Debates of Feb. 24th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion before us today is not about the fair elections act. The government already invoked closure on the fair elections act in this chamber. The motion before us today is about whether certain witnesses should appear and whether the committee should hold cross-country hearings. That is the motion. I submit that the member is out of order in his remarks by talking about the fair elections act. We are not talking about it.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I know that you will no doubt remain consistent in your ruling, especially in light of earlier comments by both Liberal and NDP members with respect to this motion and their speaking notes.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It has been quite clear that the debate today is engaged both directly on the motion that is before us today, the motion from the official opposition, but also on the central bill that is the essence of that motion. It is clear to me, and it is my ruling that both issues are relevant to the debate before us today.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville can continue.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much for that interpretation, Mr. Speaker.

I have been here all day listening to the debate. Just about every single speaker on both sides of the House has talked about elements contained in Bill C-23 as part of the debate today. Obviously, the member for Malpeque was not paying attention.

The bill would also make it harder to break elections—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to stand here and take that. I was paying attention. He's a government backbencher and knows the government invoked closure. It did, so why is he going to talk about the bill?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. It is not a point of order.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville can continue, hopefully uninterrupted.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one would think that someone who has been here as long as that member would know the rules.

The bill would also make it harder to break the elections law. It would close loopholes to big money, pose new penalties on political imposters who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would protect voters from rogue calls with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties. It would give more independence to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, allowing him or her control over staff and investigations, empowering her or him to seek tougher penalties for existing electoral offences, and providing more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting.

It would ban the use of loans used to evade donation rules. I am sure the member for Malpeque understands that one.

It would repeal the ban on premature transmission of elections results, upholding free speech. It would provide better customer service to voters and establish an extra day of polling.

In the case of disagreements over election expenses, it would allow an MP to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges rule quickly on it before the Chief Electoral Officer seeks the suspension of the MP.

It would make the rules for elections clear, predictable, and easier to follow.

It would crack down on voter fraud by prohibiting vouching or voter information cards as acceptable forms of ID. This last provision, cracking down on voter fraud, will be the focus of my remarks today.

Each time people vote fraudulently they cancel out the ballot of an honest voter. Studies commissioned by Elections Canada demonstrate mass irregularities in the use of vouching and high rates of inaccuracy on voter information cards. Voters would still have 39 forms of authorized ID to choose from to prove identity and residence.

The fair elections act would protect the integrity of the vote by ending the risky practices that are prone to errors and irregularities. The measures included in the act would strengthen our election system through reforms that would increase oversight, accountability, and enforcement while taking action to ensure the integrity of the vote and provide greater opportunities for Canadians to vote.

Among the important initiatives included in the act are measures to combat voter fraud and increase the confidence of Canadians in the electoral process.

The current provision that allows for the vouching system in general elections has been used in 2008 and 2011, as well as in by-elections since 2007. The Neufeld report, a study that was commissioned by Elections Canada to examine administrative deficiencies at the polls in the 2011 election, concluded that vouching procedures are overly complex and that this has contributed to irregularities in the polling process. It concluded that, among a sample of polls from Etobicoke Centre during the last general election and in by-elections in Victoria, Durham, and Calgary Centre, there were irregularities in 25% of the cases where vouching was used. A national sample based on the last election identified that, of the cases that involved vouching, 42% had irregularities.

Mr. Neufeld stated:

Serious errors, of a type courts consider “irregularities” that can contribute to an election being overturned, were found to occur in 12 percent of all Election Day cases involving voter registration, and 42 percent of cases involving identity vouching.

Even with increased quality assurance, the report indicates that the problem would not be remedied.

This was identified in the Neufeld report, and I quote:

Identity vouching procedures are unquestionably the most complex “exception” process administered at polling stations. The level of irregularities for vouching averaged 25 percent. During two of these elections, quality assurance programs involving Onsite Conformity Advisors (OCAs) were applied. However, vouching irregularities still averaged 21 percent during the OCA monitored elections. This indicates that overly complex procedures cannot be remedied simply by improved quality assurance.

Vouching is risky and subject to high levels of irregularity, and increased quality assurance would not remedy the problem. That is why our government took steps in the fair elections act to eliminate this practice.

In addition to the elimination of the vouching process, the fair elections act proposes to include measures to improve the communication to voters about what types of identification are acceptable at the polls. Canadians are often confused about what forms of ID are acceptable in order to vote. The fair elections act responds to this by requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate to Canadians what forms of ID are acceptable in order to vote.

Research shows that most electors have identification with their name and date of birth. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada states:

Almost all voters have some documentary evidence of who they are and their date of birth....

What is often most difficult for a voter to provide is documentary evidence of residence....

There are many options to choose from in order to vote. Canadians can choose 2 among 39 unique forms of ID that show their name and residence. In addition to providing their name, which almost all Canadians can do, residency can be demonstrated with documentation issued by the responsible authority of a shelter, soup kitchen, student or seniors residence, or long-term care facility. These documents include an attestation of residence, a letter of stay, an admission form, and statement of benefits. I believe that virtually all Canadians can meet the identification requirements, given the exhaustive options that are available.

I will not take time to list all 39 options, but I think it is important to read into the record a few that many Canadians already have: driver's licence, health card, Canadian passport, certificate of Canadian citizenship, birth certificate, certificate of Indian status, social insurance number card, old age security card, student ID card, library card, public transportation card, Canadian Forces identity card, a Veterans Affairs health card, hospital bracelet worn by residents of long-term care facilities, letter from a public guardian, public curator, or public trustee, or a bank credit card statement.

I have only mentioned 16 of the 39 options; so this provides members with a good idea of how many identification options are available.

While Elections Canada has estimated that as many as 120,000 voters have used vouching on election day, these voters could have proven their identity and residence if that requirement and the options available had been explained to them. The fair elections act would require in law that Elections Canada communicate what forms of ID would be accepted at polling stations. This important measure would provide voters with the knowledge they need about what identification to bring before they head to the polls.

Another important matter addressed in the act is the use of voter information cards. The voter information card is a card that Elections Canada sends out during an election campaign to every elector whose name appears on the list. It informs electors when and where they can cast their ballots on election day or at the advance polls. A card is also sent to every elector who is added to the list of electors during the revision period. The voter information cards play an important role informing Canadians about where and when they need to vote.

However, they have not been used as a proof of identification and residency at the polls, apart from some pilot projects conducted by Elections Canada, and there is evidence that their use as ID presents proven risks of voter fraud. Voter information cards with inaccuracies are regularly sent to electors, which could allow those attempting to subvert election law to use them to vote more than once or in the wrong riding.

An Elections Canada report on the last election showed that roughly one in six eligible voters do not have a correct address listed on the national register of electors. The information from the register provides the information for voters lists that is reproduced on the voter information cards. In other words, one out of six voter information cards are wrong. That is why the fair elections act would prohibit the use of voter information cards as a form of acceptable identification.

As I have demonstrated, there is a wide range of voter identification documents that are accepted at the polls, which have a proven level of accuracy. There is no need to add voter information cards to that list, in light of the apparent lack of reliability of these cards for identification purposes.

Canadians must have confidence in the democratic and our electoral process. Not only do they need to know how to cast a ballot, but Canadians want to be sure that legitimate votes are not cancelled by illegitimate ones.

As I have demonstrated today, the fair elections act would go a long way to ensuring that Canadians have the confidence in the electoral process that they want and deserve. With the measures to eliminate vouching and communicate the many types of voter identification that are acceptable at the polls, I believe that the incidents of voter fraud would be greatly reduced.

Together, all of these initiatives have advanced the voter identification process significantly from what it was a decade ago.

Of course, there still remains the important debate that will continue on the fair elections act, which will include the examination of the bill by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Canadians, interested parties, and stakeholders will have the opportunity to make their views known.

I have complete confidence that the committee, of which I am a member, will ensure that the study of the bill and the hearings are conducted in such a way as to allow a comprehensive review of the issues.

I do not believe that, to accomplish this, the committee needs to be directed by this House.

It is for that reason that I will not be supporting the motion. I once again call upon members of this House to oppose the motion.

I hope that tomorrow, at the procedure and House affairs committee, the filibustering will stop, the list of witnesses will be established, and we will start to have proper, full, and robust hearings on the bill. We have heard from the minister already. The minister came, spent an hour, and took every question directed at him. Then, as soon as the minister had finished, the filibustering by the NDP began. I am hoping tomorrow, at committee, we will get on with the job that we are paid by Canadians to do, which is to do a robust, careful examination and invite dozens and dozens of witnesses to come in to give us their expert testimony on the bill. I look forward to hearing that testimony from Canadians here in the House of Commons when the committee resumes the good work that it needs to do for all Canadians.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between a member of Parliament's job and the government's job. I would like to remind my colleague that it is the government's job to consult Canadians. I hope he has not forgotten that aspect of the government's job.

The motion simply asks the government to consult the public. I think it is strange that I did not hear a single good reason in my colleague's speech for not consulting Canadians. He extolled the virtues of his bill, which is fine, but he is hiding behind procedural rules to shirk the government's responsibility to consult Canadians. My colleague did not give a single reason in his speech for why consulting Canadians would not be in their best interests.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the member referred to the motion, she suggested that it would direct the government to tell the procedure and House affairs committee to hold hearings across the country. The government does not tell committees of the House how to run their own business.

I am a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. It is generally a very cordial committee. We have had witnesses from the list of witnesses submitted by the opposition and from the list that we submitted. Almost all of the witnesses are included on the list and are invited to come and make their full presentations. That is the important work of the committee.

The government is not directing the procedure and House affairs committee, but it would be nice to actually start working on the bill tomorrow instead of having the Hamilton Centre filibuster.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to see the committee take direction from the House rather than see what we know is going to happen, which is that the Conservatives, who are in the majority on the committee, will take their direction from the parliamentary secretary. We know that is what happens on all committees.

We heard a lot of the government spin on Bill C-23 from the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, but we heard nothing on why he is opposed to engaging Canadians in their own communities. When he was talking, I almost had a vision. That vision was that the Conservative backbenchers in this place would actually stand up for democracy, break ranks with their government, and allow a committee to travel across the country and hear from Canadians. I ask the member opposite if he thinks it might even be three or four.

I hear Conservative backbenchers get up and talk about how they are members of the government. They are not; they are members of the governing party, and they have a responsibility to their constituents to stand up.

Does the member think that one or two or three might stand up for democracy, rather than the usual situation of being puppets on a string, taking their direction from a parliamentary—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the committee had set aside, I believe, 12 meeting dates and had a huge list of potential witnesses. We were already starting to pre-vet them as a committee. They would be excellent witnesses.

We can get much more accomplished and hear from many more interested parties by holding the hearings here in Ottawa. We have great technology. Maybe the member does not know what a teleconference is, but it is an excellent way of hearing expert testimony from people without having to fly them or 12 members of a committee halfway across the country. That testimony is just as good, if not better, for use in our deliberations on the act.

Assuming the filibuster does not continue tomorrow morning, we are going to finally begin dealing with this bill in a proper way under our procedures at committee.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to know why Marc Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer, went so far as to say that as a result of the reforms in this bill, he can no longer speak about democracy in this country.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate thing is that we have not had a chance at committee to hear from the Chief Electoral Officer because the NDP is filibustering the start of the meeting.

I look forward to Mr. Mayrand coming to the procedure and House affairs committee and giving us his expert testimony, but I have to say that the previous chief electoral officer gave this bill, in its present form, an A minus. He said that it was a very good and very strong piece of legislation.

I think it can be better. We will take a look at the expert testimony that we get at committee. We will listen to the witnesses and figure out if there are ways that we can make it an even stronger bill to make Canada's democratic process even better.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the member for Malpeque talk about democracy, because he ran for a party that made a whole host of promises and then systematically, one by one, turned its back on every single promise that it made to the Canadian people. I do not recall the member, who was also a cabinet minister, standing up for democracy or standing up for what he told the Canadian people in advance.

However, the member was talking about the filibuster at committee. Could he expand on this and explain how many people the committee has actually heard since the bill has been before us and why we are not hearing from witnesses?

Canadians give us $500 million a year. That is what it costs to run this place and send members of Parliament back home every single weekend. I wonder if the hon. member could tell me some of the steps he is taking in his riding to engage the people in his riding and hear what they are saying on the bill. Could he expand further on what the filibuster is and why the opposition members are so desperate to stop the committee hearings and prevent it from hearing from people such as the former chief electoral officer, who gave this bill an A minus?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am paid to do a job. Canadians in Mississauga—Streetsville sent me here to work, and some of my most important responsibilities as a member of Parliament are to do the work at committee.

Committee is the real grunt work around here. Committee is where we hear directly from Canadians interested in a piece of legislation, interested in participating in a study, interested in giving us their best knowledge. However, at the procedure and House affairs committee, we are not going to get that, because the hon. member for Hamilton Centre has decided he would rather keep yammering at committee and filibustering instead of hearing from witnesses.

At the first set of hearings on the bill, the minister came for an hour. He was straightforward and answered every question clearly and directly. As soon as that was done and the minister's testimony was over, the filibuster gates opened up. In the second hour at committee, zero was accomplished. Absolutely nothing was done on the bill, and I suspect that when we reconvene at 11 a.m. tomorrow, the filibustering member for Hamilton Centre will be at it again.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that this bill will affect thousands of Canadians, including seniors and students.

However, the Conservatives simply said that students would have to bring their student card to go vote. They do not even know that student cards do not have the student's address on them. That shows just how out of touch the Conservatives are.

We need to travel across the country to consult Canadians, to talk about their realities and to consult them on the details of this bill.

I think that we owe it to Canadians to do an in-depth study of this bill. They also deserve to be consulted before the election rules change, because elections belong to Canadians and not to the government.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know there has been a lot said about the student ID issue, so let us remember a couple of things.

First of all, people have to be 18 years of age or older to vote in Canada, so we are not talking about high school students and we are not talking about younger people.

Second, if people are age 18 or over and are in a post-secondary institution, they will have student ID, photo ID in most cases, from the universities or colleges. The ID may not have a specific address, but then students can bring in the second piece of ID, such as a lease or a copy of a transcript mailed to their parents' home as their principal residence. It is not just one piece of ID. With a student ID card and a transcript, they can vote.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. Come to think of it, Louis St. Laurent was a former prime minister of Canada.

Listening to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville and his view of the functions of committee, Canadians watching closely who are not very careful will end up believing in Cinderella and the fairy godmother.

We had omnibus bills before the finance committee for which we had 3,000 amendments. We voted for 55 hours, and the Conservatives did not accept one single amendment. Now they try to tell us today how wonderful it is in committee.

I am proud of the member for Hamilton Centre, the riding adjoining mine, for standing up for democracy as we understand it to be and for stopping these people from trying to force through a bill that is tainted, that is wrong.

I always try to look for what is good in people, and so far that approach has served me well in life. I sincerely believe that many of the members of the Conservative government who sought office to be members of Parliament did so to serve Canadians, their very neighbours. I also believe that many came to this place to try to make Parliament a better place, but now I have to ask a question of these same good members, these pro-democracy Conservatives: how did it come to this point?

There is much more wrong with the bill than the vouching part. Hearing speech after speech from the government side, one would think the only problem the opposition saw with the bill was around the vouching. That is very far from the facts. There is much more wrong.

I have to ask how these governing, pro-democracy Conservatives reached the stage where they feel so empowered that they can justify to themselves that somehow it is their right, and it is right and proper for them, to deny tens of thousands of Canadians their participation in our democracy.

The arrogance of a few over there is quite astounding. One has been recently quoted as saying that holding hearings for Canadians is virtually as important as a circus. That same member must perceive that Canadians who want to come before the circus would be clowns.

According to the member for Hamilton Centre who sits on PROC, the procedure and House affairs committee, the Conservatives in the beginning were showing interest in perhaps having hearings across the country. All of a sudden, that changed. As the member for Hamilton Centre said earlier today, the iron wall came down. We now have to bring this question to this place, the highest level of our Parliament, and get an answer from Parliament, not from the Prime Minister's Office.

The opposition day motion is seeking the opportunity for Parliament to give direction that we believe would cause this committee to do its job properly by hearing witnesses who cannot necessarily come here, witnesses region by region. People will come before the committee from Elections Canada. We hope there will be agreement on the witnesses here among the political parties, but representatives of first nations, anti-poverty groups, groups representing persons with disabilities, and groups representing youth advocates, students, and others have raised their concerns and done so quite publicly.

Among the things that are wrong, tens of thousands of students, seniors, aboriginal people, low-income Canadians, and the homeless are the ones who are most at risk. That is where a significant problem lies in the bill. We have to come to this House and ask Parliament to allow the proper outreach on a bill, a bill that is affecting our very democracy.

Trade committees travel on a variety of trade issues, including the EU agreement. I am not criticizing that travel because it is important.

I will say, again, that when we consider making a change to a law that would affect an individual's opportunity to vote, we must be careful. It is important.

I was a school board trustee before coming to this place. A wonderful part of my job was talking to grade 4 and 5 students and answering their questions about democracy. As an MP, I return to many of those schools to talk to those kids.

It would be ridiculous to ban Elections Canada from teaching kids about our democracy, about encouraging people to vote. It is important that Elections Canada warns people about election fraud. The person on the street has an obligation to see where the problems might be and report them if they find them.

In my mind, the Prime Minister is trying to use U.S.-style voter suppression tactics and bring big money into Canada's elections. The Conservatives have been shutting down debate and are trying to ram through a bill designed to stop some people from voting. Would it happen to be those people who might vote for someone else?

This legislation would strip Elections Canada of its investigative powers.

One would think that in travelling this country we would come across people who could provide good solid input, people who might not be able to access this place. Almost immediately, I think of professors at universities.

This legislation proposes to remove the power of the CEO at Elections Canada to engage in public education. I come back to this because it is so basic and fundamental. The CEO would be required to seek Treasury Board approval to hire technical experts. Has a person not been put in place to manage this file? Would that individual not have the capacity to seek out technical experts? It is strange.

With respect to voter ID cards, I would suggest that this is government manipulation in order to keep the focus on vouching and ID cards. There are other things that are so clearly problematic.

The bill proposes to change the amount of money, up to $5,000, that people can contribute to their own campaigns. If people run for the leadership of a party, they could put $25,000 into their own campaigns. That would provide people with money an upper hand over people who are less affluent. The idea of a democracy is to allow anybody to come here.

There is not just something wrong with this legislation, but things are missing from this legislation.

I have said many times in this place that the true purpose of committees is to work together. When a government brings a piece of legislation forward, I see it as the responsibility of the opposition to try to make the legislation better. We have come to the stage in our committee where we are butting heads all too often and the opportunity to make the bill better is not there.

In closing, I want to go back to the most fundamental thing. The good people who are in this place and who do have the proper intentions should pause and think about what they are about to do. We are about to take part in a process that would limit a person's franchise in this country. This legislation would put an artificial limitation on a person's ability to vote in a federal election. It would limit people's ability to choose their government.

It is very clear to those of us on this side of the House that we need to start looking at the people who would be disenfranchised. There are many in society who are already disenfranchised in many ways. Many individuals are poor. First nations are disenfranchised. This legislation would be an added suppression, for lack of a better term.

We can do better than this. Members should truly consider hearing from Canadians. They should put their trust in the democracy that Canadians deserve.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting when one comes to this place and discovers what happens in the backrooms, in the recesses of this place. When we first heard about voter fraud, robocalls, and all of those things, the promise was made to bring forward legislation that would change the reality of elections and make them more fair and honest. I naively expected that there would be something to prohibit robocalls and to make sure that Elections Canada has the personnel and financing to get to the bottom of what happened. I do not see it in the bill.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks is going on. Why do we not see real and genuine reform of the elections act?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the side of me that tries to look for the good in people would say it was an accident, an omission. However, my time has taught me that there are things done by parties in this place to move themselves forward in the eyes of the public. They are not always the kinds of principled things that we would like to see.

If we look at the situation of robocalls in the last election and the fact that they were traced to the voter lists of the Conservative Party of Canada, it certainly calls into question the point the member is making about why there is not more there on this issue.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks from the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. The key point he made was that the committee be allowed to do its job properly, and in order to do that, it should travel.

Mr. Speaker, I think you know that even with committee hearings here in Ottawa, in theory that should work. However, the practice with the government has been one of absolute control of its members at committee. That is where we run into the problem with the hearings in Ottawa.

I have always found that when committees travel they become less partisan. It is not as possible for the parliamentary secretary to come in the room, put his hand on a shoulder, and say “you're a member of the government”. They are not; they are a member of the governing party and they have a responsibility to constituents. However, the pressure on backbench members, especially from the Conservative Party, is not as great when we are out in the country.

Could the member explain how committees are working, or more properly, as he said, not working, in Ottawa in the community's interest, so that Canadians understand why it is necessary for the committee to travel?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the finance committee a number of years ago, I travelled across the country during pre-budget hearings. We went to Washington, and I actually came to like, quite a lot, some of the people from the government side on that committee. They were good honest people.

However, when we look at the functioning of the committees in this place, we see something different. We offer amendments after amendments, and they are never looked upon favourably by the government. It restricts the amount of debate that goes on in committee. There are a variety of things that happen there. When it comes to witnesses, there is a control exercise that is quite shocking.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important opposition day motion. I have not made it clear before, but I will make it clear now that I intend to vote for it. We need cross-country hearings. Ideally, we should expand them to the other issues that worry Canadians about the health of our democracy, particularly our perverse first past the post voting system. It is the only system in a democracy that allows the minority of voters to elect a majority government. This time it happened to be Conservative; in the past, it has been Liberals. However, it does not reflect the way that Canadians really vote.

I wonder if the member has any comment on that.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and the observation. The fact is, proportional representation would have made this place look entirely different from what it does today. That, in my opinion, and the opinion of my party, is healthy for democracy. Some people are getting elected with a very small plurality, but they get to govern as if they have the majority of the Canadian public when they only have roughly a third of it.