All right. If I'm that stuck, I may come to you just for you to tell me no.
To continue, I mentioned some of the groups that we would have. I started talking about some of their qualifications. I did not try to read, much more than the first time I did, the entire bio, but I do want to come back, Chair, to the importance of the very first bullet point. The first bullet point we make in our motion is that we “hear witnesses from, but not limited to,” and I gave an example.
If I may, one of those experts would be the Canadian Mental Health Association. Mr. Peter Coleridge is the national CEO. He is also a special adviser to the global economic round table on mental health and addiction, a founding member of the Canadian Executive Council on Addictions, and he has served in many other places in the community sector. He is somebody who can bring some expertise and relevance and put in front of us the situation for what may be not a huge percentage of the population, and we grant that.
For the most part, Chair, when we pass rules, I think most of us are trying to think of what is the best rule for the majority of people and that doesn't hurt anyone. We try to make it as broad as we can. That's why it's important that we start to be more aware of what's at stake. If someone has a mental illness, does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to vote? I'd be shocked if anybody in this room said yes, because I don't think that's the case at all, but if we accept that especially with mental illness....
Very few of us in this room haven't had mental illness affect our families. There are probably a lot of tragic stories right here in this room alone about what some of our families and family members have faced when it comes to mental health and addiction issues.
The point we're making, Chair, is that we could be a lot more sensitive to the voting rights of all Canadians if we had a process that let everybody participate. That's why my motion speaks to the kind of witnesses. That's why I'm taking the time to underscore why we think those witnesses would make a difference, and why it matters.
You know what? It only matters if you really, really, really believe that everybody is equal, not as a throwaway, not as a slogan, but if you honestly believe that every citizen is equal and we accept that having our franchise, the right to vote, that precious vote....
Here, as members of the House, the most precious thing we have is when we go into that House and cast our vote. That goes for here at committee too, but in the House, that precious vote, it's everything.
There are serious concerns—I'll leave it at concerns, because I don't want to start talking about the bill—that certain Canadians will have their right to vote lost, taken from them, or not returned to them by virtue of fixing a bill. The witnesses are to ensure that we don't forget them.
You know, Chair, a clear majority rules. Around here, a clear majority is 50% plus one. That's how we make laws. That's how we get things done in committee. We make decisions that way. A clear majority is 50% plus one. That's what makes laws in this country.
The vast majority of people live in urban settings, and the vast majority probably have no particular problem if they're determined to vote. But that, as a standard, is about as low as you could possibly have.
The idea of reforming our election law supposedly is to improve it. We asked for the witnesses in our motion because we believe they will help us understand the implications of Bill C-23 on the right of Canadians to vote. That's why having the Canadian Mental Health Association, we believe, is an important part of our hearings and therefore an important part of my motion.
Further to that, my motion says that we should be asking for witnesses from groups representing youth advocates and students. There's more than one. This is not easy. Remember, this is all complex. It's difficult, it's expensive, and it's slow, but I say again, if Canada was easy, everybody would have one.
Not only do we want, for instance, student groups and youth representatives and advocates, but they have different groups, and the beauty of democracy is sometimes they have a different view of things. We can get into different subsets of representatives representing Canadians, which is why democracy is not known for its speed.
We can move quickly. We did last night on the Ukrainian question. There was a political will that; notwithstanding the nonsense of last week, we wanted to send a message of unity from our country to theirs, and we did it. The hard work was done in the background by the House leaders and their staff, negotiating the words, but the actual political process was done in a blink: unanimous consent, motion, carried, passed. There's the message.
One of the groups, Chair, that we would think of to put on our list of invitees, if the committee agrees to hear witnesses...because we don't have a motion right now. There's no motion saying we want witnesses. That's why I'm going out of my way to underscore the importance of hearing from witnesses, and as we all know, I'm gaining ground. Remember, I do have Mr. Lukiwski on side with that notion of my motion, so I'm on a roll.
One of the groups we would want to hear from as expert witnesses, as mentioned in my motion—not the bill, my motion—is the Canadian Federation of Students. The national chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students is Jessica McCormick. She represents over 600,000 college and university students. She also served, prior to—a great experience—as the national deputy chairperson and as the chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, this is someone with a great deal of expertise. I'm noticing that she also has an undergraduate degree. It's an undergraduate degree in political science and English at Memorial University of Newfoundland, where she was the executive director of external affairs, communications, and research of the Memorial University of Newfoundland Students' Union.
Again, she is somebody who has a practical hands-on experience with democracy, albeit at university. I didn't attend university, but I suspect by that age and that level of intelligence, those elections are pretty sophisticated because they probably have a whole campus full of Philadelphia lawyers who are ready to tell everybody why it was wrong.
So they have some experience. The testimony they would give, Chair, would not be just related to their role as the head of this organization, but they would also be able to weave through that their personal experience in running and following election rules, and hopefully trying to make election rules that are fair for everyone, which, unless I misread the rhetoric of the government, is supposedly what they want. But of course their words are not lining up with their actions on that one.
Further, Chair, we made reference in my motion, in the first part, about Canadians with disabilities. Again, this is where democracy can get complex. You either believe everybody matters or you don't. It's either a throwaway line that everybody matters, or they don't.
I don't know if the members opposite have given any thought to where they're going to be in history on this, but I suspect not. They're probably not looking much further than the next election; that's why they're supporting rules that jig the election in their favour. The fact is that all of this eventually will be looked at in a historical context, and when it is, the government's not going to be on the side of the good guys.
This is ugly stuff. Even accusations that are supportable that people are losing their vote, that the Chief Electoral Officer is being handcuffed.... Maybe the members don't care. I would have thought they'd care a little about their legacy, especially on big questions, but when that dark period of Canadian democracy is looked at—and I'm referring to maintenant—they're going to be culpable. Their names will be listed. The votes will be there forever.
It's not to say they don't have the right to pass laws—
