Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Well, there was about half an hour's worth of comment from near you that day.

They didn't send us here to do this. They really didn't. But when you're dealt the hand that you know is a winning hand, that you know has right on your side.... We're here to do the job, and we know we are. When you know you're right, it's not hard to sit and talk and to make your points and make them well. It's just not hard to do it when you know you have right on your side.

We do in this case. The steering committee--the railroad committee of procedure and House affairs--got together and said, let's only look at one thing. What did I say? Yes, “take priority over the other work of the Committee”. I can't believe that even in the most arrogant of situations, someone would say that for any matter, even if it were a good piece of legislation, we'd write that it could take priority over all of the other work of the committee.

What if, God forbid, something comes up? Well, sorry, this witch hunt takes priority. It doesn't matter what it is. It doesn't matter that there's legislation. It doesn't matter that there are other things that this committee could clearly look at that are far more under its jurisdiction. No, it does not matter. The members of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs decided there's only one thing it wanted to look at. There's only one thing that mattered to them.

I wonder if the people back in their ridings think this is the most important thing that could ever work for them. I just wonder that, because I would guess that if they went home and listened, they might find out differently—Mr. Chair, through you, rather than talking to them. I think they might find out that they've made a mistake, that being partisan in a committee that always worked together from a collegial point of view is probably not the way to go.

What else could we be working on? I've mentioned Bill C-6, and an important piece of legislation it is. Ms. Redman talked this morning about the sound of election in the air, and she's right. There's lots of talk. Wouldn't we like to have that piece of legislation done? Wouldn't we like to ensure that there isn't the same opportunity for fraudulent voting that there may have been before Bill C-6, before we go to the next general election? Wouldn't we like to make sure that was the case? This committee, when it was working on that piece of legislation, said that. We said yes, we need to work on this; we need to make sure we cover this, that we get this done. Why did we do that?

I know, Monsieur Godin, your party may have just a slightly different view on what I'm saying, but the rest all said yes. The rest all said that we need to have voter ID, that we need to have some sort of photo ID system.

There are variances. There are different ways. We talked about different ways to do it, but we all thought that this was an important piece of legislation to be done before we got to the next election. Do you know what? On September 10, when we first talked about it, there were some byelections coming up, so we had to hurry. We felt that we really needed to get to Bill C-6 before these byelections. Well, they've come and gone. Those people have been elected, and here we sit now getting ready for a general election, perhaps.

This very committee worked on a piece of legislation establishing a fixed election date, the date for our next elections: the third Monday in October in the fourth year following every election. So that's October 19, 2009, a fixed election date. There we have it. We no longer allow the Prime Minister, as was done in the past under Liberal prime ministers, to just pick and choose, as they chose, to have an election whenever they felt it was time. We have a Prime Minister with honour now who says, “Let's fix a date and that's what I'll be held to.” Right? Unless, of course, confidence comes forward and the opposition decides that they want an election more than the people of Canada want one. There you go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me, colleagues. I do see two members of opposing parties having a discussion, and I'm thoroughly hoping that there's a negotiated settlement here. However, I'm having trouble listening to the member. So I invite the colleagues to continue with their conversations, but maybe not so close to the chair.

Mr. Preston, please.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I know that I have one significant flaw in my character; whenever I'm interrupted I forget what I've already said. I may have to go backwards.

Chair, I wonder if you can pass the list down so I'll know what I have covered. Maybe I can refer to it to ensure I've covered it well, because it's important. I think I was on fixed election dates and the honour of this Prime Minister coming forward with legislation that fixed a date in time, rather than being able to pick and choose among all dates as to when an election might be

. So that's where we stand. We stand now at a piece of legislation that this committee spent time on.

Boy, wasn't it good working on legislation? Wasn't it good really accomplishing those pieces of legislation? I always felt good when legislation passed through committee, we got it done, put it back to the House, and it became law in this country. I think that's what we were sent here for. You feel the pride. You feel what is right.

Occasionally you lose too. Occasionally your philosophies and principles are different from those of others, and a piece of legislation gets modified or changed, but you were still part of it. You were still there when it happened. You were still there making it happen and changing this country, hopefully for the better, because democracy works that way sometimes too. It's a bit ugly, but it works. Democracy: that's where everyone has a vote, and at the end of the day the majority works.

Why is the steering committee not that way, Chair? Why is the steering committee missing representation? We talk about democracy and moving forward. We talk about electoral reform and what good this committee does, yet even this committee is scheduled by a steering committee that doesn't follow the same rules that we'd like to see the country have--the same level of care, of listening to all.

It doesn't matter that their opinions are different from mine. We will have philosophical differences. We will have times when Marcel and I may not agree; it just might happen. But we each have a voice. We each have a chance to debate the same pieces of legislation, give our thoughts and concerns, go home, and even collect the thoughts of the members of our constituencies and bring them forward. We always try to do as much of that as we possibly can. Then we bring them back to this committee and discuss them openly. Sometimes we win and sometimes we lose.

But why doesn't the steering committee that schedules this committee have the same democracy? How did we get there? Sometimes you shake your head.

I was saying to a member of the press yesterday that sometimes you get frustrated in this job. Sometimes you say, why in the heck did I come here to do this? Because the frustration sets in.

Here's another case of it. Rules and regulations are written and followed, but sometimes they don't make sense. Sometimes common sense makes more sense than the rules and regulations that are there for us to follow.

Here's another case. We have the case of a scheduling committee. It doesn't sound like much. It doesn't sound like it could do much damage, so we ignore it. Little do we know. Take a look. Here we are thinking that the steering committee didn't mean all that much. When we first established it, what did I care? It's a group of two or three members getting together to talk about what this committee could look at next. How much damage could that do, I asked myself. I didn't really--but I did just now.

How much damage could it really do? Well, look at what happens when you don't mind the Ps and Qs, when you don't cross t's and dot the i's properly. We get to this case; we get to a case where we have a committee that can actually do this.

Chair, look at what they've caused. Here we are. We continue to talk about one issue. Is it important? I guess it could be determined whether it is or isn't. But we continue to talk about that issue because, as a group, on the day we set down the regulations for this committee, we weren't aware the steering committee was not in balance, that it didn't work properly, and that it was dysfunctional.

[An hon. member, Bloc, Michel Guimond]

We brought it up.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I think we did bring it up, but maybe we had another one of those railroad things going on whereby they voted against us.

So here we are, not represented. Here I am. I know I'm just a small guy, literally. We are not represented on this committee. I know it's hard for me to be invisible. I know it's tough. But what am I? I'm hard to hide.

I think there is an injustice in this place. I think this committee didn't think it through, that we could be well on to doing things that we could be a lot prouder of. We could really, truly be there if we had just fixed that flaw in the steering committee way back then.

Am I saying it would have made a difference in this case? I don't know. It would still only have been one government member against the world. I could break into song there, I guess, but it would still only be that. But at least I would have felt we had a say. I would have thought we had a way forward. I could hold my head up and say that democracy prevailed, we were there, I was right, I made my case, however the schedule went this way. But we don't even get that. We don't even get the chance to be there.

Something is wrong with this, Chair. Something is really wrong when the steering committee is only allowed to look at one piece and say that's what they want, to grab the bit in their teeth and just run with it and that's what they want and that's what they're going to do, come hell or high water. If you don't mind an old saying, Chair, that's what we're going to work on. I've got to tell you, here we are, and it doesn't feel like high water, Chair.

We've just got one topic we're going to deal with. That's what they're saying to us. Only one thing matters to us. The people of Canada be damned; there's only one thing we're going to talk about and that is the topic we're here to talk about today, the motion that's been put forward that this steering committee will only look at Ms. Redman's motion and it will take priority over the other work of the committee.

If indeed we were working on legislation, I could almost live with that last sentence. Working on legislation will take priority over all the work of the committee. I think if the steering committee had come forward and said that, I might even have said that's all right. If we're working on legislation, that could take priority over the other work.

But it didn't say that. It didn't say we'd work on Bill C-6, the piece of legislation that's before us. It didn't talk about the performance report of the office of the Chief Electoral Officer that's before this committee that needs to be looked at, at some point. It's another piece of work for this committee. Did they say we should work on that? No.

It says that this motion, this witch hunt, as Mr. Lukiwski talked about last week, this unfairness that this committee should investigate the actions.... Not look at, not determine, not decide whether there is a piece of election financing that needs to be changed, as is truly the purview of this committee, to look at regulations that have to do with elections.... No, let's investigate a party.

And not all of them. No, Chair. I know you're surprised. You have a surprised look on your face. Not four parties, not look at all parties, not even look at maybe five, six, seven parties. There are other parties out there besides the four represented in this House. Don't look at them all. Don't look at how other people have done elections--no, no, no. Let's just drill down to only one thing. Let's only look at one thing.

I know it's unbelievable. It's the action of bullies in the schoolyard. It's exactly that. It's saying we're only going to do one thing, and we're going to gang up and make sure it happens whether you want it to or not. It's a sad commentary on this place. It truly is.

The word “partisan” comes up in our vocabulary here--

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

There is a point of order, please.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

There is too much noise over on that side. I can hardly hear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Colleagues, again--

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

And I'm trying to speak loudly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes. I know who it is.

I can hear a lot of that background noise. I am not discouraging it; I'm just asking members to be a little quieter as they're discussing away from the table. And that's true too--you can step out of the room and have your discussions.

Thank you for that.

Mr. Preston, I'm sorry. You're back.

Another point of order?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, if we use these, we can hear better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Godin. The point has been made.

I'm cautioning members for probably the third time: keep the noise down, please.

Mr. Preston.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I come equipped with my own earpieces. I blame it on rock and roll music in my youth, but that's a topic for another day, or maybe it's a topic for this day.

Now that hearing has been brought up at the committee, we could talk a bit about that. I'm not certain we're hearing Canadians or the constituents back home. I'm not sure that any of them are yelling, “Could you please go to Ottawa and go on a witch hunt?” I've been home, and I don't think they've said that. I read my newspapers, even from here, and I don't think anybody in the riding is saying, “Please go to Ottawa and join in that witch hunt that's happening in the procedure and House affairs committee.” Nobody is saying that; nobody, I tell you. I haven't heard it once.

We may think this is important, and I can only assume that the opposition members believe that's the case, because otherwise why would they do this?

I've not heard from one member of the general public that we should look at this election spending thing. They want us to fix it. If it's broken, fix it. If it's not, then leave it alone and get on with your work and get the other stuff done. That's what we are sent here to do. We're actually sent here to work on legislation.

Now, did the steering committee say that? Let me read the report. It doesn't say anything about legislation anywhere in this report. Did you want me to read it out loud, Chair? I could read it, but the answer is no, they didn't say let's look at legislation.

They had to have discussed the legislation that is before this committee. They had to have discussed it at the steering committee. I know the steering committee is held in camera and therefore can't be.... I wasn't there, so I think I can talk about it. I recognize that perhaps the members who were there can't talk about it, because it's held in camera, but they had to have discussed the legislation. I can't believe the incompetence of the steering committee would be such that they would not talk about the legislation before this committee.

Can you believe it, Chair? You might have been there, so I know you can't say, and I know you have no voice at the committee either. You can't say before, during, or after.... But I assume legislation was talked about. I can't believe the steering committee would have sat there and said, “You know, we have Bill C-6 still. We should...”.

How could you sit at the steering committee for procedure and House affairs and say, “We have a piece of legislation that's important in this country. It is so important it has come back to this committee a couple of times to make sure that the Chief Electoral Officer gets it.” But it came back here. Do you know what they must have said at steering committee? They must have said it doesn't matter.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

On a point of order, that's in camera. You're not supposed to talk about what happens there.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Well, I wasn't there, so I can certainly talk about what I think you did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

On the point of order, please.

Monsieur Godin, he was being hypothetical.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Oh, hypothetical. I got scared.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you. Don't fear.

Mr. Preston.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Chair, through you to whoever cares, could the steering committee actually have met and not discussed legislation? Chair, I just can't believe that the steering committee could actually have met and not said at some point.... I recognize that it may have been way down their list, and I recognize that the agenda probably went witch hunt, talk about witch hunt, some more about witch hunt, maybe legislation, and then finish off with witch hunt. But the legislation was still in there.

There's legislation before this committee that needs to be dealt with. I can't imagine the steering committee on scheduling for this committee not talking about legislation at its steering committee meetings. But I get the report, I get the second report--they've obviously met before, because this is the second report--and there's no legislation on here, Chair. There's no legislation. It says, “Your Subcommittee met on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, to consider the business of the Committee and agreed to make the following recommendation”.

So they considered the business of this committee. What is the business of this committee? What's the title of this committee? It is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Here we are. We're talking about procedure and House affairs. Election financing I don't find anywhere in there, but we'll get there. I'll make this circle.

They're going to consider the business of the committee. So wouldn't legislation come under procedure and House affairs? I would think it might.

There's Bill C-6 on voter identification. There it is. Look, there's a whole bill. It's not very big. In English it's eight pages, eight pages of what we wanted to do to send a message to the Chief Electoral Officer--I thank you for this, Mr. Lukiwski, because I didn't bring my copy of it today--and en français, huit pages.

We're still there.

The answer here is, we didn't. We must have. This committee must have spoken of legislation when it met.

I know that this government is not represented on the steering committee. I'm not sure if I've made that point, but we're not on that committee. You sit there and chair it, so Chair, through you to the other members who might be on the committee.... And I'm not sure I could point them out. They probably should be wearing some sort of identification so they can be blamed. It is the steering committee, so a scarlet S, or an R, for railroad, might work.

However, they met, and we know in our hearts—we can't know for sure because of the in camera nature of the subcommittee—that they must have spoken of legislation. I can't believe that the good men and women of the opposition would only speak of the witch hunt that they're attempting to reach. No, they must have said that there is legislation. But do you know what? They chose not to deal with legislation. A group of men and women on that steering committee chose to deal only with this issue. They wanted it to take priority over the other work of the committee.

This is through you, Chair, to Mr. Lukiwski. He spoke last week about the fact that even on the subject matter they want to bring forward, if it was covered, we could and would say, “Let's look at all of us. Let's open all our books. Let's do this study if it needs to be done.”

I suggest that we deal with the legislation first, because it just makes sense that good legislators would come here and deal with legislation first. But when we're done.... I think we could do it in short order. We could deal with Bill C-6 and some of the other items that are outstanding matters before this committee and then actually get to this, actually get to an element of what this motion says.

But let's at least, then, add fairness to it. Let's at least add some common sense to it. If we're going to look at election financing, let's look at it all. We've said that we would throw open our books. Here they are. There they are, done. Let's all do it. Let's do it all. Let's look at all of them. No, that's not what the steering committee wants. It's not even what the members of the whole committee want. No, they would rather be the schoolyard bullies and say that unless they get their way, they're taking their ball and going home.

It doesn't have anything to do with looking at anybody's books. It only has to do with slinging as much mud as possible.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I am listening with intent, and I know you're taking notes. I'm just wondering, when Mr. Preston uses tired clichés, if he could rotate them through so it's not always the same two or three.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's not a point of order, but it's not a bad suggestion. That's definitely debate, not a point of order.

Mr. Preston, you're back.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chair, to Madam Redman, I will do my best.

I have only a small amount to work with today. When the steering committee leaves me only that topic to work with because they chose not to deal with legislation, it's all I have.

So I'm going to make the point that we have to get to where we lose the dysfunction. We have to get back to doing the work that the good people of Canada sent us here—

[An hon. member, Bloc, Michel Guimond]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, please.