So having that opportunity to be able to go to that local media and sit down and have those interviews I think is exceptionally beneficial. It serves the whole system I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairperson.
At the beginning of my remarks, I made reference to the last number of years and all the media attention related to the robocalls, the in-and-out scandal, allegations of cheating, the overspending. All of that stuff has been reported on extensively, Mr. Chairperson. We need...and I believe we saw it in particular in regard to the number of people who have called in, in one fashion or another, to Elections Canada. We're not talking about a few thousand. We're talking about tens of thousands. I've heard that over 30,000 people have actually made concerning calls to Elections Canada.
So there is this, as I pointed out earlier, lack of confidence in the electoral system that's being perpetrated by actions here in Ottawa and by candidates in the most recent election. To be able to do what I would suggest to you is public relations, we could be a very positive committee. I haven't been on the PROC committee for very long. I am told.... Joe, you have commented on how wonderful this committee has been in the past in being able to move forward on some very important issues.
If I look at this issue, it is a very important issue. I think that we have lost the opportunity to be able as a committee to do something good for Canadians, by not allowing us to go coast to coast to coast. There are many communities that would have benefited directly from us having that physical presence in those communities. That's why I say it's sad in the sense that it is a huge loss in terms of an opportunity.
We take at look at it and at the end of the day I would like to think that it's never too late. As Mr. Christopherson, David, talked about, it's amazing what we can do with unanimous support, whether it's of the committee or it's of the House. If individuals could be as optimistic as someone like me and say, “Look, we can turn this thing around and put it back on to the right track”, I believe that we could actually salvage some good here. In fact if we're committed to recognizing that the legislation does have some deficiencies.... To a certain degree the minister has himself indicated this because during that second reading, he seemed to indicate that there could be some deficiency in the legislation.
If we get some mild recognition of those deficiencies and then we have the presentations that will be coming out—and there will be a number of presentations. I suspect what we'll be hearing, Mr. Chairperson, is a great deal of talk about how we can improve the legislation. The critical thing here is going to be how open we are as a committee to listen to what's being said, and not only listen but to actually act upon it. That's going to be the greatest challenge I believe, Mr. Chairperson.
When I look at the record to date and you reflect on the process, you reflect on the content of the legislation, there's reason for us to be concerned, very much concerned. I do believe that there is a responsibility for us, as much as possible, to try to move this thing forward.
The best way we can do that, I believe, is by looking at it. Let's start from the beginning. Who should we be looking at? I made a suggestion through points of order before of some of the other independent election authorities. During the 1990s an incident came up in the Manitoba election. They called it a vote-rigging scandal at the time. It ultimately led to a report to the Manitoba legislature, but an independent commission was put in place and a series of recommendations made. A number of those recommendations were acted on. I think there might be some benefit for us as a committee to be able to hear from the former chief electoral officer from the province of Manitoba.
Why not hear? When I talked about the compelling evidence for Elections Canada to have the ability to compel evidence, members might be surprised at how many provinces currently have that ability: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, I've already mentioned Manitoba, Yukon. Maybe we should be looking at some of those jurisdictions and saying why not have one or two of them come forward. After all, Mr. Chairperson, our own Chief Electoral Officer wanted to see this happen.
We like to think that if you violate an election law that at the end of the day Elections Canada will have enough power and authority to be able to investigate the situation and ensure there is some form of a consequence in a timely fashion. I would underline the words “a timely fashion”. It is not good enough for Elections Canada to identify a potential problem and not have the ability to investigate it because someone says they can't recall or they don't have the time to make a presentation. Nothing allows Elections Canada to compel them to testify. Other jurisdictions have that ability. When Elections Canada wants that, why are we not allowing them to be able to have that? Other independent electoral authorities already do.
If you believe we need to have teeth in the legislation, we need to make that amendment, we need to make that change. I don't want when the time comes because we stretched it out and then there's a great deal of debate on certain parts of the legislation and all of a sudden May 1 comes and we have to pass that particular portion. Mr. Chairperson, that's the fear. We should be able to feel comfortable knowing that it's more important for us to make the necessary changes. We don't need a deadline of May 1. That's why it is so important that we approach this thing with an open mind.
I'm anxious. I want to see the presenters. That's one of the reasons why, and trust me it was not easy for me to say that I'll forgo my three-hour shift tonight that I was anticipating in order to address some of the concerns, and condense it into 30 minutes. Mr. Chairperson, at the end of the day I do want to see the presentations begin. But I'm very much concerned that we are selling ourselves short as a committee by putting in the motion, which we are going to be asked to vote on and which you can tell, Mr. Chairperson, I won't be in favour of.... But to put in May 1 is wrong, I believe.
When you take a look at the witnesses who come before us I suspect we are going to see a number of changes. Just the other day we heard from some media outlets that members of Parliament are going to have more authority to see some appointments. Isn't this something Elections Canada should be doing more of?
When I reflect on the way in which things were evolving in my home province of Manitoba, it seemed to be evolving more toward giving Elections Manitoba more authority, more power, because we had faith in Elections Manitoba.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairperson, that we need to demonstrate that we have faith and that we believe in Elections Canada. I think more organizations in countries around the world recognize the true independence of Elections Canada because they are constantly in contact with Elections Canada. They are looking for more information from Elections Canada. Here, with the legislation we're seeing—we're going to hear this in some of the presentations—we're telling Elections Canada that we don't want them to go out and do certain types of advertising. We're trying to hold the hand, in certain ways, of Elections Canada.
These are the types of concerns we have that we believe need to be amended in the legislation. These are the types of concerns that we believe presenters will be coming forward with. This is the reason why, if you look at Elections Canada and the role it plays in our democratic system, we have to demonstrate more respect.
We now have a consensus—I see that I have less than a minute to go here—to have the Chief Electoral Officer here on Thursday. We're going to have him before us, and I hope and trust we'll see a demonstration of respect for the institution. There is nothing wrong with asking good, difficult questions. We should be challenging our Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Mayrand, to be very frank with us in terms of what it is he believes he needs in order to be able to ensure that when someone violates an election law, he has the power and the authority to be able to deal with it, to ensure there's a consequence, and at the end of the day to do it in a timely fashion, because that is not happening today, and we need to ensure that is happening.
That is the reason why, Mr. Chair, I suggest to you that we should vote against this motion. The May 1 deadline is garbage. We should not support this deadline. This legislation is far too important. It needs to be fixed or we should just let it die on the order paper and get it straightened out at another time.
Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words, Mr. Chair.