Okay, I'll answer the question from across the table.
We're not represented. Yes, Mr. Goodyear gets to sit there and chair the committee, but as the great chair he is, he sits there and runs the meeting. He doesn't have input. The input is from the steering committee. The committee does the work around the chair. The chair is there to make sure the procedures and rules are followed. Of course, none of us is allowed to be at the steering committee, so we can't say exactly what happens. I can only assume, knowing Mr. Goodyear as I do, that he follows those rules. That's our representation at the committee: he's the chair.
So where's the government representation? Where's the person on the steering committee arguing for legislation to move forward? Where is the sober second thought, if you will, or the sober thought we need to look at legislation rather than just at this witch hunt that's been on the table for eight months? Well, apparently it isn't there.
The opposition parties like it that way. They can put together a steering committee report and make it look almost official. It comes out on good letterhead, and it says, here's what we're going to look at. Yet one party has been completely missed in the putting together of that report. It has not even been discussed fully by all parties. It just says that this is what we're going to do. It's been predecided.
I understand minority governments. I have, in my short career, been on both sides--in the opposition and now in government in a minority situation--and I understand there are hardships sometimes in really trying to get your point through and get your point across. But I do understand very clearly that the voters of this country send us here to be legislators, to make legislation. I think this committee in its past has clearly done that. It has put legislation first and said, here's what we should work on, and we'll do other studies.
I know, Chair, that other studies have taken place during gaps between legislation. This committee working together, working in a very collegial manner, has also done a great study of some of the ethics situations regarding some of the documents needed from members of Parliament for reporting. I know that we even started, Mr. Chair, a study of security at one point, and moved that off onto the board.
We've done other things. This committee can do other things. That's not the point I'm making. At every point, we've always moved back to the fact that legislation takes precedence. Legislation is one of the most important things we can come up with as a committee, and we really, truly need to do that. When legislation is before us, I won't say we should take our partisan hats off, because we'll always still want our own political philosophies to work on those pieces of legislation, but at least we take off our jackets and work hard on the legislation to make sure we move forward in this country with corrective legislation.
The one we're talking about, Bill C-6, the one that is still waiting for us from the summer, is about using visual ID for people voting. I know it's been very critical and has been talked about across this country and certainly been the topic of headlines and news stories, because there are many people out there...and I can only speak for those who have spoken to me personally in my own riding, who say they have to show ID to get on an airplane. Some of the young people in my riding point out to me that they have to show ID to even get into a bar. I don't have to. Apparently I'm old enough now, and appear to be old enough that it doesn't happen to me, but I know Madam Redman would obviously be asked for ID.
The most important thing is that the casting of a vote in an election in this country did not require the showing of photo ID. It didn't happen, and I don't get it. We've asked that it does. We've put forward legislation. We put forward what we thought was very good legislation, saying that you would need to show photo ID. I used the point once with the Chief Electoral Officer, asking what part of photo ID he didn't understand, but he had some trouble with it. So this committee went back to work. We tried to say that if you show a piece of photo ID you may want to have to show the face to make sure that worked.
So this is part of Bill C-6 and where we are now. We hope we've corrected the piece we needed to correct. The people back in my riding have asked me why that wouldn't be important. Why wouldn't showing ID to be able to vote in this country be an important thing?
So here we sit with a piece of legislation waiting, but this committee wants to go on a more partisan witch hunt instead, and by its railroad committee--I guess I mean steering committee--it has put this report forward.
I think the fairness piece comes out pretty clearly. I think people back home understand this. This isn't about being able to gang up and get your way. It's not about being a bully in the school yard and if you don't get your way you're taking your ball and going home. But that's how they're acting. I don't believe it myself, because I know them to be honourable women and gentlemen, but I assume it's due to direction from their party. I know that at least the official opposition has some trouble with leadership, but they must be getting their orders from somewhere. So we've talked about how long it's been and how we're waiting and that this motion keeps coming forward, and it's something we have to deal with.
The real point is that my friend Mr. Lukiwski spoke at length a couple of times in the last week or so, and I thought he made some very good points. I'm going to share some of them with you again, because obviously they didn't make it all the way through.
Mr. Lukiwski talked about how we would immediately, even though this committee has not...or in the past has not shown cases of going into this type of investigation. This committee is more about legislation and regulations than it is about investigating...“frivolous” complaints is what I want to say, and I guess I'll leave it that way.
But we would do that. We would. We even said, “Let's get at 'er.” The idea here is let's make it so that we can look at all parties at the same time and see if there are corrections needed in the rules and regulations of election financing. We would come up with a report, after this committee looked at it, with something that we could do.
No, that isn't what the steering committee asked us. That isn't what the motion we're now discussing asks us to get to. The motion asks us to go on a witch hunt, asks us to go one-sided and only look at one thing. It isn't what the work of this committee is and it isn't what we've done in the past.
As a matter of fact, maybe I should remind this committee that at the first meeting, September 10, when we were called back again by a Standing Order 106(4) motion to come here and talk about this, the chair.... I've already said what a good chair we have, and how he tends to look at all sides of the issue. But in this one, on that day, on September 10, I put forward a motion that we move directly to dealing with Bill C-6 instead. And we did. We started talking about Bill C-6, and we did a little bit of it.
We actually then got back to this motion, this witch hunt motion, and the chair said, “You know what? I don't understand. I'm not certain I like the motion. I'm not sure it's clear. I'm not sure it's what this committee does. I think there is some prejudice in it, since it's before the courts. I need the chance to go away and research this tonight.”
So while the rest of us had fun and frolic here in Ottawa in early September, I know that the chair spent the night looking at the motion, really thinking about whether this motion was in order and whether it actually passed.
And guess what? Maybe you won't remember....
Mr. Chair, I see the members from the other side talking amongst themselves, and I want to make sure they hear this point. I really want you to watch them and make sure they are actually hearing this.
I remember you once giving us, Mr. Chair, a very thoughtful, well-thought-out, well-constructed, and well-researched motion. You even brought the law clerk in on this, to talk about this motion. You ruled very clearly that it was out of order. The motion did not fit what a motion would do for the procedure and House affairs committee.
This was a really clear piece, and I know you spent a great deal of time on it. You really looked at those questions: is this something this committee should do, is the motion in order, and is there some prejudice when cases are before the courts?
And guess what? I know you will remember, Chair, and I'm hoping the members opposite also will remember, that you came back and told us that with the advice of the law clerk, this motion was out of order. It did not fit. It was not something we should do. It was clearly prejudicial, and we should not accept this motion.
But guess what happened? Boy, it was like a flash. You said it was out of order. They challenged your ruling and, like another railroad, just ran right over top of your ruling. They said that the advice, and the time you took to make sure the ruling was in order, the time you took to make sure the ruling was fit for this committee, didn't matter.
Mr. Chair, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has always been a fine institution, and it should be careful as to what it considers and what it doesn't consider. You said no, and you did a great job. You took the time and brought together the resources. I know that some of the researchers spent some time with you on it.
It was September 10 when you went away to research it, and I don't think we came back until September 12. You really wanted that time, that 48 hours, to look at the cause and effect of putting forward a motion like this.
Well, there it was. You ruled against it. You said, “This is not fine. In the tradition of procedure and House affairs, it's not the type of thing this committee looks at. It is just wrong. It doesn't fit the mandate.” Boy, no sooner had the words come out of your mouth than somebody over there said, “I challenge the ruling of the committee”, and--boom--a vote happened, and it was done. We're still looking at it.
Madam Redman said it this morning; we're still looking at that, Chair. We 're still looking at it eight months later. It still doesn't make it right. It still doesn't make the ruling wrong. The ruling was that this was an out-of-order motion. In a real place with good common sense, that motion would have died that day. It might have had to be rewritten. I'm not saying it couldn't have been fixed, but there was no attempt to even fix it. There was just an attempt to pile it back on. Here it is. Sorry, we don't care that you don't like it, Chair. We don't care that you spent all night looking at it. We don't care that the law clerk also agrees with you or found parts of it out of order. We don't care about any of that. We don't care if it's the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. It's the partisan thing to do. We're going to slam it forward, Mr. Chair. Over your dead body, we're bringing it forward. That's what they said to you.
I can't believe it, because I know you to be a great person. I can't believe that they would do something like that to the chair of this committee, but they did. That was back in September. So we want to talk eight months of moving forward.
Well, eight months ago, this thing died. It was brought to an end. And there it was, brought back to life because the bullies in the school yard said that if we didn't play with their ball, they were going home. That's what they said.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Godin is starting to see the light.
