Evidence of meeting #43 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please.
This is meeting number 34 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
The order of the day, under “Committee Business”, is the motion from Mr. Hubbard, as well as the amendment by Mr. Van Kesteren and the subamendment by Mr. Tilson, and we are resuming debate.
Madam Lavallée, were you calling a point of order?
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
No, I do not want to raise a point of order, I want to speak. I want to talk about the motions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, we will put you on the list of speakers.
I have the list from the last meeting. The next person on the list who is here is Mr. Van Kesteren, if you want the floor, sir. Otherwise, I'll give it to Madam Lavallée.
Conservative
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This is the fifth meeting on Mr. Hubbard's motion about ethical practices in the Conservative Party's campaign financing. I will not list them, because I want to make my points quite quickly.
This is the fifth meeting today. We have had four others. At two hours each, that is eight hours. Last time, last Tuesday, our Conservative colleagues demonstrated, in my view, that they have no new arguments and that debate was no longer helpful. They talked about the committee's mandate from every possible angle. They talked about who was a public office holder and who was not. They said that other parties did the same things they did. We showed that that was not so. They said that the things the Bloc Québécois did were worse. We showed that that was not so either. They said that the Liberal Party's financing was shady. We said that it was not the time to talk about that.
Then someone said that the Conservatives had not been accused of anything. To be perfectly honest, I will say that he was quite right. But Elections Canada did refuse to reimburse campaign expenses and did carry out a search with the help of the RCMP. That is what we are talking about at the moment.
Then, as they had nothing more to say, they threw out a bunch of suggestions: we could do this, we could do that, we could pass this or pass that.
Enough already.
Mr. Chair, as I told you last week, I am fed up. Either they come up with new arguments that will convince us or...
Liberal
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I said at the last meeting, and I think we all agreed to it too, that if we are going to make statements then we ought to be accurate.
Madam Lavallée said that we were searched by the RCMP. We were not searched by the RCMP, and that needs to be corrected. Let's be accurate.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Certainly all honourable members, I'm sure, are giving information to the best of their knowledge, but members do have an opportunity to speak to them to put the record straight, if necessary. Your point is well taken.
Madam Lavallée, I will give the floor back to you.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you very much.
I did not say that the RCMP conducted a search. I said that Elections Canada asked for the RCMP's help in conducting a search. Perhaps something was left out in the interpretation. That would not be unusual. That really is what I said and I am perfectly aware of the difference in meaning.
My argument is that you have run out of arguments. You just raise points of order about things that perhaps you did not understand correctly or you keep going over the same ground. I heard nothing new at our last meeting and I do not think that there is anything new to hear. I am telling you that I am not going to put up with repetition at all today. Each time I hear repetition, Mr. Chair, I am going to bring it to your attention.
The Conservatives must face the fact that they have no more case to make. They have tried all their arguments. Now we must call the question. They cannot keep hiding behind procedure and delaying tactics in order to prevent us from voting and from investigating their ethical practices in campaign financing.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
Mr. Van Kesteren, please.
No, Mr. Goodyear would be the next person on the list. You have the floor, sir.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Thank you.
I do respect...or at least I hear the member opposite from the Bloc threatening to shut down debate. Again, Mr. Chair, this is exactly why this committee isn't qualified to hear the original motion.
The member opposite from the Bloc has demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt her inability to hear repetitive testimony, not to mention that she was mistaken on a number of her facts. I am absolutely sure that any court of law, even the smallest court in Canada, would have far more expertise, training, and patience to listen to all the evidence, however often it's given, and more importantly, Mr. Chair, to understand the evidence and, more important than that, to withhold judgment until the evidence is in.
However, the Bloc, interestingly enough, are not interested in the facts. What they're interested in is partisan political games so that they can attempt to raise their voting level in Quebec. But that's not going to happen, Mr. Chair.
I don't want to repeat anything, except, of course, when the Bloc members misunderstand. Whether it's interpretation...but I don't think so. I think the interpreters here on the Hill are excellent interpreters. I think what's happening is that there's a lack of attention span by the members opposite and they don't really--
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
I'm speeding it through, but I'm trying to explain the process here. I want to get over this too. If there's an indication to adjourn this kangaroo court, I'd be happy to vote for that.
Since the Bloc has raised the issue of not needing to pay attention to the facts, I want to point out that the Bloc has clearly made up their minds to show members of the public who are listening how games are being played here, particularly in this case by the Bloc.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to go through a series of arguments, and I'll end up, for Madam Lavallée, with evidence of how the Bloc--and that's probably why the member wants to shut this thing down quickly, before I'm able to get on the record--the member's own colleagues, use the same advertising strategies. But I don't want to do that. Let's save the exciting stuff for later.
The last time Madam Lavallée spoke, she was wrong again on the fact that Elections Canada has suggested that the Conservative Party has overspent their limit. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that when all of these advertising trades happen, as all parties have done, they are well below the national campaign level. What happens is that Elections Canada, for whatever reason--and we'll discover that at trial--has decided to disallow certain expenses and force them to be charged.
You might want to listen very carefully, because this is very important.
When they disallow for some unknown reason, which we'll find out in court, expenses at the local level, it forces the national campaign to charge them through at the national level. It's our belief that that interpretation is incorrect, and we'll prove that in court. But if that's correct, only then has the national party gone over, because we're being forced to claim it at the national level, which the Bloc will be too, by the way.
Madam Lavallée is incorrect when she says we've gone over the limit. That's yet to be determined by a legitimate court. Of course, this isn't a legitimate court, so I will allow my honourable colleague considerable leeway. It is her right to be wrong.
I wonder if members of the committee realize that the rules that Elections Canada has now decided they're going to unilaterally impose on the Conservative Party were actually printed and passed out after the election. Members aren't aware of that, or they're not paying attention. This was after the election, Mr. Chair, and I think it's important that members, those who haven't made up their minds already on the guilt or innocence--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, Mr. Goodyear.
I wanted to listen to where you were going with this. I don't believe we are in a position...nor are we debating a motion that has anything to do with determining whether or not there's guilt or innocence. This is a matter for another jurisdiction.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
And what Elections Canada did or did not do.... The motions are very clear. They have to do with specific activities and, more specifically, whether they have to do with meeting the ethical standards required of public office-holders.
I don't want to go into the court case. Although it is sort of what has given rise to this, it is not relevant to the work we are authorized to do under our mandate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I really don't want to argue the court case here, because we have no jurisdiction.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Well, you're absolutely correct, Mr. Chair. Of course it's surprising we got here with the chair's restricted debate opportunities, but I'm going to carry forward anyway, because this has everything whatsoever to do with expanding the amendment.
Let me just jump to that. I'm going back to this stuff, Mr. Chair. I'll raise my hand until September if I have to, because this is absolutely relevant. The member opposite opened the door when she herself talked in the last meeting about big companies. She was allowed, Mr. Chair, all the freedom to discuss all kinds of things from this alleged RCMP investigation, which has nothing at all to do with these amendments either.
So with all due respect, what I'm going to suggest to you is that here on the ethics committee the mandate is to determine ethical standards. It seems pretty ironic to me that this committee, which is about to determine whether we should study the ethics of another party, is about to make the biggest ethical mistake ever, and that will be to subject witnesses to violate sub judice convention and potentially influence, to the negative, the outcome of a civil proceeding. That's where it's relevant.