Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2008

[An hon. member]

That's a good point. That's an amazing point.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

It's just an incredible piece.

[An hon. member]

It's hardly pertinent.

[An hon. member]

But it's amazing, though.

[Some hon. members]

Relevance, relevance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'll make those decisions, thank you.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Please continue, Mr. Preston.

Madam Jennings, if you put your BlackBerry down, you could listen as well.

Mr. Proulx.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I'm sorry, did you call me Mr. Proulx?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm sorry, Mr. Preston, I did. It's getting very confusing in here.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I'm sure the citizens of Hull--Aylmer would be far better represented. However, my name is Mr. Preston.

This is about legislation. This is about doing the work we're sent here to do. It's not like the circus of last night, not like the circus that's happening at other committees; it's the actual work of talking about Bill C-6.

So what happens today? We came forward in good faith to talk about the legislative work that this committee has to do. We came forward with the opportunity to actually talk about legislation in this committee, and even call for a vote, so let's get down to it. This is a Standing Order 106(4) motion we brought forward today because this committee has been wanting to talk about nothing but a motion from the summertime on an election financing situation.

We're giving you that the courts are already looking at that. That's another place for it to actually happen and work out better, but let's get back to the work we can possibly do here. I know there are other issues. There are some pieces of ethics that Mr. Reid wants to bring forward to the committee too, a good two years' worth of work that has been happening there, but let's get back to the work of the committee and talk about Bill C-6.

We offered that today and very quickly explained our case and asked to get to it. What do we get instead? No. It's about being stubborn, apparently. It's about how, if they don't get to do their thing first, we're never going to get to do our thing. If they don't get to sling mud at the Conservative Party on an election financing issue, we're never going to actually get to legislation in this country. We're never going to fix Bill C-6 or be able to vote on it. We're not going to get there.

Mr. Chair, through you, Mr. Dewar is a visitor to our committee. Mr. Dewar mentioned that he comes occasionally to this committee and that the last time he was here we were talking about the same thing. Well, funnily enough, we were, because it just keeps coming forward. We do that instead of dealing with legislation. Even he mentioned that it's legislation he's helped us deal with from time to time too. Here we are again.

[An hon. member]

Fix it, then.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

They yell out, “Fix it”. Well, absolutely, let's get at it. We've asked for that today. Let's talk about the witnesses we need to see for Bill C-6 and the budget concerns we need to deal with for Bill C-6. Let's talk about it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, please.

Mr. Preston has the floor, and I'm having difficulty hearing him with the yelling that's going back and forth.

Mr. Preston, please continue.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I'll be happy to.

Somebody yelled, “Call the question.” Well, we did. Earlier this morning we said, “Let's vote on whether we're going to talk about Bill C-6.” We did. We said, “Let's get to legislation. Let's get to work.”

I know; I was here. I do have assisted hearing, but I do remember hearing that this morning. We did talk about that this morning. That's where we were headed. We were going to get down to work and start getting the legislation back. The motion was fine. What do we get instead? We get the “I'm going to take my ball and go home if I don't get my way” approach that we've been having the whole time.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask the great citizens of this country who are listening in on this debate what they would have legislators do. Is it work on legislation? Would they have us work on legislation, or would they have us do an investigation into some partisan motion that's been put forward? I think even the partisan people out there, the people who may even call themselves voters of one of the other parties, would say we should work on the legislation first and do the work that we're sent here to do.

I have to say, Chair, that I'm a bit embarrassed for this committee. I know I've spoken on this before. I know that Bill C-6 was the topic of a conversation I've had at this committee before. We've struggled with wanting to get this done in the face of an election. I recognize, after the number of members of the official opposition we saw in the House last night, that their want for an election is somewhat lacking, but we will eventually go to the polls again in this country, one way or another.

You know, I will have to say that we're honoured with the presence of almost half of the official opposition who voted last night. I think people at home will think it's very relevant that the official opposition is actually in a committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

On the amendment, please.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I'm there, because we want to talk...the amendment is about something that is very partisan, and I'm sorry, it doesn't just stop there; it stops at elections. Last night we had a vote that could have caused an election, Chair. I think it is very relevant that we talk about what would have happened if an election were caused. I'm pointing out that through the absence in the House of many of the official opposition, it didn't get caused last night, but, boy, if they find their way out of that lobby door once in a while, we might actually get to an election and actually have to deal with Bill C-6 as a piece of election legislation.

It's amazing. I guess we have the cream of the crop, Chair. We have here with us many of those who were actually able to find their way through the lobby door and down the stairs into the House of Commons last night to vote. What I'm asking them to do is to take that same power they seem to have as a select few of the members of the official opposition and use that same power to work on legislation here in this committee.

They're asking to be legislators. They're asking to be here. They were some of the ones who actually stood last night and voted for their amendment. Let's ask them to do the same here. Let's ask them to work on legislation that's needed. We've had Bill C-6 before this committee. We've had witnesses here before this committee. Each of the witnesses we had, even some of the religious background groups we had when we were talking about Bill C-6 in the summer, or September, when we were talking about it, talked about how important they felt it was. They certainly had some views. Most of them had similar views, stating how they weren't asking for the legislation to be interpreted in the way of the Chief Electoral Officer, when he interpreted Bill C-6 to mean that certain people could vote without identifying themselves. The purpose of Bill C-6 is for the use of photo ID to identify yourself at the poll.

Chair, as I have stated before, and I will say again, I show photo ID when I get on an airplane. I show photo ID in many cases. I've had young people say to me that they even have to show photo ID to get into a bar.

[An hon. member]

Don't you?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Not anymore. I'm really sorry to say that the sweater vest crowd gets into the bars without showing photo ID. It just happens that way.

During the summer, Monsieur Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer of this country, certainly tried to share with us why he's interpreting it that way. This committee unanimously asked him not to share it that way. I was even quoted during the summer, asking what part of photo ID doesn't he understand? The actual photo piece is the important piece. You look at the photo and you compare it to something. That's why we use photo ID as a comparison.

So we've asked to get that cleaned up. We've been charged, as a committee, to move forward on that piece of legislation, Bill C-6. It would be nice to get it done. If I can commend my colleagues, there's certainly been a lot of legislation that's gone through the House here in the last little while, and that's been great. Certainly some of us voted with it, some of us voted against it, and others were sitting on their hands, not actually earning their paycheques.

The legislation continues to flow through other committees, whether it's the justice committee, where we had the Tackling Violent Crime Act go through last week. It was great to see it get royal assent. It was fantastic, but here we are, not wanting to do that in this committee. I'm still at a bit of a loss, Chair, as to how and why we got to this in this committee and aren't moving the same way as other committees. This used to be the committee that actually showed common sense. We used to show common sense.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Stop filibustering.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, please. Mr. Preston has the floor.

Thank you.

Mr. Preston, please continue.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

We've lost it. We've decided instead to go off on a tangent about election financing, and that's where we stand.

I've asked before, already this morning, if we really did talk to the general public out there, what would they say about this? Let's do an investigation on election financing that's actually before the courts, or let's talk about legislation to change the next time we go to the polls in this country? I have a pretty good feeling what the people of Canada would tell us to do.

We gave every opportunity this morning to move forward on that, and what happened? You can interpret it, Chair, but the way I'll put it is that an amendment was moved, it's ruled absolutely out of order...and I'll get back to that one, too, Chair, because there have been other amendments. There have been other pieces that have been moved here that have been ruled out of order. But what happens? Now the bullies from the other side actually say, “No, Chair, you're wrong”.

No, it's not that you're wrong. They're not even saying that you're wrong. They're just saying they outnumber you.

[An hon. member]

They're bullying you, Chair.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

That's right. They outnumber you. It's not that you're wrong. It's not that you didn't make the proper ruling—because I'm sure you did.

If I can refer back even to the beginning of this, when the first Standing Order 106(4) motion was put forward, signed by four members from the other side, to come forward this summer to look at the so-called in-and-out scheme.... A motion was moved from that. I remember you taking the time, Chair, to get that ruling right and to say whether it was going to happen or not. You ruled, even with the advice of the law clerk, that the motion was out of order; it wasn't something this committee should be looking at.

If I can remember correctly without my notes in front of me, what you talked about was the fact that it was before the courts, that it's certainly one of the reasons this committee should not be looking at it, as precedent has been set that committees should clearly not be looking at something that's before the courts, and that it doesn't truly fit the mandate of this committee.

It was an investigation into an election financing thing. This committee is about legislation and reports from certain parts of our government, the Chief Electoral Officer, and we do work from that vein, but we don't necessarily do the investigation work into election financing.

I guess I'll just leave it at that. We just don't do it.