Evidence of meeting #45 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 questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayrand, as I listen to the questions from my colleagues with the Conservative Party, it strikes me that we're on a dangerous and slippery slope when the Government of Canada, the ruling party, represented by parliamentary secretaries and representatives of the government, express non-confidence in an officer of Parliament and in the Chief Electoral Officer at Elections Canada. They not only express non-confidence, but accuse you of bias, of tipping off the Liberal Party, and also, in one line of questioning, even asking whether you handed over the computers and the Conservative campaign information to the Liberal Party when you seized it during the raid on Conservative Party headquarters.
This really worries me. When I say we're on a slippery slope here, do you feel, as an officer of Parliament, that they've expressed non-confidence in your ability and in your operation through their line of questioning?
11:30 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I will not comment specifically as to subjective views I may or may not have on these matters. I would simply reiterate to the committee that I'm here to serve Parliament and carry out the functions that have been vested in me as Chief Electoral Officer impartially and fairly for all candidates' parties.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
The last time I heard an officer of Parliament treated so shabbily at a parliamentary committee was when George Radwanski, the former Privacy Commissioner, was hauled before a committee that some of us sat on. That was the last time I heard things get this rude.
I apologize to you, Mr. Mayrand, partly because my party and the people I represent do have confidence in you and your office. We think you're doing a fine job in defending the integrity of our electoral system by aggressively investigating what we believe could be very serious wrongdoing. As I say, given the smokescreen we've seen on this televised committee meeting by the Conservatives, we need to remind Canadian that we're investigating very, very serious allegations of a widespread conspiracy to defraud the Elections Act by overspending the election spending limits.
Is that an accurate statement? Is that the substance of your investigation?
11:30 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Again, as I said earlier, and yesterday I believe, the purpose of this investigation is to determine whether there have been offences committed under the act with regard to those transactions.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
In my viewing of it so far—and I guess the courts and your investigation and the commissioner's investigation will bear this out—it seems to me the Conservatives got caught when they got greedy. They might have gotten away with this laundering of money through the riding association if their objective was only to exceed the spending limits. But when they had the gall—and I mean gall—to submit those fake campaign expenses to be reimbursed for a 60% rebate, that's when the alarm went off with one of your auditors. Is it true that the red flag came up over the status of certain campaign expenses that were submitted for rebate or reimbursement, rather than the exceeding of the overall party spending limit?
11:35 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
The red flag, if I can use the expression, came up when candidates failed to explain the nature of the expense. That's where it started.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
So it's the campaign expenses. So it's when they shoved the other hand in the cookie jar that they got caught. Their greed got the better of them, and they couldn't get either hand back out as they were busted.
In my last few seconds, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move a motion that at the conclusion of this round of questioning, which means after the next Conservative member finishes, we excuse Mr. Mayrand, we thank him for his presentation, and we move on to the selection of witnesses and other orders of business properly before the committee.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you. The motion is receivable. It's in order, and it's debatable, of course.
I'd just like to indicate to the members that this would mean that Mrs. Jennings and Mr. Poilievre would be the final two questioners for Mr. Mayrand, at which time our witness would be excused and then we would move to the selection of witnesses.
We have not completed the consolidation of the witness list yet and had it translated fully, but to accommodate this, I suspect that what I might want to do is, if it's adopted, suspend until one o'clock now, so that we could excuse Mr. Mayrand and come back and start with the selection of witnesses. That's just to give an outline of how it might proceed.
But we have this motion before us. There are some members who have indicated that they would like to make a comment on it.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, now that the motion is deemed in order, may I speak to my motion?
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if it will generate a great deal of debate, but we've had Mr. Mayrand here for two two-hour sessions yesterday and for one full round today. I think committee members had ample opportunity yesterday to put any points of any real substance that they might have had to Mr. Mayrand. By calling him back here today, they've had an opportunity to get clarification on points they may have wanted to be fleshed out or to give him the opportunity to answer in a more fulsome way issues that were left dangling yesterday, which he did. He used the first few minutes of his presentation to itemize three clear points.
What we don't want to do is to diminish or demean these proceedings by allowing it to become a forum for grandstanding in any way, shape, or form.
11:35 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I think you will note, Mr. Chairman, that I've used admirable restraint all through this and have allowed the Conservatives ample time to put forward any points they may have. In fact, they've had very few points of substance, but that's just my opinion. They've had the right to use the time as they see fit. But now we're just getting down to smokescreens. We're getting down to things that deviate from the original mandate of this committee.
It was controversial that we began this study at all, as you well know. It was debated at length for days, in fact, whether or not our committee has a mandate to investigate Elections Canada's investigation into the Conservative Party. In fact, the only way we could get permission from the House to undertake this study was by having a very narrow motion, very narrow terms of reference. Let me read it. It simply says:
That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election, in relation to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for certain election campaign expenses in order to determine if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office holders.
To stray from or deviate from that very narrow wording, I think, is out of order and does a disservice to the main content. For us to even delve into the search warrant of the Conservative Party headquarters deviates wildly from the original mandate. To start picking apart whether or not we have confidence in the Chief Electoral Officer deviates from the mandate. We haven't heard enough information about the public office holders, which is the original reason this committee has the mandate to investigate it.
I don't think there is anything to be gained by allowing the Conservatives to further bash and insult an officer of Parliament at this forum. They have their own court battles going and they can make all of those points in other fora. That's not our business; that has nothing to do with the work of this committee. We've heard Mr. Mayrand. We have no further questions for this witness. I hope the other opposition parties feel the same way, that our time would be better spent outlining the rest of our study.
Thank you.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind members of the committee of the motion that is the reason we're here. The final point in that motion is to determine if the actions of the Conservative Party meet the ethical standards expected of public office holders. It's a very serious motion.
We, on this side, have a number of questions that have remained unanswered. I personally have asked a total of five minutes of questions. I suppose one could say my colleagues have hogged the other time, but I have some questions and I was hoping eventually I would have an opportunity to ask those questions. As some may know, five minutes is not enough time for me personally.
The other issue I raise, and it may not be the intent of Mr. Martin and it may be that I don't understand what he means by “excusing” these witnesses.... I hope he would mean they're excused for this time before us now. But there are a number of witnesses, which we will determine as a committee in due course, and there may be other questions of clarification required of Mr. Mayrand.
I would hope that Mr. Martin is not saying, “Well, that's it, Mr. Mayrand, you're....” It may be that as a result of hearing testimony from other witnesses, we have other questions. I assume that's not his intent, but that the intent of his motion is that Mr. Mayrand would be excused for the time being but should stand by because he could be called again as a result of other testimony or other evidence .
So I'm simply saying to the mover of the motion, Mr. Martin, that we on this side have a number of questions to be asked. I personally have a number of questions to be asked. I have given the courtesy to my colleagues to ask their questions, but I can assure you I require more than five minutes of questions of these witnesses on such an important matter, to determine the standards expected of public office holders. It is a very serious motion, and surely to goodness I'm going to be given more than five minutes to ask questions. And that five minutes includes not just the questions but the answers. I have essentially been shut out if this motion carries, and there are enough votes for the opposition that you can do that. We're here at your pleasure.
Mr. Chairman, I will not be supporting the motion.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I find it ironic that the members of the opposition would want to shut down discussion on this subject after months of accusing this party of having done just that. I think I can understand why. The last couple of days have not gone the way the opposition had hoped. The results of the questioning have not borne the fruit that was expected by the opposition. We had numerous revelations that were particularly unflattering to their case.
For one, we have learned that the Chief Electoral Officer was so concerned about the widespread public view that there had been a leak from his organization that he conducted a review. That review was conducted by him and by his senior staff of himself and his senior staff. He presented five factors that he claims led him to his decision. But then he has been unable to point to a single piece of legislative wording to support any of those factors being relevant in determining how expenses are allotted. Questions he has not been able to answer he has claimed are unanswerable because they're before the courts, even though this entire affair is before the courts. And by that logic, we would not be able to discuss any of it here.
The farther this goes, the stronger our case becomes, and that explains why some members of the opposition, at least, wish to shut this down early. But in the spirit of compromise, I would be willing to put forward an amendment that we entertain eight more rounds, Mr. Chair. I therefore amend Mr. Martin's motion to permit eight more rounds of questioning.
Thank you.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please.
The amendment is in order, and if the amendment is adopted, the motion would say that after eight more rounds of questioning, Mr. Mayrand will be excused.
I think everybody understands, so I won't circulate this.
We're resuming debate. We'll go to Mr. Hubbard.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Chair, I think every member of this committee is aware of the declaration that we, as members of Parliament, sign after the conclusion of an election. There are five main points in that, the fifth one being that no other person or entity has, on behalf of the candidate, made any payment or given promise and so forth. Now, every member of Parliament, including the ones we're looking at in terms of the 67 candidates, in fact, who contested that election and did this contrary to the spirit of the law, certainly made that declaration.
I believe that as an ethics committee, Mr. Chair, we're looking at the ethics of those members. In fact, a number of them are office holders, and one of those office holders--she and her agents--in terms of a deception in reporting her return, signed off approximately $40,000 that was spent by the Conservative Party in a given province as part of that election campaign. In fact, Mr. Chair--I'll take my time--the total was $1.3 million.
Now, Mr. Chair--
