Well, hope springs eternal all round.
So my point, Chair, in raising this is that this is the kind of thoughtful, considered, important dialogue that Canadians should be having. I defy any member of the government here today to make the case that this submission by Mr. Shedletzky and Leadnow constitutes a circus or a gong show. All they're asking for is the right to have their say in the places where they live so they can give us their thoughtful input into our election law. And yet here we are, fighting, just to get the government to get out of the safety and security of the Ottawa bubble and give people a chance to have a say on their election laws in the communities where they live.
This is the dialogue Canadians want. I know there's some kind of cartoonish vision that they all have on the other side, Chair, about what happens when you go out into the country, and—ooh—what happens, what if there's somebody there with a picket sign? What if somebody says something that's not polite? One can see why they're afraid. You should see the delegation. They're just terrifying. I'm just so glad I'm over here and there are security guards who could save me from them really quickly, because I think at any moment they're going to do all kinds of violent damage to me and I'm worried. So it's good. I could see maybe why the government wants to stay here. I mean, look, look. Look how terrifying they are. Oh, my God. Oh, my gosh. It's terrible.
You know, that's the silliness of this, and we're reduced to mocking the government's responses because they are so flimsy, when the reality is the reason they don't want to go outside this security safety bubble in Ottawa is they are afraid.
And you know what? I think these government members—this is just my opinion, Chair— really are the ones who are sort of saying, “I don't want to go out there and face all that. I have a hunch this may not be popular, so I really don't want to be on that committee and do that.”
But that's not what's really driving this. What's really driving it is people in the PMO. They're not worried about circuses or gong shows. The committee members are. I think they're worried they might have to walk by somebody holding a sign that says, “Democracy Now” or “Yay Canada”. I think the smart people in the PMO are worried about people like Mr. Shedletzky who are bringing in insightful thoughtful concerns about the bill. That's what they're really afraid of. The members are a little worried about what will happen between the bus and the committee room, but the PMO is not. They're worried about this kind of messaging, the kind of messaging that says, “Wait a minute—you're proposing what? And this law says what? And that's going to affect me in what way?”
That's what they're really afraid of. Not the gong show. Not the circus. They're worried about smart Canadians seeing through what they're doing. That's what they're afraid of, and that's why we're here, because fortunately this is still a democracy and even though they have a majority, in a democracy in a parliamentary system, opposition members have some rights.
One of them is to slow the government down when they're about to run over democracy and Canadians' rights to have a say about their democracy, and that's what we're doing. That's why I was so pleased to join Leadnow.
There's an example. That's just one stack—Adam had lots of them. That's just one stack; there were many. We all got one, and there were lots left over. This has to be the government's nightmare right here—54,000 Canadians. Everybody in here gets credit for being one part of the government's nightmare, which is, Canadians are paying attention. That's what the government doesn't want. That's why they rammed it through the House, obviously not because they expected any work to be done here at committee, even though that's what they said. The whole goal is to ram this through and get it in place for the next election because in our view, and in the view of many other Canadians, this advantages the Conservatives—the party in power and the party with the most money.
Chair, this is how bad the bill is, that the political calculation is thus. It is better to take the hit when it comes, now and then, in the media, for refusing to take this bill on a cross-country tour outside the safety and security of the Ottawa bubble, rather than face the wrath of an informed Canadian citizenry that sees through it. That's the political calculation. This is generating bad news. The average person might ask, why are they doing this? Why are they taking all these negative hits? And why are they allowing so much focus to go on their refusal to be democratic? It's a good question. That answer is because that hit is better than taking the one for the way they're trying to rig the elections.
That's why Mr. Shedletzky and every other Canadian who thinks the way he does is the real fear that this government has. If Canadians actually understood even a fraction of the damage these changes would do to our election laws as well as my friend Mr. Scott—who has the advantage over all of us, of not just being an amazing MP, but happens to be a law professor—one begins to understand why the government is prepared to take the hit for not going out there.
Where is it we're asking this committee to go that is so terrifying? Most of the major regions of the country are, in large part, represented here at the table, so some of us would be going home. I'm not sure why home is a scary place for them to go to. It's just the fact of our geography alone.
Chair, you and I had a chance to do some travel together early in our years. We both got elected in the class of 2004. We went on an international trip together, and you know how much we learned from that and how much we understood. We also saw how very different the world is when you get out there and start understanding it.
I've also had the opportunity—and you maybe have, Chair, and I'm sure others here have—to go to places like Nunavut and Iqaluit, the capital. There's not much doubt that once you land there at the airport you're in a very different place than you were when you just left Ottawa—because I think that's the only direct flight. It is very, very different.
But you know, Chair, here's the interesting thing, that's only the beginning of it. If you then go further north.... If you're in Iqaluit you certainly get a sense that wow, this is not Kansas anymore, this is very different. Everything about life is different. They're still Canadians, with Canadian laws, but nonetheless their life is so different because of their geography and therefore in large part because of their weather, and isolation.
But, as I said, that's just the beginning of the story. If you're lucky enough, as I've been, to then go from Iqaluit to Pond Inlet for instance, now you're into the High Arctic. You're in the Arctic Circle. Let me tell my fellow MPs that when you get to Pond Inlet you really know you're in a different place. It starts with just seeing glaciers in front of you.
Then you can still go one more step. There are actually two more; I went the one, I didn't go to the final one, to Resolute Bay, which is in the Northwest Passage.
I'm from Hamilton. The way we vote in Hamilton—with the mechanics of it of getting up every day, getting your ID, finding out where you're going to vote, the whole election process in a major urban centre, one of the largest cities in Canada, my hometown Hamilton—is so different in Iqaluit, not to mention Pond Inlet.
What we're asking for is a chance to let the people in Iqaluit, Pond Inlet, and Resolute Bay to show us and tell us where they live, how this impacts them. They deserve that. The people of Pond Inlet deserve to be heard, or other communities that represent their dynamic. It doesn't have to be that one. But Canadians like those who live in Pond Inlet and Resolute Bay, their vote is just as damned important as a vote that's cast in Ottawa, Toronto, or Hamilton. Yet, this government refuses to respect that.
Let's take a little trip further west in our great country, Downtown Vancouver Eastside. Not a place the government tends to talk about much or the circumstances therein, but you know what, Chair, they're Canadians too. Their vote is just as important and deserves to be respected as much as the citizens in Pond Inlet, Ottawa, Toronto, and Hamilton.
Part of the concern, for instance, in Vancouver Downtown Eastside is ID, vouching, not having a permanent address but still wanting to exercise their right—not option—their right as a Canadian to vote. I guarantee members of this committee that voting is very different in Vancouver Downtown Eastside than it is in downtown Calgary. But the people in downtown Calgary have got issues too with some of the changes in here.
So what do we do? It's a dilemma with this big change, this big country. There are all these different points of view. It affects people differently depending on where they live. Why don't we go there and ask them? I guess that's pretty revolutionary. It's worth a try though. We could just sort of try asking people what they think about their own laws that affect their own country.
Through this whole thing, Chair, I really do have a hard time getting the image of what's going in the Ukraine out of my mind. The reason I went there and many others....In fact, one of the first ones I did in '04, and I'm referencing this because we've been talking here about the money we spent to go to Ukraine, and study their democracy and help them. The reason it stays is that in '04....I stand to be corrected but I think there were over 500 Canadians. I think Mr. Opitz was part of the '04. I know you've been to many since. You weren't at the '04 one, okay, but many since with the same intent and done great work there, sir.
There were over 500 Canadians who gave up their Christmas in 2004. We boarded planes, left our families behind, left all our Christmas trees and presents, and others of different religion. All that was left behind. We all got on a plane and flew to Ukraine in December. Anybody who wants to suggest that was some kind of a junket, go ahead.
I'll tell you what it was. It was heartwarming—heartwarming to be there as one of the most important delegations among representatives from around the world, from democracies everywhere.
Who paid for that? We paid with our time, our families paid by not having us there with them, but the dollars were paid by Canadians. I did not have and have not ever had one of my constituents say to me that Canada should not be spending money on supporting democracies, in particular emerging democracies around the world.
Sometimes the government likes to say they don't want to spend the money on this travel; that it's going to cost them thousands of dollars. Yes, it will. One thing about democracy is that it can be expensive and can be slow. But of course, to paraphrase Winston Churchill—poorly, I might add, because I don't know the quote exactly—“As bad as our system is, it's still better than all the others.”
