Evidence of meeting #42 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 point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Je suis désolé. This is debate, Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Van Kesteren, I'm going to give you back the floor, but I want to point out to you that this point about one party being centred out and Elections Canada...that was all brought fully forward at our meeting of Thursday, June 12, by Mr. Del Mastro. This is repetition, and I believe—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I want to address that.
So I want to encourage you to move to a new point.
I heard someone say he wasn't here for that meeting. I want to just remind all honourable members that repetition is repetition of something that a member himself for herself has said, or repetition of points that another member has made.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Just a minute. Mr. Epp asked a legitimate question, and I want to be sure, because if we don't get this straight early on....
It's important, Mr. Hiebert.
For members who are visiting our committee, there is going to be a responsibility for them to do a little bit of review to ensure that we are not going over old ground. I do keep a very comprehensive list, and will continue to do so, to ensure that we keep the debate relevant and that we limit repetition. We have actually taken the floor away from members who continue to be repetitive, but I don't want to do that. I want to hear what members have to say.
I'm going to give the floor back to Mr. Van Kesteren.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know what, Mr. Ménard? You're right. I grant you that: “alleged”. I apologize for saying that you were the—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Again, we should start off on the correct foot here. Members should only speak when they are recognized by the chair or on a legitimate point of order. This blurting out and having debates or conversations really isn't helpful to the committee, and certainly the translators cannot possibly do their job if more than one person is speaking at a time. So I'm asking all honourable members to hold their comments until they have the floor.
Mr. Van Kesteren, you have the floor.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Okay, then let me continue.
To Mr. Ménard, through you, Mr. Chair, he is correct in saying that this is alleged. We have alleged, and there seems to be evidence, that the Bloc is the mastermind behind this. But again, it's the same problem that I began my discussion with. When we, without solid proof, make accusations or confront.... I said right off the bat that there is a pervasive problem. We all seem to point fingers. That's why this particular amendment gives us an opportunity to investigate, to really look at what has happened and then come to a conclusion.
We might come to a conclusion that it's absolutely correct, that the Bloc is the mastermind behind this whole scheme; we might not. We might come to a conclusion that—
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I'm not done.
We might come to a conclusion that it is just the Conservative Party that is responsible; we might not. We as a party, and I as an individual, am not afraid and I'm not in any way concerned that should we endeavour on this exercise, we—as I stated right in the very beginning when the amendment was accepted—can do good work as a party. We can present to the people of Canada, the people who elected us and put us in this position, good recommendations so that in the future we can avoid this type of allegation, this type of strife within our circles.
As a final note, I don't want to belabour this point, but I think it's safe to say that all of us have experienced good friendships amongst parties. It's always a treat for me to go on trips and to really get to know people, because I find out—and I think members opposite would say the same thing too—that when we come to know each another, we're not that different. We're all trying to do the same thing. We all have a goal in mind. We all have aspirations and hopes. We may lean in a different direction. We may think maybe a bit to the left, a bit to the right—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
You're projecting a little bit, Mr. Van Kesteren. And please, we should really get to the motion.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I apologize, Mr. Chair. I just thought that would be an important point to make.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
It's like the song says: people are the same wherever you go.
I said that if there is a problem, I want to know—and I believe that too. I say that with all sincerity.
We are completely sure that our actions and the actions of the parties are legal and will be proven so in a court of law. You all recognize that there is an action in front of the courts now, but we are not afraid to find the truth. If the parties opposite were really concerned about justice, and I believe they are, they would demand to know—listen carefully—why the Conservative Party has been singled out and refused a reimbursement of its funds, or at least they would have a modest sense of curiosity.
Again, going back to what I said first, if the allegations we make are true, then it's guarding of each other's rights, it's guarding of each other's dignity, it's guarding of each other's good name that is beneficial to each and every one of us. Why? Because in so doing, we guard our own. In so doing, we guard our neighbours. And in so doing, we make our country stronger.
There were a number of points made last time. Mr. Nadeau is not with us today. It's very unfortunate. He's an excellent member of Parliament. I want to address some of those points.
He said it was only Conservatives who had this problem. That's not true. We have repeatedly said, yes, Elections Canada has made a charge that it's the Conservative Party, but as my colleague here has pointed out many times--and he has a whole book full of example after example--this in-and-out strategy is used by all parties and by lots of members. That is the first point I wanted to talk about.
I think it bears repeating that it may be degrees. That's very possible. It may be that one party uses it more extensively than another, or that one party uses higher funds than another. But we've nothing to fear by investigating this, because we'll just get to the bottom of it; and again, we can make some recommendations as to what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed.
On that same point, Mr. Nadeau said we are being charged. That is not true. We're being investigated. There's a big difference. One is charged when there is criminal intent, when laws are being broken. This is not the case. The Conservative Party is being investigated. Every time we make reference to this particular case, and more specifically when we speak about the Conservative Party, we need to be reminded that when the word “charged” is used.... We haven't been charged, we're being investigated.
It was stated by Mr. Nadeau too that there was a search by the RCMP. Again, that is not true. Let us be factual. Let us be correct. Elections Canada seized documents; that is true. The RCMP was there to assist Elections Canada, not to seize the documents but just to be there.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
My colleague is already a bit confused, and for the sake of the record, I wouldn't want him to lose his train of thought.
Could you indicate to committee members how many parties represented in the House of Commons were searched by the RCMP, apart from the Conservatives?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Ménard, as you know, that is not a point of order. If you would like to get your name on the list and make those points, you have that right, sir.
Mr. Van Kesteren—
Conservative
Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Mr. Chair, I apologize for the fact that I haven't read all of the blues from the committee meeting going on, so you'll correct me if I am in fact repeating something that has already gone on here. I am really confused, as a person just substituting for someone else, as to why you ever ruled this motion out of order--
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
The committee passed a resolution and sustained it, okay. There's no more debating what we're debating. We are debating the motion that you have received a copy of, that I sent down to you so you could read it carefully, and that is the motion, with the amendment and the subamendment added to it, that is before the committee now for debate. That's what's in order, and we're not going to discuss whether it's in order, okay. It is in order, and that has been decided.
I want to give the floor back to Mr.--
