Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the excellent motion moved by my colleague from Hamilton Centre. This motion would allow Canadians to express their views on a bill that, in its present form, is anti-democratic.
In light of the irregularities that occurred in the last election, it is obvious today that serious reform is needed to guarantee the integrity of our electoral process.
Considering what we have seen over the past two years with the party in power, I am not surprised, but I am very disappointed that the Conservatives did not seize this opportunity to strengthen our democracy. Instead, they have chosen to use this reform to serve their own election interests. Even worse, they are trying to sneak their bill through without consulting anyone.
Why cut debate short only one hour after introducing the bill? Is that democracy?
My colleague's motion is quite simple. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should be allowed to do its job and make recommendations after consulting experts, the groups concerned and especially Canadians. That is true democracy.
In a democracy, the people are part of the discussion, organizations working in the field are given a chance to express their views and the opinions of experts are taken into account in order to make an informed decision.
To achieve this goal, the members of the parliamentary committee have no choice but to meet with Canadians in every region of our country. That is an obligation and a responsibility for us as representatives of the people. Why is the Conservative government putting up obstacles? This type of travel is commonplace. Parliamentary committees must meet with witnesses who are unable to come to Ottawa.
If the Standing Committee on International Trade can travel to Belgium and France—which is fine by me—for its study of the Canada-European Union free trade agreement, then I really do not see why the government would be against this committee leaving Ottawa to hold hearings on an issue as important as electoral reform.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister of State for Democratic Reform did not think it would be a good idea to consult the experts before proposing changes to the Canada Elections Act. He did not even ask the top official at Elections Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, for his opinion. That is just unbelievable. We are fortunate to have so many experts within the public service and society in general, so why did the government choose to do without their expertise?
This botched approach strongly suggests that the government is not in fact seeking the best possible electoral reform for Canadians, but the best possible electoral reform, or should I say deformation, for the Conservative Party.
Canadians will gain nothing if the government reduces the Chief Electoral Officer's powers.
After the robocall scandal and the whole “Pierre Poutine” affair, dozens of my constituents emailed me to say they wanted us to find out what really happened with that sordid story. The people of Hull—Aylmer and the rest of Canada want to have confidence in their electoral system. They want Parliament to take real action to ensure that such fraud never happens again.
That is the same reason the Chief Electoral Officer asked for more power, including the power to request financial documents related to elections and to compel witnesses to testify.
What does this bill actually do? The opposite. It removes a number of Elections Canada's powers. It even prohibits Elections Canada from promoting voter participation. That is shameful.
Canadians will gain nothing if the government makes the voting process more difficult for vulnerable individuals. Democracy is founded on the fact that each vote counts. Social status, age and occupation have no bearing; we are all equal. Canadians take that principle to heart.
We cannot accept that the government is putting up roadblocks for seniors, students and members of aboriginal communities when they wish to exercise their right to vote. However, that is exactly what this bill does by proposing to eliminate vouching and the use of voter ID cards as proof of identity. This measure does nothing more than impede thousands of voters.
In 2011, more than 100,000 people used vouching in order to vote because they did not have a valid ID card. I would like to provide at least example of this.
Take, for example, an 85-year-old woman who has always voted, from the time she was 18. She has no photo identification, she does not drive, she has no ID that proves her address and the electricity bills, heating bills and so on are all in her husband's name. In 2011, her husband vouched for her. Under this bill, she will not be able to vote in 2015. Seniors are being put at a disadvantage, and their access to democracy is being restricted. That is very important to note. It is happening. Their voices count and they need to be defended.
Canadians will gain nothing if the government changes funding rules and increases the influence money has on Canadian politics. By increasing the maximum threshold for individual donations, allowing candidates to pump significant amounts of money into their own campaigns, and amending the list of election expenses that count towards spending limits, the Conservative Party is simply going through the back door to give itself the right to spend more than its adversaries. The Conservatives are putting their interests ahead of concern for an electoral process that is based on the quality of ideas, not wallet size.
What do Canadians have to gain from this electoral reform? The response is quite simple: nothing. They have nothing to gain, since this is a partisan bill designed by and for the Conservative Party. This bill is an affront to the democracy we know and love in Canada. Those are not my words, nor are they the words of an opposition member. Marc Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer, called this bill an affront to democracy.
Our democracy is worth protecting. As I said at the beginning, I am very honoured to support my colleague's motion, since protecting our democracy starts with getting back to the basics: listening to the public we are here to represent.