Information & Ethics Committee on June 12th, 2008

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

At this point, a subamendment is being tabled which distorts the motion. This motion before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics—Ethics, I repeat—calls for an investigation of a troubling situation related to the process for electing candidates who represent the citizens of Canada and of Quebec.

There is an agency which is recognized by all, internationally as well as within Quebec and Canada. Elections Canada has done its work pointing out that there was something unusual going on, that there were problems, that something abnormal had occurred during the most recent federal election. This situation occurred within the party born of the merger between Alliance-Reformists and the Progressive Conservatives, this party is now called the Conservative Party of Canada. There was election overspending of some $1.2 million. It is absolutely unacceptable for such a situation to have occurred. An investigation must take place.

The Conservative Party, which introduced Bill C-2, The Federal Accountability Act, wanted to be purer than the driven snow. It is incumbent upon the party to be transparent in all regards, in all situations regarding the Canadian federal government, and particularly so when it comes to election campaigns whose purpose is to allow voters the chance to make an enlightened choice about candidates, regardless of the party.

It so happens that some Conservative candidates won by a very small margin. Would illegal fund transfers have enabled the Conservative Party to spend more, leading to some of these wins? No one will ever know. However, one thing is for sure: among the 15 or so Canadian political parties to have had candidates during the most recent federal elections, only one is now being chastised for having, apparently, breached a fundamental rule. There may even have, and we would have to look into this, falsified invoices to justify what cannot be justified.

I have before me a Globe and Mail article. Unfortunately, I cannot table it today because it is only in English. I will not table it, but I will mention its content, in French. Staff members, advisors and even candidates for the Conservative Party of Canada had strong reservations regarding the party's way of doing things. You have, no doubt, seen the outcome of it all, Mr. Chairman. This party won a minority government on January 23, 2006. I was there, I saw the news. I am flabbergasted to hear today that unusual things occurred. It is our responsibility, as elected representatives, and as citizens, to do our work within the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics—and I'll repeat it again, Ethics—to ensure that, if this did indeed occur, it does not happen again.

That said, we should be upright, rather than try to beat around the bush in an attempt to hide something. In this case, we must prove that certain things did indeed occur. This issue should be dealt with in a responsible manner.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to name certain people we know: Maxime Bernier, Josée Verner, Lawrence Cannon, Sylvie Boucher, Daniel Petit, Steven Blaney, Jacques Gourdes, Luc Harvey, Christian Paradis, Suzanne Courville, Yves Laberge, Gary Caldwell, Jean-Marie Pineault, Patrick Robert, Gilles Poirier...

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Go ahead, Mr. Proulx, on a point of order.

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

Although it may be music to my ear to hear these types of comments, I would like for you to make a determination as to the relevance of naming, in this committee, individuals who are not public office holders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Proulx. You raise a good point.

Throughout much of our work, even back in the Mulroney work, most people thought that members of Parliament were public office holders, because it sounds right, but in fact the definition under the Conflict of Interest Act says cabinet ministers--but now it's ministers--secretaries of state, parliamentary secretaries, and order-in-council appointees. Members of Parliament are not public office holders.

Our mandate, and in fact the motion before us, is in order only to the extent that it relates to the activities of a public office holder as defined.

Mr. Nadeau, I would simply just offer that explanation to you and hope that you will keep it in mind as you continue your presentation.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Very well.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Proulx, I thank you very much for this clarification.

Nonetheless, the names that I mentioned are those of people who took part in the federal election which began on November 28, 2005 and ended in 2006, at around 9 p.m. on January 23 which, I should add, is Carole's birthday. During this long election campaign, lasting some 56 days, these people were candidates for a party, which was indeed the Conservative Party of Canada. This is why it is extremely important not to confuse the issue and especially not to try to downplay my colleague's motion, Mr. Hubbard, the member for Miramichi, New Brunswick. It is very well targeted.

The situation was not reported by the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party or the Conservative Party itself, but by Elections Canada. This is an internationally recognized authority which foreign governments turn to for resources and knowledge which can assist them in running democratic elections. This very important authority, recognized and accepted by all, ensures respect for federal elections and the election process as a whole. Everything must take place in compliance with the law for elections to occur.

This authority noted that unacceptable even dishonest methods were used. Whether or not this issue goes before the courts we, the members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics have the responsibility to look into the matter. If it can be said that there is one process which lies at the very heart of the Canadian system of government, it would have to be that which allows democracy to flourish, in other words the electoral process.

People within the governing party are directly affected by this situation, in that they are members of the Conservative Party. They must certainly receive orders from on high, down low and elsewhere in order to try to draw attention away from the matter. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I believe, had to deal with these types of issues.

Because this is an important opportunity for us to be involved in the democratic process, we want to make sure that Mr. Hubbard's motion will stand as worded, along with the amendment that was made. We want to delve into the heart of the matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Merci.

Mr. Proulx, you have the floor.

I'll just alert members that following Mr. Proulx, I have Mr. Del Mastro, Mr. Tilson, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Goodyear.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to reiterate some facts which led this committee to discuss ethical considerations for public office holders, which are defined under the Conflict of Interest Act and may be audited by this committee.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police searched Conservative Party offices. In order to obtain a search warrant, Elections Canada had to state in no uncertain terms before the courts that misleading statements had been made by various organizations and individuals within the Conservative Party. I do not want to name them all; I do not know if there are 66 of them or 100.

As I mentioned when my colleague Mr. Nadeau was speaking, some of these individuals are members and are not subject to an audit by this committee. However, other people appearing on the list are public office holders and the subject of the RCMP's allegations, the RCMP having executed a warrant on behalf of Elections Canada.

This is a very serious matter. If public office holders are found to be guilty, they would be liable to imprisonment. We are not only talking about election overspending, but about the fact that public office holders may end up in jail and lose their right to sit as members.

The Conservative Party...

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Del Mastro, on a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

The member has just made a statement that's factually incorrect. Nobody's going to wind up in prison on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

In fairness, you know that you cannot debate on a point of order. That is debate, sir.

Your point has been made.

Mr. Proulx.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to reassure my colleague. Obviously, it is not only the idea of being automatically banished that is at stake here, but if these allegations are proven to be correct and criminal charges are initiated, it may be that an individual would be liable to jail.

The Conservative Party, in order to defend its public office holders and others has alleged that the RCMP warrant was intended to collect information which could be used in a civil action between the Conservative Party and Elections Canada. Well, we all know that that is false. Documents which were seized during this seizure are absolutely not meant for one or several civil trials. The RCMP does not operate that way. In fact, it is more of a quasi-criminal investigation under the Canada Elections Act.

Mr. Tilson's subamendment, which would apply to the amendment introduced during our last meeting by Mr. Van Kesteren, implies that all parties were involved in this funding scheme which led a national party to exceed the national spending limit permitted by Elections Canada. That is patently false. Not all parties were involved in this scheme.

Mr. Chairman, you have more experience than most of us—I am not trying to say that you are old, but you have a great deal of election experience—and you know very well that after each election, Elections Canada audits the books of all the candidates and all the parties involved in the election. Following the January 2006 election, the Conservative Party was singled out by Elections Canada which found that certain Conservative Party candidates, including public office holders, had made false statements and were involved in the scheme. Elections Canada was referring to Conservative Party candidates only, and not to candidates from other parties. The truth must be told and we cannot accept having anyone say that all parties were involved in this way.

Finally, the Conservative Party alleged that the investigations and searches carried out by the RCMP were an Elections Canada vendetta against it. I would point out that that is really stretching the truth. I do not see why Elections Canada, which has always enjoyed a stellar international and national reputation, would have chosen to exact revenge on the Conservative Party, especially given the fact that the new head of Elections Canada, Mr. Marc Mayrand, was appointed by the Conservative Party, and that Elections Canada carried out the investigation and called on the RCMP to execute the search warrants.

For all of these reasons, I want to make it very clear that I have no intention of voting in favour of Mr. Tilson's subamendment, which would apply to Mr. Van Kesteren's amendment, because that would essentially muddy the waters and dilute the audit which the committee seeks to carry out on public office holders.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Del Mastro, please.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Proulx actually entered into a little bit of my argument for me, which I appreciate a great deal, because I certainly have a number of questions related to Elections Canada, which is why I think this subamendment is so important, and why the scope has to be expanded. He pointed out that this is the only time they've ever done this, and that's true. He pointed out that we think that they're applying a double standard and that they're not being fair to our party. That's true.

Let's look at why we think that's true, Mr. Chair, because, quite frankly, we need to look only as far as the sponsorship program. We look at it, and we see no investigation by Elections Canada. Over $360 million was stolen. Over $40 million is missing. Money went to Quebec ridings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

Mr. Proulx on a point of order.

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

The line is very thin, Mr. Chair. However, there has never been any proof that that amount of money was stolen, whether it be by a political party--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The point is--

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

I said the line was thin, Gary. It's up to him to decide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thin on what, sir? Thin on relevance, are you saying?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

It's very relevant to the amendment. I'm talking about past elections and Elections Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Colleagues, I agree with Mr. Proulx that there's a fine line here. Let me explain it.

Dealing with what Elections Canada did or did not know or do, either in the particular in-and-out situation or in the sponsorship, or in any other proceedings or investigation or finding that they had, our motion is not to report or opine on the activities of Elections Canada. That's not part of the main motion, amendment, or subamendment. The issue for us is in regard to Elections Canada's report, its findings, the 2006 election, and the candidates--in fact the Conservative candidates at this point, as it says in the motion.

Our objective--and I hope members will move back to this--is not to find either wrongdoing or no wrongdoing on the part of any party, but rather to identify and determine if any of this that occurred, given the facts that we know, triggered any ethical undertakings or responsibilities. So to keep within our mandate, it is simply to determine if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office holders. We have to do that for one very simple reason: otherwise it would be out of order under the mandate of this committee.

The amendment by Mr. Van Kesteren expands that to some extent. So should any information or investigation find it relates to other parties, we're going to expand the scope. So there's a flow.

Mr. Tilson's subamendment says that with regard to this, we're not going to restrict it to just the 2006 election, but rather to past elections.

The root of all of this is the ethical requirement and whether all the steps that are required of public office holders were taken in accordance with the ethical guidelines--if you read them--to the highest possible standard. I understand Elections Canada is involved here, but we cannot, as a committee, opine on whether Elections Canada has done anything correctly or incorrectly.

I want Mr. Del Mastro to continue, but I think just for the purposes of members' further interventions, it would be most helpful to keep the ethical root of this in the context of your argument. Okay?

Carry on, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm actually getting to that, and I think what I'm speaking to is very relevant, since we're talking about expanding the scope. The subamendment talks about expanding the scope to include past elections. Obviously, if you're going to talk past elections, you have to talk sponsorship, and you have to talk about the illegal money, cash dollars, that flowed into Quebec ridings in Liberal associations. It's very relevant, and we should be looking into it. We don't know if there were even reports.... Well, I must assume that there weren't reports that indicated this money was spent on the campaigns, because, hopefully, Elections Canada wouldn't have provided rebates on stolen money. Therefore, we should be looking into this, expanding the scope to look at and see what the practice of those public office holders was.

We know that there were crimes committed. Unfortunately, none of the real perpetrators have ever been called to justice, in my opinion. But if we're going to look at this and we're going to look at--