Evidence of meeting #46 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 witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Since the election, have you had much contact with Senator Fortier?
3:25 p.m.
As an Individual
None at all, sir. Maybe the occasional Christmas card at Christmas time. That's basically it.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please.
Mr. Hubbard, I'm having some difficulty understanding the relevance.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
[Inaudible--Editor]...only some degree of sympathy for the witness. He's been badgered today by the Conservatives.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Please, let's see if we can keep to matters relevant to the order before the committee. Okay?
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Chair, it's disappointing to hear the witness here today and to hear how he was treated by the people he worked for.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. We're finished.
Have you any response to that, to Mr. Hubbard's statement?
3:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I'd like to thank you all. Thank you for letting me come here and say what I had to say honestly. As I said, I'm still disappointed with you gentlemen and a whole lot of people in Montreal North and some other ridings too.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
You understand that it's not a good time to poke the dog.
Could we have Mr. Wallace, please? Finally, Mr. Wallace.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Anyway, I thank you for the time and I thank the witness for coming.
Based particularly on the questioning by Mr. Lemieux about what was done being completely legal, the 15% that the candidate got obviously was not as a result of their efforts, with three people running the campaign and no money. It obviously was the national campaign that drove the dollars, the quality of the leadership we have in the current Prime Minister, Prime Minister Harper.
There was a question about cabinet ministers coming to visit. Well, of course we weren't in government at that point. Thank God we are now; we have cabinet ministers to visit ridings now, but we didn't have them previously. It was time for a change, and thank God, Canadians across the country found change, and we now have a Conservative government here.
The individual who has been the witness today has issues, obviously, that he wanted to bring forward on his own, with the indulgence, the acceptance, and the invitation of the opposition members. It was clear that the issue of supporting local candidates from a national party is legal. We've had indications from other parties that did it in the last campaign.
The individual is not a public office-holder, which is what this motion deals with—public office-holders. So we appreciate his making the fine effort to come from Montreal, but it really had no relevance here today. In fact, we would have gotten a lot more relevancy, Mr. Chair, if we had been informed that there were going to be openings this afternoon for a witness who could have helped us in questioning, and that is the director of the national campaign for the Conservative Party of Canada.
I clearly indicated this morning that we had an opportunity to see that individual. It was not clear to me that we would have only one witness here this afternoon. It is partly my fault. When I saw that there were only three, I should have pressed the issue: if we could have five in the morning, why couldn't we have four in the afternoon?
My point is this. If we were going to do this in a non-partisan manner, which is highly unlikely, but if we were, it would have been nice if you as chair had indicated that the committee would not see this individual in the morning, but that there might be some time in the afternoon, because we had set two hours aside for one person. It was an interesting discussion, but we had room for others.
In order for this committee to operate more as a parliamentary committee, as it has—I've sat on this committee since we began this Parliament in the spring of 2006, and we have studied a number of issues in a very parliamentary fashion—I think it would have been appropriate for us to do that.
I thank the witness for coming. I think the issues.... He needs to be aware, as do all candidates, that he has a responsibility to understand what their role is. We are asking at present for an interpretation of the rules that were in place at the time of the election.
We believe we are right, that there's nothing wrong with what we did. We have been very transparent, open, and public about it from the beginning and are not, as the NDP individual here today has indicated, trying to hide something. It is absolutely the opposite. We've been clear in the press, clear in the House of Commons, clear as we find out an interpretation of our view of what was in place at the time of the election.
Many candidates may not know the rules. I don't blame you for that, because there are a lot of rules to understand. When there's a campaign of only three people in a riding, with no money, it's very difficult to be worrying about those particular issues.
That's not the case in my particular riding. I happen to be quite aware. I've been a campaign manager; I've been involved with a number of campaigns both federally and provincially. So I'm fairly well versed on the issues we face everyday, which may not have been your case.
But in fact the witness did not offer anything new or add to the debate today, didn't further the discussion beyond where it was. We could have had the director of the campaign for the Conservative Party of Canada here this afternoon and we could have had some real quality questions asked and answered. I'm sorry we missed that opportunity.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Unfortunately, the five minutes have expired.
Mr. Martelli, I don't think there was anything in there for you, but there certainly were some statements.
For the benefit of the committee, you may know that prior to calling this morning's meeting to order, I went to speak with Mr. Finley at the witness table and told him, indeed, and reaffirmed to him what I had said in the memo I had the clerk send to him on Friday, that we were booked solid in the morning and couldn't hear him. I said that we might be able to have him this afternoon, and he said no, that he wanted to appear this morning. That was not possible. I told him also that he was summonsed for Wednesday. But in the letter I did confirm to him that he could come on Thursday, because I didn't think we wouldn't have a full day on Thursday, based on what I was anticipating.
So there's no question that Mr. Finley has been summonsed. We do very much want to hear from him. He has been summonsed for Wednesday. Hopefully, he will appear; but if not on Wednesday, I hope he will contact us and take up our offer to appear sometime on Thursday, so that we can hear from this very important witness. I think members would agree with this.
Now, with regard to the issue of public office-holders, honourable members, it has come up that we can only talk about public office-holders. The motion doesn't say that we can only deal with public office-holders. Be very careful: it is about the ethical conduct of public office-holders. And to understand the ethical conduct of public officers, you must understand the event in which they are implicated, which may give rise to an ethical undertaking to either report, recuse, or to take some other action on behalf of that public office-holder vis-à-vis either the 2006 guidelines of the Prime Minister or, since they were subsequently withdrawn and replaced by them, the amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act.
This is very complicated. It has to do with what triggers actions on behalf of public office-holders, actions that are of an ethical manner relating to their private interest. The private interest has to do with their participation in an election campaign, for which they filed an election expenses return after they became public office-holders. There are allegations that these were improperly filed, and there are some further allegations that there may be some consequences. I don't want to go there.
The reason that we have to look at the event is to determine and understand what happened and whether someone should have known or ought to have known—
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I understand that, but Mr. Lemieux raised this issue about this witness, that he should not have been here, questioning why he is here. And I'm trying to explain that Mr. Martelli is here, and accepted being here without summons, to help us understand what happened.
Now, finally, I am going to ask Mr. Martelli if he has any final comment to make before he's excused, and then I'm going to take a 10-minute break and we will come back; and then we're going to deal with the motion of Mr. Reid concerning the independent investigation of Elections Canada. And I would also like to deal with the budget. That's what I propose.
Now, before we go to Mr. Martelli for his final comment, if any, Mr. Del Mastro, could you please state the basis for your point of order?
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Yes, it's procedural, Mr. Chair. And I was patient and did listen to your statement. I ask that you please be patient and listen to this. They are your words, Mr. Chair, from 3:45 on June 19. I read the first part. I'd like to continue that:
We are not authorized—it's not within our mandate—to determine any ethical standards of any party. This has to do only with public office-holders and their duties with regard to ethical standards, which are set by the Prime Minister and are also included in the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament, which is included in the Standing Orders. We are not—and I hope everyone understands that—in a position under our mandate or the motion before us, not authorized whatsoever, to opine on a political party and its activities. That is not included in this discussion. The only way it could ever be considered is if the committee specifically wanted to do that, but it does not.
We should not be talking about political parties and what they did. We should be talking about the persons, as outlined in my ruling, named in the findings of Elections Canada, who were involved in certain activities that may have given rise to actions under the standards of ethics.
We have to be very careful. I know it's more exciting to talk about elections and parties and all these other things, but we need to keep it to the mandate and to the motions, and political parties are not going to be examined, by themselves, by this committee. We're not authorized to do that. We're looking at individuals covered under the codes and under the ethical standards expected of public office-holders.
3:35 p.m.
An hon. member
Hear, hear!
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Chair, I humbly request that you stand by these high words and, please, govern the committee according to them. That's it.
Now, what we heard today had nothing to do with your words at 3:45, June 19, 2008, which were set forth to govern this committee. Now, if that has changed--and judging by what you just said a few minutes ago, it's changed again—I'd like some clarification on that, because very clearly, the motion that was set forth was not set forth for this purpose—what we have heard this afternoon—absolutely not, and you made it very clear that it was not the intent of that motion.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I stand by those, Mr. Del Mastro, because this is not a matter in which we're dealing with the ethical activities of a party. We are dealing with the ethical conduct of public office-holders. But if you look, Mr. Del Mastro—and I know you're not a member of the committee and you weren't there—when I made a ruling on the admissibility of this motion to be debated in the first instance, I laid out in some detail, first of all, the principle that our mandate only includes public office-holders. But secondly, this event being the transfer of money, the transfer, as we all know, is irrelevant to everything. It's totally permitted. It is the attribution or the accounting for the expenses. That is the issue. But you cannot separate that process that a public office-holder or other candidates...because, as a group, none were public office-holders at the time, but they participated in an event that triggered a filing of returns.
The link to the committee is that—and understand the subtlety; this a very fine line, I understand—after six ministers and four parliamentary secretaries became public office-holders, after they were put into those positions, they filed final election expenses returns pursuant to the Canada Elections Act, they have been challenged by the Chief Electoral Officer, and there are other proceedings, etc. That is the event. That is the point at which public office-holders now may have to have made either a reporting to the Ethics Commissioner or to the Prime Minister. There may have been recusal requirements. I don't know that yet. We'll have witnesses to help us understand what should have triggered what. But we will have expert witnesses. And members will know that some of the expert witnesses with regard to violations under the Canada Elections Act have indicated clearly that criminal charges are possible. That is serious; I take it seriously. And let's not start splitting hairs. We're talking ultimately about the guidelines related to public office-holders.
That's enough of this.
Mr. Martelli, if you have any final words, now is your turn.
3:40 p.m.
As an Individual
I would like to thank you all for accepting me here today to give my side of the story.
When I was convinced to come here, I was talking to a friend of mine. I was surprised that Monsieur Jean Landry wasn't asked to come to this commission too. But that's the committee, sir.
As I said, I'd like to thank the gentlemen here who are being nice. The other gentlemen here...as I said, you're talking about transparency, but that hasn't been much of the case. But hey, you guys have to live with that decision, not me.
Thank you.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Martelli, thank you kindly for your appearance. I appreciate your taking the time and I thank you for your frankness.
Sir, you are excused and I am going to suspend for....
Mr. Goodyear wants to ask a question.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
In fairness, it's not a point of order. I just want to ask a question about the witness scheduling.
Given that we've had two witnesses this morning who did not participate in regional buys, and then of course we have this gentleman here who we could argue was relevant or not, I'm just wondering if the chair would consider the committee reviewing the witness list to see if there are other witnesses who perhaps also would not be relevant, and reconsider allowing some of the Conservative witnesses who are fully relevant to this matter.
I don't want to move a motion, because I don't want to fool you now that I have the floor. I could easily move a motion, Mr. Chair, but I'm appealing to your common sense and asking you. I think it would be appropriate for the committee to revisit the witness list with the intent to eliminate witnesses who are not relevant to the proceedings and to add the Conservative list of witnesses, who are in fact, in my humble opinion, relevant.
I would ask the chair for that, please.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
First of all, with regard to participation in the media buy being a criterion for being a witness, I'm not sure that was ever set up. We do know that each of the parties was invited to submit proposed witnesses. The witness list was vetted and was approved by the committee.
I think, Mr. Goodyear, you will be aware that during the June hearings where we dealt with this motion that's before us today there were two amendments. One amendment was that we would consider also persons from other parties. That was the gist of one of the amendments or subamendments. The other one was that the committee would also entertain activities in election years prior to 2006. As you know, the committee defeated and rejected both of those, and it's one of the reasons we're now here faced with the motion to deal strictly with Conservative candidates only, with regard to the 2006 election only.
The committee proposed its witnesses; I did not vet them. But I think if there is going to be a change, if there are any changes that members want to propose with regard to witnesses or to future witnesses, those will have to be handled by the committee by giving a notice of motion, I believe.
