Evidence of meeting #15 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
That's great. I was learning some grammar there, so I'm getting better. It's something I could use at a future date or maybe later on in this dissertation.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
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.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I'd like to remind my colleague that you, Mr. Chair, are also chair of the steering committee, so therefore you're part of the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you very much. The member is correct.
Mr. Preston, please continue.
February 12th, 2008 / 12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
That may be. Perhaps I could speak just a little to that point of order while I'm here, Chair.
I know that you get to sit there as part of the steering committee, and I know you do well, much as you're sitting here during part of this committee. I know in your heart you're participating, but I know how much you don't get to participate. You must be the chair. You have to be impartial, and you have to sit there and deal with the items of the committee, not the items of the legislation.
As I've heard in the past, and certainly when we were in opposition, chairs participating in committee, actually taking over and asking.... You do a little of that, Chair. You're a wise man. You sit there, and you consider both sides of the issue and make sure that we stay straight. So as my honourable colleague opposite says, yes, you are there as part of that committee. I will give you that, but are you an active part? I think not. I think that the democracy of the committee, the active work of the committee is done only by opposition members.
Well, I think I can show us proof that their second report says that pretty clearly. Their second report says, and I've said it a couple of times here...maybe I'm not loud enough today. I'll try to be a little louder, I guess. It says, “take priority over the other work of the Committee.”
That's what the steering committee said to do. I know that if you had been an active part of the committee, you'd never have allowed that to come through that way. So there we are: a committee that is undemocratic for a committee that works on the democracy of this country. I think the people back home may have some problem with that.
What else could the committee be working on? Obviously we've talked in the past about the video clips of the House of Commons proceedings and other video recording. I think that probably falls on the same level as what the steering committee brought forward as work. It's busy work. It's something we could work on between pieces of legislation. It's not what we could work on instead of legislation, Chair; it's what we could work on. It does need to be done. It's not to say it's not important, and I'm certain some of the people who do the videotaping around here and other people who'd like to use those video clips outside of this House need a ruling on it from this committee. They need it to be.... It's a procedure. It's a House affair. It fits in there. It's stuff we do. But is it legislation? I don't think it's legislation, but we need to get at it.
We mentioned parliamentary security. That is still ongoing. We're still talking about it. I know that from another committee, at which I still deal with it too, but this committee had it on there.
I mentioned also that this committee did some great work on the conflict of interest codes. It comes to us. Many members of Parliament talked to us about how frustrated they were with the conflict of interest codes, how onerous it had become, how some of the work that was being asked of us on conflict of interest, we really couldn't.... And during conversations of this committee, it has been said that this is a very important piece. We have to deal with the conflict of interest in the House. It is important that we do that. It's important that we have rules and regulations in place for us to deal with it. But it was onerous. It was different. It was difficult. Documents had been designed as if they were designed by committee, Chair. They were just onerous and beyond belief, and this committee and some of its members, as a subcommittee, have really gone to work and done some good work on this.
Chair, I will ask you, have we been able to present the conflict of interest code for members back to this committee--the work that has been done by the subcommittee? I don't think it has come back to us yet. Why? Because we're busy dealing with busy work instead of getting to the work we're supposed to be doing.
We're also awaiting some decisions on the Senate tenure bill, on consultations with electors and their preferences for appointments to the Senate. That's another piece of legislation that's out there. We'll soon need to deal with democratic representation. That's the number of seats in the House. There are some distribution issues, Chair, that we'll need to look at. These are all things that this committee will have to deal with so that they can go to the House and decisions can be made.
We, in fact, Chair, have lots of other work. We have, in my opinion, Chair, a couple of point-form pages' worth of work that we could be doing instead of what we're currently doing. I think if you read the list out loud to a group of Canadians—whether they're my constituents, yours, or someone else's—they might pick a few things other than what we're talking about here today. I really do. They've asked us to come here and get things done in this minority Parliament.
If you spend time in the House—and I know we'll be voting on something else again tonight—we have been passing legislation. Legislation has been going through this House, and even in a minority situation we've been agreeing to move forward to get things done, whether they're great budget items like tax relief for Canadians or something else. Canadians expect us to deal with the legislative workload we have. That's what we're here for.
If that's the expectation, how is it that the steering committee has gone so far astray? If that's truly what we're supposed to be working on, how is it that the steering committee has found only one item suitable for discussion by this committee? It didn't say, let's work on legislation; let's work on Bill C-6; let's move the ethics code, the conflict of interest code forward. It didn't say, if possible let's look at the security. It didn't give a list. It didn't even give a “what's next”. It gave a “this is the only thing this committee will work on until hell freezes over” statement at the bottom of the second report of the Standing Committee on Agenda and Procedure--take priority over all other work of the committee.
What about the other work? If this is to take priority, what else is there? Do we really need to come to work if that's all there is? I'd like to come to work to do something. I'd like to come to work on Bill C-6 and voter ID. I'd like to give the integrity of the next election in this country a greater emphasis. I can't believe that the members of the steering committee—and obviously those they represent, because there's one from each party, so there are other people on this committee that the members of steering committee represent—seriously sat there and decided, let's work on this instead of important stuff. But they must have, because it says right there that they held a meeting: “Your Subcommittee met on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, to consider the business of the Committee and agreed to make the following recommendations”. It says right there. That's what they've said.
Did they really meet and at some point in the meeting say, that's all we need to talk about; that's the business of our committee; that's where we're at; that's the most important thing? If you hear disbelief in my voice, you're right. I just can't believe that's where they headed. I can't believe they thought that was the right way to go. I can't believe they thought Canadians think that talking about this issue at length is the way to go. I just can't believe that a steering committee made up of members of the opposition--of course, chaired by our member, but no member of the government was capable of contributing--met and agreed---
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I haven't recognized anyone yet. I did hear Madam Redman first.
Conservative
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I think you should ask the member to follow the rules of the House and the committees. He is not to attack a member on a personal basis, which I just heard him do to you, sir.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Shame. We will not have that in the committee.
Thank you for the point, Monsieur Proulx.
Mr. Preston, you're cautioned.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Let's not go too far on the point. We may be setting up a precedent here that other members may not appreciate.
On the same point, Mr. Reid is next, please.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I think it's a good theme to keep in mind. We tend to lose this as time goes on. I recall that in previous meetings some other members of the committee from the opposition side attacked you. I hope this time around we can all refrain from attacking you--and what the heck, let's refrain from attacking each other while we're at it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I think that's a good point. I know it will make my mom very happy, because she's listening.
Mr. Preston.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Chair, I apologize if I have said anything disparaging about you. I was certainly trying to say it only about the steering committee--and no one in particular, of course. The pack has done this, not the individuals. So let's deal with it in that manner.
As I've said and will continue to say, this committee's dysfunction has a lot to do with the set-up of the steering committee. A committee that steers the agenda of this committee--made up of the members who form it, with only you chairing it, sir, and no member of the government sitting on it--has allowed us to come to a scheduling issue like this.
Whether the quality of the agenda is good or not--
Conservative
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Oh, I take offence. I don't often, but, “Tom was interesting.” All right, I'm going to try to pick it up a little then.
