Okay.
Well, the situation I want to bring the committee's attention to is that the amendment suggested is perfectly in order because it expands the mandate of the original motion. And despite the numbers and the mathematics of parliamentary committees, rules can easily be broken, Mr. Chairman. We could suggest that the shirt you're wearing right now is not blue. We could, in fact, have a vote on it, and the minutes would reflect that we lost that vote, but anyone watching this committee would indeed see that your shirt is blue.
So notwithstanding the numbers and the tyranny of the majority with respect to numbers, what I'm trying to convince members of is that the amendment actually broadens the original motion and brings it more in line with what the Standing Orders have chosen over the decades in terms of what parliamentary committees should be for.
My concern with not adopting the subamendment is very simple. It's that no one could possibly believe that a parliamentary committee that is made up of different political parties could ever possibly come to an unbiased determination or research on a very specific matter. So to amend the original motion, in my strongest opinion, makes it completely in order.
The second concern I would have in not amending the motion would be the sub judice convention. This is an adopted, voluntary convention that protects witnesses and people who are before the courts from any testimony.
Certainly, Mr. Chair, I'm sure you'd agree with me that we've lost the trust that committees will keep confidential even meetings that are in camera. We had a privilege today in the House that raised a very important matter of there being leaked documents from in camera meetings and leaked documents from reports that have not yet been tabled in the House.
So my concern is that it's not possible to proceed on the narrow vision of the original motion, and the amended version that has been put forth by my colleague is absolutely in order and actually has to be given a yes vote to restore some of the credibility that has been lost on these committees that continue to proceed based on numbers and on what can't be deemed to be anything less than partisan gain.
No one has anything to lose, apparently. Or is there something to lose? Maybe I'm wrong here. Maybe the other parties would like to respond to this. Perhaps the other parties have something significant to lose, and therefore have some reasonable grounds to restrict this to the Conservative Party.
But we don't need to do that, Mr. Chair. We do need to expand the motion, but we don't need to keep it restricted because we have courts for that. Certainly the justice committee doesn't investigate individual breaking and entering. The justice committee sets up the rules, and the police deal with the break and enter.
In this case we have the courts to deal with individual parties, and pitting one party against another is not the place of parliamentary committees. That's not what the Canadian taxpayer sent us here to do. In fact, Canadian taxpayers pay judges and lawyers. I know there are some lawyers here too. I don't want to be insulting; there are certainly lawyers on this committee. But I can tell you I'm not one of them, and I can't profess to know how to interrogate witnesses properly to get to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And I'm absolutely convinced that's what all members want to do.
So in my opinion, the amendment that's been proposed by my colleague is not just in order, it's something on which it's imperative that we all vote. To vote against it would send a profound signal that we're not interested anymore in parliamentary work, we're not interested in working for the best interests of Canadians.
Clearly, this case is before the courts. It will be dealt with there; that's where it's supposed to be dealt with.
What we need to do here is expand this motion so that we can do the job properly, which is to study the advertising practices under the Elections Act. That doesn't mean those of one particular party, but just the advertising policies. And if they need to be changed, of course we need to change them.
But that can't happen at a committee like this. It's not possible, and Canadians don't believe that either. Canadians don't believe for one second that the Liberal Party is the authority on the Conservatives, or that the Conservatives should be the ones who judge the NDP. That's absolutely absurd. It's an affront to what parliamentary committees are all about and what they've been set up for.
I think, frankly, the reason this has been going on for so long is that these rules were set up decades ago, clearly by individuals who were wiser than most of us, and they work when they're used properly. This isn't working, Mr. Chair, I profess to you. It didn't work at another committee. It's obviously not working here, and guess why? Because these rules were meant to be for the benefit of Canadians, not the benefit of individual political parties who are looking for voting options and ways to get more votes.
I'll just conclude my comments by going right back to my summary. If members look at the folks in their riding and understand what they came here to do, it's not about winning the election. It's about making this country a better country for all of us, and we can do that. But I'll tell you, if we leave this thing to be one party against another party, then we're wasting everybody's time. We all know full well, Mr. Chair, that all parties do these sorts of things. There is evidence. It wil come out in the courts. That's where it should be.
We will be using a parliamentary committee of Canada for partisan and political gains. Why? We all know this is being handled in the courts, exactly where it should be handled. If we move forward without this amendment that expands this original motion, we will be putting ourselves in a place of violating sub judice, and that will mean nobody in that courtroom will have a fair trial.
So the vote on this amendment, Mr. Chair, is going to be very simple. It's going to be “Do you wish to continue giving Canadians a fair trial and respect the judicial system of this country?” Yes or no. Are we going to expand this motion so we can look at the act and rule on what is the right thing to do, or are we going to say “No, this is a parliamentary committee and we're all being paid a tonne of money and we have all kinds of advisors and staff behind us, plus interpreters and technical wizards...”? We have all kinds of people right here. This is costing taxpayers a huge amount of money. And guess what? We're going to double that cost, because this is being handled in the courts, where it should be.
This isn't a courtroom, Mr. Chair. We're not trained to be a court. And with all due respect to your talents, Mr. Chair, you're not a judge. And there isn't any way a fair answer can come from an inquiry such as this.
So the motion has to be expanded, if for no other reason than to explain to Canadians that we're here to do the business of Canada, we're not here to do individual party politics. And the only fair thing to do is to respect the judicial system, leave this where it already is, and not jeopardize the witnesses and those people who are going to testify there. Don't jeopardize them.
When you call witnesses here, Mr. Chair, on this small motion, on the original narrow motion--which, in my view, should have been ruled out of order--do you know what you're going to hear? “I'm sorry, I can't comment. It's before the courts.” Do you know what you're going to vote for if you don't vote for the amendment? “I want to waste more taxpayers' dollars”--because there is nobody in this room who believes for a second that a witness who is involved in a courtroom is going to answer the question, assuming that we've lost dignity to some point that we don't respect sub judice in the first place.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's not the forum. This is not what you were elected to come here and do. If you have to change the rules, then change the rules, but don't sit here and pretend to be in a courtroom. Don't sit here and waste taxpayers' dollars. Vote yes to this amendment, and let's get on with doing the job Canadians sent us here to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.