Mr. Chair, if it would be useful after a while, we could all use a copy of what I said, so that we could get to the end of it.
I'm going to go back. Madam Redman talked about September 19—or August, she said, but it truly was September 19 when we met first to start down this road. Since then, it's not as if the committee has come to a halt. We actually have had meetings where we dealt with legislation and got things done.
I don't know where they fell or how it happened. I know once in a while it would be brought up: “What about Ms. Redman's motion?” But we actually did get work done. How did we slip off that hill? How did we get to the point where apparently no work can get done and we must now only talk about this? Sometimes we have talked about it at length. Apparently, the point is that the leadership from the other side is saying, that's all you can talk about. Let's only go there.
We're saying, let's talk about all. Let's talk about legislation. We're trying to throw some choices out here. Let me know. Can I get a nod from the other side, Chair, when I hit on something that we could actually talk about that isn't just this, that isn't just the steering committee's report about non-legislative work?
I hear from the other side, what about in and out; what about election financing? We're happy to. I'm sure Mr. Lukiwski said it maybe once—I'm not sure, he might have repeated himself; he might have said it twice in his conversation last week—that we'd be happy to go to it today. We'd be happy to bring it out, get it on. Pitter-patter, he might even have said last week, if we open all the books, if it's a fairness thing. If it's about all of us, we could do it. If it's about all of us, we'll talk about it tomorrow. But apparently it's not about all of us. Apparently it's only a witch hunt. Apparently it's only the ability to sling as much mud as possible on the governing party in this country before what might be an election.
I think most Canadians see through this. Most Canadians see that's exactly what it is. If you can't find a real scandal, try to invent one. The party that needs to invent it is trying to invent it. We're not letting it happen. It isn't going to go that way.
Let's talk about what else the steering committee could have talked about. These are outstanding matters for this committee. These are things that this committee could work on.
Bill C-6. Oh, I think we might have talked about that one. That's the legislation. It was referred back to this committee on November 15, so we had it in September, and I know we did talk about it then. But it says the bill was referred to the committee on November 15.
The performance report of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer has been tabled in the House since November 1. We need to look at it. Apparently this committee must look at that pursuant to Standing Order 32(5).
We could review the provisions in Bill C-3, which is an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act. Again, the Canada Elections Act is under the jurisdiction of the procedure and House affairs committee. This is dealing with, I think, the Figueroa case, and there is a statutory requirement on that. I think we're required to look at this case by a certain date coming up very shortly.
Did the steering committee think of that? Did the steering committee actually sit there and say, you know, there's a statutory requirement that the committee look at the Figueroa case by May 11? Did they really sit there and say that's not important and decide to go on a witch hunt instead?
That's all I can assume, Chair, because the report from the steering committee simply says that. All I can assume is that they said they knew they were supposed to do their work but they decided to do this instead. That's what it says. If I were on the steering committee, I might be embarrassed by that, Chair, but as I've shared with you, no member of the government is on the steering committee.