Thank you, Chair.
I was giving in a roundabout way—relevant, but roundabout, I admit—the importance of expert testimony, particularly as it relates to the potential for certain Canadians to effectively lose their right to vote. That's why one of the groups we would consider bringing in would be the London Homeless Coalition and the London Community Advocates Network.They represent a broad range of individuals and organizations concerned about poverty in London in Middlesex. They wrote—it's a letter—to us to express their desire that the committee.... I'll read it, “We are writing to express our desire that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (PROC) hold cross-country hearings in order to adequately consult with Canadians on the impact of Bill C-23”.
We will be asking experts like this to give testimony as to how it would impact on groups of Canadians they work with. But they also go out of their way—as experts in the field of governance and civil society and having the opportunity to say something—to ask this committee to hold hearings. This is not just an opposition idea. This is something that Canadians want.
The London Homeless Coalition have taken the time and the effort to write to us. They would be prepared to make submissions, I'm sure, and they're putting their reputation on the line calling for this committee to travel, to get outside the bubble. If I may, Chair, in finishing with this I would just note that it's signed by Mike Laliberte and Jacqueline Thompson, who are the co-chairs of the London Community Advocates Network, and Abe Oudshoorn, who is the chair of the London Homeless Coalition, who is also an assistant professor at the school of nursing. That's the kind of group, Chair, we would want to bring in when we make reference in our first bullet point to hearing from witnesses. I think it's interesting to note that in their expert opinion it was worth their mentioning that they think the committee should travel too. That's what it's coming down to, but I'll get to that part in a moment.
We know that Leadnow is a strong advocate for reform of our election laws. They were here. I will not repeat any of that. However, I do have the—I'm being handed the same thing but with grammatical changes just to make it.... That's all that was. So I will not repeat the 54,000 signatures they had, the news conference they had, and everything I said about that, and they're running ads and everything. I won't mention any of that anymore.
But what I do want to mention is that they have issued a new statement dated March 4. This is a statement from Adam Shedletzky. You will remember Mr. Shedletzky was here. He chaired the news conference that Leadnow held just before we had one of our meetings. This is his statement on the necessity of a cross-country tour to give Canadians an adequate opportunity to learn about the bill. It includes statements from real Canadians. I'm going to read that in just one moment.
But I wanted to underscore the fact that with so many experts available to us we are not necessarily confined to Tuesdays and Thursdays in terms of when we meet. The committee is master of its own destiny and we could easily be meeting every day. Some committees have. I know Finance got into a couple of situations where I think they were meeting day and night for two weeks straight. Time is running and when we started we were in February and now we're in March. I get all of that. We still have ample time to do everything that's necessary if the committee really wants to do it.
That's the question. Is there the political will? There is in the minority opposition benches. We don't think so much in the government benches. That's why it's so important because my motion right now, as I do the math, I'm likely going to lose. I think there's a chance I could lose this motion. My friend from Winnipeg Centre has trouble believing that such a good motion wouldn't pass, but I have a hunch, notwithstanding the gain made with Mr. Lukiwski on our first point, I still sense a long way to go before I can get a majority vote. Ergo, I need to work harder at trying to convince my colleagues of the importance of my motion and its worthiness of their vote. I commit to try to do that, Chair, to help them see the light and understand why this motion should be passed.
So we're still on the first bullet point of me reviewing this again. Mr. Shedletzky, on behalf of Leadnow, has made this statement. I'd like to read it into the record. It relates to the second bullet point, the statement on the need for cross-country hearings:
Over 57,000 Canadians—including Preston Manning—are already calling for changes to the Fair Elections Act. Yet far too many Canadians are still unaware of this Act which makes it harder for Canadians to vote, removes the ability of Elections Canada to conduct important voter engagement efforts, and does not adequately address the core problem of mass voter fraud conducted by political operatives. According to an Angus Reid poll conducted online with 1,511 Canadians of voting age on Feb. 21, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, only 20% of Canadians are "very" or "fairly" familiar with this bill. On the other hand, 38% had never even heard of the bill, while 42% have heard of it but are not familiar with its contents.
If I might, Chair, that's exactly the way the government likes it, and that's why they want to ram it through, and that's why they don't want to leave the bubble because it will generate even more attention out there in the country, and they don't want that. This is exactly where they want to be.
