Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 14th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We're resuming our hearing.

I won't reread the motion before us; I believe the members are familiar with it. But I would like to start by recapping where we are.

Colleagues, I need to explain that, as is permitted under the rules, when a meeting becomes a bit animated—and, someone told me, when you start having audience participation—the chair has two recourses. One is simply to sit back and wait for the committee to bring itself to order; the other is to suspend. As you know, I did suspend for the two hours. I thought it was in the public interest and the committee interest.

We're going to resume. If I may be permitted, I'll finish my statement to the committee.

As the chair—and this is where the chair's job comes into some importance other than that of just being a timekeeper—we obviously want the proceedings to achieve our objectives: to hear our witnesses, or to debate motions, or whatever the order of business is before us. When I suspended the committee, we were in the middle of debating a motion, and Mr. Goodyear had the floor and was in the middle of debate.

The clerk's note shows “That the committee will suspend for two hours after completion of this round of questioning”, which would be after Mr. Tilson. Mr. Martin had finished, so there would be two more speakers, Madam Redman and Mr. Tilson. So the effect of the motion would be that we would hear from those two and then suspend for two hours.

Now you see where I'm going. I knew that a former chair of a committee would understand that we're heading into a problem here, and I think the members will agree that we should resolve this. If this motion passes, we will hear from two people, and then I'm going to have to suspend for two hours, and I don't think that is the wish. We in fact had our two-hour suspension.

We could go through a series of amendments and other good things. I am going to suggest to all honourable members that maybe the best course of action—maybe the one possibility—would be to ask Mr. Martin to withdraw his motion, and we'd just continue where we were. We were in the second round, and if there are people who want to go to the third round, we'd continue. I think that gets us to our witnesses.

We have before us an officer of Parliament who was invited to be here until noon. Most of his day has been spent here. I think we want to respect his time, but members have rights. The chair does not decide these things. This is a chair offering advice to the committee.

So I would seek to know from Mr. Martin whether or not he would find that acceptable and to know whether the committee would be prepared to permit Mr. Martin to withdraw his motion should he wish to do so.

Mr. Martin, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Had I had the opportunity earlier, I would have asked to withdraw my motion. In fact, I don't think I need to ask; it's my right to withdraw the motion with the recommendation that we excuse these witnesses and get back to the other agenda items that we've been eagerly awaiting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, that's a separate item, Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's a separate item technically. I withdraw the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. Would it be acceptable to the committee that Mr. Martin's motion be withdrawn?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

(Motion withdrawn)

Okay, that's done.

Now Mr. Del Mastro has a point of order, but I want to indicate where we are.

Mr. Martin has withdrawn the motion. After the point of order, we are going back to the questioning of the witness. Our next speaker will be Madam Redman, then Mr. Tilson. I have no other speakers after that, but I'm sure the members will want to put their names on, and I'm encouraging those who wish to further question to advise the clerk, so that there are no surprises.

Is everyone comfortable with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It looks good.

Now Mr. Del Mastro has a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not looking to impugn anybody in saying this, but from the moment the motion was moved, I was asking to be put on a speakers list. The point I wanted to raise in asking to be put on the speakers list was to ask whether we could revisit the earlier motion, given that we were suddenly going to break and then come back to work all night, and allow the witness who had come to testify to provide witness as per the summons he had been provided. Unfortunately that hasn't happened, and a witness who went out of his way to come here to respect that summons....

Mr. Proulx, we have heard that there were all kinds of considerations given to other witnesses so that they could pick the days they were coming.

[A voice]

That's not a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

It is so a point of order. I was not recognized to speak to your motion, because you attacked a person in the audience, Mr. Martin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

Mr. Del Mastro, with all due respect, sir, you are making a proposition. It is not a point of order, sir. You can't make a motion, in fact, on a point of order.

But I appreciate your thoughts. I know where you're going. As you know, a member who has the floor in debate or while asking questions has an opportunity to make a motion. If the motion should come before us to revisit a decision, the committee can do it. But we'll do it in accordance with the rules.

I want to resume. I don't want to take any more of Mr. Mayrand's time than is absolutely necessary, but I want the committee members to have an opportunity to ask all of their questions. I'm sure that if everybody cooperates, if we keep to the time and keep the interruptions to a bare minimum, we will be productive and deal with this matter.

Madam Redman, you have five minutes.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayrand and Monsieur Bernier, for returning to the committee.

I just want to clarify a couple of things, and I believe my colleague Massimo Pacetti has a short question too.

I want to confirm that the relevant legislation emanates from Bill C-24, which came into effect in January 2004, and that it's what impacts the Elections Act regime, and that the violations we're dealing with, the in-and-out scheme, occurred under that legislation.

[Marc Mayrand]

The laws under which the transactions have been examined are the ones that existed as of 2004.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So anything that happened previous to 2004 was under a different regime?

[Marc Mayrand]

Legislation is changed regularly. We have to look at the facts in light of the legislation applicable at the particular time.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I have one more short question. Can you clarify this for me: is it admissible—is it legal—for a candidate or a campaign to assign expenses to a local riding association before the candidate is actually in place?

[Marc Mayrand]

Assign expenses?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes.

[Marc Mayrand]

I'm not sure.... Again, you can't transfer expenses.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Kitchener Centre is my riding. Could the local riding association incur expenses or have a transaction with the central party before there was a nominated candidate in that riding?

[Marc Mayrand]

It would have to be reflected as a transfer of goods and services to the local campaign, or the candidate's campaign, if it's for the benefit of the campaign. It would have to be represented as an expense. If it's an expense for the benefit of the candidate, it would have to be represented as a transfer of goods and shown as an expense for the candidate. It would count against the cap for spending.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

And notwithstanding the timing.... Say that in this past campaign something might have been contracted in December, and we've heard from Conservative candidates that they didn't actually become nominated candidates until some time in January, would the timing of it break any Elections Canada rules, in and of itself?

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, expenses that are covered by the act have to be for goods and services used during a campaign.