, and certainly not a parliamentary democracy. We have gone so far away from the basic foundations of how a parliamentary democracy works that in some ways it's working against us.
How many times, colleagues, have we heard, in the day, the sitting president of the United States of America say that he would give anything to have the powers of a majority prime minister in Canada? They run everything.
Let's remember, that this is a government that got less than 40% of the vote and 100% of the power. Where's the basic democracy in that? I won't go down that road, Chair. I'll save you that speech for another day, but it does speak, at the end of the day, to proportional representation being the next step in an evolved, mature democracy.
That's one we're still struggling for, but boy, we're so far away from that kind of progressive thinking in terms of just defending decent, fair rules right now that it remains a dream, which hopefully will start to unfold after the election in 2015 with an NDP government that will bring in proportional representation. But I digress—
