Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 25th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We will call our meeting to order, meeting number 17.

We are here on the orders of the day of Bill C-23, which is before the committee.

I will remind the members that we are televised today and we are doing committee business of course. Mr. Christopherson has the floor, but before he takes it I would like to ask if we can get to committee business today, please. We are here as a steering committee trying to plan our study of Bill C-23, and I ask Mr. Christopherson to start but remember we'd like get to this piece of legislation one day.

Mr. Lukiwski, on a point of order, we're starting early today.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Very briefly, I raise this because I noticed you submitted a witness list to us. Several of those witnesses were ones I had previously submitted, Mr. Chair. I have a revised list, we've added one name to that, Mr. Harold Neufeld, who wrote a report that is contained in the Elections Canada documents that we've been quoting widely in our interventions on this bill in the House.

I would also take this opportunity to try to encourage my friend and colleague Mr. Christopherson to stop his filibuster so we'd be able to start getting these witnesses to provide testimony on the bill. I see many of them here have indicated they are available by teleconference, others all have email addresses, which means they'd be available via Skype. While we're wasting valuable time on this filibuster we should be examining the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, I thank you but it's not a point of order.

Your chair is at a loss to suggest that a witness list during the thoughts of a study is out of order, but at this moment it is, we're still on Mr. Christopherson.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I have a point of order from this side of the table. Fair is fair, I guess.

We have not submitted our witness list because we believe it is premature. We believe ultimately that we should be going outside Ottawa. We would like to see organizations such as Elections Manitoba and other independent election authorities able to contribute. So I think it's premature to submit a list until we have had the opportunity to discuss where we should be going and we should not be conceding that we're not going outside Ottawa. I think we have to approach this with an open mind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lamoureux, that's exactly the motion before us. I'll certainly take witness lists at any time knowing that any party can also add to them at any time. I'd like to be ready to go when it's time to get there and I'm sure Mr. Christopherson is going to tell us that today.

Mr. Christopherson, you have the floor.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

If I might, just as a matter of business also, before I continue. Chair, I am looking to you and Mr. Lukiwski, on Thursday when we would normally be meeting, the Aga Khan is addressing Parliament and I'm assuming that we would want to show the respect that's deserved to an international guest coming to our House and that this committee would not sit. I seek your guidance, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That is what your chair would share with you, if we ever get to a steering portion of this meeting, that we would be in the House listening to the Aga Khan on Thursday at our normal committee time so we would not be having a committee meeting that day.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, thank you, Chair; I appreciate that.

I would like to start out on a harmonious note. Who knows, maybe at the end of two hours we'll be right back to a harmonious note. I have my doubts, but hope springs eternal.

Chair, you stated at the outset that you were hoping we could get to business today. I want you to know that the official opposition shares that desire. But, sir, what is not going to happen is any backing away from this motion, unless and until the government comes to its senses and agrees to negotiate.

I want to state again, as I have said at this televised committee, have said on the floor of the House of Commons, and say again to the government representatives across from me, that this is not the fight we want. Process is not what we think we should be spending most of our time on; we should be focusing on the bill. But in a democracy, process matters. It matters in terms of who gets a say and when they get that say in the process. The rules of the game: that's where we are right now.

To continue with our analogies of these days, the government wants us to just hit the ice and start playing, but we haven't determined what the rules of the game are, so how can that be?

Chair, I might just acknowledge that Leadnow is walking into the room, a leading civics group who have serious concerns. Today, they've tabled with us almost 54,000 signatures of Canadians who also care about this issue, who want their say in their laws and their elections. I want to commend Leadnow for their news conference this morning and for their efforts and for being here representing those so far almost 54,000 Canadians—that's a beginning—who are indicating, now that the Olympics are over, that this is important.

We know it was not a coincidence that the government introduced the budget during the winter Olympics—earlier than usual—and a major overhaul of our election laws and a major overhaul of our immigration laws, all while the winter Olympics were on.

There is not a Canadian out there gullible enough to believe that this was a coincidence. It was not a coincidence; it was deliberate. It was an attempt to have the important issues that are now before us distracted by the Olympics. The government plan was that by the time people returned to everyday issues and got a sense of what was happening, this would have been rammed through. We saw that in the House.

I remind members that the government was making speeches in the House on their motion to shut down debate—think about it: to shut down debate, in a democratic country, on a bill that deals with democracy, and the first thing they do is muzzle democracy. The arguments they used, Chair, as you'll recall, were that the House stuff is not that important; that what really matters is when we get to committee, because that's where we roll up our sleeves and get to work and do the work.

We didn't buy that and we voted against the notion that the House of Commons should stop debating the bill. But the government has a majority, so they got their way. Now here we are at committee, and the first thing the official opposition asked, with the support of the third party, is that we have public hearings that go outside the safety and security of the Ottawa bubble. It looked as if the government might be interested—there were some discussions—but then that iron curtain came down, and I was told that those conversations are over. So here we are.

I say again to the government that in 30 minutes I think we could resolve this; we could negotiate an agreement. I don't expect, Chair, that we would get everything we asked for; neither should the government expect that they would get everything they asked for. But with both parties putting a little water in their wine, we can get there. I don't know how much more reasonable an official opposition can be to the government on a major bill than to suggest that there are negotiations that could be had that would allow us to get off the process debate and start dealing with such things as witnesses and what cities we will go to and who we will hear there and how long we will meet here.

The government is already at “push, push, push”; everything is a panic. Now it's a big rush. They were supposed to come back with this bill months and months ago—

[An hon. member]

—18 months ago—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—18 months ago, my friend Mr. Scott, our lead critic on this file, reminds me. Now, all of a sudden, there is a big problem with time, “Oh, we don't have time to consult. We can't go out travelling; we don't have time. We have to get this in place—the election is coming.”

Well, the government sets the agenda. They have the majority; they are the executive council. They decided to wait. Not only that: before they start screaming that the sky is falling in terms of time, I would remind my colleagues on the government benches that our motion calls for public hearings in Ottawa and across the country during the months of March and April. We're still in February; there's lots of time, if the government is truly interested in, at the very least, giving Canadians a say on their own election laws.

It's disgraceful that we even have to have this kind of debate. This is a democracy that's held up as an example around the world, and the government is making a mockery of it. I have said, as I'm sure many colleagues have too, for many years that if having a Canada were easy, everybody would have one. It's not easy. It's certainly not easy for the government. I've been in government in our largest province. I get it.

It's too bad, but it goes with the territory. Those who get to drive around in limos and have the big offices and all the big entourages—and I've been there too.... Those who get all those things also have the responsibility to treat Canadians with respect and to treat the power they have been given—even though they got it with less than 40% of the vote but got 100% of the power.... They have an obligation to use that power in the right way, in the interests of Canadians.

The government can say, “Well, our bill does that”. Fair enough; let's go out to the country and ask Canadians what they think. If we go out there and the arguments are overwhelming that the government is right, then we in the official opposition are going to have to sit back and ask where we are and wonder whether we need to revisit this thing. I have a sneaking suspicion that may not be the way it goes, but it could. We don't know.

And that is the point, Chair. This country is vast—the second-largest land mass in the world—and for those of us who, like most of my colleagues, have had a chance to travel from the far-flung corners of this great country, the one thing that comes at you is how many different pieces make up Canada. I don't mean just divisions by provinces and territories.

Chair, I have the greatest respect for you personally, sir, and I know your job, as I'm a committee chair too, and know that your only priority is the agenda and the rights of the members. That is pretty much your focus.

I understand that, sir. I understand that you'd very much like to see us get off process and get on to substance. I share that with you, sir. I say to you with all sincerity that the official opposition feels the same way. But, sir, there are certain fundamental principles that are worth fighting for, and this is one of them. We won't do anything that's against the rules. There will not be any kinds of circuses or gong shows. But what there will be is a concerted effort to do everything we can to force this government to at least give Canadians a say.

Here we are watching what's going on in Ukraine, a country, by the way, to which we sent the foreign affairs committee in 2012. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent to send Canadian MPs to Ukraine. Why? To study their democracy. That's wonderful. And as a Canadian, I feel really good that we did that, especially in light of the struggle that's going on there right now.

The vice-chair of this committee and I have been to Ukraine. I've done three election observation missions there. I was there in 2004 during the Orange Revolution when they thought they'd turned the corner, when they thought their national nightmare was over and that they finally had their country back. For those of us who have stood in Independence Square, in the midst of those celebrations in 2004, and seen the hope in the eyes of the parents, the young people, and the old people who understood what life was like before and knew what it could be in the future.... No one can go there and not come away from that kind of experience without being deeply moved.

Did Canada do the right thing by spending tens of thousands of dollars of Canadians' hard-earned money to go and study democracy in Ukraine? You bet. That was exactly what Canadians wanted us to be doing in terms of our international outreach. We are not the biggest military; we're not even one of the biggest. We're not the biggest economy; we're not even one of the biggest economies. But we are one of the countries with the biggest and best international reputation. At least we were until this government started fraying the edges of it.

Why did we go there? Was it just to give MPs a trip to Ukraine? No. We went there because Canada's voice on the international stage particularly when it comes to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law is respected. We are considered a leader. The fact that Canada sent that delegation over there, the fact that we consulted with the leadership and the people of Ukraine, and the fact that we came back and wrote a report that became part of the international dialogue, were all important.

When I see what's going on in Ukraine now, it makes my heart feel good to know that as Canadians we have done and continue to do every single thing we can to help the people of Ukraine get the kind of democracy that they see over here in Canada. It would probably break their hearts to realize that here we are struggling to get our people heard when they look at us as the gold medal.... It's Canada. It would shock them to find out that here we are having a debate, trying to force the government to take a bill that changes our election laws out into the country to give people their say.

You see, Chair, that's the kind of thing they're looking for in Ukraine. Democracy's not perfect. Canada's not perfect, but it sure can look that way when your own government is shooting at you.

By the way, I don't want to make too big a deal of this, but we really do need the leader of the third party to come out and clear up this matter and make it go away. It is too important to leave that out there. I'm hoping that's going to happen today. I really believe that every Canadian wants democracy in Ukraine and that we want to do everything we can to stay united. To leave out there the impression that we take it as anything less than one of the most serious things would just not be acceptable.

I don't believe that it meets the standard that the leader of the third party has for himself.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, just to end my thoughts on that is to say to you again that we share those at any time day or night as we go through that. I mean it, 24/7. I'm ready to respond to an outreach from the government to find a resolve, and I believe that parties of goodwill can sit down and that in 30 minutes we could find an agreement. Will it satisfy us in totality? I doubt it. Will it make the government happy that they have been forced out of the bubble at all? I doubt it, but therein lies the compromise. So that's where we are, and unless and until the government signals that there's a change, that's where we remain.

I thought I would just to refresh everybody's memory, Chair, to keep us all properly focused, because we wouldn't want to get off the point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You've got me, but I'm not sure you have the rest.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, sir, all I need is you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

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?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Just for fun, I'm going to say let's keep it relevant to the motion. I understand that you're going to try and push the bubble on that, but I got tired of just sitting here, so I thought I'd jump in.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

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....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It is a thoughtful presentation. It is the type of evidence this committee would love to hear when we get to the actual piece of legislation. I will challenge you that you are a bit off relevance again because you're not on your motion. You're on a great piece of evidence, but not quite on the motion. I'll bring you back to the motion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Very well, sir. I appreciate that.

The motion does call for Canadians to be heard—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The word “the” in it, but it doesn't mean that's all that it's about.

Please, on the motion....

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On the motion, I am making a case that Canadians want public hearings, which is the focus of the motion. This delegation represents 54,000 people who also believe that. I would just submit, sir, that it's well within my rights to make the point of what they said this morning at the news conference. If I was reading stuff that wasn't relevant, I would take your point, sir. I'm making the case that this reflects the very point we're making, and we're trying to get Ottawa outside the bubble. If we can't do that for now, let's at least reach outside the bubble and bring some voices in. That's what I'm doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

David?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have a point of order.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid.