Did you say “motion”?
Evidence of meeting #18 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
The notion of allowing some latitude to allow Canadians to speak, especially since the motion is meant to countervail the government's deliberate attempt to prevent Canadians from speaking, and not only is it relevant, it's practically live, given how long ago these came in. I'm just going to make sure that I'm talking about this thing.... Here we go.
Emma Pullman.... I'm assuming these are public? Okay. I should have asked that before I said the name.
From Emma Pullman, this came in 19 minutes ago:
All Canadians deserve a voice in these hearings about how the Elections Act changes will affect them and their most basic right to vote. Having hearings across the country is reasonable and will make sure that groups without travel budgets and with limited resources can have their voices heard!
4:15 p.m.
An hon. member
Well put.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's what I thought.
I just want to make sure I'm reading the ones about....
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
No, I'm not. I'm making sure that I'm reading things that don't upset you, sir. It's not easy.
4:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's not easy.
Matthew Carroll said:
The radical changes being promoted by the bill to strip Elections Canada's right to even promote voting are absolutely outrageous. ...It's simply unacceptable in a democracy for the current government to be trying to stack the deck like this. Canadians have a right to be consulted, and this bill should be put on hold until hearings have been held all across Canada.
4:15 p.m.
An hon. member
A right.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
A right....
Here's a nice complimentary one about me, but I won't read that. That's too self-serving.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I could give you something. I still have the floor, so you and I are still good.
4:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I do want to stay relevant, so I'm going to set that aside for now. I thank you kindly.
I'm going to mix it up a little because this is.... I think people are getting a little tired of some of that stuff.
Some of it was getting repetitive, wasn't it, Chair? Yes?
4:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes. I hear your point.
I've given examples of other committees here in our House of Commons that are exercising their right to travel and allow Canadians to be heard. I mentioned Bill C-15 in the Northwest Territories. But what is also interesting, Chair, and I think relevant to consider with regard to having these kinds of witnesses and having the kind of travel that we're doing is this: what have some other democracies done, in a brief, brief description.
Is what's being suggested here the norm for mature democracies or not? Interestingly, New Zealand has amended several of their election laws over the last few years. For their electoral amendment bill they went around the country. In fact—isn't this interesting—they actually asked their national electoral commission to lead discussions around changes to an election law. What a concept.
4:15 p.m.
A voice
What a great idea.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
What a concept, that an arm's-length group, there solely to run elections, would lead the discussion for changes to Canada's election laws. It's a pretty novel idea. What a great democracy New Zealand is. Boy, New Zealand has good democracy.
At any rate, their electoral commission undertook the first stage of the public consultation. They had stages of consultations, I say to my colleagues on the committee, not just one stage; they had stages of consultations. The commission received more than 4,600 submissions. They held public hearings in Auckland, Christchurch, Hamilton—you've got to love that one—and Wellington to hear from those people who wanted to present their submissions in person. That's four different places, and....
What's the population of New Zealand?
4:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
Three million, four cities. We have 35 million. We're going to none.
It seems to me that in New Zealand they've got a better idea of what real democracy is, rather than the rhetorical speeches of the Government in Canada. They went to those places to hear from those people who wanted to present their submissions in person. Did they have an armed revolution to get that much democracy? No. It just evolved. It's just goodwill. Goodwill. We've got to get some of that.
Drawing on the information material presented in the submissions and the advice received, the commission developed a number of proposals.
Let's get this straight. The Government of New Zealand, like Canada, was looking at amending its election laws. We have a government that brought in a bill that did not consult with anybody, including Elections Canada. I still can't believe I say that statement and it's true. It just blows me away that the government wouldn't have covered that off some way, and leave it so blatant, but they did.
So they had their commission do the first report. Then they released a proposal paper. That's not that far from what we did, Chair, if you recall. I need to make this point, but somebody took that book. There it is. I knew it was handy. I'm looking forward to that paperless day too, Mr. Chair. They released a proposal paper on August 13, 2012, and then they invited the public to again comment on the proposal.
We had it a bit like that back when were in minority, before we were living under this circumstance, this regime, and they brought forward proposals and we met as a committee and dealt with them. In New Zealand they actually are the lead on the whole process. They came out with these proposals, after consultation released a proposal paper. Then guess what they did? You won't believe the insanity of what they did then. You won't believe it. More consultation. Where does it end there? It never ends. They asked for more input after they already asked for input the first time around. Remember, we're not even at the bill yet. This is just the consultation process. Talk about respecting your own citizens. Talk about respecting democracy. Talk about actually caring about whether we have a bill that we can be proud of or whether we pretend we're some kind of third-rate banana republic. That's impressive. That's very impressive. It's also new, I should mention.
I wonder what they do in some of the other G-7 countries in terms of electoral.... It would be interesting to know what they do in other countries for the electoral process.
Moving on. Moving, moving, moving. We've got so much more to go here. It's worth at least mentioning, because my leader has mentioned this, that the Senate travelled 25 times. Committees travelled 25 times.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
