Information & Ethics Committee on June 10th, 2008

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Chair, I found myself a little bit conflicted on that last point as well, because while I disagreed with your original ruling, which was an unprovoked, unsolicited ruling to allow this discussion to go ahead in the first place--it was a ruling you made without even having been asked to make it by any member of the committee. Despite my disagreement with that ruling, I actually agree with your second ruling to include Mr. van Kesteren's amendment. I detect that we're moving towards a consensus.

You have now accepted this motion as being in order, and should the committee find in their investigation similar ethical practices by other parties, the committee would broaden their investigation to include the study of these ethical practices and make recommendations to Elections Canada as to whether these ethical practices ought to be continued.

In order to discuss the ethical practices of other parties, and given that you have opened the door to that discussion by ruling this amendment in order, we have to ask ourselves, what are those ethical practices?

I have some examples here of some of the ethical practices about which we are speaking and about which the chair has authorized us to speak.

In the 2006 election, the Liberal Party had a candidate named Yvan Corriveau in Mégantic--L'Érable. On January 24, 2006, the Liberal Party made a transfer to Yvan Corriveau's local campaign for $4,950.

On January 24, 2006—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

I'm having a little difficulty hearing the member. There seems to be a bit of noise in the room.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

On January 24, 2006, Yvan Corriveau's local campaign made a transfer to the Liberal Party for $4,950. So there was $4,950 in and $4,950 out. In, out: where is Elections Canada?

I will note that in this particular example, the transfer in and the transfer out both happened on exactly the same day.

Lets go on to Mr. John Godfrey, who was a public office holder at the time of the election, and thus falls very much under the purview of this committee. On July 9, 2004, the Liberal Party made a transfer to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Hubbard has a point of order--but, please, make a point of order.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

That's twice that parliamentary secretaries have been referred to as public office holders.

You know, Mr. Chair, that at the call of an election, so-called parliamentary secretaries no longer are public office holders.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Chair, what's the point of order?

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

It's in terms of what your colleague just said.

[An hon. member]

Is this debate?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order. Order.

Mr. Hubbard, you're in debate. That's not a point of order.

I want to point out, Mr. Poilievre, that based on the amendment, a lot of this stuff is going to come up, but this is evidence as opposed to the discussion of why it's....

I want to point out that the last time you spoke, you presented the same matter with the in and out and Liberal examples. There was the lady from Barrie.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

It was a different example, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, that Liberal members were doing ins and outs.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thank you. We have an admission here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

We accept that you made that point the last time you spoke, and you've made it again. I think we can move on. We understand that there are transfers in and out from various candidates or riding associations or.... We understand that. But we don't need to make the same point more than a couple of times, okay? Could you move on, then?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I think it is very instructive to the broader public discussion on this issue that you, as a member of the Liberal Party, have admitted that Liberal Party candidates have engaged in in-and-out transfers. That is exactly the offence about which this committee is attempting to persecute the Conservatives, so I find it very interesting that you have made that acknowledgement.

The reason I'm giving these examples, Chair, is because the amendment that you have permitted opens the door to discussions about the ethical practices of “other parties”, and in order for me to argue in favour of such an amendment, I have to give some examples of the ethical practices of “other parties”.

With your permission, I will go on. I will take under advisement the point you've made about how I have, ad nauseam and systemically, proven the prolific effort to undertake in-and-out transfers in the Liberal Party. I thank you for your blunt and frank admission of the aforementioned statement, and I will turn to the next part of my binder, in which I look at examples of where the Bloc Québécois engaged in these same ethical practices.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois invented the so-called “in and out” method. They created the term to describe their own practices. This is why it is said that the leader of the Bloc Québécois is the father of the “in and out”. I think I heard someone say he is the sugar daddy of the “in and out”. He invented the process.

Indeed, the Bloc Québécois required all of its candidates, by contract, to use the “in and out” method. One of the candidates -- I think his name was Jean-Paul Marchand -- sued the party because he opposed this practice. Mr. Marchand was able to prove in court that the Bloc Québécois invented this system, used it and required all of its candidates by contract to use it.

Mr. Chair, this is what someone had to say about this:

Advertising campaigns are part of national expenditures, just as the planes and buses chartered for media representatives. They are costly. The Bloc advances the funds but, technically, each candidate assumes part of the cost.

Who do you think said this? It was the whip of the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Michel Guimond. He candidly and publicly said to the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil, in December 2001, that local candidates had to provide money to pay for the leader's air travel and for bus and advertising costs. I have never met a candidate who needed a bus, a plane and advertising at the same time. Obviously, these were national, not local expenditures.

Mr. Chair, the Bloc Québécois chose to use this practice but Elections Canada is not investigating them. This goes far beyond what the Conservative Party did. I can sense some anxiety among our friends from the Bloc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Poilievre, order, please. I have a point of order. Just bear with me, please.

Mr. Proulx, on a point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand what Mr. Poilievre is saying, and I appreciate that he is citing from different speeches and different explanations. I am questioning the relevance of this particular testimony on the part of Mr. Poilievre with regard to the motion or the amendment to the motion we have in front of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I share the concern too. There has to be a line drawn between evidence and testimony that should be given if the committee decides to proceed with the motion before us, amended or unamended. But with regard to dealing with whether or not the amendment right now--we're debating the amendment...should the committee find similar practices that would broaden the scope.

I'm just going to suggest to you, Mr. Poilievre, that we have to differentiate between what would be given as evidence and testimony of examples. The point that there were other parties that may or may not have engaged in practices that were the same or similar that haven't had the same treatment, or that there are some ethical implications, is a valid point. But to deal with each case as if someone were on the witness stand.... I just want to encourage you to try to focus your comments on the intent of the amendment, which is to consider broadening the scope. We understand there are other persons, other parties, who have had certain transactions that have similar characteristics, but it's not for us to judge whether those are legal or whatever. That's the decision or the determination of the body dealing with that, which is Elections Canada. Our interests are the ethical implications. I just raise that with you.

As to the matter of relevance, it's hard to impose, but let's be cognizant that Mr. Van Kesteren has brought forward a motion, which I'm sure was discussed with his colleagues, that there is a sincere interest that the motion be considered, and that it should be supported in a way that says it makes some sense.

If that's it, then I'd like to move to put that question on the amendment so that you can get the affirmation that the committee agrees with you.

I'll leave it at that. I would turn the floor to you, but again, if you want the amendment, I think it would be helpful to make sure that any further points you have are on why the members would want to vote for this and why it is relevant, as opposed to the evidence that might support that argument.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

As I have understood your remarks, I'm being permitted here to argue in favour of the amendment. In order to do that, in order to argue in favour of an amendment that would investigate the ethical practices of other parties, we have to ask what in fact are those ethical practices. I was attempting to share with the committee some information. Some of it is already on the public record. Some that I have is not yet on the public record but eventually will be.

I have in front of me a list of Bloc Québécois candidates who transferred systematically funds to a company called Touché! Média Marketing Inc. for national advertising. They alternate transfers that were in the scope of--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I apologize, Mr. Poilievre. Mr. Proulx has called a point of order again.

Just for members, should a member feel that there is a matter of repetition or relevance, that can be raised by any member on a point of order.

Mr. Proulx, on a point of order.

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

I'd ask Mr. Poilievre to bear with me for just a second.

I look at the notice of motion, and my understanding is that we are discussing whatever relating to public office holders. I don't think I've discovered or am inventing anything, but as far as I'm concerned, the Bloc Québécois—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Let's get to the point.

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

Let me come to it, Chair.

The Bloc Québécois never had a public office holder. So why are we talking about the Bloc Québécois?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

This, again, is a point of relevance because it is a fact that there are no Bloc Québécois public office holders, and therefore the discussion of those and the examination of those, under our mandate and the terms of reference of this motion, are not relevant.

[An hon. member]

Yes, it is to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It is not to the amendment. The Bloc examples are not relevant because they're not public office holders, as defined. Okay?

I think you're aware of the definition of public office holders. Mr. Poilievre, who has--