Information & Ethics Committee on June 17th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Please be relevant, sir.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Is he allowed to yell at me like that? He can't swear.

Don't swear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I think it's important for this committee, if this motion sees the light of the day and passes eventually, that we do look at past elections. Because my involvement, and that of many of us around the table...and Ms. McDonough has joined us, and she's been in a number of past elections. It's interesting to find out if the practices from the elections I was involved in, whether it was in 2004, 2000,1997,1993--those are the big ones I was involved with--have changed.

I know you don't want me reading from it, but there have been changes to the Elections Act that cover off the past, the election in 2006. But for us to do a proper job as members of this committee, we need to look at the differences. That's why I think this subamendment is important. Whether the difference in what has been allowed in the past from an advertising point of view is in the limits, whether it's how it's funded, or whether candidates can have money from their federal party or send money to the federal party for spending, or how that money is spent, or what identification needs to be on that advertising.... As you all know, you have to put the official agent on the bottom of your lawn signs--all national advertising.

Mr. Chair, I am talking about the specific item that we're talking about, the different practice that may have occurred in past elections, when parties and individuals may have operated in a certain manner based on the rules that existed at that particular point. I don't know if they have changed. I don't know if they've gotten stricter, or less strict, or whether that makes a difference. But I think it's important for this committee to understand what the Elections Act says now, what the Elections Act said then, if we are going to...which I'm supporting, by the way. I am supporting the addition of past elections in this motion, because my own personal experience in terms of advertising is that it was all local. We raised enough money to spend locally. We didn't have surplus that went to the party. And in the campaigns I've been involved in, either as a campaign manager, as a candidate, or as a nomination candidate, the party didn't send money.

That's why the part about the past elections is important in this, because if we find that public office-holders at any time in the past, in any election.... If the rules changed, did they change to the good? Let me put it that way. Are we doing the right thing? Did we do something different as a party, as a campaign manager, or as an official agent in previous elections from what the Elections Act states here?

I think for us to ask questions.... Let me assume that these motions all pass, I want to be able to call people and witnesses from past elections who have been campaign managers, who have been official agents, who have been involved with political parties, even political parties that don't exist anymore, on how they handled their finances when it came to sharing their funds with their candidates and, in terms of the candidates, with their national party.

Now, some of those national parties don't exist anymore, but I think it's still important for us to understand the process, because this is what this whole thing is about. At the end of the day, the Conservative Party has not denied anything. Candidates and the national party have shared dollars to be able to advertise the national party. For example, in New Brunswick I understand there's another party that pooled their money to buy advertising. I want to know whether in past elections that was done. I want to know, under Elections Canada's review of the act, whether under the rules that existed at the time of past elections it was legal for them to pool money. And we don't have to go that far back.

Let's just look at the 2004 election. Was that pooling of money done, and if it was done, does that affect any ethical standards of any public office-holders, which is what the original motion talks about? So it's important for us to understand what happened in 2004.

I believe it's important for us to know the public office-holders, many of whom continued on between elections. The year 2006 was a unique situation. There was a change in government. So lots of public office-holders were brand new to being public office-holders, whereas from 2000 to 2004 those public office-holders were often the same people.

So I would be interested to see, as a committee member, that a review of past election expenses, or certain election expenses, as the main motion says, applies. Make sure those rules that those public office-holders were operating under.... Has there been a change, and how did that change affect the advertising and expenses that happened in 2006?

The motion, as it's presently stated, which I'm open to having changed, says “the Conservative Party of Canada”. The Conservative Party of Canada--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm right on point here. How can I get even more on point?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Ménard has a point of order, please. Mr. Wallace, order. Just a moment.

I understand that points of order do interrupt everything, and sometimes it's not for the good. But we have to respect a member's right to have them. I can tell you that points of order called that are out of order can only be made a couple of times. Because it's like calling wolf, and I'm going to have to say no.

Members should be judicious. If you're going to interrupt this meeting, it had better be for a legitimate point of order, or you have disrespected the committee.

Mr. Ménard, do you have a point of order?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, everyone on all sides has always appreciated how strict you are. Allow me to respectfully bring to your attention the fact that this appears to be useless repetition, and that should normally put you on high alert. Perhaps I might even ask you to kindly intervene so that others might speak.

Mr. Chairman, will all due respect to my colleague, I'd like to point out that there may have been some pointless repetition. I think he has made his point and is now only repeating himself for no reason, excessively, and not always subtly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

I have asked members to keep to that. Mr. Wallace has made a point that the election law has changed. It could be significantly complicated to get into this, because you would have to have a lot of experts to remind you of what the law was back then, how it's changed, and the implications. Then you would have to have witnesses to tell you what they changed in their approach to dealing with election financing. It could be very significant.

I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with the ethical practices or the ethical standards met by public office-holders, but simply by the fact that we have this subamendment that refers to past elections, musing about past elections is in order.

I don't think we'd better go very much further, Mr. Wallace. I'm going to kind of saw off here. I think your point has been made, and maybe we should just move on. Okay?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Well, I have the floor, and whether you agree with my point or not isn't the issue; it's whether I'm entitled to talk to my point. But I hear what you're saying, and you're interested in moving on.

So here is the issue I have also with this amendment—that's why I think it's important. The main motion talks about certain election campaign expenses, and if this motion is to pass, Mr. Chair, I don't think that's detailed enough. I'm looking in the legislation we have now. It has election advertising, and there's a listing in there under section 320. And I'm not saying this isn't going to be complicated. I'm not in favour of the motion generally, and this is why I'm trying to talk my colleagues, including my Liberal friends, into not supporting this.

They should be withdrawing this, because this is opening up a big can of worms, a long, long process that I don't think they're willing to stand up to the scrutiny for. I think if we are going to look at past elections, which was in the amendment, all election campaign expenses that the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc, and the Conservatives had—all four of us—and in previous elections what the Alliance did, what the Reform did, what a number of other parties have done, we should be looking at those expenses and what they mean, how they have changed. We are talking about making recommendations to Elections Canada here on how it administers the act, and I think we have to have an understanding if we are going to make informed, appropriate recommendations. We need to be informed on how it interpreted the legislation, based on what the legislation was, on election expenses—and I mean all election expenses, not certain ones—

[An hon. member]

I have a point of order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

My God, the wording is right in the motion. How can that be—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

I think I need to help here.

Even in the amendment, we're talking about the Canada Elections Act. We're talking about the specific actions that were taken vis-à-vis the moneys that were used. There is a finding by Elections Canada that the Conservative Party of Canada had used candidates as a means to overspend its limit on the national advertising campaign. That is a matter for the courts. We are talking about the candidates who, subsequent to getting elected and being made public office-holders and filing returns and claiming expenses, have been challenged and not reimbursed by Elections Canada because the matter is in dispute. Okay?

So it's not the whole Elections Expenses Act; it's not every aspect of election expenses. It is talking about the transfer of moneys between parties and the fact that it was used for a specific purpose, which was national, apparently—a national advertising campaign—not local, and therefore, according to Elections Canada, not eligible for the section 465 subsidy.

Okay? It's very narrow.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

But that's not what the motion says at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It's very narrow, okay? It's talking about these people, those candidates in the 2006 election. I believe, as Mr. Van Kesteren presented his amendment to us, he wanted to expand this to other parties and, he said, should their investigation find.... We're still talking, though, about the principal transactions involved, that Elections Canada has alleged and has raised, and the court action is dealing with. It has to do with moneys that were transferred, the purpose for which, and whether or not they qualified for a candidate rebate or whether or not they constituted a scheme that allowed a party to overspend its national advertising limit.

That legal problem is something else. We're still back at the individuals and their returns—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I agree with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

—and that they filed and they claimed reimbursement for something that is being challenged. They've been named by Elections Canada.

Even though we're dealing with past elections, according to the way the motion, the amendment, and subamendment are, it has something to do with transfers between the national party, riding associations, and candidates, because they're all legal under the Canada Elections Act, and whether or not they also were either permitted or not permitted in prior elections.

That's how I understand the amendment. Okay?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The subamendment applies to the main motion. That's how you understand it. But with all due respect, it says “certain election campaign expenses”. So you're telling me that because it doesn't say exactly the in-and-out portion of national advertising, this committee could not call any other official agents or anybody from Elections Canada. There are other candidates who are not getting reimbursed for election expenses for other reasons. There are issues other than the one that's been pointed out here.

It's been said in the House that there's a list of individual people. So if your argument is the case, I think this motion is poorly worded because it opens it up. My interpretation of this is that it does open it up.

Second of all, based on what you've said--and I don't disagree with you--the ethical standards of public office-holders is in the main motion. In past elections there have been public office-holders. I want to see what transpired in previous elections with public office-holders and their campaign expenses, and if that interpretation changed in 2006 for public office-holders who became public office-holders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm listening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

This is at least the third time you've laid out what we would do if we adopted these motions, called witnesses, and had to get into this complicated thing, right back to however many.... Those are decisions to be taken should the motion be passed. If we go this route, it's going to be complicated.

The point that public office-holders existed in other election campaigns, and there are different rules, etc., has been made several times, so we really should move on from that. We understand that it's relevant to the member's consideration--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm opposed to the motion. I'm putting forward considerations people should have about why this is a complicated issue, and why they should not be in favour of the motion in general. But if they're going to be, we should be looking at past elections, which is the subamendment.

So I'm on point, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

But don't repeat.