My notice of motion, tabled on February 6 of this year, states:
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:
—wait for it, here comes the radical part—
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,
By the way, let it be noted that the official opposition was very cooperative to allow the minister to come in—no circus, no gong show—and in a dignified way make his case. That should be noted, especially when the government starts ranting and raving about how irresponsible the opposition is being.
To continue:
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.
Chair, it's important for me to underscore the fact that most opposition parties do not include that kind of a start date for the last part of clause-by-clause consideration for two very good reasons. One is obvious, that you politically box yourself in because you've set that deadline.
The second thing is that once we get into clause-by-clause, it's mostly voting, and if the government is voting as a government, they win every vote ten times out of ten. That's why opposition parties don't put in that sort of thing.
But our leader made it very clear that we weren't going to play any games and that we were going to offer the government a serious proposal, and a modest one. I can tell you, as a former house leader at Queen's Park, about some of the motions I came up with. This wouldn't even be a starting point. The point was more the exercise and the politics. To draw attention to it, you'd load it up with everything. It was a political strategy.
This is not a political strategy. This is a sincere effort to get the issue of process out of the way. Canadians really don't want us fighting about process. I get it. We get it. But Canadians also, from what I'm hearing back, like the idea that we're holding the government to account on the issue of giving Canadians a say, in the communities they live in, on their election laws. That's the crux of it. History will show, if they continue this line, that the government that ran on a platform of democracy and accountability and transparency refused to let Canadians have their say on their election laws, in the communities they live in, because the government's afraid of them.
That's the only conclusion: they're afraid. Why do you think they said something like “gong show”? What are they worried about? They're worried that, heaven forbid, Canadians might come out and express their opinion about a public matter. Oh, my; whoa; another revolution.
Give me a break....
A lot of my time at Queen's Park was spent under Mike Harris, the former premier. If anybody is familiar with protests, hearings, and citizens expressing themselves, it's those of us who served in the Ontario legislature during that period of time. Given that some of the members of the current government are from the Harris government and actually sit right across from me at the House of Commons, sometimes during voting when we're kibitzing back and forth it's almost like being back at Queen's Park. For that matter, when I listen to the finance minister give his speeches about finance, or I listen to the Treasury Board minister talk about the Treasury Board, I can close my eyes, just transpose Canada for Ontario, and it's the same speech—
Yes, Chair?