I would like to comment and give my friend Mr. Lukiwski a small break. I guess he would be next, since you saw his hand at the same time as mine.
We are now talking about a motion to concur in the report. I'd like to make a few points. The first one is that this is a report of a steering committee that we've certainly asked for some changes on over time, so I'll start with the thought that we're talking about a motion from a steering committee on which the government is not represented.
Chair, I know you chair the steering committee, but there's no discussion at the table from government members of the steering committee. It seems a bit of a railroad, a bit of a forced issue when a committee that's deciding the agenda of the whole committee of procedure and House affairs does not have a representative from the government. Most people would find it somewhat odd and somewhat discouraging that although the steering committee meets to set the agenda, the way this committee will move forward, the voice of one whole section of the House of Commons is not even heard at that meeting. I would certainly challenge any of the members from across the table to say differently, that the government had a voice at the steering committee meeting that set the agenda.
I know this committee tends to work very collegially for the most part and usually comes to a consensus as to how it will work or what it will work on. Apparently the steering committee does not work the same way. The thought process in the past has been that this committee would always look at legislation that comes before it. I know the people of my riding, Elgin--Middlesex--London, and I would be reasonably assured that most ridings around the country send us here to do the job of legislators, to work on legislation. I think it goes without saying that this is exactly what we're sent here to do.
In looking at the matters the steering committee had to look at, we certainly have legislation. It's been said a couple of times, even this morning, that this matter has been before us since September. You may have thought about it in August, but we first met on September 10. So from September on we've been looking at this matter, but at that very meeting, that September 10 meeting, as we moved toward what the steering committee is railroading before us now, the talk of Madam Redman's motion, we talked about Bill C-6, we talked about bill voting. At that time there was an issue before us, a piece of legislation to use photo ID to identify voters, and it is still before this committee.
So I guess what's being said by the notorious six or seven signatories to the meeting is that legislation doesn't matter anymore, that this committee can only work on its railroad issues, on what's being forced down the throat of this committee by a steering committee on which the Conservative Party is not even represented, where the Government of Canada is not even represented.
I've been on this committee through this whole House, and we started off as a very collegial committee. I continue to think of procedure and House affairs as the committee of all committees. It's the committee that assigns members to other committees. To put it in a nice way, it's the committee that all other committees strive to be. We've lost that. This group has now become a partisan pack of wolves that continues to want to put forward....