Filibusters? Well, they are a procedure. They are something this committee uses from time to time when motions or reports are put forward that don't reflect how the committee has been in the past, and that don't reflect democracy, as I was mentioning before, because the government doesn't sit on the committee, except as the chair. Sometimes procedures are all we can use. It is procedure and House affairs. We must use certain procedures to at least draw attention to the inequity of what's happening. We have to use these methods to bring forward...and to somewhat scream out that it's wrong; it's not where we want to be; it's not who we are. This committee isn't that way. We have to sometimes use any methods at our disposal.
I can't believe that Mr. Lukiwski spoke for six and a half hours last week. I was enthralled. It seemed like it was only moments. He does it far better than I do. He spoke for a great length of time, but during that time he brought forward so many good issues that all sides, if they truly sat and listened to them, would agree they were the right things to do.
The answer isn't whether it's this motion or.... Mr. Lukiwski offered an amended motion of all parties last week--we'll even use your wording here, that we're going to “investigate”. I'd rather it say that we “review”. But it's about investigation. Let's make it all parties and all elections, or at least the last couple of elections. Let's make this equitable. Let's not make it about one thing; let's make it about a group. Let's make it about four parties all opening their books and examining the steps they took in the last election.
As I already shared with you today, and Mr. Lukiwski shared last week, we've read in many affidavits about other candidates--some successful, some not. So we're certainly not referring only to successful candidates doing this. Since all parties used these methods--as I said, not always to success--what's there to investigate if it's not all parties? I mean, we've thrown out case after case, example after example of the other parties--and it includes ours, but it's other parties too--using money transferred from national to local, from candidate to riding association, from riding association to candidate. It was used for advertising for regional purposes, for individual purposes, for only that candidate, or for national scheme advertising that affected the local candidate.
We've all done it. Why don't we accept the fact that this should look at all of us? When that investigation is done....
As I said, Chair, I'm not even certain I want that investigation to happen. I'm not certain this committee should do it. I think Elections Canada is already doing it. There's a court case already out there, and that's a far better place for it to be examined.
At any rate, once the day comes that the investigation is completed, it can come back to this committee for regulation and for legislation. We'll look at it then. Procedure and House affairs truly does look at it at that level. It's not about sticking somebody in the eye, it's about looking at the legislation, choosing good legislation, making legislation better so that if we found this to be wrong, it couldn't happen next time.
If we find that, in our affidavits, geez, every party is doing it, well, then, maybe it is something we can do. If it appears that the candidate handbook says it was okay to do, maybe all we simply have to do is verify that this is the case. We looked at it, sent it off and got it checked out by other people, and sure enough all we got back was that it was an okay thing to do: the legislation is okay, and we accept it, but least it's been looked at and come back to this committee as a piece of legislation rather than as a witch hunt.
And that is what we have before us today, Chair, we have a witch hunt. As I've stated, procedure and House affairs obviously is not the type of committee--I hope none of the committees of this House are the type--to take that kind of motion and use it.
Mr. Chair, we've had some substitutes in, so I may share with them that this motion, when it was first brought to this committee, was ruled out of order. You, through a great deal of research, ruled it out of order with help from the law clerk. Your actions were overruled because of the partisan nature here: it's great, it's a good flavour, let's go ahead and investigate it.
But you did do the work that you were supposed to do, Chair. You did it well. But it isn't where we ended up. We ended up with a motion that has been ruled out of order. It isn't the type of motion that this committee usually looks at, and yet it's still here.
And the motion keeps coming back. September 10 was the first day the motion came through, and we've had it back and forth a bunch of times. As I've stated, through the goodness of this committee and the good work it does, we did work on some legislation between that time of September 10 and now. Some legislation came before it, but now we have a motion before the House, today's motion, that is about denying any other work happening, denying the legislation that this committee will work at. Some good legislation in the case of Bill C-6--and some very critical legislation before next election--we can't even look at. The second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure simply says that this motion will take priority over all other work of the committee.
Well, Chair, I'll say again--risking repetition--that this doesn't make good common sense. It just doesn't.