Evidence of meeting #18 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Mr. Proulx, this is a point of clarification and not a point of order, so we're not going to debate it. I'm going to be cautioning members not to get into a debate, attempting to do indirectly what they're not allowed to do directly.
But I will listen, Mr. Proulx. Do you have another point on the point of clarification?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Get ready. We're about to close that whole circle.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Mr. Preston, perhaps you could briefly respond to the point of clarification and then move on.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Yes, because I find the same hypocrisy. I find the same difficulty.
In one case, we have a chair of another committee trying to refer what we would call unethical political financing to this committee. Yet we have members of this committee, on many motions from us to open their books and talk about where their election financing comes from and where their election financing is spent, saying, “No, no, not our books, not our books, only the Conservative books.”
So maybe someone...I ask, through you, Chair, the members of the official opposition. Perhaps it can't happen in the House; I know that maybe the chair of the ethics committee isn't one of the people who gets to sit in his chair all the time. They may have to do it in the lobby. But maybe they could ask him what he meant by sending this forward to this committee, because they're refusing to open their books.
You know, we have the case of the sky's-the-limit fundraiser, we have one member of the official opposition saying, “Send it here, open your books, and look at it”, and then we have members of this committee sitting here saying, “We can't open our books and look at all of that stuff, it's only the Conservatives' books that need to be opened.”
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure we can get to the bottom of the sky's-the-limit fundraiser in this committee if we only open the Conservatives' books, because we didn't hold it. As far as I know, none of us even attended. I'd love to play tennis with the Rae boys, but I thought it might get a little pricey.
Maybe through you, Chair, to others on the committee, does anybody know what we got for any of these things at that auction? I'm not sure it ever came back to us. I'm sure after we took off the sky's the limit...any corporation can bid whatever they want, which is truly an illegal donation if that were to happen. Once that came off, because I think they did at the last minute say, “Oh, well, we won't take corporate donations then”, I wonder what the sky's-the-limit donation was.
How did you do on golf with former prime ministers, on hockey games with former goalies, on tennis with former premiers of Ontario? How did you do?
I don't know. I guess we don't have an answer for that.
Sorry, Chair, I guess we'll have to not do it.
I will state just one last time, to clean that whole piece up, the hypocrisy of a chair of the ethics committee bringing forward, or asking it to come here, when we've heard many times here, and asked clearly....
We would already be finished this. I think a member opposite this morning said we would already be done this if we had just gotten to it. We would already be done this. We would already be done Bill C-6. Am I not right? If they had chosen to make it non-partisan and to do a full investigation of election financing, we would already be done. I think we would. This committee works fairly well when it works. We would have had witnesses. We would already be finished.
If we had chosen to open all the books, if we'd chosen to say what's good for the goose is good for the gander—to use a saying that my grandma used to use—then we would have been done.
But what do we get? What do we get? We don't get the opening of everybody's books. No, what we get is the committee wanting to look at only the Conservative Party's books on this issue.
It's not right, not fair, not what we need, and not the way it should have been done.
We've talked about where we started on this, and I can show you, Chair, the minutes of meetings. On Tuesday, September 11, we met. I believe it was on a motion brought forward by Ms. Redman, I believe on a 106(4) motion. Four members of the committee had said, “Why don't we bring this forward?”
On Tuesday, September 11, they brought it forward, and you did, Chair, rule it out of order. I could read your ruling, because you went on at some length about why you chose to rule the way you did. You did some good research and such. But I guess I'll just say that you ruled against them, against the motion. You did so in a procedure that to me still gives me this “when you're right, you're right” feeling. And I still think right should outweigh procedure.
So I still have a problem with the fact that this overruling-the-chair situation goes from a chair making an absolute positive and correct ruling, stating in his ruling why he made it that way....
As you said today, Chair, you don't even have to do that, but you did. In each of these cases you stated why you made the ruling that way. You even showed us, in some cases, the lengths you went to in the case of talking to Mr. Walsh, the legal analyst in the case of the original motion, about trying to get it right. You went to great lengths.
So I still have this problem. I say it smacks of dictatorship. I don't want to use too harsh a term, but I think that's truly where we ended up, Chair.
12:15 p.m.
An hon. member
They're bullying the chair.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Well, I guess that's what it comes down to. You make a ruling that is absolutely right, and instead of the right winning, bullying wins.
12:15 p.m.
An hon. member
Yes.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I don't know. Why do they hate the rules of this place? I'm at a loss as to how we get there, but I still have a belief, and I know, Chair, in here somewhere you have a belief that you've made the right rulings. You've done the right things. And for the sake of democracy and the Canadian way, you've brought forward a decision.
They've become so good at it now that even before it's out of your mouth, someone is challenging the chair. Chair, it's a wonder you even get to go back to your office, because once you make a decision it's a wonder they don't challenge it; it's become automatic now. It's not about what's right or wrong; it's about if the chair makes a decision, they have to challenge it.
We find ourselves wallowing in this mud pit of overruling decisions rather than following what's right, and we're slinging it in all directions.
I'm wishing we could just pull ourselves up out of that, that we could rise up out of that. I guess we have to start with a verb that's different, then. Perhaps we should slither, from the other side, out of that gutter of partisanship. We need to get out of that gutter of partisanship and actually do some work here, Chair.
This committee has to move forward. We have to quit acting like—well, we've said it—a bully in a schoolyard. We have to quit acting like the only way is their way, that the only way is....
We offered a perfectly good option this morning, Chair. We offered an option—
12:15 p.m.
An hon. member
Go right to legislation.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
—that we would go right to legislation. After a very short and very eloquent dissertation, we even asked for a vote on it. Let's go right to—
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Eloquent—yes, it was.
Sorry, through you, Chair, to Mr. Lukiwski, it was very good this morning.
We could have gone right to work, and the motion said that. We would then go on to talking about setting a budget and getting ready to discuss C-6. No, instead we're the loudest bullies, so we're going to change that, Chair, and we're going to make it so that before we deal with legislation we're going to get to sling some more mud in this room.
I hope the cleaners have an easy time cleaning up each night after the mud that's thrown.
I've talked a lot about where we were on this committee and what the folks back home might be thinking about it. But I guess the other part is that it's a good thing this is a fairly boring piece of television viewing, or at least listening or reading, because we're not saying much about the parenting skills and conflict resolution skills that this group has either. We've gone on for a number of times now talking about where we are at on this, Chair, and not able to get to a resolution.
I thought what we were offering this morning was indeed that. I thought that after having been a bit inundated with motions from the other side on Standing Order 106(4), demanding that the committee come to heel on certain issues, our attempt to talk about bringing this committee back together and talk about Bill C-6 as a piece of legislation was an appropriate mediation piece that we could at least get done. I think we'd find ourselves in a pretty unique place, Chair, because although the House has been pretty full of other legislation coming forward, this committee doesn't have a great deal to come forward other than Bill C-6. If we actually finish Bill C-6—surprise, surprise—the opposition sitting in the room may actually have a chance to deal with other things, and maybe even some of their motions, should they wish to. But they've chosen not to take that route and deal with Bill C-6 in that fashion.
We have some other issues. I talked about the hypocrisy of the ethics committee's chair and where he's gone, but there are some other things out there. We have some other issues. If we opened all the books from all the parties, we might also get another clearer look at where the leadership loan situation is on the other side of the—-
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Mr. Preston, I'm just going to ask you to explain the relevance of this line of--
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Chair, very quickly, through you, because I really want to spend a lot more time talking about it, I'll give you a piece so you can see where I'm headed with it.
Their motion talks about the in-and-out scheme, the election financing scheme, which would mean following the election financing laws, and yet we have other election financing laws on loans that must be paid back in a reasonable amount of time and not just written off. Yet we don't want to open our books and talk about those. So I'm hoping, Chair, that to you there's relevance there.
We seem to want to nitpick and pick and choose the pieces of election financing we do want to talk about, and yet we don't want to open up the whole election financing act, which is truly the deal of this committee—to look at election financing and the running of elections in Canada in its totality, rather than just to nitpick and to pick and choose the little pieces that might give me a hunk of mud to sling at the other guy.
Those, Chair, are my thoughts on where the relevance is on that. I just want to throw it out that there are still some other election financing pieces out there from their last leadership race—some fairly significant and outstanding loans—and I believe the next report is due in June on how they've retired those loans. In fact, they are supposed to be all retired by that date, and if they're not, they actually would be, if I'm not mistaken, assumed to have been improper donations. They would become donations because they're in fact not paying them off.
If we're going to get to that end, as much as I talked about the bit of hypocrisy with the ethics chair and then not wanting to open their books, there's another piece of the books that I think, if we threw them open, we'd have a chance to look at—other things.
The other piece also, Chair, is we can also go back to the findings of Justice Gomery. There were still some real pieces in those findings that talked about election financing. There's still a lot of money certainly that Justice Gomery spoke of, and the trail hasn't been connected there either. I believe $40 million is the amount that was not found, and we can only assume it went into election financing someplace too. If those books came open, maybe we could look at that too. I think perhaps that's the reason they don't want to open the books, because of what comes jumping out when we do open them.
I did mention some of the affidavits that we've made on elections financing. Just to clarify what I had said earlier, because I did not have this book in front of me and now I do, it talks about the transfer of funds and election advertising.
If we could talk about campaign ads being national in scope, which I mentioned earlier, it says “election advertising” means:
the transmission to the public by any means during an election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes
—because sometimes we do put ads out that oppose another candidate or one of their views—
a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or a candidate is associated.
That sure sounds like that's what most of these people have done, or what we've done. The identification of “election advertising” is:
All election advertising that promotes or opposes a candidate, including taking a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated, must indicate who authorized it....
I think we've shared before that we've certainly followed those rules too, Chair. They're asking for us to do this investigation, and yet I want to read into the record, of course, why the investigation is not necessary, and this is certainly stating it clearly out of the Elections Canada handbook. I don't think there's anybody on the other side who is going to deny that we did these things.
I waited and nobody did, so I guess they're not denying we followed the rules of Elections Canada.
If it's clear that we followed the rules of Elections Canada, I'm not certain why we need to do the investigation of the in-and-out piece, and why we aren't talking about Bill C-6 instead.
I've talked about election financing and the rules on election financing. But the other thing we're talking about is regional ad buys. We've talked a bit about how you can't do an ad in a local area for the national party—I think that's the scheme they're talking about. That is, of course, a scheme; to them it's always a scheme.
In the past I've certainly done a fair number of radio buys. You're always happy when the radio station has as great a reach as possible. But if it's an election advertising situation and you're trying to reach only one riding, there's no wall at the edge of that riding to stop radio signals from flowing into another riding. It just doesn't happen. Radio signals go where they go. If someone has the appropriate radio station on, it comes in.
That's why we were always asked to put a tag on it to say it was truly Joe Preston advertising in Elgin—Middlesex—London. Even though it might have been heard in one of the other London ridings, it was me making a statement about myself, another candidate, or an issue of my own party or another party. I paid for the piece that was spilling into or playing in Elgin—Middlesex—London; however, it may have gone other places. That's how regional ad buys happen.
As an example, a group around Edmonton bought radio ads that covered all of those ads. Of course, they may have been tagged at the bottom that they were for the member from Edmonton—Sherwood Park, but they might have spilled into another Edmonton riding. The next day it would have been that member's name on them.
We just want to clear this up. I can't stop the paper boy from delivering to the guy next door, even though I've paid for the ad in Elgin—Middlesex—London. The London Free Press covers all of London. They don't put out a separate section for my riding; they cover all of London. Although I may have paid for an ad hoping to reach voters in my riding, it will certainly reach other ridings. If I've spoken of issues that apply to other ridings, my party may benefit from the ad that was placed in the newspaper and went to other ridings, but it was not the intent to do so. The intent was for me to advertise. Walls don't go up and we don't stop the paper boy from delivering just because I have an ad in the paper today.
Part of what they're asking us to look at is that scheme. They feel we've spent money locally on national advertising that should have only been national. Well, we can't help it. The newspaper goes where the newspaper goes. Radio signals go where radio signals go. TV shows on cable now go around the country.
In one of my other conversations with this group, I said we used to be able to isolate test markets in this country very clearly. We could test products, whether in a political field or a retail field. You could feel safe that if you ran a TV ad in the Winnipeg market, for example, it wouldn't go anywhere else and people knew it was only there. But that doesn't happen any more. When you buy an ad on CanWest Global or CTV, it goes across the country. It's not about the one little market any more. There are associated radio stations and TV stations.
I'd like to come back to the beginning. We're really talking here about the....
12:30 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:30 p.m.
Some hon. member
Ah, the Wheat Board! That's great.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Before I came here I believed wheat boards were crackers.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Did you guys draw straws to see who gets to share in this filibuster?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Through you, Chair, to Madam Redman, sometimes it's just whose name was on the list. We all have the ability to speak about the issues of this committee. We are glad to do so for our folks back home, because this is about getting work done. It's about getting legislation through. So I'm happy to say we actually show up and sit in our chairs, and when it's time to vote, we all vote.
