We could probably split the time, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This report was tabled to the main committee.
As a result of various ploys—not ploys, really, but rather administrative tricks—the subcommittee's second report was not able to be tabled for in-depth, proper review by the committee. You are aware of the content of this second report which the committee was supposed to examine and, quite possibly, approve. My colleagues may not necessarily recall the text in its entirety, but the second report stated this, and I quote:
Your Subcommittee met on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, to consider the business of the Committee and agreed to make the following recommendation: That, effective immediately [...] the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election, in relation to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for illegitimate election campaign expenses.
The recommendation was made at the first meeting held after January 29, therefore in February. The report also said: “That [...] the debate on the motion of Karen Redman [...] take priority over the other work of the Committee”.
Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee on agenda and procedure which you chair had reviewed some outstanding items of business, one of which was consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (visual identification of voters). It's no secret. This bill was referred to the committee on November 15, 2007.
Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to formally review past actions, but I will do so informally by reminding you that since the month of September, if memory serves me correctly, the “in and out” file has been on the drawing board, so to speak. Through all sorts of manoeuvring, we have managed thus far to keep this item of business in the background to avoid having to do an in-depth, thorough examination.
The Conservative government, which is in the minority on this committee, is proposing to do an end-run around all various procedures in order to ultimately discuss this famous Bill C-6. It is very noble want to get to this bill as soon as possible. However, before we get to it, the majority of committee members—the three opposition parties agreed to this—had agreed that before discussing Bill C-6, the committee should tackle Ms. Redman's motion, which I spoke of earlier, which calls for the committee to investigate the alleged illegitimate spending by Conservative candidates during the 2005-2006 election. This is what the committee wanted. This is not a formal rebuke on my part.
Mr. Chairman, my impression is that it's been decided that you will find some way, along with the Conservative government, to discuss Bill C-6 before we get to anything else. To my mind, it is quite reprehensible for the committee to direct the debate and the work of the subcommittee as it sees fit to do.
Nevertheless, I am prepared to act in good faith, Mr. Chairman. The Liberal Party wants things to proceed smoothly, in keeping with the standing orders. So then, let's see what we can do about the government's motion.
Thank you for your patience and your attention. If you don't mind, I'd like to check your notes after to ensure that everything is accurate.