The government can still get their way, but they have to go through a very, very long procedure to do it, and that's why we do unanimous consent. It's to make it nice and easy.
The government right now should be taking a look at all the areas where they need cooperation from us going forward, because they're going to find it a cold reception. There are things that we still have available, even at this committee, that if necessary we can utilize and we will consider those.
But all this is just such a waste, with so much energy, so much effort, to get us nowhere, to chase our tail. That's why I've said over and over, Chair, this is not the fight we want. It's not the process. This is really not what we want to fight about. I see you saying with your gestures, correct me if I'm wrong, you can do something about that. Fair enough, I hear you, but I think—and I know you can't because you're still a Conservative—any fair-minded Canadian would say that it's just totally unfair to suggest changing our election laws in this way where there is no consultation with the opposition parties, no consultation with Elections Canada. Really, it is such a joke. There's no consultation with Elections Canada. Ram it through the House, put closure on the reform bill as quick as they can, and then get to committee and there they tell us they also don't want Canadians to have a say.
The government will do as they are doing. They'll read their iPads, have lunch, read their notes, think about life, and they'll just take these hits and the macro government, if there's a hole, will take all these hits. Because it's worth it to them. I keep coming back to that because it's so key to understand what's going on here.
Most governments would not want, and would do everything they could to avoid, the kind of negative publicity that this government has gotten and that they're going to continue to get as long as they follow this path. It defies political gravity, until you understand that it's just the price of getting an advantage in the next election. It's like when there are health and safety law violations and the fines are not big enough to really jar the organization. They're really just the cost of doing business. You plan to break the laws, and build into your costs what the fines are going to be if you get caught. Because they're small enough they then become just the cost of doing business, and it's, by the way, we need to a line item that also talks about how much it costs us to pay the fines that we'll pay when we break all these rules.
This is the same thing. The price the government pays in terms of the criticism now is more than worth the price of getting a customized election act that gives you a leg up, and an advantage, going into an election. That's the political calculation, that's the political equation. Take the hit, but gain at the other end.
Conversely, be fair-minded, and they might not get an election law that's skewed in their favour. Imagine that, the Conservatives having to live with rules that are fair to everybody. It's a strange concept to them. They talk a great game about democracy. There's the way they treat our veterans. They're all right there saluting them when the bands are going and they're going off to do their duty for Canada. But when they come back, all broken, suddenly there's not enough money, suddenly there aren't enough experts to help them. Suddenly they're not as important as they were. This is no different. The government talks a great democratic game, they do not live it.
So here we sit. Here we sit with the government still just saying nothing. It's better not say anything, Chair. I know the cameras can't show that, and I can't speak about who's here or not here, but there's nothing in the rules that says I can't describe what they're doing.
They're really not doing anything. They're having lunch, reading their iPads, reading a book, doing a little work; somebody has a little music going. It's exactly what I'd be doing, by the way. I'm not faulting them at all—not at all. That's exactly what I'd be doing, especially if I had to listen to me. I get that. I get it.
However, it is symbolic of what's going on, that is, tough it out. Tough it out. It's only spring 2014. The elections are sometime in 2015. I don't trust them on the election law anymore than I did the first time around. But wait. Wait it out. That's what this is. The waiting game. Take the hits. Do what you can to mitigate them. But take the hits. Whatever the hit is, it's still worth it if you get an election law that's skewed in your favour.
That's exactly what they're all thinking. These poor members are the ones who are actually here and having to physically be the ones, but the rest of their colleagues are of the same mindset, and that is, they will take whatever hit there is. I have my little talking points. If they talk about this, I'll say that; if they talk about that, I'll say this. All I have to do is get through the moment.
All they have to do is get through the process. When the process is in their favour—and that's why we bring in our motion, to try to change that course, so that there' s more fairness—they just go quiet.
The government goes quiet because they know this is undemocratic. They know this is unfair. They know that the average Canadian would not approve if they fully understood what was going on. They also know there's a good chance that no one will be talking about this come Labour Day. Who talks about the prorogation stuff anymore? Who talks about violating your own election law in the same Parliament that you introduced it? Who talks about that? Who talks about the omnibus budget bills? Who talks about what was done to the PBO? Who talks about what was done to the chair of the safety and security...? Nobody talks about it because the process is that they don't want anyone to talk about this.
That's why my motion is here, to make sure Canadians do get a chance to talk about it.