Evidence of meeting #41 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I would move a subamendment to Mr. Van Kesteren's amendment, that after the word “parties” in the third line, the words “or in past elections” be inserted. So the amendment would then read:
and should the Committee find in their investigations similar ethical practices by other parties or in past elections, the Committee will broaden their investigations to include the study of these ethical practices and make recommendations to Elections Canada as to whether these ethical practices ought to be continued.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Hubbard's original motion refers to alleged actions during the 2006 election. We now have an amendment on the floor that refers to potential other issues from other parties, which may or may not be there. If this amendment and the motion carry, we will be looking at all of those matters.
Of course, these allegations are most serious. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, if we're going to look at the year 2006, I think it's fair that we would have a complete investigation and look at other elections, other years. I don't know what's fair that we would go back to. I suppose it would depend on what Elections Canada would say when they come to our committee.
If this practice, as has been alleged in the original motion—and I'm saying it's not true, of course—has been occurring for past elections, I think it would be incumbent upon this committee not just to look at the 2006 election, but previous elections. That's really the intent of the motion, because we would be conceivably looking at the practices of members who are still here and perhaps other members over the years. Is this a common practice? Has this just been discovered now? If it's an unethical issue, we have an obligation to do a complete, thorough job and to look at other elections.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Obviously I think the subamendment moved by Mr. Tilson is entirely reasonable on a whole number of different levels, not the least of which is that this practice that the committee intends to look into is not a new one. Indeed, it has been the practice of the Bloc Québécois for more than a decade. Certainly the Liberal Party is well documented, as is the NDP, as using this exact practice, transferring money from central campaigns to regional campaigns for buys and transferring those funds back. I think we've documented that well. I have a great documented case that I'll bring up a little later with respect to the original mover of the motion.
I do think that, obviously, if we're going to be looking into this, if this committee is to have any legitimacy at all, it needs to do so in a fashion that's fair to all parties, that's objective, and that hopes to come out with a conclusion that has some article of truth to it and not just a rag that reeks of partisanship.
I think this is obviously a reasonable subamendment and something that I believe all parties should support. As I said the other night, if all parties truly want to have voters in their constituencies respecting parties and the political system that we have here in Canada, all parties should be prepared to stand by their election financing records and those of their public office holders in demonstrating that if they are going to be in judgment of the Conservative Party, their own record on this is somehow different. Our position is that it's not.
I think this subamendment further seeks to clarify the main motion, as well as the amendment, and should be supported.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
These are certainly interesting topics that we are discussing, but they are not the real problem. The real the problem that the committee wants to study is not the fact that sums of money were transferred from the party's national campaign to another campaign. What we want to study is the fact that expenses were transferred to ridings to allow a national party to exceed the spending limits authorized at the national level.
My colleagues opposite can go on and on about the fact that all parties transfer, have transferred or will be transferring money from a riding to be national party, from the national party back to the riding, a candidate or his or her campaign, but the real problem in this issue is the fact that this money was transferred by only one party, that Elections Canada criticized only one party and conducted on investigation only into that party. In fact, the candidates from that party are the only ones whose reports were not approved following the last election. And that is simply because these transfer methods seemed to have been used to allow this national party to exceed the spending limits authorized by the Canada Elections Act.
My colleagues opposite can put a great deal of energy into telling us that anyone could be accused and that everyone transfers money, but that is not where the problem lies.
In addition, I would like to come back to a question that I raised at the last meeting of this committee, concerning the relevance on the part of my colleagues opposite, of referring to other parties, such as the Bloc Québécois, when it comes to defining the term public office holder. At that meeting, the clerks did not have the text of the Conflict of Interest Act, so I would like to inform the committee that I have done some research.
The Conflict of Interest Act, enacted by section 2 of chapter 9 of the Statues of Canada, 2006, reads as follows:
“public office holder” means (a) a minister of the Crown, a minister of State or a parliamentary secretary; (b) a member of ministerial staff; (c) a ministerial adviser; (d) a Governor in Council appointee, other than the following persons, [...] (e) a full-time ministerial appointee designated by the appropriate minister of the Crown as a public office holder.
In this definition, nothing would lead us to believe that a member of Parliament of the Bloc Québécois or of the New Democratic Party is targeted by what we are discussing. I would thus emphatically implore my colleagues opposite not to waste this committee's time by presenting all sorts of scenarios involving the Bloc Quebecois or the New Democratic Party.
As I said, the crux of this problem is not the transfer of funds, it is the fact that a national party could exceed, or did exceed, the spending limits authorized by law.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have some concerns, but not of the amendment. Could I just step back? I appreciate members' giving me a moment to get up to speed. This is my first time at this committee.
Members will probably know that we dealt with this subject to a great extent on the procedure and House affairs committee. There was, in fact, a ruling made on the confined motion that it was indeed out of order because the original motion, which has been deemed in order at this committee, is actually far too specific. That opinion was generated by opinions of the clerks, in particular the head law clerk, Mr. Robert Walsh.
A number of analogies were used to convince the chair of that committee that the original motion that this committee was looking at was in fact not within the mandate of the committee because it was too specific in nature. There's enough precedent, Mr. Chair, to rule that in fact that would be the case.
For example, Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi) says, and I'll quote the Standing Orders, “the review of and report on all matters relating to the election of Members to the House of Commons” is the mandate of the procedure and House affairs committee. That's right from the Standing Orders. As you can hear when I read the quote out of the book--the bible, as we call it here on the Hill--that's a fairly broad mandate, and it's been written for a specific reason.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Goodyear, the committee received the motion of Mr. Hubbard. It was ruled in order. The chair was challenged--
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
--and the committee voted to accept the motion as being in order.
So I want to raise with you that to discuss and debate whether what we're doing right now is proper is in fact improper; it's out of order. So I'd ask you to move on to another plane.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Okay.
Well, the situation I want to bring the committee's attention to is that the amendment suggested is perfectly in order because it expands the mandate of the original motion. And despite the numbers and the mathematics of parliamentary committees, rules can easily be broken, Mr. Chairman. We could suggest that the shirt you're wearing right now is not blue. We could, in fact, have a vote on it, and the minutes would reflect that we lost that vote, but anyone watching this committee would indeed see that your shirt is blue.
So notwithstanding the numbers and the tyranny of the majority with respect to numbers, what I'm trying to convince members of is that the amendment actually broadens the original motion and brings it more in line with what the Standing Orders have chosen over the decades in terms of what parliamentary committees should be for.
My concern with not adopting the subamendment is very simple. It's that no one could possibly believe that a parliamentary committee that is made up of different political parties could ever possibly come to an unbiased determination or research on a very specific matter. So to amend the original motion, in my strongest opinion, makes it completely in order.
The second concern I would have in not amending the motion would be the sub judice convention. This is an adopted, voluntary convention that protects witnesses and people who are before the courts from any testimony.
Certainly, Mr. Chair, I'm sure you'd agree with me that we've lost the trust that committees will keep confidential even meetings that are in camera. We had a privilege today in the House that raised a very important matter of there being leaked documents from in camera meetings and leaked documents from reports that have not yet been tabled in the House.
So my concern is that it's not possible to proceed on the narrow vision of the original motion, and the amended version that has been put forth by my colleague is absolutely in order and actually has to be given a yes vote to restore some of the credibility that has been lost on these committees that continue to proceed based on numbers and on what can't be deemed to be anything less than partisan gain.
No one has anything to lose, apparently. Or is there something to lose? Maybe I'm wrong here. Maybe the other parties would like to respond to this. Perhaps the other parties have something significant to lose, and therefore have some reasonable grounds to restrict this to the Conservative Party.
But we don't need to do that, Mr. Chair. We do need to expand the motion, but we don't need to keep it restricted because we have courts for that. Certainly the justice committee doesn't investigate individual breaking and entering. The justice committee sets up the rules, and the police deal with the break and enter.
In this case we have the courts to deal with individual parties, and pitting one party against another is not the place of parliamentary committees. That's not what the Canadian taxpayer sent us here to do. In fact, Canadian taxpayers pay judges and lawyers. I know there are some lawyers here too. I don't want to be insulting; there are certainly lawyers on this committee. But I can tell you I'm not one of them, and I can't profess to know how to interrogate witnesses properly to get to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And I'm absolutely convinced that's what all members want to do.
So in my opinion, the amendment that's been proposed by my colleague is not just in order, it's something on which it's imperative that we all vote. To vote against it would send a profound signal that we're not interested anymore in parliamentary work, we're not interested in working for the best interests of Canadians.
Clearly, this case is before the courts. It will be dealt with there; that's where it's supposed to be dealt with.
What we need to do here is expand this motion so that we can do the job properly, which is to study the advertising practices under the Elections Act. That doesn't mean those of one particular party, but just the advertising policies. And if they need to be changed, of course we need to change them.
But that can't happen at a committee like this. It's not possible, and Canadians don't believe that either. Canadians don't believe for one second that the Liberal Party is the authority on the Conservatives, or that the Conservatives should be the ones who judge the NDP. That's absolutely absurd. It's an affront to what parliamentary committees are all about and what they've been set up for.
I think, frankly, the reason this has been going on for so long is that these rules were set up decades ago, clearly by individuals who were wiser than most of us, and they work when they're used properly. This isn't working, Mr. Chair, I profess to you. It didn't work at another committee. It's obviously not working here, and guess why? Because these rules were meant to be for the benefit of Canadians, not the benefit of individual political parties who are looking for voting options and ways to get more votes.
I'll just conclude my comments by going right back to my summary. If members look at the folks in their riding and understand what they came here to do, it's not about winning the election. It's about making this country a better country for all of us, and we can do that. But I'll tell you, if we leave this thing to be one party against another party, then we're wasting everybody's time. We all know full well, Mr. Chair, that all parties do these sorts of things. There is evidence. It wil come out in the courts. That's where it should be.
We will be using a parliamentary committee of Canada for partisan and political gains. Why? We all know this is being handled in the courts, exactly where it should be handled. If we move forward without this amendment that expands this original motion, we will be putting ourselves in a place of violating sub judice, and that will mean nobody in that courtroom will have a fair trial.
So the vote on this amendment, Mr. Chair, is going to be very simple. It's going to be “Do you wish to continue giving Canadians a fair trial and respect the judicial system of this country?” Yes or no. Are we going to expand this motion so we can look at the act and rule on what is the right thing to do, or are we going to say “No, this is a parliamentary committee and we're all being paid a tonne of money and we have all kinds of advisors and staff behind us, plus interpreters and technical wizards...”? We have all kinds of people right here. This is costing taxpayers a huge amount of money. And guess what? We're going to double that cost, because this is being handled in the courts, where it should be.
This isn't a courtroom, Mr. Chair. We're not trained to be a court. And with all due respect to your talents, Mr. Chair, you're not a judge. And there isn't any way a fair answer can come from an inquiry such as this.
So the motion has to be expanded, if for no other reason than to explain to Canadians that we're here to do the business of Canada, we're not here to do individual party politics. And the only fair thing to do is to respect the judicial system, leave this where it already is, and not jeopardize the witnesses and those people who are going to testify there. Don't jeopardize them.
When you call witnesses here, Mr. Chair, on this small motion, on the original narrow motion--which, in my view, should have been ruled out of order--do you know what you're going to hear? “I'm sorry, I can't comment. It's before the courts.” Do you know what you're going to vote for if you don't vote for the amendment? “I want to waste more taxpayers' dollars”--because there is nobody in this room who believes for a second that a witness who is involved in a courtroom is going to answer the question, assuming that we've lost dignity to some point that we don't respect sub judice in the first place.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's not the forum. This is not what you were elected to come here and do. If you have to change the rules, then change the rules, but don't sit here and pretend to be in a courtroom. Don't sit here and waste taxpayers' dollars. Vote yes to this amendment, and let's get on with doing the job Canadians sent us here to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank Mr. Goodyear for that explanation as to why this amendment or this addition to the amendment should be allowed.
I am, as you know, the one who moved the original amendment. Much of what Mr. Goodyear has said was said just before I moved this amendment. I thank him for his insight, and I don't know what else I can add to that.
If we take the original motion and zero in on this specific activity, we will do an injustice. We will not only do an injustice to the Canadian people, we'll do an injustice to ourselves too.
There is no question that there is a problem here. We definitely have a problem. If there weren't a problem, Elections Canada would not have investigated. There is a very strong possibility—at least that's what's conceded on our side—that the very judgment by Elections Canada is evidence of another problem, that this issue has to be examined. Some conclusion has to be reached on whether this practice is going to be able to be continued or not. That's what my amendment does.
The amendment basically says we're not just going to look at only the Conservative Party's practices, but we are going to see where that takes us. If that brings us, and I believe it will, to open up all new chapters, we're going to be able to see that there are other similar practices being held.
The most important thing, however, is not whether or not these things happen. We know they happen. We had a member here at the last meeting cite example after example of when it happened and where it happened. The question is, should this practice be allowed?
That's where we can do some really good, serious work. When I moved this amendment, I moved it in all seriousness. I really feel that we can do this. I don't think I want to be part of a committee that just roasts one party. And you know what? If that were another party, and us doing it, it just plain wouldn't be right. I think a lot of you feel the same way.
I want to be able to go to the Canadian public when we leave this place and know that we've done something worth while. This is something worth while. We have done some very worthwhile things in this committee as well. This can add to that.
I like Mr. Tilson's subamendment. It will broaden the scope even further, because there's obviously a history here. There are a lot of Canadians who don't understand just how our political system works, how we're funded by the government, how every vote cast is....
This is going to do something else, as well. It's going to explain to Canadians why we've adopted this system and why we feel that it's a good system—because it is a good system.
I met with a senator in another country. This was a state senator, and she told me that she spent $2 million for her last election. They meet part-time, and her salary is $19,000 a year. She was absolutely stunned when I told her what one of our elections costs and how we raise our money and how the government contributes to that. She wondered how it could work, but I assured her it works and it works very well.
I think we're on the right track. We have an excellent system in place, and I want to strengthen that system, not bring it down.
I want to strengthen the whole political system so that all parties can operate in an ethical manner. I don't believe we have anything to hide. It's very possible that we're doing something that we shouldn't be doing. It's very possible that other parties are doing something. But I do not believe this has been defined in a manner where the committees and Elections Canada have come to grips with this yet, and they have to. They absolutely must come to grips and make a clear statement as to what is allowed, what is legal, what is not legal, and what is ethical, so that we can improve on the system.
That said, since this was my amendment, I am also very much in favour of Mr. Tilson's. I think it's excellent, and not only that, it shows good faith as we vote for this, whether or not all parties are prepared to come to grips and work as a unit, as we've done in the past.
So I would encourage us to accept this amendment and the subamendment. Let's pass the whole thing. Let's get going, and let's do the job we were called to do.
Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren, for your thoughtful comments.
Ms. Lavallée, if you please, the floor is yours.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to speak.
We are here to debate a motion concerning the ethical practices of certain public office holders. These practices have been challenged, especially with regard to the Conservative Party. The Conservative members are trying to make all sorts of comparisons, especially with the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois. They have not yet said anything about the NDP, but they soon will, you can count on that, Mr. Martin.
I would like to point out that the case is not at all the same. First and foremost, the headquarters of the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP have never, never, been searched. The only time the RCMP entered the offices of a sovereigntist party was to steal the membership lists and that was a very long time ago. I can tell you that story if you are interested.
The people at Elections Canada have never refused to refund our expenses. As you have noticed, they are very strict. Indeed, you are suffering the consequences. In addition, the Bloc Québécois has never exceeded the authorized limit. But that is what Elections Canada is accusing you of in this case, that is, for having devised a scheme allowing you to exceed your spending limit, given that you had too much money at the national level and not enough in the ridings.
I listened to you when it was your turn, Mr. Goodyear, so I would ask that you show me the same respect.
So you transferred money from the national level to the riding associations, which paid the expenses incurred at the national level, which is against the law. You can challenge this before the courts and before Elections Canada and refuse to have the matter studied by House of Commons committees. You have given us another shining example of your constant filibustering and delaying tactics, given that we already had three or four meetings on this same topic. You are wasting time by turning the floor over to one another, and you are going to do the same thing again today.
I would just like to set the record straight concerning the Bloc Québécois. It may have used the in and out method, but never illegally. The illegal method was invented by the Conservative Party, in my opinion. In the case of the Bloc Québécois, the money transferred from the ridings to the national level...
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I wonder if the honourable member could explain the relevance of going into the Bloc's in-and-out scheme when we're actually debating an amendment to go in and look at the Bloc's in-and-out scheme by expanding the amendment.
If the member is going to stay on topic, that would be great. We could just vote yes to the amendment. We could talk about the Bloc's in-and-out—
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order. This is a point of order.
Order, please. I want everybody to hear.
When members raise issues in their presentations, those become relevant to other members when they speak. I can understand, Mr. Goodyear, because you weren't at the last meeting, but this matter did come up extensively. I believe this is the first time Madame Lavallée has spoken on any of this. Without that background knowledge, I can understand that you would be concerned, and you would have been correct. Given that it has already been on the table, I'm going to allow Madame Lavallée to continue.
Be cognizant that we should always try to restrict our comments here to those that are helpful to the committee, and ultimately move towards putting the questions on the various motions before us.
Thank you.
You have the floor.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Chair, you will have understood that I was responding to charges from the member for Nepean, who was here at our last meeting, when I did not have a chance to speak.
All Bloc Québécois candidates, in a fair and equal manner, had indeed provided money to the National Secretariat. If all ridings provide the same amount; this practice is legal. We collected these amounts in each committee democratically, $5 at a time. The sovereignty movement is mainly funded through membership cards. Our funding is based on our membership, our activism and our fervour, and not on the wealth of a few major corporations supporting a party which will someday hold office and that they will be able to lobby in the future. That is the difference when it comes to the Bloc Quebecois's in and out.
All candidates have, fairly, taken money from their riding association to send it to the National Secretariat. Faced with a practice that is this fair and acceptable, Elections Canada reimbursed us. Elections Canada never challenged our expenses. No one exceeded his or her limit, especially not our National Secretariat nor riding associations. That is the difference between a party which benefit from the wealth and power of large corporations supporting it and a party like the Bloc Quebecois, which is too poor but receives popular support and appeals to activists.
We are talking here about public office holders. As you know, the Bloc Quebecois has no public office holders within its ranks and will never have any in Ottawa. Under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics mandate includes:
(vi) the proposing, promoting, monitoring and accessing of initiatives witch relate to access to information and privacy across all sectors of Canadian society and ethical standards relating to public office holders....
It is not the Committee mandate to access the Canada Elections Act but rather the ethics of public office holders. That is what we are attempting to do in the case of your exceeding your election's limits.
Certain people said earlier on that I was trying to use dilatory tactics in upholding my francophone's rights and requesting documents and both official languages. This accusation was made by a person who, before we had even open our mouths, had called for the adjournment of our meeting. There should be regulations against people acting in bad faith. It would be rather useful and help us cast aside certain types of argument.
Mr. Chair, I would like to tell Mr.Goodyear that ethical matters are not settled before the courts, but within this committee, as stated in the Standing Orders. This is not about comparing one party to the others, but about dealing with a party's ethical issue.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal