Thank you.
It was moved by Mr. Opitz, who is here at the meeting today. I complimented him before. He's an active leader on this file. I, myself, have talked to him in terms of getting up to speed on things, even in the ensuing years since '04 when I first got here.
If we were playing the kind of politics the government played, first of all with the lack of a unity delegation that went over, if we were going to play that kind of politics, or if we were going to play the kind of politics they're now playing here, where they're trying to ram through an election law, then we would never have done that last night. But the opposition, the government, and the independents concluded that this was one of those times when we climb above our partisanship, that we take the party membership in our pocket and set it aside and we act as the 308 Canadians who are privileged and lucky enough to be elected to take a seat in our House of Commons.
I was proud of the fact that we were able to do that. Every time we do anything like that, where we can overcome our partisan differences and speak on issues that are important, I feel even better about being a Canadian MP. I felt the same way, Chair, about the previous process that we had engaged in when we last reviewed the Elections Act.
There is honour in politics, and there can be honour in law-making. Sometimes, oftentimes, that honour route is found by just stopping the partisanship. Don't look at the election law and ask, “How can I get an advantage?” That's not what we did when we met, Chair, and went through all these things. We can check the blues, but I don't remember anybody ever saying anything personally, except as a reference or as an example.
There was nobody looking at that and saying they were going to get this and that changed because it would work for them or their party. Or if we did talk about that, we did it in an open way. We would put it on the table and say that kind of thing might be an advantage to the NDP, or it could be to the Liberals or the Bloc. But everything was on the table. It was above board. We weren't playing games. I thought Canadians were well-served by all of us working together.
Did we do a perfect job? No. There's already some stuff in there that.... Either we've evolved in our thinking or things have changed, or they need another look. But remember the process we were in. That report was supposed to form the foundation of the bill. Nothing of the sort happened. The government couldn't care less about what our report was, about what we agreed on, about what went on. Think about if that bill had come in, based on what we had all agreed on, where we'd be right now.
There are a couple of changes that I would want to make. I'm sure the government members would find things they'd like to change, even since then. For instance, one of the things I've learned.... And by the way, at the appropriate time we will move a motion to correct it. Just like with the border, the work that was done around the riding boundaries, where independents were allowed representational status here.... That should be happening. They should be here for this. We will move a motion at the appropriate time to bring them in, with the same rules we had for the boundaries, because it's the same thing. The boundaries are so important.
Look at the nightmare in the States, with all the gerrymandering going on. It's crazy—an abuse of power, so far from fairness....
To make sure the riding boundaries were done in a fair process, unlike the process we're in now, the first thing that happened was that independents were brought in. One of the concerns we read about in the media was the independents saying they had some problems with the bill, because they believed it was skewed in favour of those who are in parties. You don't have to have a conspiracy plot to see how that might happen. It happens because it's just the nature of politics. It just happens.
That doesn't mean, however, that the whole process is skewed.
So I was talking about the mandate of the committee, and if I may, the first mandate of this committee is that when a bill is referred to a committee, the order of reference is understood exclusively as a mandate to examine the bill and to report it to the House with or without amendments.
If the bill has already received second reading the committee is bound by the decision of the House and may not amend it contrary to its principle. This is not the case when a committee considers a bill that has not yet been read the second time.
That's what I was talking about, getting it from the House to committee without political parties having political skin in the game. If you haven't declared a position around a bill or any part of it, then you have all the political flexibility in the world to say yes, you agree, no, you don't, to suggest it be amended, to talk about it, and you don't lose face. You haven't given up any political ground, because we all know in a healthy democracy you have a strong, healthy, independent media and they're watching for those things. Part of their job is to see when we're being consistent and when we aren't. So obviously parties try to be as consistent as possible, and we've all seen politicians and some of us turn ourselves into pretzels trying to find a logical explanation as to why we were once over there and now we're over here.
All of that gets eliminated, Chair. That's the beauty of using the rule, the tool, the technique of sending a bill directly to committee after first reading. So think about what could be going on right now, Chair, and I say that because where we are is the context in which I moved my motion and why. So where are we? Where could we be? We could have taken the report that all the parties agreed on and they could have incorporated that into the bill. They could have consulted with the opposition ahead of time to let us know...they already would have if they had put the bill in place based on the foundation of the work we did in the report. That is the consultation. That's what was going on. And if they had taken all those things that we agreed on unanimously, and we agreed on the overwhelming majority of the report, why wouldn't we? The purpose was to find rules that we could all live with, so we did. Based on the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer we found a whole set of changes we could live with and the government of the day could live with and the other parties could live with and the independents, well, the independents weren't there. So that was a flaw in that process. It could be improved. We're going to improve this as a result of that.
But everyone there agreed. Now why would that not be a good starting point on a law that affects all of us, that the government shouldn't have stamped Conservative on the front of it? Why wouldn't that be a great place to start to take all the areas where we had unanimous agreement, which was the overwhelming majority of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer and put those in the bill as a starting point? Had the government done that and then sent it to committee right from first reading as we requested, quite frankly, we would be reviewing those aspects to make sure that the law as we saw it was consistent with the findings of the report. But if you handed the legislative crafters the document and asked them to give us a bill that reflects the principles contained in this report, they would have given us that, and then we would have reviewed it to see whether or not it did that, and make improvements.
But for the most part there wouldn't be great debates. There certainly wouldn't be what's going on now, which is wide suspicion across the country that the government's trying to rig the election by getting rules in place that favour them, especially favour those who have money, and by watering down the ability of Elections Canada to hold people to account.
Do you know right now under the law that no party has to show a receipt when they make their claim? Candidates do. Ridings do. Parties don't. Where's the authority? That was what the motion was about way back when. It was a motion to give the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to do the things that, in this case, he needed to do to keep everybody honest.
So what has the government done?
They've watered down the powers and authority of the Chief Electoral Officer. They've refused to give anybody a say in the process. They kept it secret. Conservatives only got a say in what the bill was. They rammed it through the House, and they want to ram it through the committee.
We could be focusing on those things that we do disagree on, and we did, but there were only two or three items. I stand to be corrected, but there were only two or three items. All those months of work where we failed to come to an agreement.... That speaks to the health of our democracy, that there were still areas where we could not see eye to eye, so it wasn't just a big love-in, and everybody was trying to pad things to make sure that they, and only they, could return here. But nonetheless, an improvement could have been having reps there from independents in the House.
So that's what we'd be focusing on. The only political skin that would be in the game would be the political skin we all put into that report, and if the bill reflected that report, I wouldn't have to move this motion. We would still be talking. We would have started, and we'd be well on our way to talking about the various pieces, especially the ones that we didn't agree on, or, if the government brought in changes that weren't reflected in the original report, we would be spending serious time on that.
But Chair, the vast majority of the bill would already have the support of the opposition parties, because of the work we did at committee, the non-partisan work that we did at committee. And instead, this is the Kafka existence that we find ourselves in where the government is bringing in changes to the election laws and they haven't consulted anybody except Conservatives.
As part of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association, I've been to an awful lot of struggling, emerging democracies throughout Africa. This kind of process would fit right in in some places. That's not a compliment. In fact, this government could learn a lot about democracy from some of those emerging democracies where they really do understand what the idea of fairness is, and respect, and non-partisanship.
So I continue to make the case that my motion is necessary because it attempts to provide some kind of a counterbalance or something to just slow the government down. Because under this process, by Labour Day, no Canadian will be thinking about this, the media will have moved on, the political bouncing ball will have moved on, and it will not rear its ugly head again until after the next election. That suits the government just fine. They look at that and say, “Wow, that'd be a big problem, we'd sure like to be the government to have that big problem.” That's why not doing this now would leave us regretting it.
When it hits the fan after the next election, that's when an awful lot of Canadians would turn and say, “Wait a minute, we have an official opposition there whose job it is—the loyal opposition, loyal to the crown, loyal to the country—to oppose the government, hold their feet to the fire, make them answer the tough questions, point out when they're wrong, and provide alternatives and options to Canadians.” That's our role, and if we weren't doing this, given what's going to happen under this bill, Canadians would be right in asking after the process, “Where were you? Where was the official opposition while the government was ramming through these changes? Why didn't you stand up and fight them?”
“Well, because it made me unpopular with some of the other members, and the chair looked at me so disappointingly, it made everybody feel uncomfortable, so we just thought we'd go along to get along. Hope you understand.”
No. No, they're not going to understand, because more and more Canadians who find out what's going on here are angry, and first thing they want to know is, who's doing something about this outrageous situation? Who's doing something and what are they doing?
So here we be. We're doing what we can. Is it ideal? No. Is this how we'd like to be spending our time? No. I don't like to force these long-winded speeches on anybody. It's kind of fun for a little while, but I'll tell you, after a while it's like anything else, it gets to be work.
Chair, you keep me on the dime, and I have to keep colouring within those lines, so there's no great joy here—at all. In fact, I speak much more in sorrow than in anger that we are here.
However, we believe that we have an obligation to use whatever tools and procedures we might have to slow this process down, in the hope that if there's enough pressure from the Canadian public, the government will change course. We're not asking for a lot here. It's not like we're asking for our version of the election law to be brought in, that we should scrap yours and take ours—which is just about as stupid as where we are, as silly as where we are—but that's not what we're asking.
What are we asking for in the motion? Let's give Canadians a chance to have a say.
Somehow, the government is trying, as best they can, to make that out to be obstructionist. You yourself, Chair, have said, “Well, we could be listening to those witnesses if you weren't talking.” All of those things are absolutely true, but it's not a fair process, and we do have an obligation to hold the government to account, and we will hold the government to account for as long as we can, at every step of the way. Because if the government thinks that this is the one and only chance that we have to do something, then the government is misreading this.
You've already seen, Chair, one action that we have taken that has affected matters outside this committee. We have refused our unanimous consent to the usual housekeeping motion that approves the travel of committees. You and I both sit on the Liaison Committee. I'm actually the vice-chair. That's where we consider the proposals from committees for travel. Then what happens is that we make a decision, and if it's to agree, then it still has to go through the whips. Our process has the Liaison Committee approve it or not. When it is okayed, then it goes on to the whips. The whips have to give their agreement. Then when they agree, because this has to be a motion—committees can't spend money and travel without a motion of the House—a recommendation goes to the House.
But quite frankly, this is where House leaders have their meetings, and Mr. Lukiwski, being on the BOIE and being parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, would know all of this very well. I was a former House leader at Queen's Park myself. That's when you'd be having your quick discussions about things that you can agree on, the things that let the wheels of our process move forward. There would be an understanding at some point during the day that people would say, “Oh, by the way, we'll do that unanimous consent motion.” And others would say, “Yes, okay, we'll do it at the same time as we do this or before that.” Nobody thinks about it. It's routine by then.
Well, since the government is refusing to be fair on our election law changes, then we're going to be unfair in places that affect them. We don't have a lot of those kinds of tools, but we have some. One of the first actions we took was to say that we're not giving that unanimous consent. Now, the government can still get their way—
