That's fine. I appreciate that. It gives me a chance to have a drink of water.
Your point is well taken, Chair. I expect that everything I say I'm going to have to be able to tie and make it germane to the point. That's fair. I think the point that I'm making, Chair, is that the government in my view is afraid to go out into the public because they don't want to face criticism.
In the largest province of Ontario, where they had one of the most tumultuous times in our history, I went to all kinds of committee meetings across Ontario where there were protests. I can tell you that I'm not aware of one Conservative who even had one little scratch, not a single little boo-boo. Nobody got hurt. Maybe their sensitivities were a little bit assaulted because they didn't like some of the things on the signs or the things that people said to the media, but gosh, it's starting to sound a bit like a healthy democracy, minus the guns.
That was the point I was making, Chair. While they may not want to go, there are certain things you have to do as a government in a democracy. One of them is to talk to your own people or at the very least, give them their say. That's the key point we're making here today. I'm submitting that the government has no rational argument for not going out of Ottawa's secure safety bubble that we have here with lots of guards, posts, gates, and all that stuff to protect the poor little government members who might be upset if somebody said something they didn't like. The fact of the matter is that democracy doesn't just live here in this committee room or in the chamber, the House of Commons, on Parliament Hill, or even in Ottawa. Our democracy is also out there because that's where the people are.
It's not unreasonable. It's not radical. It's not obstructionist. In fact, I think it's the right thing that the opposition would make a federal case out of public hearings across the country in the places where people live. That's the issue. This government doesn't want to do it. Our job is to make them. I say straight up that we don't have the power to do it, but there are folks out there and there are folks in this room who can. The highest authority in a democracy is always the court of public opinion.
I say to those who care about this issue that I've been in politics a long, long time. Some would argue too long. I know what happens when government backbenchers get overwhelmed with complaints from their constituents that they're not happy. I'm not aware of too many government MPs who would be willing to put their seat on the line defending their government's decision to not let their constituents have a say on their election laws or at the very least, a sampling across the country. That will change things, let me tell you, especially as there's disarray going on in the government backbenches.
They've been in government for a long time. Some of those backbenchers are starting to realize that the only way they're going to see the inside of the cabinet room is if there's a public tour. They're getting a little restless. They're not as quick to just salute and say, “Yes, I'll do whatever you say, no matter how stupid it is or no matter how much it inflames my constituents”.
As you get close to the E day, that possible appointment and ascension to cabinet gets further and further off into the distant dreams of some backbenchers who go back to their ridings with their tails between their legs realizing that they really aren't making a big mark here yet. They go back to their ridings where everybody's a hero. You're an MP. You're the only MP in your riding, and everything's fine, and you kind of forget about Ottawa. “I'm relevant. I matter, okay.” You go back to your office and suddenly all you've got is a stack of emails and phone messages, and your staff is reporting that virtually every person who's coming in the door is angry. Oh, that's going to get the attention of those backbenchers a lot faster than the whip's office saying, “Heel”.
So I want to thank Leadnow, because you are. What I'd like to do is underscore the way that tens of thousands, and I predict it will be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, by the time this process is concluded, particularly if the government stays on this position where Canadians don't get to say they'll decide.... Their 39-point-something percent of the vote deems that they will decide what the laws will be. In three or four years you can get a macro say of how you feel about it all, but leave the details to us. Don't worry about it; we'll take care of it.
Well, Leadnow does not believe that's the way we should be changing our elections, and neither do we, and there's a whole lot of other groups. This is gaining some tracks. The government has lost the cover of the Olympics. I'm not sure what other shiny bauble they'll come up with to try to distract folks with, but the fact remains that more and more people are concentrating on this. I was proud to be there along with my colleagues at the news conference about an hour and a half ago.
Mr. Shedletzky is a co-founder, and I want to say I thought he did an outstanding, extraordinary job this morning. That's nerve-racking. It's not easy to stand in the glare of the national media and know that you're speaking to the entire country. He did an outstanding job. I was very proud to stand there with Adam.
He said, and I'm quoting because the government doesn't seem to think that people are all that interested. Mr. Shedletzky and his 54,000 friends tend to disagree. What he said today is relevant, Chair, because I'm bringing to the committee the views of outside to hear in order to show the government that their position is wrong, it's undemocratic, and it is not supported by the Canadian people.
What did Mr. Shedletzky tell us this morning? He said:
My name is Adam Shedletzky. I’m a co-founder of Leadnow.ca. Leadnow launched before the 2011 federal election and has since grown to include over 330,000 Canadians. Our mission is to help people across Canada deepen our democracy, to create a more open, just and sustainable society.
Funny, you know that really does sound like what they're fighting for in Ukraine.
Continuing the quote, sir,http://www.leadnow.ca/en/about:
Our priorities for campaigning and action are driven by our community, and we are not affiliated with any political party. We are here today because Canadians across the country—including over 50,000 who have signed this petition in just a couple of weeks—want to be able to participate in creating a new election law that impacts our democratic rights.
They're outraged that the long-awaited “Fair Elections Act”, introduced without any consultation with opposition parties or Elections Canada, does little to combat real election fraud and instead suppresses the vote of marginalized groups. Let me explain briefly. Following the proven election fraud that happened in the 2011 election, our election watchdog requested that Parliament provide it with the power to compel witnesses to testify during an investigation. Just like the Competition Bureau can. This was partially because political operatives refused to testify, significantly hampering the ability of Elections Canada to quickly get to the bottom of things. Yet this elections act does not give them this power. Nor does it provide penalties for political parties whose databases are used for unauthorized purposes. The robocall registry and new penalties for impersonating election officials does not adequately incentivize political parties to protect their databases, nor will they assist Elections Canada from catching political operatives playing dirty tricks. Minister Poilievre does not appear to have any answers for why our elections watchdog was not provided with the single most important power that they requested.
Instead, despite a complete lack of evidence that any actual fraud has occurred with the “vouching” process that 120,000 Canadians used in 2011, or the use of Voter ID cards, the Conservatives have decided to make it harder for Canadians to vote. This effort to increase the complexity of voting requirements is eerily similar to what has happened in the United States over the past decade where dozens of bills have had the documented effect of reducing voter turnout by millions of people.
Minister Poilievre points to the Neufeld Report for evidence that voter fraud needs to be tackled in Canada. Yet this report does not present one iota of evidence that there was even one case of fraud. Moreover, it makes no recommendation whatsoever to eliminate vouching or the use of Voter ID Cards. Instead, the report's first recommendation was to widen the use of Voter ID cards as a valid piece of address identification for all voters because it proves to be very popular amongst students, aboriginal people and seniors, with between 36% to 73% utilizing this option in a 900,000-person pilot program in 2011.This is not surprising as demographics such as youth and low-income people often do not have stable permanent residences, making it more difficult to provide the required ID.
If I might just end the quotation there and mention that this is a thoughtful presentation....