I'm just trying to pick one here that would be.... Here's one, just for the heck of it; and really, I didn't pre-set these.
The value, and the term that Elections Canada has put here, is “efficiency”. So under efficiencies, for examples, they suggest some changes. They list things under subject, current status, recommendation, and then desired outcome.
This was our bible. This was what we used to work our way through this.
Now, under the subject “Extensions of time for filing financial returns”, the current status states: “The existing regime for seeking an extension to the filing deadline for a financial return is costly, cumbersome for regulated political entities and does not promote timely reporting.” The recommendation is to extend the period during which the Chief Electoral Officer may grant an extension by two weeks and lighten the approval criteria, both for the Chief Electoral Officer and the courts. As well, candidates who file late should forfeit half of their nomination deposit.
The desired outcome is that is would allow extension requests to be processed more efficiently and reduce recourse to the courts. It would also encourage greater compliance with the statutory deadlines.
Well, that's the foundation for a good discussion, especially among people who understand this stuff—meaning the people who are elected, because we've all been candidates. That's the kind of work we did, Chair, based on the recommendations of Elections Canada.
Canadians are fair-minded people. They're also pretty smart. But I don't think you need a degree in political science to understand that if you're going to change something as complicated as the election laws for a country like Canada.... Ours is a complex country, in many ways, just because of our geography for starters; the size of us, and our neighbourhood. Yet we find ourselves with a government not only not allowing this kind of documentation to be the basis of our work; they didn't even consult. They didn't even ask.
In fact it was so absurd that the minister, whom I know quite well.... We got here at the same time. I served on the public accounts committee with him for a couple of years. I know the minister very, very well. He's a very smart fellow. But I have to tell you that it was a riot to hear the minister say that his one-hour nice-to-meet-you with the Chief Electoral Officer somehow constituted and was equivalent to an in-depth discussion about proposed changes to Canada's election laws.
What a joke. What a joke. If it weren't so serious, it would be downright hilarious. But it's scary. It's scary that in a modern democracy like this, the government would bring in a complete revamping of the election laws, not consult with the opposition parties, and not even consult with Elections Canada.
Come along. Who believes for one moment that this government is interested in a fair elections act that would make it equal for everybody to have a fair shot at winning? Come along. That is just patently absurd.
To add insult to injury, at the first opportunity the government shuts down debate in the House of Commons. Let's follow the bouncing ball. The government brings in sweeping changes to our election laws. They did not consult with the other parties. They did not consult with Elections Canada. They shut down debate on the floor of the House of Commons on the bill. And they somehow expect that Canadians will believe that this is a fair-minded bill, meant to be fair to everybody—really.
I mean, really. In fact, the only conversation that we're aware of between the Minister for Democratic Reform and the Chief Electoral Officer was a howdy-do meeting, and that's it. That's all he needed. I would love to know—we'll never know for sure—how many outside legal people and experts did get a say and did get a word in this.
Let's remember, there was an attempt to bring in another bill, quite some time ago now, and it got bounced by the Chief Electoral Officer...no, they don't have that power, by the opposition parties...no, they don't have that power, by House of Commons...no, it never got there. Who bounced it? The Conservative caucus put up so much resistance that they sent the minister packing. Now, they didn't go back to the consultation mode. They didn't go all the way back there. All they did was go back internally, and who knows who had a say? What law firms, consultants were hired? I'm not saying that was illegitimate, but what I am saying is that it's inappropriate that only Conservative insiders get a say on the development of an election reform law.
That's wrong, and the only way to counter that, Chair, because the government can consult with who they wish, is through the House the Commons and through the committee, where we force democracy into the situation. That's how a parliamentary system works. It's very different than a U.S. congressional system.
So everybody seems to get their say except people who aren't Conservatives. If you're a Conservative, you have a say—either a caucus member, or lobby groups, who knows? If you're a Conservative insider, then you had a shot at having some input into the election law reform. But if you're the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, you did not. If you're a Conservative backbencher, you got a say; in fact you got a veto, because the bill didn't make it to the House.
The minister had to stand up and mumble something—I forget what he said, that was the point so he must have done it well. He mumbled through the moment, pulled it back, shut the doors closed, and then the consultation started. But the consultations all took place behind closed doors, with a label on the door that said, “Conservatives only.” No one else need knock, because no one else is coming in.
So is it any wonder that at the very least, Chair, we're trying to provide some counterweight to the strength of the government majority? What's the best strength? What's the best power that you can bring against a majority government in Canada, legally, constitutionally? Just use words. I guess in appropriate places, you could have a protest sign, as long as it's not near a Conservative, because apparently that just freaks them out. But, really, you don't get any kind of a say, except public opinion.
Now, I accept that Canadians aren't exactly storming Parliament Hill, and that's the calculation, Chair, on the part of the government. The calculation is that we will take whatever hits there are, whatever the hits are, as long as we have our law in place by Canada Day, because we have now rejigged the election in such a way that we have the advantage we want.
So rather than worrying about today or tomorrow and anything the media might say or anything the public might do one-off is more than worth it if, on election day, the choices are made using Conservative election laws not Canadian election laws.
Make no mistake, Chair, if they ram this bill through.... At the end of the day, they're a majority government and they are determined to get it, so they will get it. It may be a long day coming, but that day will arrive at some point and they will get to make it law. I guarantee you, Chair, there are going to be major, major problems after the next election, regardless of who wins, because Canadians don't have faith that they have a fair process. Canadians are very, very fair minded. That's why our hope is that if enough Canadians find out what's going on, they will use their collective voices and they will use the influence and authority—I'm going to use that word a little advisedly—of the court of public opinion.
Now, the government's gamble is that long before that could ever reach critical mass it will be law. That's the calculation. There are a lot of people out there. Leadnow was here not that long ago and did a fantastic news conference. I came in and sat through some of the hearings. They are putting advertisements out there. They are trying to get the.... They are not at this point arguing the bill per se or pointing out areas they have concerns about. What they want right now is an opportunity to have their say, and they'd like to have their say in the communities where they live.