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.
4:45 p.m.
An hon. member
That's false.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Carry on, Mr. Del Mastro.
We're doing just fine, and everybody does know the rules, that you should speak only when you're recognized by the chair.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I understand sometimes that everybody would like to jump in, Mr. Tilson--
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
--but if we can restrain ourselves we'll give the honourable member an opportunity so he can be clearly heard and understood by all.
Please continue, sir.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you.
The subamendment speaks to past elections. This is why it's so important. If we're going to look into this and look at the ethical conduct of public office holders, if we're going to talk about how they conducted themselves during an election and whether it was ethical, why are we looking to shine the light simply on one group or a few people? Quite frankly, I think there are people here sitting in judgment, and people sitting in our House of Commons, who may well not be fit to judge them, based on the ethics of some of the things they may have done.
We need to look into this. If it was wrong, or if others have committed wrongs, then let's shine the light on it. If they haven't, then fine; the report will reflect that.
The original motion, which is what the amendment and subamendment speak to, talks about refused reimbursement. I would really like to know, first of all, if there was reimbursement paid on money that was not.... You see, the Conservative Party raises money from its grassroots supporters. Millions of people across the country donate small amounts of money, and we're well supported. I think that's well known; it's a matter of record. People stand up for this party. They send in their money in volumes that no other party can possibly hope to compare to. We invest that money into elections, to put the truth out on what the issues involved in an election are. So we want to look at why reimbursement was refused.
I would like to know if there was stolen money reimbursed. Would anybody else like to know that? Isn't that relevant, that not only was taxpayers' money stolen, but that potentially more money was reimbursed on the back of stolen money? Isn't that interesting?
That's why the subamendment to the amendment, which expands this, is so critically important. It would absolutely confound me.... And I'm sorry that Mr. Martin left, because he's been a champion on this for his party. We don't agree on everything, but he has been a champion on this issue. Surely to goodness he would support this subamendment to the amendment based on that fact alone. If we're going to try to get the truth, if we're going to try to stand in judgment of any party, all parties should hold themselves to a standard and say “Here's what we do, and we think you haven't met that bar.” If the other parties are going to say that, then they had better be prepared to demonstrate exactly where the bar is in their party.
I have more information that I will bring up shortly--and I do have to step out shortly. But I think if any party is going to stand in judgment and say “We don't believe you've met the bar”, then they'd better establish that bar. I think other parties are saying “Oh, no. We don't want you to see what we do, because maybe we're not proud of what we do. But we want to look at what you do.” It's surprising.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Yes, I do.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Proulx has indicated how he intends to vote on the subamendment, the amendment, and the motion. I can tell you, I'm going to be voting against the motion, but the principles that have been put forward by Mr. Van Kesteren and the principles that have been put forward by me I support. This may sound contradictory. It's a difficult issue when you can support an amendment and a subamendment but not the main motion, but that's the way it goes.
Mr. Proulx mentioned other investigations, and he talked about a criminal investigation by the RCMP and raiding the offices of the Conservative Party of Canada. That fits into a little bit of what I'd like to talk about with respect to the matters that are before us.
There is an investigation by Elections Canada, which is how, of course, the RCMP made its investigation. There is a lawsuit by the Conservative Party of Canada against Elections Canada. For all we know—and we don't know unless someone admits that they've made a request—there may well be an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner on this matter. She's not supposed to tell us if she is having an investigation on some request for an ethical matter, allegations against a public office holder. She's not supposed to do that. I suppose it's free for a member who made the request to do it, although he or she is taking a chance on doing that, but it's possible.
Without blinking an eye, I can see three real investigations that are under way and one potential investigation. That's one of several reasons I am opposed to the initial resolution brought by Mr. Hubbard.
Now, I know, Mr. Chairman, I'm probably skating on thin ice, that you want me to speak directly to the subamendment, but all these other comments were made by their members, and I think it's fair that I respond to those who were responding to my subamendment.
I'd like to talk about that, because I remember when the Conservative Party was in opposition and we were asking questions of the Liberal Party on the scandal. One of the answers was, “Well, let Mr. Gomery do his work.” The former minister stood up day after day—he did a great job, I'll have to say—and he had the script down pretty good. Of course, we were asking him a lot of questions, but he kept saying, “Let Mr. Gomery do his work.”
The member from Nova Scotia, the former minister, Mr. Brison, would make those comments, and of course what he was referring to was the issue of the fear of prejudicing the Gomery proceedings, that the House in dealing with those issues would prejudice the Gomery proceedings. In other words, would there be harm or injury as a result of the House of Commons discussing, either in question period or in some resolution, what Mr. Gomery was doing in his inquiry?
The Liberal government of the day refused to answer those types of questions, generally specific questions, because they were afraid it was going to prejudice the Gomery proceedings. So I think it's fair for us to look at these proceedings and determine whether or not....
I know, Mr. Chairman, you've said this motion deals with the ethical standards expected of public office holders, and that's different. Well, you can make a pretty good argument that it's not different, and I intend to make what I hope is a pretty good argument that it's not different.
It's true that the courts, whether in the civil proceedings of the Conservative Party of Canada or potentially in criminal investigations by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, may be looking at legal matters, at civil or criminal matters. It has been suggested that we're going to be dealing strictly with ethical matters and ethical standards, but there's no question in my mind that matters will overlap. Matters involving these civil proceedings by the Conservative Party of Canada versus Elections Canada or the criminal investigation--and I don't know whether it's finished or whether they're still under way--by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or proceedings by the Ethics Commissioner will overlap. They're bound to overlap; matters of law will get into the picture.
Presumably we're going to have the Ethics Commissioner here. Quite frankly, I doubt if she'll want to tell us anything, because for all we know, she's going to have an investigation on this matter under way, and it may be an investigation of other parties. It may be an investigation of the Liberal Party. Notwithstanding the presentation made by Mr. Proulx, it may be an investigation of the New Democratic Party or the Bloc Québécois. It could be. We don't know that.
5 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Well, don't get me going on you, Madame Lavallée.
Mr. Chairman, certainly the various proceedings, I would submit, would be prejudiced.
This matter has been studied by the House of Commons in the past, and a report came out in 1977. It was from the special committee on the rights and immunities of members. They made the report on the very topics we're talking about. I'm reading from the report; it was about:
...the rights and immunities of members of the House of Commons, to examine the procedures by which such matters are dealt with by the House and to report on any changes it may be desirable to make
Then the report, Mr. Chairman....
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please.
Madame Lavallée, unfortunately your conversation is also being picked up by the microphone, so let's be careful about side conversations interfering with a speaker.
Mr. Tilson, carry on, please.
5 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, the report got into the whole issue of members getting involved--which could prejudice proceedings--and of why there should be no discussion on matters that are before the courts. They spent a great deal of time on that.
The report goes on--I'm not going to refer to all of it, but I'll just refer to a couple of sections from the 1977 report of the special committee:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts. No distinction has ever been made in Canada between criminal courts and civil courts for the purpose of applying the convention. It has also had application to certain tribunals other than courts of law. The purpose of the convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial enquiry. It exists to guarantee everyone a fair trial and to prevent any undue influence prejudicing a judicial decision or a report of a tribunal of inquiry. .... The convention has consistently been applied in criminal cases.
Hence Mr. Proulx's comment that this matter has been investigated by the RCMP. I don't know whether they are doing that or not. He's raised it, so I guess there's a possibility. They're the ones who raided the Conservative offices. So this committee has to consider that.
In 1942 the Minister of Justice was asked whether it was the intention of the government to withdraw charges against two persons. The Speaker maintained that a matter before the courts is outside the purview of the House.
We are going to be investigating--to use your words, Mr. Chairman--matters of ethical standards expected of office holders. Those matters will be discussed in the civil action, possibly the criminal action or criminal proceedings, which have been mentioned. We don't know whether there are going to be any, but it seems as though there's a possibility. And they will be discussed also, indeed, if there's an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner.
I do not think there is any doubt as to the rule. It has always been the practice of the House, and it is the rule that a matter that is the subject of a judicial inquiry is outside the purview of the House during the course of the proceedings. I do not see how it is possible for one to raise the question by asking the Minister of Justice whether he intends to withdraw the charges, because upon those grounds would probably rest the argument in court when the proceedings were being held.
The rule is clear that no such question should be asked. I do not believe it should be raised when the matter is now before the courts. Hence, Mr. Brison, when he was minister, followed that principle. It would be most improper for members of the crown to answer questions on matters that were before a judicial inquiry. The same analogy, I would submit, Mr. Chairman, applies here, which is why I don't agree with Mr. Hubbard.
In 1948 Mr. Diefenbaker was speaking on the freedom of the press, and he was interrupted by the Speaker, who cautioned him not to refer specifically to a relevant case in which a reporter was involved before an Alberta court:
I did not raise a point of order. I just wanted to ask the co-operation of the hon. member. He will understand that it is disagreeable for the Speaker to interrupt anyone making a speech, especially the very good speech the hon. gentleman is making. But I have to do my duty. In reference to the case in question, which, if not discussed, at least was mentioned, we must assume that the judges of our courts will apply the law as it should be applied. If the hon. member wishes to discuss freedom of the press I have no objection, but I would ask him to be very careful not to discuss a matter which is now pending before the courts.
So it goes, on and on, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple more to refer to the committee, because our investigation will be examing the very matters that are the subject of at least two court proceedings, possibly an inquiry by the Ethics Commissioner, and possibly investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
All of these matters that come out of this 1977 report by a special committee say, just as Mr. Brison said, and most people accepted—I'm sure the Liberal caucus will accept it, as it was their member who said it—that it would be improper for members of Parliament to discuss matters that are before the courts.
Here's something else from the 1977 report:
No settled practice has developed in relation to civil cases. The convention has at times been applied and on other occasions it has not. In 1938 it was invoked in order to prevent reference to an action for damages by shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway. The convention was then applied by the Speaker: “I think the Minister of Justice has pointed out clearly that this matter is before the courts at the present time. Therefore I hold that the hon. member is not within the rules of the House in carrying on a discussion of this matter.”
Mr. Chair, the only other one I'd like to refer to...actually, there are two. One gets a little closer to the present time, as to why I don't support Mr. Hubbard's principle or the principle of the opposition, particularly, in supporting what they want to take place.
The convention has been raised recently in relation to a civil case, and of course we do have a civil case. We have a case where the Conservative Party of Canada has a civil action against Elections Canada, and it's incumbent upon us not to prejudice.... I know my friends say “Oh well, that's the Conservatives. There they go again.” But we do have an obligation not to prejudice civil or criminal actions.
I'll continue with this report:
The convention has been raised recently in relation to a civil case. The member seeking to ask a question, Mr. Elmer MacKay, had himself been served with a civil writ of summons and a statement of claim alleging libel by a company which was associated with the matter under investigation. The chair had doubts about allowing Mr. MacKay's question because the matter was before the courts:
“I am, of course, always reluctant to interfere with the right of hon. members to pose questions.”
And of course that's what we'll be doing in these proceedings, Mr. Chairman. We're going to be posing questions to witnesses on matters that are before the courts. We may say they won't be, because they involve ethical standards, to use Mr. Hubbard's words, expected of public office holders. But I tell you, directly or indirectly, questions will be asked that will involve those particular actions.
It goes on:
“There is, however, one rule we have followed, particularly in the putting of questions to ministers, namely that ministers ought not to be asked to comment on a matter which is before the courts. ...yesterday the hon. member for Central Nova was at pains to indicate that he had been served with a writ which he described to the House which involves an action before the courts and which affects the member personally as well as the company to which he has just alluded. I really think the hon. member ought to refrain from questions relative to the matter now.”
This is my final one. You've been very patient in allowing me to proceed with these. I will just do one more, Mr. Chairman.
As I said, I recommend that members look at this, because it goes on for pages, talking about why, when matters are before the court, proceedings in the House of Commons or committees should not prejudice or interfere in those hearings. I would submit that's exactly what's going to happen if we proceed with the motion that was put forward by Mr. Hubbard.
It says--and remember, this report is from 1977, so that's about as recent as I can get:
A 1971 ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux makes this clear:
“It seems to me logical, as hon. members taking part in the discussion have indicated, that we should take this view, otherwise the whole legislative process might be stopped simply by the initiative of a writ, or legal proceedings in one or other of the courts of Canada...”
Doesn't this sound familiar, Mr. Chairman? We seem to have debated this just recently.
“I suggest to hon. members that the citation which applies is that which can be found in May (May's 16th Edition, p. 400), that a matter, while under adjudication by a court of law, should not be brought before the House by a motion or otherwise, but that the rule does not apply...”
And that's what we have right now. We have a motion. We have a motion before this committee, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not speaking on a point of order; I'm speaking in debate. It would be most inappropriate for this committee to get involved in something that is going to potentially prejudice the proceedings undertaken by the investigation that is under way by Elections Canada—the lawsuit that is undertaken by the Conservative Party of Canada against Elections Canada, and possibly an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. Also, there may be something that, if not going now, could start.
One of the members of this committee could, unbeknownst to us, start an investigation or request that an investigation be made by the Ethics Commissioner, which would be working along at the same time that we're doing our investigation. They may choose not to, but it could happen.
And more importantly, there may be an investigation—as Mr. Proulx had suggested--by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I have a lot of trouble, as I said. I'm supporting the amendment of Mr. Van Kesteren and the subamendment that I put forward, but only out of the fear, I must say, that the motion might carry.
Most opposition members that are before us have indicated they are going to support that motion, and therefore I would support the subamendment on that basis.
If they insist on proceeding with the motion, which I hope they don't, particularly after what I've just read to them, I hope they would consider, at the very least, supporting the subamendment that I have made and the amendment that I have made.
Madame Lavallée made a number of statements that I would like to address. She indicated that the allegations that are being made both in the House and in this committee by members of the government aren't the same. They're not the same as what's gone on in the past by the Bloc Québécois or the New Democratic Party, or the Liberal Party. That's what she said.
How does she know that? That's something that an investigation would find. If we proceed with an investigation properly, we should determine whether they are the same or whether they aren't the same.
Through you, Mr. Chairman, to Madame Lavallée, you should have no fear of investigating that issue, because if you've done nothing wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to fear.
When you say it's not the same thing, I don't know. I'm willing to bet you don't know. I haven't heard you say whether you know. I'm simply saying that those are matters that would come out in an investigation.
We can play games with who is a public office holder or not. You know the NDP had the Honourable Bob Rae, and he's a public office holder. Believe it or not, you and I sat in the Ontario legislature, and we in fact have a public office holder who has just joined us, because she was a cabinet minister in Mr. Rae's government.
Mr. Lucien Bouchard is a public office holder.
So there are issues.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
You know what? It's interesting. Again, it's the definition of what a public office holder is--
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I don't want to provoke members, so I'll just stop that line.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
--and it is cabinet, parliamentary secretaries, order in council appointees. Past cabinet and all of that other stuff may have been public office holders at one time, but you do not continue for life, once you leave that office. That's just so everybody understands.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I could debate that with you, Mr. Chairman, but I'm not going to, because I don't want to provoke people here.
Then she made another interesting statement. She said the Conservatives have too much money. What in the world does that mean? How relevant is that towards the subamendment, amendment, and motion? That has nothing to do with anything. Yes, we've raised a lot of money from individual people. Mr. Del Mastro explained how that has gone on. I don't know why she'd say that, because that has absolutely nothing to do with anything with respect to these proceedings.
Another thing she said was that the Bloc has never done anything illegally. Really? Well, let's have an investigation and find out. Let's have Elections Canada come and explain why the Bloc Québécois has not been investigated.
If you haven't done anything illegally, you shouldn't have....
Mr. Chairman, I apologize.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
You're right, I'm getting into the provocation. I understand that, Mr. Chairman. But these are things that she said and which I can't let go with nothing being said. She did say the Bloc never did anything illegally. Well, it's being alleged by Mr. Hubbard in his motion that only the Conservative Party of Canada did something illegally. The Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party, and the Liberal Party--they're pure. Well, maybe not the Liberal Party.
I'm simply saying if that's what you say, then you shouldn't have anything to fear by not only investigating the other parties, but by going back into past elections.
You see, you knew I'd return to the subamendment, Mr. Chairman.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I was just getting to the point where I might want to suggest that repetition was starting to set in.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I have returned to it.
I think the comment was made by Madame Lavallée specifically that ethics is not decided before the courts. That's true. That gets back to the issue that this committee, it is being alleged, particularly by members on the government side, is only going to be dealing with ethical standards. But by goodness, the law certainly is, the law as to whether something is illegal.... And both Madam Lavallée and Mr. Proulx, even in their submissions with respect to this motion, have used the word “illegal”. So we're veering from it.
I could bet your bottom dollar that if the members for the Canada Elections Act come before us, we're going to be using those questions and we're going to be veering from the words “ethical standards”. Hence they will be prejudicing, Mr. Chairman, the various groups I'm talking about--the lawsuit and the investigations.
Certainly civil actions will deal with all kinds of things. They'll deal with....
All right; you're always.... You're sometimes right, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I could move on to Mr. Nadeau. And he's an excellent fellow, I might add. He has said that Elections Canada has said that the Conservative Party has done something that is improper, and he is very careful not to use the word “illegal”. God bless him.
How does he know that? That's what the investigation is all about. Therefore, is he suggesting that we're going to do the same investigation that Elections Canada is doing? Will that be involved in the lawsuit between the Conservative Party of Canada and Elections Canada? Is that what he is saying? If he is, you can bet your bottom dollar the proceedings in this committee will be prejudicing those legal proceedings.
I'm having trouble reading my writing here. I won't be long.
Oh, this was an interesting one. Mr. Nadeau said he has evidence that staff and officials from the Conservative Party of Canada had strong reservations as to what was happening. He's giving evidence, for heaven sakes. How does he know that? You know, the only way those proceedings are going to take place is if we proceed with these hearings, and that's what is going to be going on in the lawsuits. That's what is going to be going on in the lawsuits of the civil action by the Conservative Party of Canada and the investigation by Elections Canada. He's just confirmed that we're going to be duplicating what is going on in these other proceedings, and there will be very strong prejudice to all of the parties involved.
He should be careful who he's making those.... I hope he doesn't go outside and make statements that certain staff and officials of the Conservative Party of Canada have said certain things. He should be very careful. It's very dangerous--through you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Nadeau--to do that, because there have been recent goings-on, particularly in the Liberal Party, and all of a sudden you have a libel action.
Let's leave it with the courts. Let's leave it with the civil action. Let's leave it with the criminal proceedings. Let's leave it with any investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. Let's not bring it into this committee.
Again, he used the words several times that improper means were used by the Conservative Party of Canada. Again, how does he know that? That's what is going to be determined by the courts. That's what is going to be determined by the action of the Conservative Party of Canada against Elections Canada. A judge is going to decide that. That's what is going to be decided in an investigation by Elections Canada and possibly by the Ethics Commissioner.
I'm almost finished, Mr. Chairman.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
